Men’s “token torturers” in feminist spaces

I am not a feminist, but think of myself as a realist, if I must have an" ist " label. But in my later life as a widow, I have been subjected to insulting talking down to by especially older men, in that they cannot be told anything by a woman as their male pride cannot cope with that. They must be the ones telling me. The times I've been told " Now listen to me", Don't worry about it, HE/I know (s) what he is doing", " There's nothing wrong, it'll be fine" etc, and know what, I and other women are 99.9% right. And they have to argue and contradict if you dare have an opinion/knowledge about something that was usually a male domain. My sister-in-law complains to me about my brother doing that - he is a scientist !!!! The words that come to mind are Male Chauvanist. They don't do it other men. Luckily my DH was not like that at all, but I lost him. Of course, not all men are like that, but those that do, never apologise or can admit they have done anything wrong - that male pride again

Actually I am not that dismissive Eats and hadn't dismissed your opinion. I'm all ears, I might learn something If you don't think others are entitled to an opinion why do you think yours is worthy of consideration?

Anyway, KRITIQ you make more sense the more I read. I am reading Firestone again after many years. I have just covered the chapter on the sexism of the family man which goes into the idea of women of colour being seen as exotic. She discusses this using Eldritch Cleaver's writing!

Anyway male centric anti-capitalism??? has a joined up ready made analysis, women chose to break away from the left and organise themselves and this has in no way undermined that theory. Radicals have failed to come up with their own. They have simply pointed the finger and said Marx didn't pay enough attention to women and their economic role in society, not something I agree with.

The philosophy all being equal usually means in practice that womens oppression is ignored or minimised.

I have found that often too EBAL.

It is that 'Women! back of the queue!' thing.

"Aye you keep telling yourself that hen while we just get on around you." As my mother would have said.

Is it me and my privledge or do some people just want to argue for the sake of it? Sharing ideas and thoughts is good, it is meant to help see each others point of view but more and more it seem like the point of threads is just to pick a fight with no intention to accept that other people have a legitimate point of view.

Erm no eats, it is not anti feminist it might be anti your version of feminist. Many women who identify themselves as feminists in RL are very happy using the term, practicing intersectionality, setting up their work and their personal life's to be intersectional. But ok lets ignore them and look at something else.

As I said earlier this is a phrase and a practice much in favour with a wide range of civil society in scotland ast the moment. If I have found anything out as a community worker it is never to try and oppose a growing trend, using it and adapting it isd far more productive and successful. If you want it to be dropped then do not use it, if you want it to be dropped on MN carry on your campaign. in rl though you have already been bypassed by events and practice. Let me stop the hissy fitters in their tracks though by saying AGAIN I am not fully comfortable with intersectional work but the principles of all being equal are at least better than the current setting one group against another that politicians seek to do. As a disabled person I am not scared of losing power or having my identity reduced, I am looking forward to not having to explain why I am as valuable and have the same rights as others.

My last post was snippy and I've asked for it to be deleted. Sorry.

True. And if we stifle the voices of those who are on the receiving end of oppression within the group as a result of specific characteristics such as race, religion or class we will, again, lose collectivity and force and power.

Yes, I agree.

Which is what makes it really hard.

We live in a racist, classist, etc society and we women/feminists are naturally socialized by that even if we try to resist/be aware.

Which is what I think is the common factor with the other items on the list. Our socialisation. Which leads us right back to the dominance/submission binary hierarchy - I think if we explore all the items on the list, we will likely find that that is the common theme running through them. Plus we are socialised to normalise, even fetishize, that dominance/submission dynamic, and so it can sneak into feminism, disguised as being woman centred, without us necessarily detecting the underlying misogyny.

If that group is then subdivided into all the potential subdivisions then the collectivity is lost and so is the force and the power. For all women

True. And if we stifle the voices of those who are on the receiving end of oppression within the group as a result of specific characteristics such as race, religion or class we will, again, lose collectivity and force and power.

But that list really does boil down to 'Agree with me about everything or die!'. Feminists who take that sort of attitude are actually far more interested in browbeating and insulting and dismissing other women for petty heresies than actually fighting women's oppression - the sort of silly bitches who will try to get a protest march cancelled because among the broad feminist cross-section of people attending is someone they once fell out with who holds a different viewpoint on another aspect of life/feminism.

And forgot to say, I think this ties into something a lot of feminists point out about porn - porn is full of racist, ageist, etc stereotypes.

To be a young able bodied white women who doesn't have an issue with porn is to ignore how women of colour, very young women, etc are represented in porn and how misogyny manifests differently according to the women being attacked.

The way I see it is that feminism, women's rights, etc are about women.

All women. As in women as a group.

Women as a group represent a lot of people and that is forceful and potentially powerful.

I have an image in my head of a group of women all standing together lending weight to a collective voice with a common oppressor.

Of course not all women are the same and not all women agree on everything or have the same experiences and access to privilege.

If that group is then subdivided into all the potential subdivisions then the collectivity is lost and so is the force and the power. For all women.

Here we step into the realms of individualism and post modernism.

So we need different and varied voices within feminism - in order for feminism to be representative and true to its female perspective based roots. We need to hear each other.

It is just far far too easy for intersectionality theory to be abused as 'divide and conquer'.

Intersectionality was just one thing though on quite a list of what was described as 'masculinist practices and ideologies'. It could be interesting to examine other items on the list; pro-prostitution positions, BDSM practices, pseudo anti-racism, intersectionality, male-centric anti-capitalism or leftism, focus on male institutions or law, queer theory, butch-fem ideology, radical lesbianism, and the ?phobia? ideologies (Islamophobia, etc.)

I'm not really getting why it's so important to ditch the word "intersectionality." Similarly, there are many folks who have a problem with the term "feminism" and would prefer the word be dropped in favour of just following its concepts. I personally don't see why losing either word is necessary. For me, intersectionality describes the concept in a way that "multiple oppressions" or "affected by sexism and other forms of oppression does not."

If you read Crenshaw's original concept of intersectionality, it isn't simply about one person being affected by more than one form of oppression. It's that the experience of oppression in in itself is different where two forms of oppression intersect. One example in her 1991 article (from memory) was that of workplace discrimination against women of colour in the US. Say for example, you were on the receiving end of comments relating to the stereotype of the highly sexualised, "exotic" woman of colour. The perpetrators could be either men, women or both.

You would have no redress under race equality legislation because that wouldn't apply if other employees of colour weren't similarly affected (and they wouldn't be if they were male.) You would have no recourse to sex discrimination legislation because other women in the workplace were not similarly affected (if they were white.) Your experience of harassment and discrimination is in the context of being both a woman and of colour.

The concern expressed by many women of colour is that they are regarded by feminists as women, who also happen to be affected by racism. Similarly, they are regarded in civil rights/anti-racist groups as people of colour, who also happen to be affected by sexism. Neither of these reflects who they really are and quite rightly, they may be wary of the capability or inclination of either type of group to represent their interests. They are also rightly wary of experiencing discrimination within those groups.

It's possible to translate this example to other people who are affected by intersecting forms of oppression.

So, just like throwing out the word feminism runs the risk of losing sight of what the concept is about, throwing out the word intersectionality runs the risk of losing sight of that concept as well.

I'm also a bit wary of the focus on "imutable" characteristics vs "changeable" ones with regard to people affected by oppression. It still suggests that the former somehow sit higher on the ladder or carry more weight than the former, and I can't buy that. For one, it's rather insensitive and patronising for someone who doesn't experience a characteristic that results in oppression (e.g. disability, Lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, etc.) to pronounce that their characteristic "can't be so bad" because it's something they can change, or others can change perceptions of.)

Also, if there is an argument that there should be greater "solidarity" between women because they share a sex, surely the same would apply to people of colour, because they can't change their ethnicity either.

And, where would that then leave women of colour? Torn in half? Forced to choose between being a woman or being a person of colour? I understand that is what many already feel.

Are you speaking about the people who write 20-item "privilege check" lists I've seen where they write they have "allistic (non-autistic) privilege", "HIV negative status privilege", "vanilla (non-BDSM) privilege", etc. etc. so adding so many issues that they forget the importance of sex?

If so, I sympathise, but they're only a small proportion of intersectional feminists.

Loving SGB's work on this thread.

And I have to stand up for the Quakers a bit here: if ever you find yourself on the opposite side of any ethical issue from the Quakers, it may just be time to think again.

TeiTetua haha

fruit-juice drinker- Yep
nudist- I'm too much of a pacifist to scare the others
sex-maniac- Not saying, pacifist-Yep, feminist- Yep
Do we have to get a full house to be considered a crank?

Eats, do you have any examples where Pseudo feminism has destroyed women only spaces? What in your opinion would be considered Pseudo feminist theories?

That's interesting Beach I hadn't considered that shifting the focus away from the one immutable thing we all have in common (sex) might actually fracture groups and set people apart. SGM is so so correct in what she says too and funny with it. Disability can always be thought of as ability, everyone has some ability, class isn't always set in stone, to what extent we are oppressed changes over time........but sex is unchangeable however there is one thing all groups experience that is the discrimination itself, a focus on the oppression could draw people together and why is it so difficult to see where all roads lead.

I've been mulling this over and I think one of the ways intersectionality is co-opted is by post-modernist ideology.

I think that is the issue I have with the concept really - and it is one that affects all oppressed groups, not just women.

Because intersectionality theory can be used to individualise oppression. Which in turn becomes an obstacle to dissent and organised protest. For any group. And that is very problematic.

Thanks for this thread OP, it has given me a lightbulb moment on understanding something I felt instinctively uncomfortable with, but couldn't quite put my finger on.

Something else that occurred to me is that when intersectionality theory is invoked in a meaningful real life way, the word itself doesn't even have to be used. www.blackwomensblueprint.org/2011/09/23/an-open-letter-from-black-women-to-the-slutwalk/ Like this for example. A brilliant piece of writing that highlights the intersectional problem without requiring that the focus be moved off women.