The Intersection Between Homophobia and Misogyny

Garths- exactly. Even if I had been single, and hetero, and interested on first glance... where the fuck did he think this was going? How could I possibly agree to go on a date with a man who instructs me that he wants to find out if he likes me? And will presumably let me know whether I passed and won his approval at a later date. And is perfectly happy to date me without my willing participation; wearing me down will do just as well.

Even before the angry homophobic rant, this guy was a massive knob-jockey. Which is quite a relief, actually!

Broken- not at all, I think it was actually me who derailed my own thread :). And you're right, we shouldn't have to say that we are in a relationship or impliedly 'taken' as a reason to not be interested- not being interested should be good enough (and is good enough). I actually kicked myself afterwards for saying 'No, I'm with my fiancee' but I think I just panicked as he was so insistent. Also, she was right there, and it felt rude to not acknowledge her... Gah. I don't know why I'm feeling guilty for my reaction handling a situation that I didn't make! I bet he hasn't given it any thought at all today.

And Buffy- I don't think so. I've been here a few years under some different guises, but this is my first foray (apart from lurking) into FWR!

Not at all, I think I just needed a rant!

It's striking that views of insiders, on the basis of lived experience (characteristics I would value most highly) would struggle to claim legitimacy, in a world where those that make the rules of what is deemed legitimate are those least likely to be struggling to assert their own legitimacy (and therefore more likely to be engaging in discourse on an outsider/data level).

I wonder whether, if power dynamics shifted and those who had struggled in the past to find legitimacy held greater power, our expectations of what would seem legitimate would also change, in that we would value anecdote, experience and relativism more highly.

Or, of course, it could be a simple case that power corrupts. And that once whoever made it to the top got there they would pull the ladder up and distance themselves from their past experience.

I agree with you that in certain circumstances, the man's voice would have more impact. This makes me sad and angry though, and I was trying to work out why.

I can think of three reasons off the top of my head why a man's voice might have more impact on these issues:

1. Because he is a man, and therefore privileged and respected and listened to, and right. In the eyes of other men, who hold the power to make change.

1. Because he is 'other' to the debate, an outsider, ie. fighting for others' causes and 'objective'.

1. Because he belongs to the class of traditional oppressor and is actively trying to reject that privilege, which is a powerful statement to other people in privileged positions.

If your DH had tried to help us in the restaurant last night, I imagine his voice would have been more powerful because of reasons 1 and 2. ie he is seen by the misogynist as on his level, and also rational. But when I rationalise letting men have a voice in feminism to myself, I only want to do it if 3 is the answer.

It makes me wonder whether when we give a voice to men in these issues because we know they have more power, we hope that the impact they have comes from the act of actively going against the side of privilege to achieve something more just. But if, in reality, the impact comes from the fact that men hold the keys to power, and therefore to change, and are more likely to be listened to by other men, aren't we just preserving the status quo? How will we move to a place where a woman's voice is just as loud?

It's true. I have characterised it in the past as 'I would go to the march and be counted among the numbers, but I would never make the speech, design the placards or lead the slogans.' Much as I would like male allies to act in feminist actions. But of course, that's very much removed from the real-life situations where this comes up, and I'm not sure how well it applies.

Wow. Unfortunately, in that situation the well-meaningness is coupled with male structural privilege which leads to arrogance and laziness- he believes this to be true, so it must be so. A quick google search would have showed him that he was wrong, and simply repeating rhetoric that constrains women further, but it wouldn't have occured to him to do so because how could a man be wrong about the experiences of women?

So he thought 'I will simply instruct women on what I know to be true about their safety,' instead. It's difficult when you know it comes from a well-meaning place, but is still reflective of such deep-seated privilege and assumptions of being right as always that it perpetrates exactly the system he was presumably trying to 'help' a woman to combat.

Imagine the situation reversed- a cis/white/hetero woman talking to another human who didn't share that particular privilege about the experiences they believe that other person has. I think, by virtue of being a woman and knowing what it feels like, they would be far more likely to ask questions/ educate themselves/ shut up before stating a stereotype as fact and advising the other person on the basis of the fact.

It's amazing how many otherwise intelligent and caring men I have encountered who have no comprehension of how they as a group make everyday acts like walking home, meeting a new person and getting dressed a damn sight more difficult for women.

Clearly it's quite a convenient form of ignorance for them.