Hear ye, hear ye! You're doing feminism wrong.

[FloraFox]

Says this man:

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/oct/28/feminism-lite-is-letting-down-the-women-who-need-it-the-most

[LurcioAgain]

The other thing is that if you genuinely believe women have an equal right to a political voice on the world stage, you can't then put caveats on it to say "but only those ones whose policies I agree with."

Yes, Gillard has a whole list of anti-feminist decisions under her belt. So do a lot of male politicians. An incredible number of male politicians. Arguably, given their track record, mst, in fact. Do I, or the author of the article, have a magic wand to get rid of those male politicians? No. So why single out Gillard? Where is his article calling male politicians on their appalling record on women's rights?

[FloraFox]

It is not feminism to support or advocate for anti feminist women to be in positions of authority.

I think it is feminism to advocate for women to be in positions of authority regardless of their views. That doesn't mean you need to vote for a woman with anti-feminist views or policies you don't agree with but it is legitimate feminism to fight against attacks on her based on her sex. Gillard's situation is a very good example of this. It's all very well for him to criticise feminists for defending Gillard as he is not affected by the chilling effect that has on all women who see what will happen to them if they are in authority.

[PumpkinGordino]

glosswitch's excellent response

glosswatch.com/2014/10/28/when-a-man-tells-me-how-to-do-feminism/

[LurcioAgain]

I think I love Glosswitch :-)

[YonicScrewdriver]

Ace reply.

[almondcakes]

Flora, any woman who is looking at a situation where a woman is supporting men who are going to murder women over trivia such as their attire, but finds the chilling part to be that the woman in question is also judged (but not murdered) for things like their attire has some very warped priorities.

Plenty of feminists from Asian backgrounds are going to find the response of white women on this chilling.

It's like worrying about a BNP supporter experiencing racial slurs. No, it shouldn't happen, but it is rather trivial in the overall discussion of racism.

[EverythingsRunningAway]

Glosswitch is wonderful.

[FloraFox]

almond what are you talking about? It's ridiculous to suggest I was talking about supporting women who engage in murder of women over clothing.

[almondcakes]

Flora, the politician in question is supporting warlords in Afghanistan. This was mentioned both in the article in question and in my post that you responded to. There is nothing ridiculous about my questioning why you feel it is a feminist act to devote time to advocate for the right to authority for such a woman, who is supporting men who murder women over their clothes.

I did not say she was murdering women. I said she was supporting men who did. I have nade very few posts on this thread, so feel you misrepresenting what I said by a. Taking my quote about authority, which I made in the context of discussing genocidal acts, out of context and b. By suggesting I said a woman who murdered women when I did not.

[almondcakes]

The writer never said that the way Western women in political life were treated was okay. The article, as far as I can tell, is about why certain issues (including that one) are given so much priority over other issues in feminism.

I believe that is the case and it is a very serious problem.

I also think there is a conflation here of abhorrent acts and abhorrent views. Cutting benefits to single mothers is an act, not just having an opinion. She is directly harming other women.

[FloraFox]

almond if you think it's acceptable for a woman in authority to be subjected to sexist abuse because you don't agree with her policies, I do find that ridiculous and not at all feminist.

I can't think of a single government that could hold its head high over support for men who murder women. It's not confined to the Australian government and Afghan warlords. Apparently though sexist abuse against her is not worthy of feminist time? We can only fight for women so long as we fight for everything else at the same time?

[almondcakes]

Sorry Buffy, to clarify, I am not suggesting you are conflating them.

That goes for the thread in general. Many people end up on MN FWR because they are uncomfortable with what is happening on other feminist boards. I can see why people don't like the way he has said it, but not the issue with the general point.

[almondcakes]

Flora, that is one long strawman argument.

The issue, in the article, is why are some issues being given so much time and attention over others.

You are determined to misrepresent me. I never suggested what you are attributing to me. And the article writer did not say it either.

I am genuinely concerned about the issue of feminism's priorities in time and attention. I have no axe to grind against you.

[Damsilli]

We're back to 'can a man be a feminist' again. I think many posts here rather prove his point that it's almost impossible for a man to voice an opinion on feminism - and how can one be something if one isn't permitted to have an opinion on it?

Bizarrely, I find myself feeling a rare moment of sympathy for David 'Don't use the F-Word' Cameron.

[PumpkinGordino]

Men will opine whether women think it's their place to or not

[DoctorTwo]

I think the writer has made a few mistakes many men make when writing and/or talking about feminism. First, he hasn't listened, or if he has he's only heard the parts he wanted to hear. Second, he castigated women for something men are responsible for, VAWG, without offering a solution. The solution is obvious: tougher penalties for those convicted of such crimes and a default setting of "we believe her". Third, he rolled out Laurie Penny. Don't get me wrong, I like Laurie, I'd just prefer to see her become more radical.

Going after Julia Gillard is almost de rigueur nowadays isn't it? Her takedown of that vile piece of work made me almost cry laughing. She's one of the few right wing politicians I have any respect for, that respect comes not from her policies but for her bravery in standing up to be counted as a female in a hugely misogynistic environment.

Glosswitch's reply was necessarily brutal and cut his arguments into ribbons. He deserved it. He's not being brave writing about feminism, he's telling women they're doing it wrong.

If it's all right with you I'll continue to lurk and learn.

[LurcioAgain]

I've been trying to frame a response to what I hope is your argument, Almond.

Of course I think the systematic oppression and murder of women in Afghanistan because they are women is horrific.

I also think that the silencing of women by threats of sexual violence is horrific.

Now, it's fairly self evident that the first is more immediately horrific - the actual rape and killing of women as opposed to the threat thereof. But I'm not convinced that the world divides up as neatly as all that. Because unless people of goodwill are free and able to speak up against actual murder and oppression, then there can be no political will to change things. So silencing matters, not just in its own right, but because of the knock on consequences. So silencing - wherever it lies on the spectrum between belittling women for their age/appearance, right through to threats of rape and muder - does matter very much. Because without the right to speech, we can't even be heard saying "2 women a week are killed by their partner", "there's over 100,000 victims of FGM in the UK alone", "women are being stoned to death in Afghanistan".

Now one can accept that a single police officer who has a straight choice between responding to a call out to a DV victim in imminent danger of being murdered by her ex partner, versus responding to a call out about a woman who's being stalked on line, should respond to the DV victim first. But that doesn't mean the second isn't important. Nor does it mean that, if it later transpires that woman no. 2 said some pretty hideous things on line (supported a convicted rapist over his victim, perhaps) that that vitiates her right to be protected against online stalking.

And what is interesting about the abuse Gillard is subject to is that it demonstrates all too clearly that you don't have to be a rad fem to bring this sort of silencing technique down on your head, you don't even have to be a nice liberal feminist (though personally I would like to see liberals fight their corner better - for instance, by going back to Mill's conception of positive and negative liberties and using it as a framework to attack "anything goes cool girl pseudo feminism"). You can actually be doing the patriarchy's dirty work for it and you will still get abuse because you have a vagina. And that, surely, has got to be a feminist issue.

[LurcioAgain]

Damisilli - no one's saying "men can't have an opinion on feminism." However they are saying that when a man comes along and lists a whole list of things that men typically do to women (DV, opression of women in fundamentalist theocracies, etc.) and says "why aren't feminists saying anything about it?" when in fact feminists are, very loudly, then the man says "why aren't feminists doing something about it?" when actually, the people able to change things are the men who're doing the stuff in the first place, then says "women, be grateful I'm here to tell you how to sort out the issues that I deem important to you," well, then quite a few women are going to get pissed off. You might not be pissed off by it (I have to admit, I wonder why not), but I certainly am.

[ZombiePuffinsAreREAL]

Thanks for posting the Glosswitch blog, she just nails it.