Rebutting the Straw Men/Owning up when "it's a fair cop, guv.

[LurcioAgain]

BertrandRussell has started an interesting thread in Chat asking women who consciously reject the label "feminist" why they do so. One thing that strikes me is a lot of the reasons being given are in fact "straw men", and that maybe a rebutting the straw men thread would be nice.

Aim of the game (of course I can't control the direction the conversation takes, but I hope people will be on board with this) - keep the conversation couched in reasonably accessible terms, keep the posts short enough not to be overwhelming (so probably only one straw man per post!)

indeed raspberry.

This is probably going to sound a bit stupid, and I hope you take this in the spirit it's meant. - genuine discussion and interest, rather than being goady or arguing for the sake of it, but I would be interested to hear your views.

I feel that feminism can be a bit unintentionally(?) exclusionary towards women.

From the other thread, there were people who's ideological viewpoints were broadly in line with feminism but wno didn't identify as a feminist because they felt that they 'weren't doing it right' and having been previously told on here (MN in general, not the FWR boards) that I can't be a feminist because of XYZ I can see where the feeling comes from.

I suppose it's like a poster upthread said, having the courage of your convictions and saying yes, I agree with this, that and this, I don't agree with that, but I'm still a feminist.

I also feel that some feminists wield outdated, overblown and problematic studies as a weapon towards anyone who challenges their stance. Eg you make a point, someone will simply say 'you're wrong' and provide an ever so helpful link to an 88-page study full of terminology that I may never have come across - the sole purpose of which is to make me feel like I am obviously too uneducated to take part in the debate - Ie your opinion is not valid.

Don't get me wrong, it isn't the use of studies to support arguments that bothers me - if a poster said 'in Brown's 2009 study of XYZ, he showed that blah blah blah' as well as providing the link, that's fair enough.

Thanks, clash, that's constructive feedback.

Clash, on your first point about "doing it right" - I have been a SAHM, I'm married and took my husband's name and I go by "Mrs." I am a feminist and I have no worries that I am not "doing it right," nor has anyone, feminist or otherwise, ever said that there's any problem with my choices. Pointing out that there are feminist issues with SAHMing, marriage and taking a married name is not the same as telling women that they shouldn't do these things.
Take changing your name for example.There is nothing inherently wrong with changing your name. The issue is that women are expected to change their name, and criticised for not doing so. There is the idea that men need to "carry on the family name" as though women are somehow not worthy of doing the same thing. Women get erased and lost in public records through the change of name in the way that men don't. And many men simply won't change their names, which gives the sense that names are actually quite important, but only for men because men are important and women are not. The question to ask is: why do women change their names, and why are they expected to change their names, when men are not? What is going on there?
So there is a societal issue with namechanging and understanding that is important for understanding the wider social context around women, marriage and changes of name. That in no way means that women should never change their name or be criticised if they do so. That is entirely their choice and anyone who says a woman who changes her name is not a "real feminist" is an idiot, in my book. Same goes for other things. Why are women the parents who usually stay at home? Why are they expected to stay at home when men are not? What does staying at home mean for women's financial freedom, their sense of identity etc? It's about understanding the implications of society's expectations and examining why women are pushed into certain choices when men are not.

On the second point you make about studies etc. - that's a tougher one to deal with I think. If someone wants to use a study to back up their point then that's their choice IMO. I don't reference studies much but I do point to statistics. So, for example, if someone says "Men and women are equally violent" I will quote statistics to say that simply isn't true, basically because it isn't. Some things simply aren't a matter of opinion. It is true that men commit more violent crime than women and arguing about that just doesn't make sense. Why men commit more violent crime however is entirely up for debate. Part of feminism, IMO is understanding the intricacies of what's going on and some of that requires pretty deep analysis. It can all seem a bit intellectual but I think if you are interested it's worth engaging in it as it explains a lot.

There is a thing I have noticed about the differences between feminist and non-feminist discussions, and it's to do with assumptions.

There has been a discussion on here started by someone uncomfortable with an aspect of their sexual desires. Now that person titled their OP as 'Why do women do x, and how can we stop it?' There then followed a discourse about what business it was of anyone else, what we get up to behind closed doors. The OP was at pains to point out that really she meant herself, not women as a whole, etc etc.

The FwR regulars were keen to defend the OP - they could see how she really was worried about herself. Some non-regulars had a problem with her language. The title wasn't really ambiguous. It did seem to suggest that this (a.) was a problem for women, and (b.) need fixing.

My long-winded point is not about a clumsy OP title. It's about the use of language, and perception of meaning. Stumbling across that thread title, to a non-FwR regular, it reads as though feminism has found a problem with women, and it needs fixing. To a regular, it was clear what she meant. But most of the world are not feminists, and so it (feminism, or at least the MN FwR brand) can sometimes appear to be more strident and prescriptive than it means to be.

Indeed Yops. This is a constant problem - the analysing of issues on a broader level as opposed to addressing individual problems.

ClashCityRocker wrote - "... provide an ever so helpful link to an 88-page study full of terminology that I may never have come across - the sole purpose of which is to make me feel like I am obviously too uneducated to take part in the debate - Ie your opinion is not valid.
then
it isn't the use of studies to support arguments that bothers me - if a poster said 'in Brown's 2009 study of XYZ, he showed that blah blah blah' as well as providing the link, that's fair enough."

I think the intention of most posters is to give links to support their own viewpoint or argument, and not for the "sole purpose" of making other posters feel "obviously too uneducated".

Are you saying that if a poster summarises a report, then this would remove the implication you take from unsummarised reports, namely that you feel too uneducated and your opinion is ignored? Suddenly, you would feel educated and feel that your opinion was valid?

My reaction to someone summarising a report, rather than just linking to some web page for me to read the whole report, is that the summary version just saves me time (assuming it has been summarised accurately). It doesn't affect how educated I feel or how valid my opinions feel to me.

If links were summarised more often, rather than just giving a web page link, I expect people would complain that the summaries are biased and inaccurate. Of course, the only way we could know if the claim of bias were true is to read the report in full, anyway.

I think, for posters on FWR threads using links to other sources on the Web, it's a case of "damned if you do, damned if you don't".

"I think, for posters on FWR threads using links to other sources on the Web, it's a case of "damned if you do, damned if you don't"."

I would agree vesuvia and the thread can get derailed into potential bias of the summary before you get anywhere close to discussing any bias etc of the source.

Yops, I think you are a FWR regular. Badge is in the post.

Which goes to show - not all FWR regulars agree all of the time. (And at least half of the responses to you on that thread were because you'd deemed it to be potential trolling rather than about your issue with the title phrase!)

Links to long reports aren't exclusive to FWR, for sure! There was a thread about symphiostomy that had a number.

But the point about the sexual domination thread is it was all about the OP. Why frame a thread about such a personal matter as if applied to all women? Then post a petulant comment about "do I really need to explain I didn't mean that"?

I'm sort of a regular and it was not clear to me either from the title or her opening post what she meant. I expected it to be a thread about 50 Shades nonsense.

Are you saying that if a poster summarises a report, then this would remove the implication you take from unsummarised reports, namely that you feel too uneducated and your opinion is ignored?

I see what you're saying with this - but for me, who is not overly used to reading reports, it is helpful to at least see what the poster thinks they are saying. I wouldn't base my opinions on the summary, but it would be useful to have a bit of context to the report. For example, a study of Malaysian women in the 1930s may be much less relevant than a 2013 study of women living in Edinborough to the subject.

But yes, I do think there are people who use the information to maintain intellectual superiority.

And you're quite right, it's not restricted to FWR boards. And, a lot of time, links are very useful.

cailindana thank you for your insightful post. I just want to stress that that has been my perception of feminism - that it was all or nothing. I can see that for some, possibly most feminists that is not the case and I probably need to stop thinking of feminism as something narrow, but as a much wider general worldview with many differing view points.

It's frustrating to be directed to read a paper with no indication of why.

"I think women and men have different brains."
"Read Smith et al. 1996."

"Um, what?"

When if they'd just said "Read Smith et al. 1996 pp45-46. They found significant differences only where there had been physical abuse" then you'd know.

Just a summary of the abstract would do!

Ok this is going to sound stroppy, mainly because that's how I'm feeling. But what I always pick up from the "why aren't you a feminist" threads is that people aren't feminists due to a long list of things that they believe about feminism which are entirely not true, but when you try to explain why those things aren't true you're then not using the right tone, you're explaining things too much, you're explaining things too little, you're not giving enough evidence, you're giving too much evidence, you're being patronising, you're being obtuse, you're being disingenuous. It is incredibly frustrating to see a cause you passionately believe in being painted as something it's not by people who simply won't listen.
If you don't like feminism, fine, there is no problem whatsoever with that. But if you're going to criticise it, at least understand it a little first. And understanding it means listening for while and perhaps delving into things that are complicated. If you don't want to do that, again, fine.

But feminism is why you as a woman can own property, vote, have a job, get contraception, get an abortion, have maternity leave, be protected from marital rape, and a whole host of other benefits that you take entirely for granted. That work was done by tireless women who in some cases risked and lost their lives and freedom. To turn and spit in their faces and say feminism is about man-hating and wanting women to be better than men when that is not what it is about at all just makes me want to pull my hair out in frustration. Not everyone has to be a feminist. But if you are a woman feminism has made your life better, so at least respect that and if you're going to engage with it, or criticise it, know what it is first.

yy Cailin

Yops, I do consider you a FWR regular.

Thread titles are often misleading and I try to read them within the context of the whole opening post. I would have been annoyed by the thread title if the OP had gone on to suggest it was universal, or near universal for women to eroticise domination within her posts.

And I could also understand why you thought such a post might be trolling.

But I was prepared to give the OP some leeway because:

a. People speaking about their private sex lives often feel more comfortable if they can couch it in more general terms than just them.

b. By posting it in FWR and talking about women beyond herself, the OP is suggesting she wants comments connecting it to other women with similar experiences. I think it is important and valuable to connect it to wider gendered patterns in issues because over one in five people who have BDSM sex will be the victim of non consensual sex acts within BDSM, and abuse within BDSM is overwhelmingly carried out against women, with being a sub, having previous abusive experiences and being young all being additional risk factors - much of which applies to the OP. And many women trying to get away from sub roles get a lot of social pressure and advice to stay in them.

So I think often FWR is about people's individual problems within a social context of trends happening to other women as well.

And I think maybe we sometimes have to try to strong man other people's arguments. So be generous and assume the best possible version and intentions of someone else's argument or post.

But I know that is really hard to do when there is so much trolling (and some issues which really get to each of us as individuals).

So a lot of the arguments people raised, we've rightly explained that NA-Feminists-ALT.

What are the fundamental, if you don't believe this you're not a feminist, stuff?

We've had the comparisons with Christianity a few times, and they have the Apostles Creed - which is broadly observed by most people who sit under the banner of "Christian".

What about feminists?

I would say that if you don't believe that women have been and still are oppressed by a patriarchal society then you are not a feminist.

Well, as someone who posted on the 'why I don't identify with feminism' thread originally it has been quite eye opening and useful.

I'm not sure what I think now, but I feel a lot more open to engaging with it rather than dismissing it out of hand.

That's good, clash.

Pleased to hear it Clash. I'm happy to answer any questions I can.

Innocent

Slating the movement that fought and is still fighting so that you can be treated as a human being rather than chattel is incomprehensible to me.

My feeling is that they're institutionalized by the patriarchy. Some women gain a degree of personal security and success because they're good at conforming to the gender stereotyping that feminism stands against. Feminism is a threat to what makes them feel valued as individuals. They're not lazy or ignorant, they're just scared of losing what little control they have over their lives.