I don't identify as a feminist - so why does this get on my nerves?

[SophieJenkins]

I was listening in the car to WH yesterday and they were doing their 'power list', first off discussing Kim Kardashian (have a vague idea who she is but not much) and then they started off the list and after about 1 or 2 interesting women, they announced Caitlyn Jenner.

I turned it off instantly as I couldn't listen. I don't know why but it just made me really angry.

I didn't want to start another thread about this as I realise from titles that people were getting sick of them, but cant get it out of my head and wondered if anyone could briefly help me figure out why it pissed me off SO much?

If we're not allowed to discuss this then I apologise and feel free to tell me. I haven't been reading any of the other threads about it which perhaps I should have done after all.

I think I feel like being female has been hijacked by someone and used to get publicity - when a lot of women are denied even the basic human rights that come with being a bloke.

And then to be put on a list of high achieving women for what? For wanting to be a woman?

I don't get it.

Lou, I'm really sorry but I am finding it really hard to understand your point in terms of how it relates to this thread.

Could you do it with bullet points maybe?

If you just want to discuss feminist related threads in general then perhaps this isn't the place.

Sorry if I have misunderstood.

and I'm not trying to shut you up btw - I just honestly don't understand what you are trying to say.

I am not really trying to be nice, Yonic. I was simply responding to posts such as

"I seriously hope you are never on a jury in a domestic abuse case"

It appears that it is OK to make such wildly nasty comments if you are agreeing with the majority of posters. But not OK if you are disagreeing.

And I don't know what 'making a PA' is! Sorry of it offensive. I am not trying to be.

Innocent you know no such thing. You know what has been reported, what you have seen/heard in the media, all of which is cut to taste. My whole point was that, if we are going to discuss such things we should, perhaps, come at them from a less entrenched position.

I know that some think I am excusing KMs actions. But that is not true. I am simply not condemning out of hand. I am stopping to wonder why, amongst other things, Tracey Maloney is not condemning KM? Not assuming that she has been brainwashed. I actually find that more offensive than much else that has been posted. To assume that she is only acting as she is because he has trained her... really? You give no thought to her have determined for herself any good reason not to vilify him?

You have a very poor view of women!

That's not a 'wildly nasty comment' though Lou - it would be seriously concerning if a jury member wanted to take that into account! It has nothing to do with 'a poor view of women' - whether she has written off, excused, forgotten or otherwise decided that the incident isn't worth leaving her husband for, that is still a thing that he did!

Sophie my apologies. I have derailed your OP. I was taken by the references to the celebrity of Caitlyn Jenner and how that celebrity had coloured the choices in the original list. I just wondered what a debate would be if the transgender woman was less celebrity and more mundane... and flawed.

It seems I now know

BR sadly yes, I have. And not all of them remain cowed and damaged. Some do work through the damage done and rebuild their sense of self. I don't have such a low opinion of women as to assume that any individual would not have been successful in doing so!

I really don't understand what you mean. So even though you've agreed that my post was correct - you were indeed calling me a bigot - it's not correct because I'm not considering what you wrote in the wider context of your posts?

Blimey, talk about doublespeak

""I seriously hope you are never on a jury in a domestic abuse case"

I don't think that's a wildly nasty thing to say to someone who doesn't seem to realise that women who have been abused do sometimes remain in i"friendly" terms with their abuser and are not prepared for a variety of reasons to speak out against him in public.

Or who is prepared to give the benefit of the doubt to an unrepentant abuser because of his past trauma.

Original and where have I said that any such incident such be written off, excused, forgotten, etc?

I did say that understanding behavioural causality would also remove any such 'get out of jail free' card. That is why I consider the statement to be capricious and disingenuous. It implies something I had specifically said I did not mean - and stated that I would say so ad infinitum.

Ye gods. How the hell do you get that out of those words, Innocent?

Your viewpoint is total anathema to me. I literally have no idea what that meant! What sense I can make out of it seems to mean that no woman can survive any abuse. All women are too weak to rebuild their lives and sense of self.

It has sod all to do with excusing any abuse. It has everything to do with surviving it and refusing to let it become the only defining issue in your life.

"I did say that understanding behavioural causality would also remove any such 'get out of jail free' card"

So understanding behavioural causality would make it possible to decide whether she is entitled to said "get out of jail free" card" And the support or otherwise of the abused partner would be relevant in that decision?

Lou you said that you'd take into account that they're on good terms - I'm saying it doesn't matter if they are, and the writing off, excusing or whatever is for her to do if she wants - it doesn't change the fact that he did it.

I'm not sure a statement can be 'capricious', can it? Which one do you mean?

What sense I can make out of it seems to mean that no woman can survive any abuse. All women are too weak to rebuild their lives and sense of self

Well, now you're just making stuff up! Why are you so bloody keen to defend this man?

"It has sod all to do with excusing any abuse. It has everything to do with surviving it and refusing to let it become the only defining issue in your life."

And I really, really hope she has. However, the fact that she appears on friendly terms with him and has not condemned him does not indicate that she has. Or hasn't.

PA is personal attack, Lou. And your comment was considerably nastier than:

"I seriously hope you are never on a jury in a domestic abuse case"

An equivalent comment would have been "I sincerely hope you never train to be a therapist because you have little compassion" or whatever. Not what you actually posted.

I don't really think we are disagreeing, Innocent. Just focussing on different aspects of the same thing. But that seems to put me beyond the pale, again!

I would always ignore the abuser and concentrate on the abused. It is more important to me to that anyone who is abused has the tools to rebuild their sense of self. I don't mean that the abuser should walk away scot free... I shall say that ad infinitum.

As for all the 'Oh you don't understand' posts. I do understand where you are coming from, I just don't agree it is the only perspective.

You say you're a feminist Lou, but I find it confusing that you're doing two main things here.

The first is defending men's abuse toward women, repeatedly.
The second is the language you use about those women - they are to be commended if they are not 'weak'; they 'work through' what's happened and 'refuse' to let it continue to affect them. All the agency, all the responsibility, is on the abused women here!

I'm not really sure what you're arguing, or why.

No, I am not.

I can see how you could read my post like that, but you miss the point, Abusers should become unimportant once the abused person has got away from them. The focus for that person should, for their own well being, focus on themselves, not the abuser. Or they will continue to live in thrall.

Each individual has responsibility for their own actions. So yes, my focus is on the abused.

The second is the language you use about those women - they are to be commended if they are not 'weak'; they 'work through' what's happened and 'refuse' to let it continue to affect them

Yes... I am saying that no woman is congenitally unable to take steps to regain her sense of self post abuse. I think it is ridiculous to suggest that thinking that all people, male or female, have the ability to recover post abuse is somehow a negative thing.