Jump to content
Roderick

Feminism

Recommended Posts

why don't we watch ALL of the Alien(s) movies over the course of our talks!

 

i don't know about that, that's an awful lot of good movie to watch and then one bad one. however will we cope other than not watching the bad one

 

we shall have to struggle on somehow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i don't know about that, that's an awful lot of good movie to watch and then one bad one.

 

I demand a re-count.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have the Quadrilogy Blu-ray set sitting there unwatched for years, having gone through the DVD version long ago, so I could make myself through Aliens again, but god the second movie is garbage. Most people don't think that so I'd just stink up the thread discussing it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For this feminist film club thing I'm assuming we want to do movies that have identifiable feminist themes, but do we want to also highlight women directors and writers and that kind of thing, even if the text of the movie is maybe not explicitly feminist? I can pull up some more recommendations depending on how y'all wanna do this. Maybe it merits it's own thread even?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have the Quadrilogy Blu-ray set sitting there unwatched for years, having gone through the DVD version long ago, so I could make myself through Aliens again, but god the second movie is garbage. Most people don't think that so I'd just stink up the thread discussing it.

There are a few of us on here who at least somewhat agree with you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can make our own thread later since I think we do have quite a few people interested in watching. And yeah, Busby, I'd be okay with also highlighting women directors and whatnot! Narratives that have some meat to chew on for discussion are just what I'm aiming for. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm porting this over from the EiGJ thread largely to ask a probably misguided question and hopefully to have a good discussion come from it.

Yeah, I recently decided that I agreed with the argument that white cis males can't be feminists, even if they have an interest in feminism or feminist thought, because part of the point of feminism is the erasure of women's identities and beliefs in favour of men's. The messenger is as important as the message, so as much as we might agree with feminist thought, if we call ourselves feminists, we're subverting it by making it our message. Like, it's a problem that when the Sad Puppies point at prominent feminists and SJWs in sci-fi, their most prominent target is a white, cis, happily married man who lives in Ohio.

 

I've agreed with both sides of that particular point, to be honest. I don't have a problem with men calling themselves feminists - lord knows the patriarchy affects men, too - my problem is with the men who think that the 'feminist' label necessarily gives them an authority role, like they're barging into our sewing party, rolling up their sleeves and finally getting things done. I don't care what you call yourself as long as you have, like, the minimum of respect and self-awareness; you gotta know when to speak up and when to stay in your lane, or at least know when to ask. Marketing is important, but by your works shall ye be judged, you know?
 
But, like, that's just me, too, and I know at least one other completely brilliant woman who would totally disagree with me. It's all very fraught and complicated and difficult.

I feel bad that this is largely a continuation of a derailment but I'm interested in what people who express at least one side of the above opinion on having a male co-leader in a mixed gender high school feminist social club.

I posted a link to this story in the feminism thread but I didn't do a spectacularly great job in framing it and it may have been swallowed up amidst an interesting film club discussion. Yet still I think it's interesting that as the article puts it: The millennials, a social group largely regarded as politically apathetic are starting up social justice oriented groups focusing on feminism the label of a movement that has seen distancing even from people who share and agree with what it says on the tin yet don't actually want to be seen carrying that brand.

To use some of the article's own words:

"There's this idea of young people being depicted as politically apathetic and quite narcissistic," says Dr Sue Jackson, a senior lecturer at Victoria University who specialises in girlhood studies. In late 2013, Jackson heard that students from a local high school had started a feminist club. "I went, 'Wow'. I felt like that was really significant because to date, what we hear is [that] young women have been turning away from feminism." She plans to study the groups and their significance in a project starting later this year.
Other academics took note too. Nicola Gavey is a professor at the University of Auckland school of psychology, where she has long taught a paper on feminism and psychology. It used to be that her students would start the class knowing little about feminism, or with misconceptions about the movement, and her first job would be to clear up the confusion. But in the last two years she's noticed a change. "There's a large proportion of the students who are already identifying as feminists," says Gavey. "Students are telling me they got into feminism when they were in high school. That would have been quite unusual five years ago."
The question facing these researchers is why teenagers are now choosing to identify as feminists, after decades of rejecting the label. Has an increasingly pervasive feminist lens on current events, such as the Roastbusters case, sparked some long-dormant activism? Is it because social media gives young people a platform to dissect sexism and connect with a wider feminist community? Or is it because the likes of Lorde and Lena Dunham identify as feminist, so now it's cool?

Part of the resurgence can revolve around the increasing levels of visible public discussion, other parts revolve around the ease of access to feminist circles on the internet but as the article concludes it's largely to do with people already holding values that they then recognise as feminist.

Anyway with that background out of the way; if one were to be in a position like a male co-lead of a feminist group whether by being the joint half in starting the club or a willingness to take up administrative roles how would one ethically behave in that role as a male? Or is the idea of a male facilitator of a feminist discussion whether it focuses on females or not to be disregarded on principle as it is cruelly ironic?

I have a couple of followup questions in case the above is too inane.

Firstly, through the miracle of the internet and wonderful prose that extends beyond a 140 character limit where and who would be good sources for cutting edge listening to happen?

Secondly, when people qualify that white cis males are being singularly or rather symbolically incapable of holding authority within feminist discussions or even calling themselves feminist what actually defines someone as white? I suppose it's the perception that someone is white although in societies (sub concious racial bias still present) people of multiple ethnicities still grow up in contexts where they can end up holding the archetypical harmful male viewpoints and views borne of privilege that would or could bar them from speaking with authority. To be overly reductionist to simplify the last sentence: what would it be about the middle class maori cis male viewpoint that allows someone from that background to speak on feminist topics with mana (respect/authority -roughly translated). Furthermore what would stop someone from a quil(-)bag minority from sharing their observations, views within a feminist context. Is it that their essential maleness could prevent them from acknowledging or accessing insights that would progress the discussion? Or is it still mostly to do with the idea that given the history of males as oppressors someone who can naturally assume the privilege of the harmful system should not be speaking at the table for those that are naturally oppressed by the system to a historically far greater degree.
Which I guess would feed back into anything I say about being a mixed race but culturally brought up largely to be Pakeha (of NZ European descent) while exhibiting mainly the visible Pakeha genetic traits therefore having a viewpoint veritably being indistinguishable from the more wrongfooted aspects of the white cis male viewpoint.

Is the ideal method for the cis white male who wants to be involved in feminism to on principle not seek a voice in discussion but to subscribe and share the weekly newsletters?

The last follow up question (I promise) is how does one communicate feminism via the conceptual newsletter without muddying and filtering the concepts through an innate male-ness? It's possible (probable ? ) that I've just asked a red-herring of a last question. But it's interesting to me to ask how does one communicate without filtering, adding, reiterating and possibly mansplaining a message outlined by someone who should rightly have authority without co-opting and impurifying the message?


I'm aware through being repeatedly told that I am an imperfect being that I may have just written the biggest piece of ill thought out balonie that I never intended to create. But some thoughts would be nice.
Thankyou and apologies for subjecting you to this possibly ill-fated thought train.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1.) First point - feminism got a lot of bad press/propaganda touted in the late 80s/early 90s by right-wing groups and we're finally starting to crawl out from under that given the widespread and easily accessed nature of the internet and social media. It's got a higher profile now for a variety of reasons. 

 

2.) Whether men can be feminists or identify as such is a much fought over topic when really it should be that if men want to have that label, they need to recognize the work that goes into it and what that means. Being "a man" doesn't mean you don't also suffer from oppression along other axes, and that should be recognized as well. All identities are not flat modifiers, they all intersect and overlap. However, it really depends on what kind of space it is, to have a man lead a feminist group. Is it a safe® space for women or is it an open-interest group?

 

As for the rest of what you wrote, I feel like this is where intersectionality is a big deal - you are dealing with how your man identity fits into a feminist construct while also grappling with the whole "not being white" part, which is also very different.

 

I honestly don't have any good answers about how men should participate in feminism so much as I just know that I really want them to unlearn socialization that has always means their opinion HAS to be shared, that it is central to the discussion. Participating in feminism means learning when you should let other people talk, and have a central place in your constructions and ideologies, conversations. A lot of men don't really grasp that when it comes to sexism (only) that they don't have a lot of experience and should defer to the people who do have to deal with it. A lot of issues with feminist spaces comes from just the fact that a lot of men recognize privilege but they don't recognize what kind of subtler impacts that's had on them, whether it's aggressiveness, willingness to talk over women, that their presence may be a deterrent to discussion, or that their voices are naturally regarded as more valuable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the reply. When you talk about not having to share your opinion you mean that there's no reason to chip in unless you not only think you have something that adds to the discussion but is undoubtedly adding beneficial newness rather than confounding a discussion? I guess as an example I mean when a man would speak out from inexperience and contribute something new to them but ultimately very familiar to the group at large who likely in the man's viewpoint would 'politely' take the time to explain to the man the possibly derailing issue. But I guess the answer is muddied since not derailing would obviously be ideal, 'lurk more' might be the correct response; and that some people would be uncomfortable with the idea that in the feminist group people still end up explaining to men all the time; when ideally those men would inform themselves.

 

Presence is an interesting idea since it links back to something I was going to ask about just what a safe space means. To run something like a feminist social club I would imagine there to already be an intersection between a  safe® space and an open-interest group. But I'll tentatively posit that you mean  safe® space in the sense that: as a  safe® space a women's refuge would be very particular with the idea of employing a male staff member since the women there would likely be at their most vulnerable and men around them would exacerbate that.

 

I suppose the more imperfect version of safe space I would imagine in an open interest, or completely safe space oriented social club is that the safe space is being created through facilitation of the conversation through multiple people with the mana to steer the discussion. So I guess the idea of an established male co-lead of a group being given mana to say what is and is not conducive would be cruelly ironic. Still I guess I'm interested in how someone in the position of the teen in the article could ethically co-lead despite it likely being oxymoronic.

 

Anyway I'm still interested in people's views on this despite questions of mine being answered so please share.

 

I'm just hungering for some discussion whether its having specific misunderstandings being clarified or listening to the broadcast.

 

Speaking of broadcast I'm still very interested in being pointed to sources that aren't based on 140 character limits (I'm sorry I just really don't like twitter). I've been gaming a lot to podcasts lately so feminist think tanks would be very cool too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was brought up in the "ethics and integrity" thread, that a man's primary role in feminism is to listen to women and talk to other men. This has always been my (fairly strongly-held) opinion. An even more strongly-held opinion: a man's role in feminism absolutely shouldn't be in setting agendas. Men can sometimes be invaluable consultants, but necessarily shouldn't be making actual decisions for a group calling themselves "feminist". 

 

I don't know if having a man lead a feminist group is always and absolutely a bad thing, since "feminist group" could mean a lot of things and I can't pretend to imagine every situation that might lead to a man in charge of one. But even in situations where maybe I can understand a man being in charge, it would feel disappointing at best. Like, if there were ANY woman candidate capable for the position SURELY she would've been a better choice. Maybe a feminist ally group in an all-male high school? Now I'm just making up fringe situations.

 

This all derives from a bigger point: that men interested in feminism need to fully understand and internalize that it isn't about them, and then they need to act like it. This is why I'm always a bit put off when people talk about how the patriarchy hurts men or how feminism is good for men... not because the points people make are untrue (they're mostly good and true points) but because it feels like a marketing ploy towards dudes who need to feel involved before they'll show support. And it also feels deliberately misleading; patriarchy hurts men in several ways, sure, but to imply that patriarchy hurts men on balance is pure baloney.

 

I do not call myself a feminist, partially for the reasons above, but mostly because I grew into my beliefs with feminist friends who did not think a man should be able to call himself that. That said, I personally think the self-labeling thing is a very minor issue, and how people behave is immeasurably more important. When somebody asks me "are you a feminist" and I don't feel like getting into a discussion about semantics, I tend to say yes, because a "no" would be very misleading.

 

</post about how men shouldn't make feminism about them, that was mostly about me, a man>

</clichéd html end-tag lampshade>

</ditto>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My personal approach to the dilemma is to be intentionally meek about it as much as I can. I do my best to defer to allowing others speak first especially if they're women. But I will speak up in the absence of other feminist discussion. As long as I do feel comfortable enough in my knowledge about the topic.

 

It seems like the problem of men in feminism is about men being too assertive and (nonviolently) aggressive in a field that's entirely not ours to assert and dominate. So I do try to focus on not feeling like my opinion is valid or needed just because I want it to be. I have to stop and think about the actual contribution I'm making so I know whether or not it's actually going to help or if it will just assert my stance and insert me into the conversation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that while talking about people being in charge of things, we tend to conflate two very different types of work that usually fall to these positions. I am in charge of a little site where people write about games, and although that does come with the platform of making official statements or setting policy that affects other people, a lot of the actual behind-the-scenes stuff I do is almost very vaguely similar to care work: checking in with writers, talking them through writing anxiety, making sure everybody is happy with the way things are going. So in the case discussed here men should definitely not become overbearing when it comes to the representational work, but taking over some of the thankless maintenance work so women get to devote more time to the former may actually not be a terrible idea?

 

Anyway, Apple Cider already said great stuff and I'm gonna bow to her wisdom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Men talking to other men about feminism and patriarchy is actually really great because it gets tiring answering the same 101 questions a lot. Just don't use it to derail a conversation women are having about their issues!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought about putting this in the Comical Picture thread, but it's going to be so damn useful whenever someone specifically starts raving about feminist indoctrination in the media...

 

UJhht6j.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

God, I'm really starting to hate Adrian Chmielarz. He just couldn't help himself in criticisng Polygon's review of The Witcher 3, written by Arthur Gies who has beef with Adrian but whom Adrian assures us he isn't biased towards. Basically he says that Arthur writes a good review, but couldn't help himself in spewing his SJW agenda by pointing out that the game has no POC and that it has some female-unfriendly creative decisions. Adrian points out that POC exist in the Witcher universe, but their lack of inclusion isn't a problem because... he deems it so? I guess the absence of POC and the major problem with them being a lack of representation just have nothing to do with each other.

 

His second issue is even more stupid, here's an excerpt -

 

[...]how is such a world full of [Arthur's quote, "powerful women with complicated motivations and goals of their own"] like these “oppressively misogynistic”? Does the reviewer even understand what these word mean?

 
Let’s talk more about it while we move to the interpretation two: the creators themselves are misogynists or simply bad or misguided people.
 
Gies is of course too smart to openly call them “misogynists”, but phrases like “the world CD Projekt has created is oppressively misogynist”, “the inclusion of so much violence explicitly directed against women feels like a clear, disconcerting choice”, “women in The Witcher 3 are comically sexualized” make it clear that the reviewer has a serious problem with the developer and their creative choices.
 
The thing is, neither in this case nor in the previous one the term “misogynistic” makes sense. A misogynistic developer or a misogynistic game would send a clear message that women are inferior beings and it is totally okay or even encouraged to hate or mistreat them.

 

He's so fucking stupid that he can't square the fact that a game could have a world that is misogynistic but the game isn't inherently misogynistic and instead disconcerting and problematic. He just ignores the fact that Arthur is blatantly making a very clear attempt to communicate that he doesn't believe the developer to be misogynistic, instead that the developer hasn't taken much care in representing women well despite the women in the game having some element of depth. I'm so infuriated that apparently all women are entitled to are strong characters, forget that those characters aren't actually treated with the same respect that male characters receive.

 

Sorry for the language, I just needed to vent about this thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry for the language, I just needed to vent about this thing.

 

No need to apologize. I'm having a lot of trouble reading it right now, just because it's so hard to watch him talk himself around someone's carefully limited and framed criticisms of certain elements in the game, in order to turn them alchemy-like into a wholesale condemnation of the game and thereby an attack on the developer, which he can then indignantly dismiss out of hand. Congratulations, you've replaced subtle and interesting points with your own stupid and inane ones, which of course have serious problems. You don't get any points for knocking over strawmen.

 

In a way, I like the fact that the Witcher games have always contained brutally oppressive worlds, usually to make a series of allegorical points that are often imperfect in their execution, valid criticism of which can be used as dog-whistles for knuckle-draggers like Chmielarz who don't have the ability to distinguish between creator and created.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I honestly think Chmielarz is kinda of beyond the point of concern for me. I have no need to interact with his shit because he is so patently belligerent about this shit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Besides all of the rest of that nonsense on display on criticism somehow being a poison (???), it is pretty silly that Arthur Gies will make those criticisms and then turn around giddy for Game of Thrones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't really think it's relevant. Arthur isn't reviewing Game of Thrones for Polygon, nor did he damn The Witcher 3 with a poor review resulting in a low score because he seemed to enjoy it. It's okay to like problematic things, it's just important to think about those problems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×