Magister ([info]discreet_chaos) wrote,
@ 2006-05-14 05:41:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend  Next Entry
Entry tags:civil rights, editorial, free speech, livejournal, sociology

Round Robin (Anatomy of a Post)
It all started with three posters that were created by a New Delhi advertising agency, built around the tagline of "Dowry. It's the dirtiest word." I'll submit the posters under the cut, but that's only where this post began.

In an effort to learn about the group that sponsored the signs, which I understand haven't really been installed in a lot of locations because of their language; I did a Yahoo! search and though I didn't find a website for them, I did see a link to an editorial in the student newspaper at Washington State. The piece was written by a woman named Brielle Schaeffer and it begins by making reference to something one of her "liberated males friends" said, "Just a few degrees warmer and the clothes start coming off".

It was from this jumping-off point, her friend simply saying that he liked it when girls wear less clothing, she launches into the objectification of women and by the third paragraph, she makes the leap to female genital mutilation and the dowry system. I didn't have a lot of luck with their internal search, but I was interested in what she has to say, so I consulted both Yahoo! and Google to find some other editorials she has written on similar subjects; "Study Today - Marry Tomorrow", "Defining Feminism in the 21st Century", "Women Lack Voice in Government" and "The Social Downfall of Female Empowerment".

After reading through many of her opinions and agreeing with some, but wanting to take issue with her jump from enjoying the sight of female skin to genital mutilation and on to sexual harrassment, I thought about making a post. I'm sure that I've said something similar to her friend and I may have even said it in this forum. After all, yesterday I posted a couple of pics and linked to a plethora of sexually-suggestive sites and photos of scantily-clad women. I also know that as I've said before, I marched for the ERA and have done many other things, including building my career around that of my wife's, so I also consider myself liberated and enlightened.

In the past, I've mirrored a few of my posts into an appropriate community on a delayed basis. I really don't do it often, because it usually results in people agreeing or a bunch of trolls making uninformed judgments about my beliefs. I've long belonged to the [info]feminist community, it is lumped under my "Politics" filter and I have posted to that community in the past with good results.

But, last time I visited [info]feminist, it was "closed for remodeling". So, I went back to see if it had reopened and what changes had been made. The userinfo has certainly been revamped, but what struck me as I clicked through the recent entries was a sameness of opinion. A good example would be the response to a post about the Burger King commercial, which parodies the old Helen Reddy song; "I am Woman". I've personally found the ad amusing and I like it, but it appears that not only do many of those in [info]feminist find it offensive, but when others disagreed, they were shot down and issued "Mod Notes" or "Mod Warnings".

The first person who disagreed in the 113 comment thread was [info]hooper_x. As I told him in a note yesterday, I've seen him around and we have mutual lj-friends, so I wanted to offer my support. As those who know him might expect, part of his response was direct and to the point; "Honestly, if I'm gonna get banned from some LJ comm I've been posting in for a good three years, a fucking hamburger commercial is probably the most ironically beautiful and appropriate vehicle by which to achieve banishment."

Unfortunately, I've never before seen the other person who said they liked the ad, but really that's all she said before she was attacked and forced to defend herself. Her very first comment was answered by a link to [info]hooper_x's "Mod Note".

Needless to say, I'm probably not going to mirror this post in that community and I may even be risking my membership by posting this to my own journal. The whole thing is a bit discombobulating, but I'm not going to quote Limbaugh because I don't believe him. Though, if the next generation of feminism isn't capable of loosening-up, I predict others agreeing with his disparagement.

I'm an enlightened male, who remembers that the sexual revolution coincided with the civil rights and feminist movements. I like looking at pretty people and as Ms Schaeffer wrote; "Women have always been viewed as the 'fairer' sex, more beautiful than their male counterparts". I also find the Burger King and anti-dowry ads amusing, so I must be disgusting.

I know it's a slow weekend and this was a bit disjointed, but if anyone would like to jump in on any of these points, please feel free.








(via Ads of the World)

(26 comments) - (Post a new comment)


[info]chainrule
2006-05-14 02:35 pm UTC (link)
Well man, I struggled with this for a while myself. The feminists as a group seem to totally bat-shit insane. I'm all for the equality of the sexes but people who self-identity themselves as feminists do truly seem to have something wrong with their think-bone. In general they are total assholes.

I suppose that might be their way of gaining equal footing with men. If another man behaved toward me like most of the feminists I’ve met we would come to blows. Maybe that’s what these feminist types want…

Oh well, back to my coffee.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]hulagalinthesky
2006-05-14 04:03 pm UTC (link)
I identify myself as a feminist, and it breaks my heart so see other people who identify themselves as the same behave like complete fascists. Radical, unaccepting-of-reality propaganda (like the people bitching about a STUPID COMMERCIAL that pokes fun at masculinity) hinders feminists like me who choose not to distract our ambitions towards freedom and equality for all with overzealous, time-wasting blabbering.

It's a shame that the true feminists are shamed by such arseholes. I suspect Betty Friedan is turning in her grave. There are bigger issues to champion than a sarcastic commercial that pokes fun at gender roles, rather than criticizes or promotes them.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]discreet_chaos
2006-05-16 08:14 am UTC (link)
I agree. There are a lot more important battles to be fought and the idea of boycotting a restaurant because of a humorous ad is almost insane. Honestly, not only have I found the ad funny, but now that I have a link (thanks to [info]feminist), I've watched the thing several times for fun.

I am hungry. I am incorrigible. I am man!

PS) Perhaps part of the problem could be generational. When I heard the line about being fed quiche, I thought back to an old book that permeated the culture; Real Men Don't Eat Quiche, but now that I've found the link, I see it was published in '82.

(Reply to this) (Parent)
Labels
[info]savya
2006-05-14 03:36 pm UTC (link)
The problem with "feminism" as a political movement is that most women who identify with it have forgotten the point of it. The point of feminism is not to demand that every female takes the exact same stance as they do. Hell NO.

The point of feminism is that we have a CHOICE. If we choose to be a house-wife and mother, we have that right. If we choose to go into business and be successful, we have that right. If we choose to go into politics, we have that right. If we choose to become porn stars and make money using our assets, we have that right. And if we choose to be psycho-feminists who hate anything opposed to our views, we have that right, too. What we DO NOT have, and NO ONE has, which they seem to have forgotten along the way, is that NO ONE has the right to tell anyone else what to think or how to behave.

This is what was fought for, from the beginning of all time... the freedom to CHOOSE. Not just for women, for everyone. Name a war that hasn't somehow boiled down to wanting the right to choose, and yes... even the crap in Iraq now. It boils down to individuals simply wanting the right to make a choice on their own.

Personally, I wonder why you care if they ban you from the community? It's livejournal. You know yourself, you can look yourself in the mirror each morning and are ok with the things you have done in your life. Their opinion, although valid, does not necessarily have to dictate what you write in your own journal. Sorry, but THAT just smacks of Big Brother. Or, in this case, Big Sister.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]uberdionysus
2006-05-14 03:46 pm UTC (link)
A minor, but important, distinction:

I always thought the point of feminism was EQUALITY. You know, so you can get paid the same amount as me for the same job? So if you meet the physical requirements, you can get the same job as me. So you can vote, and so you can control your own finances without a man's authority.

I'd say equality has always been the biggest push from Wollenstone and de Beauvoir all the way up to Cixcous, and control has been the next biggest push - control of your body over the rules and regulations enforced upon it by men in power.

Freedom is only freedom to have access to the same things as men (equality) and freedom from the oppression of the larger society (control).

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
But still... it's about choice
[info]savya
2006-05-14 03:51 pm UTC (link)
Yes, I agree. Equality. Without equality, there can BE no choices, can there? I still say that having a choice is the end, equality is a means to achieve that end.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]hulagalinthesky
2006-05-14 04:06 pm UTC (link)
amen

(Reply to this) (Parent)
Re: Labels
[info]discreet_chaos
2006-05-16 08:42 am UTC (link)
It isn't that I'm worried they would ban me. The two people that disagreed with the consensus concerning the commercial proved that there'd be warnings and notes. My reluctance to mirror parts of this post was that I don't think I'd get a true discussion. I found the anti-dowry stuff amusing and I looked for more info about the group because I wanted to hear their arguments. Once I saw the posters, I knew that I'd have to display them here. It was Ms Schaeffer's leap from her friend liking warmer weather, all the way through genital mutilation to sexual harassment and discrimination that I figured, they wouldn't disagree.

I've mentioned before, I've long been interested in the thoughts of Camille Paglia. I'll admit that I haven't read every word or have heard everything she has said, especially in recent years, but she first came to my attention with the treatise that Madonna gathered power because of her sexuality.

While I was mulling-over possible responses to some of these comments, I thought about Goldie Hawn. She came to the world's attention by wearing very little clothing and acting ditzy on Laugh-In. One could argue, whether or not that was helpful to the movement, but at the same time she was honing her craft (I remember an outstanding performance opposite Peter Sellers) and through her efforts, she became one of the most powerful women in Hollywood. She had total creative control, produced her own pictures, retained much of the ownership and was able to green-light things for her friends. A lot of this was due to her personal success, but it all started because she exploited her own sexuality.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]uberdionysus
2006-05-14 03:40 pm UTC (link)
If I want to read the comments of close-minded demagogues and ideologies, I'll pick up a newspaper and read them from our current administration, not in a community I belong to.

That whole comment thread is the height of ignorance. I'd suggest removing yourself from a group that would elect a mod that is so narrow-minded, fickle and obstinate. They aren't furthering the views of feminism or doing anything good for the intellectual, financial or physical advancement of women with dismissive close-minded views.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]discreet_chaos
2006-05-16 09:02 am UTC (link)
To be perfectly honest, the only communities that come through on my friendspage are the two reviewing groups, a few localized groups, the lj-specific and now that they are back, I've recently re-added [info]theentertainers. Everything else is relegated to one of my groupings and they are generally only accessed every week or two.

Some are good for links, some for fun and I maintain a few memberships mostly for posting access. I have to say that in the past, [info]feminist was a good source for reading material from off the beaten path and occasionally, I'll mine a few links. I've posted there in the past with no problems and this spate of close-mindedness with moderated membership, including the idea that they will not only analyze your journal, but also your other communities really just started around the time of the remodeling.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]mengus
2006-05-14 04:17 pm UTC (link)
Hoop's a funny guy, and alot more educated and bright than people assume. It's funny that he certainly knows his stuff in the face of such obvious ignorance.

Sarah (hotlavamonster) gets exasperated by the lj feminism communities.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]discreet_chaos
2006-05-16 09:13 am UTC (link)
[info]hotlavamonster is another of those people, whom I secretly read. I've considered reaching out to her several times and have been impressed when I've seen her address a non-believer, but I've also been led to believe that my posting frequency might exasperate her. So, I've just stuck to the public posts and because they are well-spaced, I've been doing it in silence and from afar.

Though based on what I know of her, I'd have to say that I'm surprised she isn't a member of [info]feminist, but now that you mention it, I'm sure if she was a member, I would've known it. I can't imagine her biting her tongue for too long.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]hewet_ka_ptah
2006-05-14 04:33 pm UTC (link)
That was inifinitely cringe-worthy.

That's not feminism, at least not in my world. In my world (where there are beautiful rainbows and unicorns!) feminism is about equality and respect. The reaction to [info]hooper_x was blatantly sexist. It wasn't just his opinion that was pounced upon, it was that he's a man giving that opinion.

Besides, any "feminist" who gives a poster shit for using a "jackass" icon while sporting a "fascist" icon is a clueless, self-absorbed, self-righteous prick.

Are there non-jerk feminist communities on LJ or are they all like that?

(Reply to this)


[info]nokuren
2006-05-14 06:28 pm UTC (link)
Those are the type of feminists that fuel the neocon machine. They give them strength in the face of moderates. They are the coal behind the rage of every hardline conservative to bring his flock together. They are the what sparks the message "The liberals want to control your lives, so let us do it instead."

They are harming more than they can ever help.

And that Burger King commercial rocks.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]scabbypants
2006-05-14 08:17 pm UTC (link)
They're not harming me. My feminist leanings aren't contingent upon the support of every other feminist in the universe :)

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]nokuren
2006-05-14 08:39 pm UTC (link)
They're harming you indirectly. They give ammunition to those who would oppose rational feminists in addition to radical feminists.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]scabbypants
2006-05-14 08:43 pm UTC (link)
Patriarchy harms me, not other feminists whom I might not see eye-to-eye with.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]nokuren
2006-05-14 09:02 pm UTC (link)
Okay, well.

Let's start with the given that the patriachy doesn't want equality with women. However, when a rational feminist, espousing the views that women just want equality and to have the same options and choices as men, comes along they cannot vocally oppose her. To do so reveals an innate prejudice which marks them as a chauvanist and automatically loses them support.

However, if a militant, radical feminist comes along who is actively trying to suppress male influence in society and remove all power from any man, they then can mark her as a target, because they can call her the radical and show that she's not just trying to get equality, but she's trying to actually create a woman dominated society. This will then get them more support, instead of losing it, enabling them to subtly and more effectively attack feminism as a whole.

I understand your unwillingness to call them harmful, but they can be.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]scabbypants
2006-05-14 09:49 pm UTC (link)
Of course I know what you're saying, but it isn't the duty of feminists to cater to people's particular sensibilities in order to make them recognise the radical notion that women are people. If someone arrives at their conclusions based upon the opinions and ideas espoused in an lj community rather than, well, actually bothering to read some feminist literature, then I blame those ignorant individuals (and of course the patriarchy ;). I mean, when scientists disagree, are they harming science as a field? Of course not. When historians arrive at different conclusions, does this mean that history is bollocks?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]nokuren
2006-05-14 11:07 pm UTC (link)
I agree that dissent within a cause is not automatically harmful. It most cases it can create new, better ideas and strengthen it. However, I'm not saying that just because they don't agree with other feminists they're harmful. I'm saying the way they're doing it is harmful.

The Black Panthers didn't help matters much during the civil rights movement. Their existence allowed the FBI to classify them as a terrorist organization(to use a more modern term) and crack down on non-violent civil rights groups even more just for affiliation. Now, clearly, that's a bit more extreme than this instance, but it does present how radical movements within an already progressive group can harm progress as a whole.

I'm definitely for a much, much, much more integrated and equal society between men and women. I think the fact that I have to say that and it's not automatically a given is terrifying in and of itself. But if you want progress, and that is what we're aiming for here, you DO have to cater to people's particular sensibilities. Not everyone, naturally, but enough people. That's the whole crux of democracy, you have to get the vocal majority to agree.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]discreet_chaos
2006-05-16 09:15 am UTC (link)
Well said.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]scabbypants
2006-05-14 09:57 pm UTC (link)
Oh, and I just wanted to add that anyone who arrives at their conclusions not by doing actual research but by browsing lj and other dubious forums is mentally lazy, and to tell you the truth I really don't care whether or not they support feminism. Chances are they're only slightly more advanced than single-celled creatures who dwell in pond scum.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]discreet_chaos
2006-05-16 09:34 am UTC (link)
The idea of indirect harm was the root of my aside about Rush Limbaugh. (He's a conservative talk radio host)

I haven't listened to him in a long time and I don't even know if he comes on the AM dial around here, but for probably a decade, he'd always refer to strong liberal women and those active in the movement as "feminazis". And, for a while there, the caricature that he painted sort of became the accepted definition among mainstream society.

As an example, sixteen years ago when I met my wife, she objected when I called her a feminist, even though it was an appropriate label. It was the militant image that the media had adopted, partly due to the popularity of Mr Limbaugh that had colored her perception and it was only after we thoroughly discussed it, she not only embraced the term, but now she wears it proudly.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]scabbypants
2006-05-16 09:43 am UTC (link)
Well, that's why I blame the patriarchy rather than other feminists :)

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]scabbypants
2006-05-14 08:15 pm UTC (link)
That community makes me angry. Whenever I disagree with something, the same thing always happens (or happened, since I don't go there anymore). The sequence: 1. people leap down my throat, and then accuse me of oppressing them, 2. people accusing me of not being feminist, or of being anti-feminist, 3. the mod warning and frozen comments. HOWEVER, it's just an lj community. Why is it that with feminism, so many people think that if some feminists are a bit wacky or are in disagreement with one another, then the whole movement is somehow weakened and/or degraded?

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]discreet_chaos
2006-05-16 09:23 am UTC (link)
Maybe I haven't been reading as deep into the comment threads for a while, the two warnings weren't visible from the comment listing, so I thought they were a fairly new thing. The couple of times that I've posted or have commented, I've had no problems, but as I said to [info]uberdionysus, I only really look at the thing every week or two and then they are grouped with nine other political communities, so I may have just missed it.

This time, I went directly to the community as a stand-alone because I had considered questioning Ms Schaeffer's three paragraph leap from halter-tops to genital mutilation, but it was obvious that nobody would disagree with her. So, now I'm hoping someday, she might google herself and decide to weigh-in. I'll even start a new post, if and when, she ever drops by.

Stranger things have happened.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

(26 comments) - (Post a new comment)

Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…