So I did an interview about my Confused Cats Against Feminism blog with Catster.com, a site that devotes itself to collecting “helpful and hilarious information for the worldly but still infatuated Cat aficionado.” Alas, as a result of publishing this interview with me yesterday, they now seem to be collecting angry MRA commenters as well.
Here are some highlights of the, er, debate so far, which I’ve waded into myself, perhaps unwisely. (These are selections, with a bunch missing, though the comments that look obviously like they are responses to other comments, are.) Maeve Connor is the author of the post about me.
—
—
—
—
—
Here, by the way, are some of the not-belittling, all-inclusive, non-mocking contributors to Women Against Feminism.
I’m just taking a wild guess here, but I’m pretty sure none of these gals are “tweens.”
The reason that particular photo makes me more uncomfortable than the others has nothing to do what what the person is wearing – it’s that the damn paper is held over her mouth. Pictorally, she is being silenced by what is on that damn paper. As a nod to what that campaign is trying to do, this is an accurate metaphor: the campaign is trying to silence the voices of feminists.
I’m also slightly jealous that the eyeliner effect wasn’t around when I was wearing it. I think I’ll get my makeup done to that effect to see how it looks now.
Back in the day when I had to garb up to go out to work I used really dark eyeshadow so I didn’t have to mess with anything else. I looked made up enough not to be told how tired I looked.
Re some of the criticisms of David and this blog that have been made recently:
K Pow, who criticized us for mocking the opinions of Tweens, seemed to have missed the part where we suspected the women of having been hired to hold the signs; we really couldn’t criticize their opinions, because we didn’t know what they really thought.
“I’m not 100% comfortable with you, a man, telling women what their reaction to feminism should be (even clearly misguided women like this.) ”
I think that IS a real issue. As a pro-feminist man, I’ve never really come to a firm conclusion as to what my role (if any) should be. Feminism is a very broad and varied collection of people, no two of whom probably believe exactly the same things. It is my perception that most anti-feminist rhetoric relies on gross misrepresentation of the views of most feminists, cherry-picking a few of the more radical positions that a small number of feminists have taken over a long period of time (e.g., Valerie Solanas).
Except, we’re not telling women what their reaction to feminism should be. We are mocking the signs, which are strawfeminism perspectives.
So the mocking is the *misinterpretations of feminism* as opposed to *women’s reactions to feminism*. And it’s not even clear whethere these misinterpretations are originating with women, anyways. Does that make it clearer?
Re feminist males: I think my issue would arise if the feminist males were going “you should” or “you must”, so that issues of agency arise. YMMV.
Oops, I didn’t mean to post that yet.
I was going to go on to say that I’ve never been sure how much it was appropriate for me to comment on feminist issues — for example, is it all right for me to say that I think the movement has been too white and upper-middle-class and not inclusive enough in the past — but I think it is OK for me to try to counter obvious lies and misrepresentations. But, on the other hand, when you say something like, “Thus-and-so is not mainstream feminism,” to some extent you’re trying to define mainstream feminism and maybe you shouldn’t be doing that. The point is that it can be difficult to be supportive of feminism without crossing the line into trying to impose your views on a woman/women, which is clearly inappropriate.
And in both comments I was specifically speaking from a man’s point of view — women are obviously free to criticize other women’s views.
This is a particular issue for me because I am very opinionated and without cautious consideration I slip very easily into being an overbearing jerk.
I’m not an expert here, at all, and I have been reflecting on what you wrote. Maybe some of the issue is around how the thought is expressed – which is what people will use to read intent.
For example, if a male said to me “I think the movement has been too white and upper-middle-class and not inclusive enough in the past” I would be included to leap immediately defensive because it looks like an outsider intent on criticising the past – which none of us can change.
However, that statement can be reframed to “I think it’s great that the movement has shifted being more POC and class inclusive” which is a positive reframing. While this statement has shifted to having an explicit value judgement, whereas the first statement had an implicit value judgement (i.e. that the movement wasn’t as good as it could be because of these deficiencies), I don’t think that is a negative.
Anyone else have thoughts?
I remain confused about what the connection between eye makeup and sex is supposed to be. Do these people think women fuck with our eyelids?
Of course we do. How else do dudebros come over all helpless when women bat their eyelashes? The poor menz are being sexed from afar and don’t even know it.
@pallygirl
I definitely agree that men should be careful about their interactions with feminism and to think twice before they stick their oar in but I have to admit that this:
rubs me wrong. Maybe it’s just because of the particular examples you’re using, but this seems more like mollycoddling the white, upper-middle-class, etc. feminists, than anything else. What I mean is, intersectionality fails are actively harmful things, rather than some small shortcomings, and I don’t think anyone is owed a soft admonition when that happens. Intent obviously matters, but it’s usually pretty clear rather quickly, particularly to members of the affected group. as to who is acting as an ally on your behalf, and who is using you as a stick to beat feminism with. My general thing is that members of an outgroup should refrain from commenting on/attempting to fix things that happen between relatively equal members of a group, but that it is incumbent on all of us to speak out if we notice someone using their privilege against someone else.
Your example specifically said “past”, so I don’t know if you’re speaking only to that example, or if you’re using that as sort of a baseline. If you are speaking specifically then the previous paragraph should be read in a Charlie Brown’s teacher voice
I’m honestly baffled that people are trying to link a style THAT common to any particular characteristic. What next, you’re going to tell us the defining trait of men who spike their hair?
Spiked hair means that you’re an arsonist, obviously.
@Shadow I used that example because that was the one that @GrumpyOldMan gave, my comment was in direct response to his comment. So please don’t generalise my comment.
@pallygirl
Fair enough, Charlie Brown teacher voice it is then 😛
@Cassandra
I can’t front, there was definitely a strong overlap between the years I was obsessed with pyrotechnics, and my hair being spiked. My mind is blown
I’m uncomfortable taking a stance that precludes anyone being able to express an opinion. I think people are often assholes in the way they go about it, and need to be shot down. But I have, for example, opinions about what’s going on in Gaza, even though I have no ties to anyone actively involved. I have opinions about the effects and legacy of Residential Schools, even though I’m not aboriginal.
I don’t always express them well, and I’m certainly capable of getting my facts wrong. I think the onus on me, as an out-member of a group (is that a thing?), to be respectful and open to correction and differing opinions, especially from in-members. However, I don’t think it’s helpful to outright disallow opinions from out-members.
I hope this is more coherent than it feels like…
Today’s random awesome video – bear sees crow drowning, pulls it out of the water, goes right back to eating apples.
People on youtube are saying the bear backed off because the crow pecked zir nose (which is correct) but you’d think the bear would just swat the crow if zie’d had a snack in mind.
My latest Confused Cats:
Mamie
Katie
@unimaginative
Yeah, you’re clear, and I second you. The distinction I think you’re both trying to make is that criticism doesn’t take place in a vacuum, and the reasons for why it’s being voiced and how it’s voiced are important to how it is received and handled. People don’t object to mansplaining because it’s men criticizing them, they object to it because it is patronizing and silencing. Feminists criticize each other regularly, and a well thought out criticism made in good faith is given its fair public hearing in academia and over the internet. I’ve never encountered a man making a constructive comment about a feminist issue get shot down because of his gender, or at all. It really just comes down to the reality that we are very much responsible for the way people perceive what we say. A woman just randomly remarking on feminism’s white-dominated past with no particular point to make would be looked at a little suspect. Why is she bringing this up? Who randomly throws out criticism of what a social movement used to be like? A man doing so is presumably looked at slightly more askance. I think this is reasonable.
Just had a great poop, guys. Super quick and super clean.
@ marinerachel
We’re all proud of you.
marinerachel, huzzah!
Makes a nice change, doesn’t it?
Actually one of my high-school memories is the fact that we girls shared poop updates with each other. Hm.
“I went for a great run this morning. By the time I got to the park I needed to poo and couldn’t hold it in so I went to the public toilets. Amazing poo, guys.”
I think we may have been odd teenagers.
A good poop can be revelatory.
My kitties certainly think so.