|
Post by km on Jun 25, 2010 22:06:16 GMT -5
Are you saying that "mentally unbalanced" is not a permitted observation? Would you prefer "loony" or do we just not talk about it? Uh, I have a serious problem with demonizing mental illness as something that is always already dangerous like this. I don't think collective mass hysteria/mental illness even comes close to describing male privilege in general terms either. Entitlement in general is troubling and harmful, but it's the result of conditioning (Most males in this society are raised with a certain sense of entitlement.), not mental illness. ETA: Or at least not necessarily the result of mental illness. Also, I'm not big on pop psych thinking in general. I don't like it. I have a definite bias against it, mostly because I think it sort of trivializes the actual experience of mental illness. It also leads to speculation that rarely has any basis in fact, and I think that's dangerous.
|
|
|
Post by ambrosia on Jun 25, 2010 22:16:29 GMT -5
I may be missing something, but I see no demonizing in the term "mentally unbalanced". I have been in that state myself on occasion. I also don't equate it with "mental illness", also non demonic, because the unbalanced bit is generally transient and circumstantial.
I understand that there are demeaning terms for people who have any condition that slides them off the so-called norm, but we still need to describe what's bothering them. If everything becomes "ableist", how do we describe illness, or is illness a classist/abelist/sexist/racist/specisist/egotist myth and we are all just fine here, thank you very much?
|
|
|
Post by km on Jun 25, 2010 22:19:24 GMT -5
ambrosia: I do equate the phrase with mental illness. It's possible that I'm idiosyncratic in this way; I'm not sure.
I have fewer problems with using it to describe individuals, but at the same time... I still don't like pop psychology.
Most of all, though, it cannot possibly explain the problem of male privilege. At all. It's not even relevant to generalizing debates about male privilege.
ETA (I'm getting addicted to ETA's): I'm all for describing what's going on. Mental illness is not usually "what's going on" when one speaks of a general problem w/r/t male entitlement. It may be the problem of some individuals, but not all. Per "what's going on": I'm physically disabled. I hate the term "differently abled" because it's not accurate. I also hate "super positive" language used to describe my condition (a serious illness) in the name of "disability pride." I don't love or feel particularly positive about my condition, and in any case, it causes me lots of physical pain. I am very much a sick/physically ill person. It's just that I don't see why we have to use slurs that people in the disability community have so often found hurtful. Shorter version: You misunderstand me if you think I'm saying that everything becomes ableist.
|
|
|
Post by ambrosia on Jun 25, 2010 22:30:02 GMT -5
So, you are quite happy to accept that a system that diminishes women most obviously and men more subtly is not in some way unhealthy? Or is that another offensive word?
|
|
|
Post by km on Jun 25, 2010 22:32:28 GMT -5
So, you are quite happy to accept that a system that diminishes women most obviously and men more subtly is not in some way unhealthy? Or is that another offensive word? Uh, no. This is why I identify myself as a feminist and do things IRL to support feminist activism. Where exactly is this coming from?
|
|
|
Post by ambrosia on Jun 25, 2010 22:35:49 GMT -5
Uh, no. This is why I identify myself as a feminist and do things IRL to support feminist activism. Where exactly is this coming from? I was posting before I saw your ETA. I was having a hard time understanding what your point was and was trying for clarification.
|
|
|
Post by km on Jun 25, 2010 22:36:10 GMT -5
Also, why would "unhealthy" be offensive? Of course it's unhealthy. Unhealthy is not a slur--and never has been.
|
|
|
Post by km on Jun 25, 2010 22:36:54 GMT -5
Uh, no. This is why I identify myself as a feminist and do things IRL to support feminist activism. Where exactly is this coming from? I was posting before I saw your ETA. I was having a hard time understanding what your point was and was trying for clarification. Okay. Well, glad to clarify then. I'm going to bed now.
|
|
|
Post by WordLady on Jun 26, 2010 7:15:23 GMT -5
ETA (I'm getting addicted to ETA's) In the real world, ETA means "Estimated Time of Arrival".
|
|
|
Post by km on Jun 26, 2010 7:56:34 GMT -5
ETA (I'm getting addicted to ETA's) In the real world, ETA means "Estimated Time of Arrival". Yeah, aware of this. Thanks for the lesson. I was using it in the online-speak sense.
|
|
|
Post by sargassosea on Jun 26, 2010 8:09:38 GMT -5
Cherylannhannah - “…I think neuroscience and the very definite differences one sees between the genders in the hardwiring of the brain accounts for a lot of that.” I am a big fan of neuroscience too! The brain is a totally fascinating thing and once upon a time I even seriously considered a career in the field - perception, memory and dissociative episodes being my main interest. Anyway! Back then (the 80s) there was a body of thought that tried to explain these “obvious” gendered differences by pointing out differences in male and female brain anatomy. As far as I know it’s still just another theory in the theory drawer, but I’d be really excited to see new research if you have a link handy. But, personally and conversely, I think most (if not all) of that can be attributed to societal ‘imprinting‘. As an example: what if we lived in a society wherein women (AAC) were responsible for the vast majority of murder, rape, domestic abuse, war, trafficking/slavery? What does that say about neuro-hardwiring then? Either what we thought we knew about the science was wrong or that the way our brains are wired had nothing whatsoever to do with the obvious gendered differences and it was something else entirely. Also, there’s that pesky little thing about the individual (or a sub-set of individuals) as a member of a class. If our brains are truly hardwired to cause us to behave in gendered ways: men have to have sex with women, women have to be nurturing to children; how do we then explain homosexual men and women who have no desire to be mothers? We used to explain these things as deviance, right? And a lot of pain was (and is still) inflicted on innocent individuals because *they’re not doing it right*. WHO says what’s *right*? Society.
|
|
|
Post by usotsuki on Jun 26, 2010 9:00:44 GMT -5
My favorite line: "Define normal."
|
|
|
Post by Vyckie D. Garrison on Jun 26, 2010 9:14:02 GMT -5
Yikes! Yesterday I spent the afternoon taking advantage of the Spa Package which SargassoSea gifted me with a while back ~ I hadn't had a chance to use it until now, but I was so glad that I waited because with all those horrid symptoms of pain, exhaustion, anxiety, etc. coming back, it was nice to have an opportunity to relax. After wards, I went out with Angel & Aaron to the sports bar where she works to listen to them sing karaoke ~ that was really fun and I didn't get home till about 1 a.m. So, this morning ~ I'm thinking I'll get back to work on the redesign on the NLQ website which I'm working on ~ stopped in to check email and the forums and ... Yikes! I have not read this thread ~ or all the PMs and emails yet. Just wanted to post a note here first to let you all know that I have not been deliberately ignoring the forum and this "discussion" ~ just that I took some time away and now, I guess I'll see if I can figure out what's going on ...
|
|
|
Post by Sierra on Jun 26, 2010 9:17:41 GMT -5
But, personally and conversely, I think most (if not all) of that can be attributed to societal ‘imprinting‘. As an example: what if we lived in a society wherein women (AAC) were responsible for the vast majority of murder, rape, domestic abuse, war, trafficking/slavery? What does that say about neuro-hardwiring then? Either what we thought we knew about the science was wrong or that the way our brains are wired had nothing whatsoever to do with the obvious gendered differences and it was something else entirely. Also, there’s that pesky little thing about the individual (or a sub-set of individuals) as a member of a class. If our brains are truly hardwired to cause us to behave in gendered ways: men have to have sex with women, women have to be nurturing to children; how do we then explain homosexual men and women who have no desire to be mothers? We used to explain these things as deviance, right? And a lot of pain was (and is still) inflicted on innocent individuals because *they’re not doing it right*. WHO says what’s *right*? Society. I totally agree. I think it's impossible to sort out any innate biological tendencies from the huge, glaring mass of social pressures on individuals to conform to expected roles. Can any of us imagine a world in which religion said absolutely nothing about gender roles? And that's just one source. Children take in information long before they exhibit gendered behaviors. I laugh at most studies that claim to support 'innate, biological differences' between the sexes, as they inevitably use children who are at least a year old (plenty of time to learn that mommy is the one who spends the most time changing your diaper and daddy is the one who shows up periodically to make funny faces, let alone the influence of toys and early childhood TV shows). In other words, by the time children are old enough to exhibit social behaviors, they've long been exposed to patriarchy. As a child, I got to observe little children being policed into their respective gender roles frequently - especially because I was a girl who befriended boys. (I didn't like other girls, surprise, surprise, because they never wanted to do anything but babysit - wonder where that came from?) I knew boys who played with dolls until their friends found out and mocked them mercilessly. I got to 'observe' that they would be kind and friendly and treat me as an equal until somebody found out they hung out with 'giiiiiirrrrls ew!' and then they shunned me like a leper, at least in public. Adults went out of their way to keep us apart lest we be tempted with sexual thoughts at the age of seven. Older kids insisted we must be 'boyfriend and girlfriend', because why would boys and girls ever just be friends? There is a narrative that we were actively and persistently condemned to follow. All along, I just kept thinking, 'But this is silly. We're all just kids.'
|
|
|
Post by cherylannhannah on Jun 26, 2010 10:57:18 GMT -5
Also, there’s that pesky little thing about the individual (or a sub-set of individuals) as a member of a class. If our brains are truly hardwired to cause us to behave in gendered ways: men have to have sex with women, women have to be nurturing to children; how do we then explain homosexual men and women who have no desire to be mothers? We used to explain these things as deviance, right? And a lot of pain was (and is still) inflicted on innocent individuals because *they’re not doing it right*. WHO says what’s *right*? Society. If it is possible for other organs of the body to go wrong or not perform the way they should, then I see no reason why cross wiring in the brain might not produce similar results that vary from the norm. Daniel Amen has some very interesting books that he has published that demonstrate that damage done to different parts of the brain will produce predictable results. For instance, if the pre-frontal cortex is damaged, you can end up with someone who essentially has no conscience. You could consider the brain the hardware through which the soul or personality of a person is expressed. The expression is ony as good as the hardware is. Brain plasticity is amazing. I think we are only just beginning to scratch the surface of what we can do for helping people with malfunctions in the brain.
|
|
|
Post by jemand on Jun 26, 2010 11:53:05 GMT -5
Also, there’s that pesky little thing about the individual (or a sub-set of individuals) as a member of a class. If our brains are truly hardwired to cause us to behave in gendered ways: men have to have sex with women, women have to be nurturing to children; how do we then explain homosexual men and women who have no desire to be mothers? We used to explain these things as deviance, right? And a lot of pain was (and is still) inflicted on innocent individuals because *they’re not doing it right*. WHO says what’s *right*? Society. If it is possible for other organs of the body to go wrong or not perform the way they should, then I see no reason why cross wiring in the brain might not produce similar results that vary from the norm. Please try not to use language which may imply that homosexual individuals and women who don't want children are "not performing the way they should" or "going wrong" or otherwise broken and technology should be developed to fix them like we'd fix cross-wired computers or whatever.
|
|
|
Post by sargassosea on Jun 26, 2010 12:20:19 GMT -5
KM - Why are you so worried about what other people might think about what I’m saying? Am I really some sort of Imperious Feminist Queen* who needs to have her royal-ass personal ruminations kicked down a notch? Why were you so invested in pointing out (in a completely non sequitur way, and incorrectly to boot) that Radical Feminists - that kind of feminist - are all the time making sweeping generalizations and man-bashing? Most importantly, what do you have to gain by it? I’m hoping that you’ve figured out by now that it was the hypocrisy (again: making sweeping generalizations about perceived sweeping-generalists) that just sent me. What If: you’d taken the time and made the effort to share something and quoted Jessica Valenti or Rebecca Walker, for example, and I’d jumped in and said something along the lines of - Yes, [whoever] I agree with you that it’s not cool to generalize about/bash men, but you know KM identifies as a third wave feminist and in that kind of feminism there’s a tendency to be porn-sick tools of the patriarchy.
KM, I don’t want to sound condescending or to start an argument with you but I knew from the minute you identified as a third-waver (porn-sick tool of the patriarchy) that I would probably disagree with you on some stuff. And I really don’t want to argue with you because I’ve been in some DRAMAS lately and well, anyway, me? I’m a Rad-Fem. How does that make you feel, KM? Do you feel like you’ve been herded into some kind of crappy little box that you can’t escape? Do you feel like the eyes of judgment are upon you and that you’ve just been painted THE poster child for third wave feminism? Do you feel like the entire body of things you’ve said here have been rejected in favor of someone else’s perception of you based on one self-proclaimed affiliation and that alone? Do you then feel like women who come here for ‘fellowship’ may think you are a porn-sick tool of the patriarchy when you are not? These questions are NOT rhetorical. I'd like to know, really. ****** Feminism (and this is a feminist space) is multi-faceted because all of us have such hugely varying experiences; we are all individual human beings, and that is the true beauty of it, really. There’s so much to be learned from each other and that‘s why I will continue to be here in the Guest House. I always have something new to learn but, How to Swallow Hypocrisy and Say I Love It!, is not one of them. *I am incorporating some of Jemand’s ‘greatest hits’ into this post. I thank her, and apologize, in absentia.
|
|
|
Post by km on Jun 26, 2010 12:46:56 GMT -5
I don't particularly respect Valenti, so no, I didn't quote her.
I just spent a couple of hours coming up with a list of resources in response to cherylannhannah's question, "What is feminism?" which I think is more useful than whatever debate you may or may not be trying to pull me into.
Beyond that, I tried to clarify, apologized more than once for my lack of clarity, and at this point... Well, you're not engaging with anything I actually said, so I guess I'm done with this post.
And I'm invested because I hate being mischaracterized and misinterpreted. btw, I didn't mention our specific disagreements (porn and BDSM, from what I've read from you) on that particular post not because I wanted to hedge or mischaracterize radical feminism on that thread, but because I feared causing a drawn out digression/debate about porn/BDSM that wasn't relevant to the thread. But then, you seem to think you know my meaning and motivations better than me, telling me here that I'm "incorrect" when I try to clarify them, so, really, why bother?
By the way, I've encountered tactics like this from other radical feminists in the past (There, if you wanted a sweeping commment on radical feminism, you got it. Yay for you.). Most notably from Cheryl Lindsey Seelhoff, who banned me from her blog comments (my first and only blog banning) for daring to criticize a racist anti-porn cartoon that she posted (for being racist). She called me a "man" and "pro-porn" and "woman-hating" and then proceeded to ban me from her blog. So, yes, that was another troubling mischaracterization of my words that is kind of brought to mind here.
Anyway, fine, say whatever you want about me, attribute your to decision to leave to me. Really, I'll sit back and let you use one small comment I made as a jumping off point for How You and Others Have Been Misunderstood, 'cause frankly, I don't see what it could be other than that. I know this isn't about me, and there's apparently nothing I can say to make peace with you and/or convince you of that (including multiple apologies upthread), so I'm out of this thread.
I get that I'm an easy target here because I've disagreed with several people on this forum quite vigorously, about other things. Not you, though. But if you wanted to succeed in pissing me off and provoking a knock down drag out type of comment (the kind I've said multiple times that I'm trying to avoid these days, in the name of the "presumption of goodwill"), then congratulations... You got it. I'm writing you off now as one of "those people," like Seelhoff, who can't handle a polite and actually extremely tactful disagreement (which, if you want the whole truth, may be another reason I haven't seen the point in engaging directly with you about any of our disagreements). Fore-mentioned drama-fatigue and previous pointless run-ins on the interwebs that I generally now have the wisdom to avoid because they produce completely pointless drama and anger and implosion... And, really, why? I like this forum. I wish good things for it. I don't want to mire it in pointless drama over every single thing that I disagree with, posted by various people at various junctures throughout. And this is just that kind of pointless drama.
|
|
|
Post by km on Jun 26, 2010 12:58:00 GMT -5
By the way, I don't entirely understand what "porn-sick" means. I don't like porn, or watch it, and I find the vast majority of it quite troubling indeed.
I didn't use any similar slurs to critique you, SargassoSea, so I don't at all understand your response.
But then, I just said I was leaving this thread, and then I thought of something else to say... Oooohhhh, it can't be because I changed my mind. It must actually be because of:
SOME SCARY AND NEFARIOUS REASON...
Like, I don't know...
HYPOCRISY!!!!
OR MAYBE I'D LIKE TO DESTROY THE RADICAL FEMINIST NATION.
(When the truth is I don't care enough or relate to the terms of the debate enough to try that. Like I said... Porn? Meh... Not something I actually give a flying fuck about, most of the time. Also, I respect people like MacKinnon and Dworkin quite a lot more thatn some of the online zealots (like Seelhoff) who I think are promoting just another dogmatic, oppressive belief system not all that unlike Quiverfull, if you want to know. The well-known writers and movers and shakers of this movement? I'm fine with them, basically, as people. I expect we could have an intelligent conversation about where we disagree. Yeah, I am extremely troubled by folks like Max Hardcore, but beyond that... Like I said, meh... Perhaps this means "porn-sick" for you, I dunno. I give up.)
|
|
|
Post by jemand on Jun 26, 2010 13:03:16 GMT -5
KM - Am I really some sort of Imperious Feminist Queen* who needs to have her royal-ass personal ruminations kicked down a notch? *I am incorporating some of Jemand’s ‘greatest hits’ into this post. I thank her, and apologize, in absentia. Sea, you have ALWAYS given as good as you got, in fact perhaps way more so. Do you want a reminder of what led to my imperious queen comment? It was something like this: Jemand – [...] So, my rather rhetorical questions asked and my crappy pseudo-analysis of your internalization tendencies aired, I’d like to say this (Yes, this is an observation/criticism meant specifically for you and no other member of this forum): You are a counterproductive and demi-dangerous (I’ve seen fit to classify you as “demi” dangerous because you do have a legitimate reason to be here, but seem incapable of the minimal empathetic re-action required to be more helpful than not) presence here [...] A little advice. If the shoe doesn't fit, DON'T WEAR IT. I am not counterproductive or dangerous or lack empathy, so I don't go around waving your characterization of me as a self-descriptor in any sense. Neither do I see myself as having no place here, *so I'm not leaving!* The only reason I even responded in any way to your personal attack was that dandydeluxe made it clear that not saying anything wasn't an option-- the thread would continue to be derailed until I engaged in some fashion, and so I did, but I did not *obey* you by answering all your questions as if you could order me to do so, or say, oh, you're so right I don't belong here, bye bye. If you don't want to be an imperious queen, you could have clarified that they weren't really demands and you didn't mind I didn't fulfill them, and then not wear the ill-fitting shoe again! And lastly, if your problem is with ME, than leave km OUT of it!
|
|
|
Post by km on Jun 26, 2010 13:20:23 GMT -5
Sea, you have ALWAYS given as good as you got, in fact perhaps way more so. Do you want a reminder of what led to my imperious queen comment? It was something like this: Ah, thank you for posting that. I myself had no idea what the "imperious queen" thing came from but only knew it hadn't come from me. Once again, jemand and me... Not The Same Person.
|
|
|
Post by sargassosea on Jun 26, 2010 14:13:06 GMT -5
Jemand -
For this one post I will leave km out of it, because now I’m talking to *you only* in a public forum…
There’s a fire inside of you and I appreciate it. A lot. I also care about you a lot. Why else would I keep dragging you into it?
|
|
|
Post by sargassosea on Jun 26, 2010 14:39:11 GMT -5
“I think we are only just beginning to scratch the surface of what we can do for helping people with malfunctions in the brain.” But again, Cherylannhannah, WHO decides what a “malfunction in the brain” is?
|
|
|
Post by Sierra on Jun 26, 2010 19:34:15 GMT -5
If it is possible for other organs of the body to go wrong or not perform the way they should, then I see no reason why cross wiring in the brain might not produce similar results that vary from the norm. Please try not to use language which may imply that homosexual individuals and women who don't want children are "not performing the way they should" or "going wrong" or otherwise broken and technology should be developed to fix them like we'd fix cross-wired computers or whatever. Thank you, jemand. I spent enough time being diagnosed and exorcised by the fundamentalists for not being the kind of woman they wanted me to be to tolerate it anywhere else. I am not defective for not wanting children or for not wanting to 'submit to God's authority' a.k.a. my father/husband. I defy anyone's efforts to prescribe the way I 'should' 'perform'.
|
|
|
Post by cindy on Jun 26, 2010 20:22:10 GMT -5
Please try not to use language which may imply that homosexual individuals and women who don't want children are "not performing the way they should" or "going wrong" or otherwise broken and technology should be developed to fix them like we'd fix cross-wired computers or whatever. Thank you, jemand. I spent enough time being diagnosed and exorcised by the fundamentalists for not being the kind of woman they wanted me to be to tolerate it anywhere else. I am not defective for not wanting children or for not wanting to 'submit to God's authority' a.k.a. my father/husband. I defy anyone's efforts to prescribe the way I 'should' 'perform'. Sierra, if I only had a dollar for every session of "deliverance" I've had... to "fix" me so that I would act right and not feel like I had a bucket full of shame and a truckload excrement instead of a Christian heart... All while striving every which way to be holy, waiting for the lightning bolt from heaven to make everything right. I think that they would have to give me a lobotomy to make me fit for the paradigm! For those of you who do not know, in Pentecostal circles, there is a tradition of prayer which is called deliverance. Essentially, it is like an exorcism, and many in these traditions look to this as a cure-all for everything. All problems reduce down to some spirit or some other superstitious belief. Because of the strong free-will perspective, little things a person might do can be seen as something that 'opens a person up" to demonic influence. I remember our "church ladies" fussing about getting any image of an owl or a frog out of one's home, as this was thought to bring demonic oppression into a person's life. The QF version of it is oddly similar, even though so many religious groups ascribe to "reformed theology" or what is more toward the determinism side of the continuum. But there is also such a high focus on works-salvation, the resulting superstition tends to be the same. You beckon things into your life through failing to follow the paradigm properly. And then some of it is outright superstition, considering things like Gothard's demonization of goofy things like Cabbage Patch dolls or even the more unpleasant emotions like anger. Health problems are also taught to be instigated by emotional causes or character defects. I am saddened to see this discussion here. Part of the whole QF system involves "taking dominion" which in a sense is always being right. There is so much focus on shame, that so many of us are overloaded with it when we get out that we are "sore" and sensitive, especially when we are not understood or when we don't win a conflict or argument. Leaving the system doesn't mean we master the tendency automatically. In "Women's Inhumanity to Women" by Chessler (or whatever the name of that book is), she claims that women tend to be, by in large, more passive-aggressive than the assertive style preferred by men. And women generally also feel threatened by non-conformity. Ah, generalizations. That's what Chessler said, so don't give me grief! I'm offering some ideas that I hope can help us understand better, as we may indeed be wired that way as women. In "Catfight" by Tanenbaum, she draws many of the same conclusions. (I've not been as impressed by the other books I've read on the subject, though I have not read comprehensively on the topic.) But to encourage us, testosterone inhibits the corpus callosum in the brain which inhibits integration of the right and left cerebral hemispheres.... We women have an advantage over men in this area by way of pulling from our rational side to help us integrate reason and emotion more easily (uninhibited by testosterone). We ought to be able to work this stuff out, I hope! Throw in there that so many of us have PTSD for quite awhile after we get out of our messes, and conflict here can be difficult. Many of us have a little bit of extra work to do to be able to understand one another, but I hope that the consideration may help us be more tolerant of one another, too. And what can be more personal in nature than sexuality, even if it is a theoretical discussion? Ugh! I don't agree with many here regarding different beliefs and such, and I have no idea who those folks are who were mentioned -- I assume famed feminists. But I would like to state that I greatly appreciate the kind way so many have treated me, and I hate to see this kind of conflict. (If you guys --and women-- can put up with me and my sometimes burning opinions, I would hope that anybody can find respect and grace here.) Though I think that I find myself walking away from conflicts, too, to avoid the fallout. Neither addressing the matter nor avoiding it feels good. I also find it painful when others wrongfully accuse me of things, something that happened here to me in recently, but some stuff is just worth taking on the chin. And it's easier for me to do that when I think of how hard it is to really get out of the whole QF fundamentalism legalistic mindset, something I continually have to work on myself. I'm learning how to loose arguments, as fighting to win them sometimes just isn't worth it. Some days I do pretty well, but other days, I really suck at it. Call me Hoover. Or would that be more appropriately stated as "Dyson" for the new millennium. Thanks to all the feminists here who have been so good to me. Frankly, I am not surprised that QF does not generate more. I'm curious to see what happens to the next generation of women when they hit about 35 and start to feel really tired...
|
|