jump to navigation

Help! I’m Being Repressed! (White Male Activist Intersectionality Fail) November 13, 2010

Posted by FCM in authors picks, gender roles, international, liberal dickwads, politics, race, WTF?.
Tags: , , , ,
trackback

in thinking about the recent discussions on privilege, for some reason i had this clip playing in my mind.  monty python of course gives excellent commentary on class privilege, and the more scenes i revisit as an adult, the more that sinks in.  as a child, i appreciated monty python because they are just extremely silly.  but now i realize why wannabe academics and white men like them so much.  analyzing class privilege!!11!!1  its subversive, but not really!!!1!!1  which is exactly how wannabe academics and white men like their social commentary.  nice and safe. 

this kind of class-analysis is nice and safe for wannabe academics and white men because there is never any meaningful commentary of male privilege.  what a surprise!  in other words:  ZOMG!!111!!1  INTERSECTIONALITY FAIL!!!11!!!1  for example, in the above clip, the male “constitutional peasant” calls attention to “the violence inherent in the system” when he is literally manhandled by the king because he wont shut up about class-based inequities.  and as usual, monty python hits the nail on the head with regard to systems of class oppression: theres always the threat of violence behind those wielding political power over the lower class.  the power to get other men to shut up, when they are saying something you dont like.  the power to force them to do things they dont want to do.  help!  i’m being repressed! 

and they are.  men are repressing other men with the threat of violence.  or perhaps more importantly, or at least more commonly, what men read as violence, but things that arent actually violent: like being coerced from afar, due to repressive social structures, into doing something you dont really want to do, or living in a way you dont want to live.  men read anything that gets in the way of their own autonomy as being violent, even when it isnt.  meanwhile, the “female” peasant is rooting around in the muck just like everyone else, AND is surely being used sexually by some loudmouthed male peasant who says it is *he* who is being repressed, and that *all* members of his class are being repressed, by the king.  but no one is ever repressed by him, personally, or by other men of their social class or community, collectively, because as members of the lower class, they lack the power to oppress anyone.  INTERSECTIONALITY FAIL!!!11!!1

but, you know, the monty pythoners are to be forgiven, and will be remembered fondly by history regardless of their intersectionality fails, because making fun of men for sexually exploiting women isnt funny.  and therefore not in their job description.  and the monty python players (and their audience) were undoubtedly engaging in this one themselves, in real life.  so they probably were unaware of it, or simply didnt care.

meanwhile, actual violence, up to and including murder, perpetrated on women by men of their own social class is…ignored?  i dont know.  i mean, this next scene made the final cut of the movie, and is a memorable one, but what is being criticised here really?  men murdering women of their own class based on misogynist religious superstition (literally, insanity masquerading as logic) and sex-based discrimination in the legal system?  HA!  not likely.  taken in the context of monty pythons usual social class-commentary and criticism of the ruling elite, this seems to be a criticism of religion and superstition sullying the legal process, which is usually rational, although perhaps unfairly applied, against men, by other men.  isnt it?  in other words, the classic race- and class-based criticism of male institutions: that its a failure of application, only, and not of reason.  as if the current legal system isnt still, presently, a witch-hunt, if you are a woman.  whew!  thank (us rational men) this doesnt happen anymore:

so anyway, speaking of white men who indulge in a certain kind of social critique, but are in fact completely blind (or indifferent) to their own male privilege, and the unique ways that women are abused by men with whom they share every social characteristic except sex…i present a clip from well-known white male anti-racist activist tim wise.  this is about an hour long, but its worth watching, if only to see for yourself how white male anti-racist activists (or one of them anyway, who has managed to become incredibly successful and highly regarded using this exact methodology and who admits to having used this exact script multiple times, and has other activists begging for more, because its just that good) are framing the issues.  and notably, what they seem completely blind to.  in other words:  ZOMG!!!11!11  INTERSECTIONALITY FAIL!!!!111!1 

if you dont have time for the whole thing, the first few minutes (his “introduction” and description of his own generational white privilege) are instructive…but not in the way *he* would probably like:

in fairness, what this clip is good for is a racism-101 (for those complete morons who have never thought of any of this before, aka. the lowest common denominator) and the white-privileged bootstrapping crowd, who genuinely actually believe that if they have gotten anywhere in life, it was due to their own gumption and hard work, and nothing else.

but, unfortunately for tim wise, the other thing its good for is unintentionally illustrating with embarrassing clarity how someone who is allegedly so sensitive to issues of entitlement and privilege, is actually completely blind to his own male privilege, and how these analyses of “white privilege” are really an analysis of white male privilege, and not inclusive or representative at all of womens experience, of being dominated by men of their own class and race.  and not taking into account AT ALL the part that male privilege has played, in getting this white man into the position of power and authority he currently holds.

specifically, the fact that his mother took out a loan, and his grandmother cosigned and put up her home as collateral, to send their precious, entitled boy-child to a good school.  see?  tim wise’s mother and grandmother put their own financial wellbeing and (therefore) their own physical security in peril (and in the case of the grandmother, literally the security of her home, a living situation that somewhat protected her from male violence) for his benefit.  so that he could thrive.  how incredibly fortunate FOR THEM that this crapshoot actually paid off.  because it very easily couldve been the worst mistake they ever made, and left them both destitute and homeless, and even more vulnerable to male violence and dangerous male sexuality than they already were.  because they were women.

and luckily for tim wise AND his female relatives i suppose, the bar is set extremely low for some people.  and that some people can become well-paid and highly-regarded, pretty much just by showing up.  this is one way that white women benefit from white privilege: they give birth to precious entitled boy-children, who because of WHITE MALE PRIVILEGE, have a decent chance at supporting themselves eventually, and paying their female relatives back for all the sacrifices they made, for them, because they were male.  but as many mothers and grandmothers (and wives and girlfriends too) are disappointed to realize, many men are just such complete, irredeemable losers, that they fail to thrive even when the decks are completely stacked in their favor.  helping them out at your own peril is not a guarantee of any particular outcome.  but we do it anyway, because we are women.

but tim wise apparently believes that his little talk mansplanation and description of generational white privilege and how it operates, is inclusive of all white people, doesnt he?  meaning that, as usual, women are not included in his definition of people.  because hes a man.  INTERSECTIONALITY FAIL!!!!11!!1  if he were a feminist, he wouldve been eviscerated for his shortcomings by now.  luckily for him, he clearly isnt one.

Comments

1. factcheckme - November 13, 2010

and this one just made me laff.

2. factcheckme - November 13, 2010

and this one made me just howl with laughter when i was like 10. i didnt even realize that it was the UPPERCLASS twit of the year until recently. when i was 10, it was just completely obvious to me that these men were TWITS, and not that they were supposedly rich. i guess thats for teh other white menz to point out with their wannabe academic class-privilege analysis. because being rich is embarassing!

and i COMPLETELY didnt remember the part about taking the bras off the mannequins. wow. so i guess the embarrassingly wealthy are also inadequate at sexually victimizing women ay? how embarassing for them.

3. FAB Libber - November 13, 2010

(Disclaimer that I only watched it to 15m in)

but tim wise apparently believes that his little talk mansplanation and description of generational white privilege and how it operates, is inclusive of all white people, doesnt he? meaning that, as usual, women are not included in his definition of people. because hes a man.

Yes, definitely he misses the point of his mother and grandmother taking a gamble on their own security, and goes further by dismissing them as the wealth was entirely due to the grandfather’s property. It misses the point that women were rarely had the opportunity in their own right anyway, and that the expected “career path” for women was as wives and mothers (the other option was usually to be a brothel owner/worker).

For his race analysis, he missed the point of native americans being disenfranchised (and slaughtered) in the scheme of things, also dismissed the immigrant struggle that his jewish greatparents went through, in order to score cookies with afrocaribbean americans, which is a manipulative way to get them on side and hail him as the new messiah. In many ways his analysis and perspective is limited, if not problematic. In most ways his speech is trendy, and for effect, rather than anything profound. I have seen this same thing with a number of male pro-feminists, the same sort of manipulation and showmanship.

But, it’s “just like a man” to bleat on about stuff, and not actually do anything at all.

Great bit of trumpet blowing, using the privilege denunciation method, to get speaking gigs. Meanwhile, thousands of women work quietly to support the female victims of male violence, without the benefit of a speaking circuit or book deal.

Oh, if you have any doubts if he was sincere or not, how come he did not thank the woman who introduced him by name? Good gawd, if he was really sincere, you would think that was the least he could do.

factcheckme - November 13, 2010

i would like to mention that i thought about linking to his blog as a reference…and i was immediately struck with a pang of fear, about what he might “do to me” having criticised him in this way. he is VERY highly regarded, and powerful, in his little world of white-male anti-racist activist fetishists. and me, with my humble little blog, which i maintain on my own time, FOR FREE, and have neither the time nor social or economic capital to defend myself, should he decide to target me. call me paranoid. but you can google him yourself, if you are interested. WHITE MALE PRIVLEGE. do we get it now?

4. FAB Libber - November 13, 2010

It’s the ultimate sleight of hand isn’t it? To be publically denouncing something you are making money out of…

factcheckme - November 13, 2010

yes FAB libber, and it should make what hes saying and his motivations for saying it immediately suspect. this is the problem with being an activist-for-profit. the fun-fems and self-identified male feminists have a credibility problem too.

factcheckme - November 13, 2010

omg. i fucking KNEW IT! this is how old tim wise deals with his detractors…summoning up the old boys network i mean THE LEGAL SYSTEM to ruin people “financially and legally” for saying something about him that he doesnt like, and that HE determines has crossed some kind of line:

The trolls over at SomethingAwful apparently are also trying to cook up some kind of internet based attack on me, for which I have already alerted the proper authorities (as several of the possible lines of attack are purely illegal, and the kinds of things for which I will happily destroy them in return, financially and legally if need be).

bold mine. its not that whats being said is “illegal and [THEREFORE] the kinds of things for which i will happily destroy them.” NO! people are saying things about him that are illegal, AND they are ALSO saying “the kinds of things” for which he will happily destroy them. things that MAY OR MAY NOT ALSO BE ILLEGAL, but that he definitely doesnt like. isnt this what he is saying? or, is the man who is a PAID WORDSMITH getting his words wrong, and not accurately and deliberately conveying exactly what he means? in other words: “be afraid. be very afraid.”

i am NOT linking to him, although this cut-and-paste might generate a pingback. if you want to find this exact quote, again, you can google it. fucking men!

5. FAB Libber - November 13, 2010

this is the problem with being an activist-for-profit. the fun-fems and self-identified male feminists have a credibility problem too.

Absolutely.

I am always suspect of the notable male pro-fems, particularly when they are in teaching posts. Nine times out of ten you will discover that their career path is actually to put notches on the bedpost.

The fun-fems (or their politically more extreme counterparts, the “sex pozzies”) are in it for the male approval cookies (doggy biscuits), book deals, and industry backing. Ask them to put their own vagina into service, there is usually silence (followed by a whole bunch of excuses as to why they don’t or ‘cannot’).

See, it does not necessarily have to be a monetary pay-off, relative ‘fame’ works just as well.

I am automatically suspect of a white male denouncing all his white male privilege, particularly if he is getting paid/cookies for it. I can fully understand WOC being suspicious of white feminists too, and rightfully so in some cases, but generally, feminists are versed and sensitive to (all) discrimination, far more than the male population at any rate, yet white feminists are painted as the most racist of any group in society, apparently even more so than white males invested in patriarchy. Go figure.

6. FAB Libber - November 13, 2010

this is how old tim wise deals with his detractors…summoning up the old boys network i mean THE LEGAL SYSTEM…

*yawn* whoops, I mean (fake) surprise.

Summoning the Old Boy Network of the legal system, which is renown for being racist and sexist, in order to maintain his ‘credibility’. Geez, didn’t see that one coming…

7. SheilaG - November 13, 2010

The female conditioned self-sacrificial mode that was so expected of Wise’s mother and grandmother, is central to this tale. I too am very suspicious of paid activists for this very reason. It’s what happened to the lesbian movement too, when we went from being collectives to boards of directors. The head of the L.A. lesbian and gay center is literally called a CEO. “Poor lesbians” become hostage clients, while they hold hollywood star studded “fundraisers” that none of the “poor” women who actually use the Center can afford to come to. I’m talking $300 for a “women’s event.”
It upsets me no end to see this, and even though I am very big on making money, as you all know, this still makes me very sick, because in the past, all lesbian events were there for every lesbian! What is the fundraising for, to pay the inflated salaries of the CEOs. Ugh! Or to pay for cheap AIDS drugs for the guys oy!

I often wonder why guys like Wise are so pandered too, and again, I believe it is the feeling of inferiority that so many marginalized groups have, that they literally are starved for white male recognition. White men play into this–we’ve seen it in spades with liver lips, and this video is a priceless example of it too.

Points to the smart brained woman who noticed that Wise didn’t even thank his introducer, probably because if you asked him, he can’t even remember her name.

Also notice the “southern baptist preacher” cadance he uses with his audience, also manipulative and putting him in a “clergy power over position” which would resonate with a southern white or African American gathering.

His Internet threats at criticism kind of say it all, don’t they.

There are so many of these guys running around out there it’s not funny. I’ve met many of them over the years, and they are all very sexist pigs believe me. So we have to keep an eye on the ball so to speak, or we will attack the grandma and the mother, not realizing the full reality of a system that put women in the position of always giving up everything for the sons and grandsons, even at the risk of losing their homes.

Just on a side note, I meet women who raise kids on their own. The sons have greater earning power, the women with the girls do not get the support, the girls grow up and are now vastly underemployed and still living at home with the mother. Or a grown child will have some mishap and the mother will dig into her own 401 k plan at her retirement peril. The self-sacrifice, the gift that keeps on giving!

factcheckme - November 13, 2010

did you girls watch the monty python clips? heh.

8. SheilaG - November 14, 2010

Yes, I watched the Monte Python clips. Very funny.
I hated Monte Python as a kid, and often find humor of any kind annoying and distracting. But it is instructive for the entire post FCM, so thanks for hunting and gathering for our feminist village!🙂

While the male debate over who is king, and how to enforce class based power is great, I think seeing the women slopping away in the mud while the men fight it out highly insightful, although it might have been unintentional at the time.

The witch scenes were not that funny, mainly because it has a creepy quality…something like making a humorous skit out of Jews being rounded up for the camps.

9. FAB Libber - November 14, 2010

Also notice the “southern baptist preacher” cadance he uses with his audience, also manipulative and putting him in a “clergy power over position” which would resonate with a southern white or African American gathering.

Yes, excellent point. A rhythmic delivery that has a hypnotic quality. This is where the delivery of the message is more important than the actual message. Again, a sleight of hand trick that throws focus off what is actually happening (or in this case, being said).

He also uses Vivian Phillips, a black woman, to introduce him, this is another credibility trick. And somehow, he manages to use his “thanking her” as being all about HIM. Her contribution is completely erased.

10. FAB Libber - November 14, 2010

Yes, I watched the Python clips, but already knew most of them verbatim anyway.

In one interview that I saw with them, they admitted that they could not write parts for women, which was why they used to do female parts in drag.

factcheckme - November 14, 2010

yes, the witch clip wasnt that funny for obvious reasons. i dont know how anyone could watch that without making the obvious connection that this ACTUALLY HAPPENED, and the “logic” these men used is pretty much the logic that WAS used to put literally MILLIONS of women to death. and torture! dont forget the torture. but again, these kinds of things make it completely obvious who their audience was, and who they were writing for, and what their own reality and perspective on the world was like. i think they were making fun of the insane-troll logic used in the legal system BACK IN THE DAY, and thank god THAT doesnt happen anymore!!!11!11 except that it DOES.

and no, they would NEVER think to mock anything that affected a group of minority MEN. ever. because they are liberal, donchaknow. liberal dickwads, that is.

11. SheilaG - November 14, 2010

Erasing Vivian Phillips was a creepy slight of hand trick as well, in addition to the “preacher” cadance.

And it just hit me that the torture manuals men wrote for the witch interrogation during the renaissance and middle ages, might be contrued today as violent porn produced for the consumption of woman hating men, for their sexual enjoyment.

Porn thus is the evil step son of “The Hammer of the Witches” — made a bestseller because it was the second book off of Guttenberg’s presses.

And on another note: they showed Birth of a Nation recently, and the man who introduced the movie warned the audience of its blatant racism. I notice he said nothing about sexism, and there would be no concept for a warning label for that, because it’s everywhere.

12. SheilaG - November 14, 2010

I’d go so far as to say, white men should simply not be allowed to ever represent or get paid gigs for “social justice” work. They have no clue, and only make the situation worse.

Interesting that Monty Python admitted that they couldn’t write women’s parts and had to do it in drag. That is very revealing, but at least they were more honest then the men of today.

13. Undercover Punk - November 14, 2010

I love this, FCM! Thank you for posting it all! The critique is beautiful. Especially, as everyone has been saying, the observations about Wise’s female relatives and their very Real sacrifices. That only luckily paid off.

i would like to mention that i thought about linking to his blog as a reference…and i was immediately struck with a pang of fear, about what he might “do to me” having criticised him in this way. he is VERY highly regarded, and powerful, in his little world of white-male anti-racist activist fetishists. and me, with my humble little blog, which i maintain on my own time, FOR FREE, and have neither the time nor social or economic capital to defend myself, should he decide to target me. call me paranoid. but you can google him yourself, if you are interested. WHITE MALE PRIVILEGE. do we get it now?

Seriously. I wouldn’t link to him either. You don’t need that shit. Even though he’d benefit from hearing *this.*

Sheila:

I often wonder why guys like Wise are so pandered too, and again, I believe it is the feeling of inferiority that so many marginalized groups have, that they literally are starved for white male recognition. White men play into this–we’ve seen it in spades with liver lips, and this video is a priceless example of it too.

My favorite! Misplaced Gratitude. I think it’s one the largest intellectual and emotional obstacles to the recognition of Reality by marginalized people. Someone like Tim Wise is actually SUCCESSFUL with his rhetoric.

if he were a feminist, he wouldve been eviscerated for his shortcomings by now. luckily for him, he clearly isnt one.

LOL! Tell it, sister.

factcheckme - November 15, 2010

oh goody, this post has been facebooked. i fucking hate getting traffic from there. you cant tell WHO facebooked it or why. what good is that? HATE FACEBOOK!

14. SheilaG - November 15, 2010

Not so fast Undercover Punk, feminists get fooled by these “feminist men wolves” ALL THE DAMN TIME, or to put it in the verncular of Radfemland ALL THE F—— TIME.

Gloria Steinem going to bat for good old Bill Clinton at the expense of Monica Lewinsky! How awful is that! Media liberal feminists like Steinem going all goo goo dolls over democrats, or perhaps invites to the White House. It’s all this sell out package deal that we have to confront in radical feminist worlds.

Ever wonder why liberals continue to slobber over the death of what’s his face, and completely ignore the death of Mary Daly and her legacy… damn, my mind just blanks out at the names of “famous” white male “activists” — anti-racist and otherwise. Ever wonder at the complete silence in the larger world over the huge work of Dworkin, Daly, MacKinnan etc.? Or YouTube plastered with lectures by Judith Butler focusing on dead white male philosophers… uh oh, I know I’m picking on St. Judith here, but geez, where’s the radfem lesbian content vs. her persistent Palestinian men vs. Israeli men mascurading as “human’ read male Palestinian rights issues. Uh oh I’ve dissed the pomos and the pet liberal themes out there, but I think you all are smart enough to get the drift here.

Again, marginalized groups are always in starvation mode for recognition cookies, crumbs whatever from the dominant groups, and opportunistic people like Wise, Alan Alda,Julian Real etc. just go for it. I’ve heard my share of the sleaze bag “feminist gay men” in positions of power too. It’s all about them all the time, and they use marginal groups for their own career advancement. Hey if you need lesbian votes at the community center, just lie and use “inclusive’ rhetoric if you’re a gay guy. Works like a charm.

It’s very hard to ferret them out, or expose these tactics, however. Only the radfem one horse towns like FCM or UP or Polly are on to this stuff.

Lesbians being among the lowest totems on the pole don’t have much coming at us, because I guess our groups don’t have as much income potential for the Wises of the world… Our leaders and heroines just get erased as quickly as they are born.

Sorry for the rant FCM… this is an inarticulate mess…but I am on to something. Maybe the rest of you distinguished RadFem greats can help out with this analysis a bit.

15. SheilaG - November 15, 2010

Sadly, if Wise was on the fake feminist speaker’s circuit, feminists would be slobbering all over him the way African Americans are now. The only thing that keeps radical lesbian feminists such razer sharp sharks, is people utterly ignore us all the time🙂 Sad but true.

More to this, don’t want to be such a blog hog ..oink :-0

16. FAB Libber - November 15, 2010

I agree, not to trust any male on the feminist speaker/book circuit, nor any white (usually again male) on the anti-racism speaker/book circuit.

I become doubly suspicious when aforesaid speakers use the “privilege denouncement” method as a way of getting the audience (or target group) on side. It’s all very easy to rattle off the privilege list to appear sympathetic, but not actually do anything in real life.

What matters are the everyday deeds, not trumpet blowing in front of a huge audience.

The very slight exception to the speaking rule is that it is ok if a white male is addressing other white males (as a peer-to-peer) on identifying racist behaviours within themselves and how to stop it. Same goes with males talking to males ending male violence against women. The only benefit being that the peer group normally would not listen to anyone ‘below’ their peer group.

The problem arises if the speaker elevates above this post, and becomes a ‘notable expert’ on all sexist/racist matters to the population at large, whilst actual members of the affected groups remain anonymous. That becomes the perpetuation of the problem rather than a solution.

17. SheilaG - November 15, 2010

I’m afraid that there is always a grave danger that once the man gets the speaker’s platform, say to talk to men’s groups about violence against women, he then goes on to “bigger” things– i.e. being national expert on violence against women that women get stuck listening to, and NOT getting paid to do.

So I don’t think male speakers that go outside of male only groups have any use at all from a feminist perspective. I think men should simply stop speaking in public period and just shut up for a couple of hundred years.

18. Undercover Punk - November 15, 2010

I think men should simply stop speaking in public period and just shut up for a couple of hundred years.

A-hahahahahaaaa! Yes. Please! Agreed.🙂

19. kristina - November 16, 2010

I recently was on youtube, and as a thought experiment I agreed with everything some guy was saying about women and how they are “inferior”, needless to say he didn’t like my message…the cognitive dissonance was absolutely stunning…He still didn’t get it…It was like he just liked hearing himself talk…amazing…I totally worship you ladies over here, for figuring it all out!!!

20. SheilaG - November 16, 2010

Men do like to hear themselves talk, and they are incapable of listening to women. YOu have to be quite brutal to make it clear that you will NOT listen to them, and that is a radical act.
I actually say, “No, I don’t want to listen to your joke!” and they will launch into it, and I say NO, and walk away. They will not listen to NO, but I can just walk away and refuse to listen.
Try it sometime in a place where women dominate the room and see what happens. Another phrase I like is, “Hey this is a woman dominated meeting, shut up and learn your place!”

21. joy - November 16, 2010

AH, but then the cries of “Ohhh teh misaaaaandryyyy!”

It happens all the time in punk circles. The squatters in my old town recently had a meeting: about how to properly handle people who are “genderqueer.”

This in an anarchist community wherein women are still being raped, rapists are still going unchecked (they are supposed to be kicked out of the community, but one serial offender hasn’t even been ‘called out’ yet because the girls he’s raped have been blacked-out drunk …), girls are still being impregnated and then abandoned or forced to suck dick to raise money for their abortions, girls are still getting diseases because men refuse to use condoms, girls are still stabbing each other in the backs for male approval because it seems like the only way to survive.

And I use the word ‘girls’ because they are GIRLS. Almost all under the age of 25, typically under the age of 23. (I think all the older women either get married to the most laid-back punk dude they can find, or become separatists.)

Sure, I don’t want to see girls getting beat up if they choose to wear traditionally masculine-coded clothing. (That was happening a lot.) I don’t even want to see boys getting mistreated exclusively for wearing female-coded clothing. (That was happening, but never escalating to physical violence, I wonder why — by which I mean, I know why).

But I’m pretty sure we have more problems than just ‘genderqueer.’ No one would ever call a meeting to discuss how to treat women! That would be misaaaaaandriiiist!

Srsly. Anarchists are some of the most intersectionality-failed people alive. If they start a revolution, I won’t even get behind it, and they stand for a lot of the same things I do. Just not, you know. The most important thing. In that arena, it’s a big fat fucking FAIL, and why would it be otherwise?

22. joy - November 16, 2010

By “getting mistreated exclusively for wearing female-coded clothing”, I mean — if they’re doing something assholish while wearing a dress, by all means, they should get their asses kicked. But not just for wearing a dress. That does nothing but foster a sense of martyrdom.

23. sonia - November 17, 2010

is that bootstrap comment about me?

factcheckme - November 17, 2010

HAHAHAHA omg, julian real just left a comment about how *i* shouldnt lump *him* in with tim wise. have i even mentioned old julian here? how is this about him? fucking men! julian also knows better than to contact me, and i have told him never to do so. and like all men, he cant take no for an answer, from a woman. big surprise. anyway, beware.

and sonia, in a word, no. do you honestly think this post is about you? wtf? this is bizarre. seriously. two people in a row who think this post was about them personally?

this post was about tim wise, white male privilege, and liberal men who are misogynist woman-erasers.

24. sonia - November 17, 2010

no, I didn’t think the whole thing was about me- I’m not THAT insecure. Just kidding, I’m not actually insecure at all. I was referencing something that I had said when UP was getting pounced upon. Nevamind!! Ignore me..

25. SheilaG - November 18, 2010

People must be awfully self-involved if they think stuff is ABOUT THEM when they have never been specifically mentioned by name in a post. That is just plain weird. We are talking about the topics of Tim Wise (example of a patriarchal man selling a nuanced form of male supremacy– one of the most dangerous kinds of liberal men IMHO), male privilege, and men who literally erase women– as Wise did to Vivian.

factcheckme - November 18, 2010

yes, old julian has now taken his rightful place next to transwoman and internet stalker valerie keefe in my spam box. and he is burning it up too, with multiple super-long comments (4 just today) that i am not even reading. i have mentioned this before, that MEN always think that women will read something, just because its there. because we cant help ourselves, or because we are “secretly curious” about what they have to say. but i have told valerie this, and i will say it again: i have the power to NOT READ STUFF. i am NOT READING STUFF, all the time. and so many of the spam and trolling that comes through here LITERALLY IS NOT READ BY HUMAN EYES. i might glance at it to see who it is, and then again, i can go for weeks without even checking my spam folder. because as polly made so clear earlier, if wordpress sends it to spam, theres a good chance theres a virus attached to it, so even if it looked like it was there by accident, or from a friend or whatever, i would never approve it anyway. so why even check? and i usually dont.

factcheckme - November 18, 2010

so, does anyone want to discuss the actual post? heh. this is the part that i might write more about at some point, because i think its pretty much the key to understanding liberal dickwad politics, including race- and class-based criticisms of existing power structures (and understanding why a male “civil-rights” or equality model is never going to work for women, ever):

the classic race- and class-based criticism of male institutions: that its a failure of application, only, and not of reason. as if the current legal system isnt still, presently, a witch-hunt, if you are a woman.

the angle is, and has always been, that any alleged discrimination in law, medicine etc is a failure of APPLICATION only (ie. its not faaaiiirrrrr, you would never treat XYZ that way! or the equality-model) and NEVER that its a failure of reason, which is very much the problem when male power is inflicted on women, by men who havent a fucking clue about womens experience of life, or even actively seek to exploit it (for example, restraining a woman who is having a rape flashback, or executing women for being witches because they weigh more than a duck…yeah i know that wasnt exactly how it worked, but it was pretty fucking close). this is KEY. when applied to women, we frequently see mens INSANITY REGARDING WOMEN and all things female, masquerading as reason, and logic. this is not the same problem men experience, when they are discriminated against based on race, class etc BY OTHER MEN, who all share the experience of being male, in a male-centered reality. i think mackinnon talks about this somewhere in “womens lives, mens laws.” i will try to locate it.

and this:

what men read as violence, but things that arent actually violent: like being coerced from afar, due to repressive social structures, into doing something you dont really want to do, or living in a way you dont want to live. men read anything that gets in the way of their own autonomy as being violent, even when it isnt.

men always, ALWAYS criticise or allude to “the violence inherent in the system” but what are they talking about, really? more on this one later.

26. SheilaG - November 18, 2010

The violence in the system is the coercive power men must submit to. It’s why men have such resentment against anyone outside this system.

The equality/civil rights model doesn’t work for women, because so much of women’s lives can’t be documented legally, the way outright racism at a drinking fountain could so easily be seen, or white kids at a school. But you can’t see the theft of women’s resources in the home, the theft of women’s time as women are shunted into the “volunteer economy” ” the bakesale economy”–

Most of the attrocities against women can’t be legally documented at all, which is why the male based civil rights movement didn’t really deal with patriarchy at all.

Men wrote the laws, but have no understanding of women. So the law fails. Julian is told not to comment here, and can’t even honor a simple NO on the part of FCM. So spam was invented to throw away these invasive male voices on the internet so that women worldwide can talk to each other without male interruption. Thanks SPAM!

Tim Wise’s speech makes no sense because it is completely making invisible women’s labor of all kinds, and also women’s source of wealth. The Tim Wises of the world are double trouble because people think that anti-racist = pro-woman and those two things don’t connect at all.

What makes males so angry — it’s why they are in the streets all the time screaming and yelling over stuff, is that they aren’t on the top of the male mountain. Lee Iococoa in his biography told about how angry he became over how he was treated as an Italian American MAN in the auto industry; his rage over this fueled his corporate climbing. Most of what fuels men is their anger, while they go home and exploit their wives and children without giving a damn.

It is NOT dying in childbirth, and not caring if women do. Imagine all the men from 1600 to say 1700 knowing full well the women’s mortality rates in a small Spanish town, and imagine them going home to force sex on a wife anyway, knowing that a 5th or 10th pregnancy could kill her. Imagine men throughout time doing this and never of their own accord inventing a non-invasive way to have sex with women that would never result in pregnancy.

I’m a lesbian and wouldn’t touch a man with a ten foot pole, and this horrifies me. The real willful premeditated murder, that has absolutely no common law statue history documenting what this kind of murder could mean legally? Has a man ever been executed because his wife died in childbirth?
But, hey, they kill abortion doctors in 21st century America, don’t they!

So if male bodies are different from female bodies, and female bodies get killed because of male acts, how is this a “generic” bit of intersectionality? It would be racism if a white slave owner raped his black slave, but how would a rape of a white wife fit into this?

If we keep using the Tim Wise examples, we will completely overlook the fact that Tim Wise is probably stealing the labor of women in his life.
He is talking about the civil rights of non-white men. This speech has nothing to do with women, what’s so hard to get about this?

27. thebewilderness - November 18, 2010

It has been my observation that men are abysmally ignorant of the extraordinary degree of self discipline required for women to tolerate them.

factcheckme - November 18, 2010

So if male bodies are different from female bodies, and female bodies get killed because of male acts, how is this a “generic” bit of intersectionality? It would be racism if a white slave owner raped his black slave, but how would a rape of a white wife fit into this?

actually, i dont feel qualified to speak specifically about slavery, and i am not going to talk about it. BUT i think most of us can perform an intersectionality-analysis on what tim wise said about it. and i would prefer to stick to the video, for purposes of this post. for anyone who has watched the whole thing, i think we can pretty easily conclude that tim isnt qualified to speak about it either. and that (as usual!) he should probably just shut the fuck up. AND that (as usual!) noone is telling HIM not to talk about it, or that he is being offensive, or anything else. i got this video off the website of a white feminist anti-racist “ally” ffs, who was totally fawning over him. i dont even remember which one.

for example, further in, he names the names of the slaves that his great grandparents owned. he says “they were members of the family…the way a table or a lamp is a part of the family, like property.” but…how frequently did white male slave owners stick their dicks into their coffee tables? never? thats what i thought. how often did white male slave owners impregnate and create unwanted shared children with their lamps? thats what i thought. and it becomes so clear just WHOSE experience tim wise is speaking about here, and who he is speaking to, about slavery. and the rest of us have to adjust our perspectives just to listen to him mansplaining away, like we always have to adjust OUR perspectives, when men are in charge of explaining and enforcing male reality.

and again, we see that the equality or civil rights model doesnt fit, when speaking about womens experience. but thats not FAIIIIIRRRRR, you would never treat XYZ like that!! well who is XYZ? and “treat” refers to what behaviors specifically?

and dont even get me started on his “divesting white privilege” speech at the end. anyone who gets that far might have something to say about it. what is he intending here, when he goes off about how racism hurts white ppl tooooo“? (oh yes he does). and what specifically is he talking about, when he speaks about “divesting” white privilege? it sounds very much like he is talking about declining or renouncing material things, or career/life opportunities that lead to material things doesnt it? well, who owns the lions share of material things and opportunities, who has these things to even give up? and who would be making themselves more vulnerable to sexual violence, if they were to give up what little they do have in the way of careers that pay a living wage, and safe living situations that cost more than unsafe ones?

gee, i wonder.

28. Mary Sunshine - November 18, 2010

Sheila and TBW:

Nail, hammer, bang.

*big grin*

29. Undercover Punk - November 18, 2010

@Sheila:

Tim Wise’s speech makes no sense because it is completely making invisible women’s labor of all kinds, and also women’s source of wealth. The Tim Wises of the world are double trouble because people think that anti-racist = pro-woman and those two things don’t connect at all.
[. . . ]
It is NOT dying in childbirth, and not caring if women do. Imagine all the men from 1600 to say 1700 knowing full well the women’s mortality rates in a small Spanish town, and imagine them going home to force sex on a wife anyway, knowing that a 5th or 10th pregnancy could kill her. Imagine men throughout time doing this and never of their own accord inventing a non-invasive way to have sex with women that would never result in pregnancy.

Yeah, sister! TELL IT. I think it’s interesting that the outrage over reparations is justified, but that women’s labor has never, will never be validated. And that’s OK with everyone. Totally, totally FINE. It’s obvious that our entire economy is built on the backs of women’s unpaid labor. OBVIOUS. And INVISIBLE.
About men making the laws too: I’ve always thought that measuring child support by how much it would cost ON THE OPEN MARKET to buy child care for 50% of the time would be MUCH fairer (than basing it on the individual MAN’s salary). So, 12 hours a day, 7 days a week, that’s what single mothers should be getting paid for– including OVERTIME.

30. Let'sGetReal - November 18, 2010

The invisibility of women’s labor is part of it. Another part is the theft of women’s emotional and moral support. The poor, beleaguered husband comes home from work after having been “oppressed” by having to do something he doesn’t like for pay. The woman soothes him and offers supportive emotional space for him. What happens when the woman is having that kind of difficulty with her job? There is rarely any emotional support, since she needs to handle the children’s needs, too. It’s not only labor that’s stolen, it’s the emotional soul of the woman, too. Just like wise not acknowledging the woman who introduces him.

31. delphyne - November 18, 2010

Hang on, not only did he not acknowledge Vivian Phillips by name, he also corrected her during her intro, then claimed he wrote most of her introduction himself. Did you notice he didn’t even look her in the eye when he took over the podium, he just pushed his way in?

Tim Wise is the guy who told US white women their whiteness was showing because they didn’t want to support Obama after he defeated Clinton in his hideously misogynistic campaign against her.

Tim Wise’s penis is on display permanently.

factcheckme - November 19, 2010

thanks delphyne. i just googled it, and found his “letter to certain white women” and became absolutely fucking enraged. check it out, if you havent already! heres my take on it, in my own words: LISTEN HERE YOU WHITE WHORES. you let white men fuck you, and fuck you over, all the damn time. if you wont let a black man do it too, YOU ARE RACIST.

am i wrong? sounds a little bit like old kate harding telling her readers that if you are a lesbian, and you agree to “fuck” a woman but change your mind when you find out “she” has a dick…you are TRANSPHOBIC. yes, there are all kinds of nasty words for women who wont let LITERALLY EVERY FUCKING MAN ON EARTH, fuck them, or fuck them over.

and tim wise, being a MAN, has everything to gain from this one, doesnt he? telling women that we cant say no, to any man, for any reason, is what men do best.

factcheckme - November 19, 2010

and it was also quite an obvious dodge, for tim wise to blame “the media” for the misogynist treatment of hillary during the campaign. i suppose it was also “the media” who forced obama to mock jessica simpsons weight gain on national fucking television, when it was completely irrelevant to anything being discussed? he LITERALLY did it just for fucking kicks, and to “bond” with the WHITE man (matt lauer) who was interviewing him. it was fucking disgusting. how must jessica simpson have felt, as a twenty-something young woman, to have the president of the fucking united states make fun of her weight? its still shocking to me that this actually happened.

32. FAB Libber - November 19, 2010

Hang on, not only did he not acknowledge Vivian Phillips by name, he also corrected her during her intro, then claimed he wrote most of her introduction himself. Did you notice he didn’t even look her in the eye when he took over the podium, he just pushed his way in?

Actually, I did notice it, but neglected to break it down into the sum of the parts – so thank you delphyne for addressing the parts I neglected to mention. It was most bizarre when he repeatedly mentioned how he wrote most of it himself. He also could not resist correcting her during the introduction she was presenting. WTF?

Surely his actions should send the message to WOC that ‘racial equality’ is really a ‘men-only’ deal, so “get back into the kitchen” and “let the important men get on with important stuff”?

factcheckme - November 19, 2010

so anyway, my point was that if we are measuring white womens racism by “you will only let white men fuck you, and fuck you over” then thats an extremely misogynist and insane way to measure it. and if this is the way our racism manifests and is measured, then white womens racism has no corrolary to the way white mens racism manifests or is measured by other people. therefore, its not the same. so why is old tim wise acting like it is? this is not a rhetorical question. WHITE MALE PRIVILEGE.

heres a link to a racialicious interview of old tim, with lots of comments regarding white (MALE) anti-racism activists and their place and usefulness (or lack of):

http://www.racialicious.com/2010/09/06/tim-wise-responds-to-the-critics/

only one comment even mentions white MALE privilege, although @46 may as well be, and obviously IS, just without acknowledging it:

I will say that I think it also reinforces a dynamic where white people are (over)represented as “antiracist educators” etc. because of the self evident (re: universal) appeal of whiteness since white people get to been seen as universally equipped to discuss and represent ANY issue and are genuinely believed to be more “objective” and “factual” because when discussing race white people have the luxury of not having their views on race represented and routinely dismissed as a “personal crutch”, as source of “personal victimhood” or “playing the race card”. Nor do white people have to deal with being written off as “perpetually angry” or “haters” (as done by the interviewer).

No, white people are seen as “passionate”, “devoted”, “inspirational” and are treated as the de-facto and or most dominant voices. In the case of “anti-racist” education and organizing (which I have issues with) it means that white people don’t have to question their access to management, resources, or their prominent roles or positions when organizing, they don’t have to consider the relationship between their skills and the positions they hold. They also don’t have to think about the kinds of “skills” or “credentials” poc are expected to possess (and what they have to do to obtain them) in order to have the “same” prominence and recognition.

bolds mine. this was definitely my favorite: they don’t have to consider the relationship between their skills and the positions they hold.

33. yesindeed - November 19, 2010

I like how the name of his letter is “An Open Letter to Certain White Women Who Are Threatening to Withhold Support from Obama in November.”

Withhold support! Just like crazy, frigid, manipulative women withhold sex.* Because men are automatically entitled to any damn thing from any woman at any time, and every time a woman says “no”, she’s withholding something rightfully owed to a man.

* If you want to be disgusted, google women + withhold.

34. Sargassosea - November 19, 2010

GAH! This makes me absolutely nuts! When anyone, ever, says “people” they mean MEN. Full stop no exceptions.

People start wars and People rape and People enslave others and The People uphold the 2nd Ammendment, but The People definitely do not advocate for the ERA. Pfft.

(I haven’t watched the vid as I am wintering in my undisclosed, remote location and have limited connectivity. Thanks are due to you who have watched and commented on it so I didn’t have to!Eww = time wiseguy)

35. SheilaG - November 19, 2010

Hmm, “skills and the positions they hold…” of course men get hired for all sorts of things regardless of skills. Men=White — I think Wise should be clear he is talking about white men only.

Interrupting Vivian Phillips to “correct” something she said in her introduction to him… that really freaked me out. I’ve NEVER seen a woman interrupt a male introduction from a podium ever. He just couldn’t control himself. I say tar and feather!

36. SheilaG - November 19, 2010

You should have seen the two men making fun of Nancy Pelosi on the Tavis Smilely Show recently.
Tavis having no clue about his sexism, but he sure enjoyed the male bonding with the guest.

We could run these film clips end to end — it would make a devestating documentary.

37. sonia - November 19, 2010

“People must be awfully self-involved if they think stuff is ABOUT THEM when they have never been specifically mentioned by name in a post. That is just plain weird.”

you know what, Sheila?

I don’t think it’s weird at all. sometimes people do stuff like that.

Now, if we did an analysis on YOUR personality characteristics, what do you think people would have to say?

I mean, as the messiah, you should already know, right.

factcheckme - November 19, 2010

Nothing about the post then sonia? You girls should save your ammo. For reals.

Also, regarding “withholding” I am so glad someone caught that! Yes! Well done, yesindeed. What a fucking disgusting parallel he draws, between frigid white women holding out on men, who as everyone knows are entitled to PIV on demand. Of course, the opposite side of the SAME COIN is the equally misogynist belief that woc are animalistic. And he no doubt belives THAT’S true, too. Oops! Tims white penis is showing again!

38. SheilaG - November 19, 2010

Yes Sargassosea– thanks for this reminder…

“This makes me absolutely nuts! When anyone, ever, says “people” they mean MEN. Full stop no exceptions.

People start wars and People rape and People enslave others and The People uphold the 2nd Ammendment, but The People definitely do not advocate for the ERA.”

This reminds me that I have to always ask anyone who used the phrase “people rape, bomb, murder in wartime…” What people? Women, men, who?
And withholding support being compared to women withholding sex from men is an interesting comparison. Just read that racialicious interview with Wise, and I just can’t stomach his pious platitudes. Where do they dig up these guys anyway? And Sonia, cease your whining, it’s unbecoming of a radical feminist.

39. sonia - November 20, 2010

about as much as you have to say about my posts, fcm.

I got enough ammo for whatever I want🙂

factcheckme - November 20, 2010

What posts sonia? Are you blogging again?

40. FAB Libber - November 20, 2010

Good gawd sonia, what drugs are you on, and where can the rest of us get them?

What on earth is up with having a secret one-sided little blogwar that you feel compelled to come to FCM’s and boast about?

The link to your profile indicates:
“Blog not found”

It probably should read:
“Rationality not found”

factcheckme - November 20, 2010

some people are really enjoying what some of you are doing right now. dont forget that.

41. SheilaG - November 20, 2010

Anyway, back to the main event. What I think the Tim Wise example illustrates is the perils of the concept of allies. We have to be aware to what extent we put ourselves into intellectual danger once again, by not challenging the very concept of what white men do when they even get in front of a microphone, and what motivates them to do this.

Can the fox come into the hen house ever? Alliance to me would be about behind the scenes. DOING rather than making speeches. The oppressor group always manages to do a lot of damage wherever it goes, but behind the scenes work to change the majority would be a more intellectually honest position.

I think what bothers me about Wise and other like him is the arrogance of his position number one, and the template that makes women invisible number two. I don’t think while straight men have the mental ability to get this, so they are a gigantic waste of time. They should at least admit this. My next question: does he exploit his wife and female relatives? Well yes. Is it invisible to him? Yes.

42. FAB Libber - November 20, 2010

some people are really enjoying what some of you are doing right now. dont forget that.

My apologies FCM, I’ll check it at the door.
I was just so very WTF-is-going-on amused.

There is this very simple formula, if you don’t like a blog and disagree with most of it, just don’t read it. It really is that simple. Otherwise you just come off looking sad and pathetic, with no originality of your own.

factcheckme - November 20, 2010

i think its a way bigger problem than the problem of “allies” although thats an obvious one. i think its a pretty perfect example, actually, of the problem of using male-centered concepts and language when addressing issues that affect women. we have to understand that when ANY MALE uses the word “people” that he is talking about MEN. and most women (even feminists) use these words interchangeably too. we have to understand that the equality-model, which is the MALE civil-rights model, is not going to work for us. because when male power is exercised on womens bodies and womens lives, its done without a shred of regard for our humanity, or acknowledgement that we would be 100% better off WITHOUT MEN, and a state of complete and utter denial and avoidance of the ways that MEN AND ONLY MEN victimize women, as women.

in other words, all male systems are completely unreasonable, when applied to women. all of them. medicine. law. politics. relationships. language. its a failure of REASON, not a problem of unfair application. oh i wish it were as simple as unfair application! i wish.

its as basic (and patently unreasonable) as not knowing where babies come from. they stick their dicks into women routinely, and are ACTUALLY taken aback when a pregnancy results. the existance of their OWN CHILDREN is incompatible with their world view, which is that women are fuckdolls, and vaginas are sheaths. start from this very basic unreasonableness, and work your way out. they are ALWAYS this bad, and this unreasonable, and this deluded, when it comes to women. and MOC are men, and white male allies are men, and their vision of “civil rights” is as fucked up and woman-erasing as everything else men do, or think, or say, when it comes to women.

DUH.

and PS. i have a new post up. enjoy!

43. rhondda - November 20, 2010

Sometimes a woman reads a post that hits on a very deep intuitive level and it creates a feeling of paranoia and she thinks it is about her specifically. It evokes a reaction. This is a good thing and should not be put down. Unfortunately, she has to make the connections to her personal life alone. It really is a beginning of personal integrity. For each of us has a personal history in patriarchy and it is by expression that one makes the connections in order to be whole again. There used to be consciousness raising. Now we have the internet. So what I am saying is that whatever Sonia connected to in her personal life is indeed the spark of personal awareness which in this society is regarded as something mad and we as radical feminists must not disparage. We must resist horizontal violence. I am not saying you are doing this fcm. In fact by putting it on line you have helped. I truly am impressed by your integrity. Yes, she needed to be questioned. She does not need to be judged. I am speaking of personal experience here. We are in new territory.

factcheckme - November 21, 2010

thank you for that rhondda. very well said.

44. kristina - November 21, 2010

“what men read as violence, but things that arent actually violent: like being coerced from afar, due to repressive social structures, into doing something you dont really want to do, or living in a way you dont want to live. men read anything that gets in the way of their own autonomy as being violent, even when it isnt.”

I have something to say about this actually…We all know about fight or flight…think about it if you felt it…was it after your first no that the person didn’t listen to, or after multiple no’s? Before/during I had a guy coerce me into sex it was after a few no’s (as in I said no the first time,swatted him away the second time,and gave up the last time), and I mentally escaped while he did his deed..anytime after that it was immediately after my first no…I would launch into a state of fight or flight (PTSD)…My assertion is that when you are denied your no you go into fight or flight (which is also physiologically similar to intoxication)and you suffer PTSD even if you “escape” your rapist. I’ve known plenty of women who never got legally raped or never even ended up having intercourse with the offender that were still traumatized…I assert that it’s not the act of rape that causes PTSD but the denial of someone’s humanity and ability to assert themselves that in a healthy human being will trigger fight or flight (indicating trauma)which is a prerequisite to PTSD.

45. kristina - November 21, 2010

It also explains how I wasn’t able to recognize after the first no, the danger, and the lack of the fight or flight response until things got dire (after another no)Women aren’t raised to be assertive so the fight or flight mechanism is delayed..whereas men are raised to be aggressive, so even the most passive behaviors are seen as a threat which triggers fight or flight preemptively…as in how men over react to harmless situations or any disagreement.

46. FAB Libber - November 21, 2010

rhondda, her cryptic posts did not sound like an awakening at all.

Awakening sounds like:
“wow, that makes sense now!” and
“gee, that reminds me so much of what happened … and now I understand it/look at it differently”

NOT calling others the messiah, and talking about ammo for posts or whatever the hell she was on about.

factcheckme - November 21, 2010

Actually kristina, the usual prerequisite to ptsd is being in a life threatening situation, and thinking you are going to die. And I have no idea what you are talking about.

47. kristina - November 21, 2010

Yes I know the prerequisite is a life threatening situation…being a woman is a life threatening situation..think about it…you say it all the time.

48. kristina - November 21, 2010

When you enter fight or flight you perceive yourself to be in a life threatening situation, it is the body’s natural way to deal with stress…

Then PTSD is the body “over reacting” to certain stressful situations, usually after a trigger. I say over reacting because it can be a small trigger that you never realized, something that you associate with your previous trauma even if you aren’t in immediate danger.

I had noticed that even though I wasn’t “raped” even though I didn’t have sex, I had symptoms and a diagnosis of PTSD, sad, gad, depression, and bipolar…all after this incident…I still have triggers, but they are manageable now…to say that a woman NEEDS to have been raped to have PTSD is avoiding the real issue…that women are subjugated to men EVERYDAY without the use of rape.

factcheckme - November 21, 2010

to say that a woman NEEDS to have been raped to have PTSD is avoiding the real issue…

noone has said this kristina. the part of my post that you quoted was about MEN, and their bullshit perception of basically everything they dont like or that they think isnt fair TO THEM, as being “violent.” meanwhile, they are the ones that are violent, for real. this was a similar point to my “is eminem a transwoman?” post, where men and transwoman are constantly reading their own emotional turmoil (usually created by themselves) as PAIN, while womens actual, physical pain, inflicted on women BY MEN is downplayed, denied, or ignored. its the same old shit.

and kristina, i have suggested to you before that as a newbie feminist, you stick to the topic of the post, and not go off on tangents. seriously. i dont have time for this shit.

Then PTSD is the body “over reacting” to certain stressful situations, usually after a trigger.

no, its not. i think you are talking about a flashback. you can find the diagnostic criteria for PTSD online, basically its something like 17 various symptoms and behaviors like sleeplessness, avoiding triggering situations, feeling hopeless, that fall into something like 5 categories of PTSD criteria (avoidance, intrusive thoughts, hyperarousal) and you have to have a certain number of “hits” that fall into the categories just right, and have experienced them “frequently” within the last month…AND you can also meet all the diagnostic criteria by being exposed to OTHER PEOPLES trauma, as women in the helping professions and social work probably know. this is called vicarious or secondary trauma.

its complicated. so again, i dont know what you are talking about. i do agree that men are reactive and violent, but i dont know why you assume this means they are going into some kind of PTSD or fight-or-flight response, rather than just being entitled and aggressive? and i also think, although you didnt say it directly, that much of so-called “womens psychology” are actually symptoms of being traumatized. its just that so many women are traumatized and have these symptoms and behaviors, it seems like its inherent to the sex. but its not. we have discussed this here before.

49. kristina - November 21, 2010

I’m not trying to say that being traumatized is something that should be viewed as negative against women…it should be viewed as how horrible men treat women… but okay I won’t clog up the works here.

50. kristina - November 21, 2010

Psychologically speaking men are going into fight or flight because they perceive a wrong against them…like you say, they fear their entitlement being taken away… I just wanted to try to clear my position but I’m done now for real.

51. thebewilderness - November 21, 2010

kristina,
I get what you are saying.
I’m not sure if it is a combination of conditioning and testosterone presence or absence, but I know what you are talking about.
I’ll puzzle on it for a bit.

factcheckme - November 21, 2010

thanks bewilderness.

52. kristina - November 22, 2010

thanks bewilderness. I didn’t want anyone to think I was mansplaining…

53. Undercover Punk - November 23, 2010

I am still contemplating failure of application versus a failure of reason. “Unintended consequences” is what I usually call a failure of application, but it’s like the tip of an iceberg. I think it’s going to take me a while longer to really GET how big this is. Thanks, FCM!

People must be awfully self-involved if they think stuff is ABOUT THEM when they have never been specifically mentioned by name in a post. That is just plain weird.

I know I’m sticking my nose in, and I know I probably shouldn’t because I’m not trying to fan the flames, I just want to point out that there *is* a certain contingent of bloggers who practice this form of passive-aggressive divisiveness. I also think everyone is emotionally raw and maybe a little trigger-happy given what’s been going back and forth over the past 2 months, if you know what I mean and I hope ya do. I’m just saying. Because I enjoy discussing feminism here with ALL of you brilliant women. And I know that we ALL need to take a break sometimes cause this shit is heavy. Thank you. With my love.

54. SheilaG - November 23, 2010

Good points UCP. My policy is, that if I am not specifically named in a post, I assume nothing. I just look at the quality of the ideas, and don’t take things personally. People would get so many things wrong about me, I just assume a failure of knowlege or reading comprehension🙂

When in doubt, I assume lack of reading ability.

55. Undercover Punk - November 23, 2010

Thanks, Sheila. You know, the longer I’m out here and the more experience I get on the blog-front, the more I’m inclined to agree with you. Reading comprehension failures, deliberate hyperbole, and willful misinterpretation are much more commonplace than I ever imagined. Or maybe I’m just a lot better at reading comprehension relative to others. I don’t know. Either way, it’s kind of depressing. But true. TRUE! And it never ceases to amaze me.


Sorry comments are closed for this entry