tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-610803938756668468.post4974157204345635508..comments2024-03-28T07:08:58.221-04:00Comments on Todd Seavey: Brief Statement of PrinciplesTodd Seaveyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08589187886030112999noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-610803938756668468.post-6588751979986767182007-04-06T12:46:00.000-04:002007-04-06T12:46:00.000-04:00[...] And, it strikes me, there are probably some ...[...] And, it strikes me, there are probably some feminist readers — perhaps even Jen Dziura and Jill Friedman, who posted comments objecting to my anti-feminism — who find themselves thinking “Why should we be at all troubled by sex change operations, given all the bizarre things we expect normal women to do to maintain their bodies?” [...]Todd Seaveyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08589187886030112999noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-610803938756668468.post-57052388076096610002007-04-05T23:18:00.000-04:002007-04-05T23:18:00.000-04:00“That said, you need to know that in print, the ph...“That said, you need to know that in print, the phrase “feminism is bunk†is surprisingly offensive!<br><br>“Feminism is the radical notion that women are people.—<br><br>Now, personally, *I* find *that* offensive. Why? Because it states, in almost so many words, “Everyone who believes this is a feminist, and those who do not identify as feminists do not think women are people.” That’s basically “You’re with us or against us.”<br><br>I think women are people. Does that mean I’m a feminist? Seems like a pretty watered-down if not useless definition, if you ask me. How many people do you know who are going to specifically disagree with the statement that women are people?<br><br>To me, “feminism” means framing debates about society in terms of male/female dichotomies, and believing that gender roles are the most important thing in and about individuals and society. That’s just my view as a self-identified non-feminist, of course, but I believe there’s more truth to it than there is to your definition. Take a look at feminist anthropology, for example. Part of its bases was/is the belief that the commonality in the experience of being female was more significant than the differences of being of a different culture. (e.g., Burundian women and American women have more in common because of their gender than they have different because of their culture.)<br><br>I’m not bashing feminists here – I have known plenty of good people who identify as feminists, and I know there are lots of different kinds of feminists – and I’m only bashing feminism, as I describe it, insofar as taken to extremes I don’t think it’s a way of looking at the world that leads us to particularly interesting and correct conclusions.JDnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-610803938756668468.post-45671037683897576662007-04-04T12:29:00.000-04:002007-04-04T12:29:00.000-04:00You’re welcome to say you’re not a feminist. Just ...You’re welcome to say you’re not a feminist. Just don’t say it’s bunk. ;)<br><br>It’s like me saying “Libertarianism is bunk” based on an outdated faction of Libertarianism, generally disagreed with by “modern” Libertarians.<br><br>Many “modern” feminists enjoy sex and (good) porn these days. I know I certainly do…Red Staplerhttp://meandmyredstapler.blogspot.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-610803938756668468.post-60422344619633525022007-04-04T12:16:00.000-04:002007-04-04T12:16:00.000-04:00Maybe one month from now, when commenter Jen — who...Maybe one month from now, when commenter Jen — who faced Red Stapler/Jill in debate at Lolita last year but now, like Gilgamesh allying with Enkidu (except that they’re dames), is joining forces with her against a common foe — does her new Lolita debate (May 2!) would be a good time for me to go into the whole feminism issue in greater detail, but I will briefly say that in discussing it, I sometimes feel the same way I do when confronting certain theologically-liberal folk who object to me calling myself an atheist. <br><br>I naturally respond by asking them to define God, if they’re claiming I’m not an atheist, and they refuse to define the term — yet still maintain it’s something I can’t deny believing in. Similarly, some people get very incensed when I say I’m not a feminist (as the blogger Jill links to probably would) but don’t seem to be able to provide any definition other than one that either (a) makes the term so watered down that I still wouldn’t want to use it since it seems near-meaningless or else (b) clearly does entail precisely the things I’m rejecting, such as affirmative action laws. Feminism seems fraught with such contradictions, and it’s not my job to iron them out. You do the ironing and get back to me when it’s clearer what the (ongoing) point of it all is. But I promise we’ll go into it more circa May 2.Todd Seaveyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08589187886030112999noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-610803938756668468.post-70651697412162723452007-04-03T15:45:00.000-04:002007-04-03T15:45:00.000-04:00This blogger more eloquently says what I just tri...<a href="http://www.shakesville.com/2007/04/feminism_benefits_us_all.php" rel="nofollow">This blogger</a> more eloquently says what I just tried to.Red Staplerhttp://meandmyredstapler.blogspot.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-610803938756668468.post-74474034276006325872007-04-03T15:35:00.000-04:002007-04-03T15:35:00.000-04:00I agree with every word Jen said.We’ve talked abou...I agree with every word Jen said.<br><br>We’ve talked about this in person, so I know you’re not even close to being a misogynist. That said, you need to know that in print, the phrase “feminism is bunk” is surprisingly offensive!<br><br>“Feminism is the radical notion that women are people.”<br><br>Just because I suck at math doesn’t mean that it’s a product (heh) of my chromosomes. I assure you, my very macho and masculine brother is similarly poor at math. <br><br>Your language drifts perilously close to saying that gender roles should be fixed and constant. You know too many women who hold jobs they couldn’t just a few decades ago to use such language carelessly.<br><br>As to affirmative action and the like…well, read some essays about white and male privelege sometime. I also think affirmative action is lame, but in some places, the kind of privelege that necessitates still exists.Red Staplerhttp://meandmyredstapler.blogspot.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-610803938756668468.post-66011562563909278672007-04-02T11:31:00.000-04:002007-04-02T11:31:00.000-04:00I concede that I am a very, very old man whose ide...I concede that I am a very, very old man whose idea of feminism was largely shaped by Brown University — an institution about which I will likely have more to say on this blog in the future — back around the end of the Cold War, which was a conflict, early in human history, rooted in radical yet calcified right-vs.-left thinking far older than the fluid “text messaging” and “body modification art” of our era. Everywhere I looked, in short, a bunch of goddam hippies, often quoting Catherine MacKinnon, or Andrea Dworkin, who was still alive at the time. <br><br>And they would have been alarmed to hear, by the way, that Ms. Dziura will argue the “no” position (against Charles Star) at our May 2 (8pm) Debate at Lolita Bar on the question “Does the Beauty Industry Oppress Women?” But just the fact she’s arguing it while still proudly claiming the feminist label probably means I’ve been out of touch, thinking about science and economics, while some things have changed, like Captain America being frozen in an iceberg by Baron Zemo at the end of World War II. <br><br>At the end of the day, though, I still don’t think the feminists have really accepted the logical consequences of differential abilities (and simply differential interests) until they’re ready to abolish affirmative action and hiring quotas. We’ll see if that happens anytime soon. But perhaps I should save all this for the 5/2 debate (though I’m just hosting and thus as steadfastly neutral as Switzerland).Todd Seaveyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08589187886030112999noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-610803938756668468.post-43586444794957123992007-04-02T11:09:00.000-04:002007-04-02T11:09:00.000-04:00Your definition of feminism is a bizarre straw-wom...Your definition of feminism is a bizarre straw-woman! Surely you can find a couple of holdover sixties-academe feminists who really believe gender is entirely a social construct, but I guarantee that if you engage (for instance) Jessica Valenti over at Feministing on the topic, that will not be her view. Virtually all relevant modern-day feminists acknowledge that men and women are different in a variety of ways; a lack of identical abilities is entirely irrelevant to fighting for reproductive rights or sexual harassment or whatever. Read backwards, this is a great blog, up until this weird blurp!<br><br>JenJennifer Dziuranoreply@blogger.com