Straight pride? Oy vey....

[conuly]

I think this is all a result of confusing and conflating two different definitions of the word "pride".

The first has to do with a sense of accomplishment. I am proud to have gotten 3 As and an A- last summer. I am proud to have gone to Stuy (even though I didn't stay there).

The second has to do with simply not being ashamed. That's what people mean they have gay pride, or black pride, or autistic pride. They haven't accomplished any of these things, they simply mean that they aren't ashamed of them and don't wish to change them. They have to say that they're proud because they're all minorities. Mainstream culture would generally prefer that these people change, or pretend to change, or act as though they've changed. Mainstream culture encourages people to be ashamed of things they cannot help, if those things make them different. Mainstream culture kinda sucks, doesn't it?

Anyway, as I was saying, you can't really use "pride" in a sense of "not being ashamed" unless you're a minority. People who identify as straight really aren't a minority, and make all the laws, and therefore don't get a parade. Sorry, duckies.

Comments

[zathras26.livejournal.com]

Anyway, as I was saying, you can't really use "pride" in a sense of "not being ashamed" unless you're a minority.

That's not true. As a heterosexual male who has often felt the backlash of militant feminism, I can honestly say that I've had to work for many, many years to be able to have "pride" in being a man, and men are not a minority.

[conuly]

I've never seen any actual militant feminism, but I may not be looking closely.

[zathras26.livejournal.com]

Most feminism is not militant, but yes, it does exist. The stereotype (sometimes caricaturized in such venues as SNL) of the angry feminist who is bent on subjugating men the same way women were subjugated for so long is not just a vacuous one -- such women really do exist, and the men who buy into it (as I did) are indoctrinated to believe that they are inferior, shameful creatures because they are not women. It wasn't until I was in my mid-twenties or so that I finally started speaking up when I was on the receiving end of condemnation for my gender. For example, when I was angrily denounced about rape (which is, of course, committed almost entirely by men), I would respond by saying that I absolutely refuse to be held responsible for anyone's actions other than my own. Yes, almost all rapists are men, and I am a man. However, it does not follow from that that I am a legitimate target for excoriation on this issue, and I will not apologize or make excuses for the fact that I happen to be the same gender as most rapists.

Believe it or not, there are feminists out there who will reject that line of reasoning and insist that my penis means that I bear some of the blame or responsibility for rape. Nope. *smiles brightly*

[conuly]

I'd say "you're kidding", but I don't want you to read that literally and think I'm actually accusing you of making this up. People are all misunderstanding me lately, best not to risk it.

[zathras26.livejournal.com]

No, I am not kidding. I wish I were, believe me, but I'm not. I've encountered that type of woman more than once, and it was formative of my personality... as I said, it took me quite a few years to start to shake off their indoctrination and not be ashamed that my crotch is an "outie", not an "innie", as they had taught me for so long.

[conuly]

*hugs*

On the other hand, just to wander back to my post here, I still think that the "straight pride" parade was an example of the first kind of pride, not the second. They aren't just "not ashamed" to be straight, they actually think they're better than teh hoomoos (who are all about the special rights, remember....) because of it.

Probably.

[moggymania.livejournal.com]

I get the feeling that the "they" that indoctrinated you not only weren't actually feminist, but they would have managed to make you self-loathing regardless of your gender or the topic they'd picked out... Especially considering quite a few of the concepts you've mentioned to me as part of your background completely contradict feminism.

[zathras26.livejournal.com]

Oh, they were feminists. They told me so themselves, and that being the case, I have to take them at their word rather than taking the word of another feminist that their particular brand of feminism isn't "real" feminism.

It's rather like the way we freethinkers look at the various sects of Xianity. We are not persuaded when the Catholics tell us that the Jehovah's Witnesses aren't "really" Xians, or the Baptists saying the same thing about the Quakers, or the Greek Orthodox saying it about the Unitarians, etc etc. They all say they are Xians, they quote scripture and so on to back themselves up, and they are therefore generally all regarded by freethinkers as Xians.

It's similar with feminism -- whenever a woman calls herself a feminist, insists that men have it better than women, talks about the glass ceiling, discusses male oppression of women, and so on, I have to assume that she is a feminist, regardless of whether she also claims that men are shameful, inferior creatures who deserved to suffer the same oppression that women used to suffer at their hands. That's not just pedantry, either; it would also be a direct insult to that woman to tell her that she's not a "real" feminist because she doesn't fit my particular definition of feminism. (Think, by way of comparison, about how it feels when someone tries to tell you that you are not a "real" autistic.)

[moggymania.livejournal.com]

See, I don't think you have to take people at their word -- that's what critical thinking skills are for.

When I was younger, even though I had no belief in any gods, I still said (because this is what I had been taught) that I was Catholic. That I said it didn't mean it was true, or that people shouldn't question that... In fact, it was somebody questioning it that made me finally realize that I had the term wrong.

Similarly, if somebody were to come up to me claiming to be a cat-lover, yet what they loved was *harming* cats, I'd have no problem pointing out that they're using the definition wrong. As you've been arguing over on AutAdvo, words are useless unless they accurately communicate a concept... Anybody could say they're pretty much anything; it takes critical thinking skills and knowledge to discern whether they're accurate or not. (That applies to autism as well, since NTs do sometimes misdiagnose in place of social anxiety disorder and such things.)

[zathras26.livejournal.com]

That's all well and good, but the problem is, some people redefine themselves and insist that others accept their definitions. Probably the best example I can think of is the Jehovah's Witnesses, who call themselves Xians but reject the concept of the Trinity. Other sects of Xianity insist that the JWs are not Xians because they don't accept the Trinity. And each side quotes scripture to support their stance; each sides accepts a lot of other commonly accepted Xian doctrines; etc etc. Therefore, we freethinkers generally lump all of them together under the umbrella of Xianity. George Smith goes into this quite a bit in "Atheism: The Case Against God".

Similarly:
Feminism means a specific set of beliefs, chief among them being a belief in equality. If you don't believe in equality, as these people clearly didn't, then you're not a feminist, end of story.

The thing is, that is not how certain feminists view feminism. They view it as, among other things, the idea that men are inferior to women and should be subjugated and relegated to the status of second-class citizens. It is also a doctrine that today's men should be subjected to the same kind of mistreatment that women had to suffer thru for so long. They define "feminism" as meaning that women are superior to men and that society should be shaped around that idea. (These are typically the women that rightists will refer to as "feminazis".)

I've attempted to debate such women on occasion, and one generally doesn't get very far with them because they are highly resistant to logic. I remember even trying to explain once to my coworker, Jalene, that if you insist that men should be relegated to second-class status, you can no longer complain about men having done that to women in the past because you're seeking the same arrangement that used to exist before, just with the genders reversed. She simply laughed at me.

[conuly]

That's all well and good, but the problem is, some people redefine themselves and insist that others accept their definitions.

We don't have to accept their definitions if we don't want to.

The thing is, that is not how certain feminists view feminism.

Then they're not feminists. We can't have a humpty dumpty view of the world. Language changes, but words rarely mean two contradictory things at any one time (cleave is the exception here).

[zathras26.livejournal.com]

We don't have to accept their definitions if we don't want to.

No, we don't... but that won't stop them from calling themselves feminists, anymore than the JWs will stop calling themselves Xians because Catholics and Baptists say that they're not. You can say all you want that they're not feminists, but they'll keep saying that they are, and if you try to tell them that they're not, well... I hope you have an asbestos jumpsuit, because they're going to flame the hell out of you. :-)

[conuly]

Oh, see, I don't tell *them* that they're not feminists. I tell *you* that because you need to know. They can rot in hell.

[moggymania.livejournal.com]

"That's all well and good, but the problem is, some people redefine themselves and insist that others accept their definitions."

Generally I just tell people with that attitude that they're wrong if they are. They can insist all they want, just as the one fellow on AutAdvo does regarding language, but it's not going to make them right or me have any more respect for their notions.

"Therefore, we freethinkers generally lump all of them together under the umbrella of Xianity."

I generally just lump all the religions together as 'religious' and openly state that I don't care about their squabbling subclassifications beyond that. It works better.

"The thing is, that is not how certain feminists view feminism. They view it as, among other things, the idea that men are inferior to women and should be subjugated and relegated to the status of second-class citizens."

I never said that there aren't feminists that believe in that; I know that there are.

"if you insist that men should be relegated to second-class status, you can no longer complain about men having done that to women in the past because you're seeking the same arrangement that used to exist before, just with the genders reversed."

Emulating a variant on something, or reversing it, *doesn't* mean losing the ability to protest it. (I don't believe in the "you have no right to protest" concept in the first place. Everybody should have the right to complain, IMHO, and we should let whatever facts they present decide whether their complaint is legitimate.)

As far as complaining about genderist behavior, it actually is possible to logically protest while applying what one protests to the other gender. There are three basic types of thought here: that women need extra guidance, that men need extra guidance, and that neither needs extra guidance. Saying one group doesn't need additional guidance doesn't automatically mean the other one doesn't either -- the two are separate concepts for separate groups.

(My view is that what one needs depends on the individual rather than their genitals, which isn't feminist, andrist, or equalist. I avoid most groups like that -- not just restricted to gender, but other movements -- as they tend to be filled with antagonistic hypocrites that focus more on keeping others from power than finding ways to elevate or improve them.)

[zathras26.livejournal.com]

Emulating a variant on something, or reversing it, *doesn't* mean losing the ability to protest it.

Sure, it does. If you endorse the suppression of a particular group based because of any particular (usually arbitrary) trait that that group has, then logically you cannot object to any situation in which one particular group has already been suppressed using that criterion. To do so is simply hypocrisy.

These feminists endorse the suppression of one group on the basis of that group's gender; therefore, they cannot complain about another group having been suppressed on the basis of its gender. Sauce for the goose, as the saying goes, is sauce for the gander.

(I don't believe in the "you have no right to protest" concept in the first place. Everybody should have the right to complain, IMHO, and we should let whatever facts they present decide whether their complaint is legitimate.)

Everyone starts off with the right to protest anything they want, but depending on what kind of views they espouse, they can forfeit the right to object on the grounds of hypocrisy. For example, I have every right to protest those assholes who smoke in the hallway in my building, but if I start smoking in the hallway myself, then I forfeit my right to object to anyone else doing it.

Similarly, these feminists had the right to object to suppression of women on the basis of their gender, but when they started to endorse doing the same thing to men, they forfeited the right to object to its having happened to women.

[moggymania.livejournal.com]

"Sauce for the goose, as the saying goes, is sauce for the gander."

You expect women and men to hold to different behavioral norms, and react to things or judge your reactions based on your beliefs on how your gender "should" respond/behave... Wouldn't this flatly contradict your claim that 'sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander'?

"Everyone starts off with the right to protest anything they want, but depending on what kind of views they espouse, they can forfeit the right to object on the grounds of hypocrisy."

Only in your view, though. That you feel that way doesn't mean it's a universal forfeit, just that you personally will refuse to hear their views and prefer to withhold your own.

"Similarly, these feminists had the right to object to suppression of women on the basis of their gender, but when they started to endorse doing the same thing to men, they forfeited the right to object to its having happened to women."

If you felt that both should (and do) act/react identically, then it would make sense to expect them to need precisely the same treatment -- your own beliefs contradict that, though.

We're also approaching the problem from different angles. You're claiming (though it contradicts your beliefs) to view gender as an incidental variant, saying all human beings should be treated identically. I'm approaching the problem more as a case of men and women being two distinct and unrelated groups akin to dogs and cats -- the needs of which are each unrelated to even the existence of the other. (This is not to say I believe men and women are all that different, as I don't; I'm just arguing against the "you can't protest" concept.)

[zathras26.livejournal.com]

You expect women and men to hold to different behavioral norms, and react to things or judge your reactions based on your beliefs on how your gender "should" respond/behave... Wouldn't this flatly contradict your claim that 'sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander'?

No -- you're referring to my beliefs about social interaction. This is a discussion about civil rights.

I am merely stating that if one endorses a particular ideology, one obviously cannot object if that ideology actually comes to pass anywhere. These feminists (and yes, I do use the term loosely) argue in favor of suppression based on gender, and that being the case, they obviously cannot complain when they encounter any actual examples of suppression based on gender. To do so is simply hypocritical. If you live by the sword, you die by the sword.

Only in your view, though. That you feel that way doesn't mean it's a universal forfeit, just that you personally will refuse to hear their views and prefer to withhold your own.

I do understand your point: they say that it is acceptable to suppress men for their gender, but not to suppress women for their gender. They do not recognize that that is hypocritical, but it is still hypocritical nevertheless. As to it being "only in my view", well... hypocrisy is hypocrisy, regardless of who points out the hypocrisy.

I'm reminded of a scene from The War Against the Chtorr: Invasion where Jim (a college dropout) attempts to classify an alien plant as a "purple coleus", and one of his superiors objects, saying that he should leave that classification to the experts. Jim responds by saying that a purple coleus is a purple coleus, regardless of the qualifications of the person who points at it and says, "That's a purple coleus". These feminists' hypocrisy is the same way.

You're claiming (though it contradicts your beliefs) to view gender as an incidental variant, saying all human beings should be treated identically.

It doesn't contradict my beliefs. What we're discussing here is civil rights and civil liberties, which is a different matter from social situations. When it comes to civil rights, all human beings should be treated identically. Rights cannot be denied to anyone on an arbitrary basis, whether it is gender, religion, race, eye color, tooth decay, or anything else incidental. Rights can only be denied on an individual basis on the grounds of each individual's behavior.

Reverting to our previous example: it is certainly true that almost all sexual assault is perpetrated by men, but it does not follow from that basis that anyone who is a man may be denied their civil rights because most rapists are male. Even if 99% of all men were convicted rapists, the remaining 1% still could not be denied their civil rights for that reason. Guilt by association isn't kosher -- especially when it's based on a trait that is beyond an individual's control -- and guilt by association is exactly what these "feminists" presuppose.

[conuly]

Oh, they were feminists. They told me so themselves, and that being the case, I have to take them at their word rather than taking the word of another feminist that their particular brand of feminism isn't "real" feminism.

No, you don't. Feminism means a specific set of beliefs, chief among them being a belief in equality. If you don't believe in equality, as these people clearly didn't, then you're not a feminist, end of story.

[griffen.livejournal.com]

I've had them go one better and accuse me of just "using" my transition as a convenient way to get "male privelege." Thus, by transitioning, I am now assuming automatic rape-guilt.

Go figure.

[conuly]

Well, that'd be the logical reason to do that, of course.

Except that then you have to deal with crazy homophobes who want to kill you, and who may very well do so even if you previously thought they were your friends.

Fair trade, I'd say. *dramatic eyeroll*