Bizarre. One would think that perhaps Iran's detention of the sailors might have something to do with the general hostilities in the region, not the lack of the desire to chant slogans in Latin.
And he seems a little too happy over the 'Englishwomen in bondage!' theme. We must protect the honor of our women; got any details about the amorous intentions of Tehran?
Ferguson is a noted lover of empire, right? So no big surprise that he wants to smash the brown people, but he doesn't actually say that the apology was the cause, but that the weakness evinced by the apology is the same weakness that the Iranians counted on when detaining the Britons. I don't think he would say that it follows from his argument that no apology equals no detention.
It depends on the role of the apology. It might have raised Iranian confidence in British weakness to a level sufficient for detention.
But point taken about its being a symptom of the larger cause. Also, you're gay.
I saw it in the Torygraph -- Ferguson must like getting paid twice. (Ogged yes, that's his argument.) Here, probably with Tory-reader comments.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2007/04/01/do0104.xml
Also stupid is Ferguson's apparent belief that this is all about psychology, will and manhood. I'm not sure what kind of response Ferguson wants, but it would almost certainly be disastrous.
No, Ogged; all Blair has to do is go on television and bench 275.
Also stupid is Ferguson's apparent belief that this is all about psychology, will and manhood.
Ultimately, this is maybe my largest problem with the Right. And your refusal to reappraise Jordan. And the motivation for my sincere hope that we have a female Executive soon (though not HRC).
No, Ogged; all Blair has to do is go on television and bench 275.
We own the weights!
George Will also has unmixed admiration for empire and everything else Victorian. Someone was accused of wanting to turn the clock back to Coolidge's time, and Will trumped him by proposing that we go back to McKinley's time. Teddie R. was too left for him.
No, I don't think he was kidding. Will has an especially virulent opposition to "one man one vote"; I believe that he wants to reinstitute the poll tax.
He used to be my least favorite pundit, but the last couple of years have made him seen almost sane in comparison with some of the other standard bearers. When George Will starts looking good...
Just by themselves the names "snatch", "clean and jerk", and "squat" keep women out of power lifting. It must have been a skit somewhere already, three sportsy suburban princesses chatting about their their snatch- and squat-improvement goals.
I have problems with insitutional apologies of this kind exactly because I regard people, individuals, as moral agents--by which I mean, among other things, that they are the only agents who can bear moral responsbility, and they bear it only for what they've actually done. Great Britain, or the Catholic Church, or the State of Virginia is not a moral agent, except insofar as we use a term like "Great Britain" as shorthand for the individuals running it. Those who ruled Great Britain during the slave trade are long dead. It makes for nice rhetoric for the current Prime Minister to apologize for slavery, or the Potato Famine, or any number of past crimes by Britons, but it doesn't really make much sense logically.
I don't, btw, mean this as a defense of Ferguson. His reasoning is transparently silly.
by which I mean, among other things, that they are the only agents who can bear moral responsbility
Why? Maybe the issue is "responsibility." I can certainly believe that certain groups of people with certain sets of beliefs are more likely to yield individuals that take certain types of odious actions. Maybe the apology is more of an acknowledgment that slavery was wrong--I'm not sure what force it has beyond that.
Yeah, I feel the force of that view, Aaron. If I had been more careful, I would have said that the right problem to have with the apology isn't that it manifests *weakness*.
People who act ex officio may be personally guilty, but they also implicate institutions. The Holocaust was an institutional event, specifically an act of the German state, and Germany and Germans were implicated.
Institutions most decidedly can be and are responsible for shit like slavery--it's not like hundreds of thousands of Europeans all woke up one morning and thought, I know, I'll send a ship to Africa to pick up some people for me.
That said, official national apologies for stuff like this seem a little hollow to me, too, if only because they're all about two hundred years too late, and because they don't do a whole lot of actual good. It would be nice to see this shit backed up with reparations, or announcements of huge financial aid packages to Africa, or massive job-creation projects for folks in the ghetto, or whatever.
But official apologies, however effectively useless, are long overdue. It's not like there's any decent argument for *not* making them.
I prefer expressions of regret. We officially say that those actions were atrocious and cruel.
Apologizing for your ancestors' bad acts is fairly silly in the abstract, but in practice it's usually a situation where making the apology is harmless and refusing it associates you with attitudes like Ferguson's. Reparations are kind of the same way. I don't at all like the idea that one group of people owe reparations to another based on what the ancestors of one group did to the ancestors of the other, but recognizing the impact of those past bad acts on the world we live in today and providing assistance accordingly is a different matter.
Wow, I totally misread that post at first because I was reading the word "apology" in the sense of "giving a reasoned argument in favor of" instead of the "we're really sorry about that" sense. Sigh. I need to get out more.
In the Turkish-Armenian case, quibles about the specifics of apology, regret. or reperations aren't really the issue. The Turks still say that there was never any serious problem, just the normal stuff that happens in wars and revolutions, and furthermore, the supposed perpetrators of genocide are great national heros. The Turks also reserve the right to Turkify any remaining non-Turkish inhabitants of Turkey, for example Kurds.
In the Turkish case, the supposed refusal of supposed "meaningless apologies" strikes me as pretty meaningful, even though the Armenian militants are crazy too.
As for slavery, a certain proportion of the country, especially in the South, still is ambivalent about slavery, and for that reason alone an apology would be a good idea -- purely and simply for the purpose of pissing neo-Confederates off.
And just to reiterate -- political entities and corporations are moral agents. Such a high proportion of the most significant actions are performed by states and corporations that if they were denied moral agency, we'd doomed to live in a substantially postmoral world.
I felt Fergie's nonsense so risible, it took a post to get it out.
Basically, for a prof of history, he either knows fuck-all, or pretends to know fuck all because stupidity is profitable. Trahison des clercs and all that.
Anyway, the feminists on the thread ought to consider that his ideal alternative leader is Margaret Thatcher. Leaders are the problem. They'd still be the problem if they were computers, squid, or castrati.
Anyway, the feminists on the thread ought to consider that his ideal alternative leader is Margaret Thatcher. Leaders are the problem.
Ha! I think he means me.
I'm not aware that Margaret Thatcher was a feminist.
For feminist leaders, I'll take Barbara Jordan, or Shirley Chisolm, or even Nancy Pelosi. Thanks anyway.
I doubt Ferguson believes the apology for slavery is causing anything. It is a poor hook for the column, but you go to the op-ed war with the current events you have, not the ones you wish you had.
Three comments:
1. It's surely true that in 1850 a nation that kidnapped British sailors on bogus charges could expect such a stunt to result in immediate military reprisal. No longer. It seems plausible that the credible threat of massive military reprisal is better guarantor of safety than a general reputation as good guys or responsible global citizens. That's debatable, of course, but seems to be Ferguson's main point.
2. Chattel slavery was an abomination. Should the leader of the UK apologize for it? Should that apology take note of or be tempered by the fact that the most consequential abolitionist movement in human history was English, or the fact the suppression of the slave trade by force of arms was accomplished primarily by the British Navy, or is that in poor taste? Is there not something a bit peculiar about the UK - of all nations on earth - taking on specific blame here?
1. This one is for bphd, and hearkens back to an old conversation about feminism. What makes you say Thatcher isn't a feminist? I suspect there's not a sentence in "On the Subjugation of Women" to which she would object. She was also, if I recall, fairly consistently pro-choice, and culturally libertarian. So what is it that makes a leader a feminist? Is it:
a. Self-identification
b. The endorsement of a certain set of non-laissez faire economic policies
c. The endorsement of a certain set of non-libertarian social policies (guarantees of positive freedoms, affirmative action, etc.)
d. Something else?
It's surely true that in 1850 a nation that kidnapped British sailors on bogus charges could expect such a stunt to result in immediate military reprisal.
It isn't true, actually. Ferguson refers to Linda Colley's Captives, a really very cool history of Europeans taken into slavery in North Africa, and England tried very very hard to pretend that it wasn't happening at all. Individual families went to extreme efforts to raise the ransom money; the government was of no help. I think that the practice died down after 1820 or so (the French started moving in by 1830), though.
I doubt that Colley appreciated her work being referenced in such a column.
As Jackmormon notes, that seems to be debatable. Being known as the good guys perhaps has its drawbacks, but it just doesn't seem to be true that being remembered as an empire ready-to-war actually resulted in fewer kidnappings. (Surely a hard thing to measure.) Consider further that the UK is only a weak, non-belligerent large power in comparison to the U.S. We're better at the crazy cowboy routine, but it's not as though Blair has been crying for peace.
Perhaps the British, who a.) first kept and sold slaves and b.) later abolished slavery, are apologizing for a.). For a long time, the British played an enormous role in the slave trade, which was one of the reasons why the anti-slavery movement was so British. Their apology doesn't prevent any other country also apologizing for slavery; no "uniquely" here.
Ferguson chose a shitty leadin for his article because he's a shitty guy. No one was holding a gun to his head.
British slave trade
JM,
Sounds like a great book, although I am not sure what about Ferguson's column puts it to poor use. Just to clarify, the point isn't that the British would at all times go to any length to protect their citizens, rather that attacking a ship of the British navy and kidnapping their crew would have likely brought reprisal in 1850, when the British navy was reaching the apex of its power. As Ferguson notes "Only gradually, in the period of British imperialism not covered by Colley's book, did the British acquire that kind of power: not necessarily the power to prevent Britons from ever being taken captive, but the power to inflict disproportionate retaliation when they were." Is that statement controversial?
John,
I agree that it is reasonable enough for any country to apologize for its role in the slave trade, full stop. There is also the parallel question of what "slavery narrative" to use Steve Burton's phrase in the post I linked, is the right one to promulgate. It's the connection between the two that is the problem.
I'm pretty sure that the British navy could have pounded the crap out of the Algerian coastline well before 1850, if it had wanted to do so. The French might've had something to say about it, though.
According to Colley, the Algerians used to be fond of sailing up and snatching slaves from the outer British islands. Nobody important, usually.
Ferguson is insinuating that the reason why the British can't do much (or aren't doing much) is psychological -- because the British aren't tough enough and are too PC. The actual reasons seems to be a.) Britain has come down in the world, b.) Britain and America have their hands full in Iraq, and c.) to a considerable degree, the wogs have caught up militarily.
He probably doesn't believe what he's insinuating -- he just seems to want the US and its subject nations to be more militaristic, and so he'll say whatever seem as though it might move people in that direction. The little slavery comment was just a knee-jerk dig at PC -- it actually doesn't contribute to his argument.
I agree with all a-c, JE, and there's actually some reference to 'a' at least, in Ferguson's peice. The tie in to abolition, however, is anything but immaterial. For Ferguson, slavery was abolished precisely because of the imperial power of England, and English willingnes to 'impose values' on other nations. That's why NF wants a robust anglophone imperialism -- because he believes it can impose better outcomes.
OK, but slave trading contributed to earlier British imperialism. It's like when they quit wanting to do it, they made everyone else quit too.
Henry Adams' became a cynic as he watched Gladstone, who was militantly and eloquently anti-slavery, refuse to support the Union against the Confederacy (and even turn a blind eye to Confederate activities in Britain).
In the Autobiography he gradually becomes a cynic, and his behavior during the Spanish-American War was pretty cynical as I understand. However, I'm actually winging it. He is the oddest fish I have ever encountered.
Yes, such as the fitting-out of the Alabama in Liverpool.
Cotton prices? Pure power politics, preferring two Americas, or three, counting Canada, to one unified and centralized country?
In any case, an object lesson in Imperial power, as JE suggests.
It's like when they quit wanting to do it, they made everyone else quit too.
True enough. That's not an usual result of a moral crusade, however.
Thatcher, to my knowledge (as I said) didn't consider herself a feminist. I certainly don't think she was particularly interested in thinking about systemic discrimination against women. She was a strong figure, and as a feminist, yay the idea that women can be economic conservatives just as well as men! But while you might be able to make a case that in a sense she's a feminist role model, I don't think you can make the case that she's a feminist just because she was a woman who happened to be head of state and didn't think abortion was evil.
Sorry: "not an unusual result of a moral crusade"
43: fair enough. And thanks for taking the time to respond. I wasn't asking to be a smart ass, rather it's hard (for me, at least) to track what different people think of as 'feminist.' It's a term that seems to have gotten away from us...
Feminism is agreeing with whatever the nearest females are saying; the sooner you figure this out...
When the Alabama's keel was laid/
it was laid in the yard of Jonathan Laird/
Roll Alabama roll.
47: Ogged, are you currently trolling my blog under the pseudonym "analyzer"?
Thanks for the Colley citations, eb! She's being very temperate in her criticism, I'd say...
Well, you have a doppelganger, then.
Oh my god, that dumb fuck. I gave up because it was more fun to talk to the wall.
Yeah, I'm ignoring him at this point too. Everyone else is doing a perfectly fine job of explaining why he's being a dumbass, and since his primary agenda seems to be to "prove" that I'm just a whiner, you know, why bother?
Of course at this point I suspect every troll I have of coming over from SG.
Oh, I was going to blog that high school article tomorrow.
With ratings on a scale of 1 to 10 for the high school babes featured?
56: Which h.s. article? I thought you didn't read my blog.
Oh, I don't. I just type whatever the voices tell me to.
He's the F to the E, R, G, the I, the E,
And can't no other imperialist put it down like he.
Welcome, B., to the Hearing Voices Network.
Feminism is agreeing with whatever the nearest females are saying; the sooner you figure this out...
"nearest" s/b "loudest." The two seem to be related, though; maybe the physics guys (or gals: Lunar Rocket, in specific, as I recall) can explain why.
This is why, long ago, I said that I didn't consider myself a feminist—because the word no longer means much of anything.
Noooooo! Please, just identify with the default position of "Yes, I am a feminist," with the broadest possible definition of "supporting equal rights and access," maybe with a dollop of "being interested in learning about how gender affects people in society"; if too many sensible people abandon the word, the terrorists will have won.
But not the Feminazis; they will have lost.
at this point I suspect every troll I have of coming over from SG.
Hey, B--what's your take on the SG v. Lithium Picnic lawsuit? I don't read SG and I haven't read your blog lately, so forgive me if you've remarked on this elsewhere. I only bring it up because it does seem like a shitty thing for LP.
(Feminist: I've always described myself--if I'm asked, which is rarely, actually--as a "feminist ally." I'm uncomfortable describing myself as a "feminist" because A) I'm not, after all, a woman, and because B) it sounds just a little too Alan Alda. Thoughts?)
the broadest possible definition of "supporting equal rights and access,"
The broadest possible definition renders it just about meaningless, though. By the same token, I'm not anti-feminist (some of my best friends yadda yadda yadda). I understand that it's pretty common for people who say "I'm not a feminist" to be assholes, and I rarely have much in common philosophically with them. It just seems that "feminism" as a descriptive term has reached the level of "family values" in not actually describing anything.
" I'm uncomfortable describing myself as a "feminist" because A) I'm not, after all, a woman, and because B) it sounds just a little too Alan Alda.
That's describes my feelings pretty well, too. I might add a (c): I suspect there are issues about which I disagree with (some or whatever qualifier is appropriate) women because I'm a man, and it seems as if using the label "feminist" implies otherwise. Perhaps that's implied by (a).
68: Someone accused me of not being a feminist on Friday and it really got my hackles up. If you want to separate things out and say, "I'm this kind of feminist, and you're that kind of feminist," that's fine, but at some point, one wants to mention that only cults say no one outside their church can be Christian.
Oh shit. Was that an analogy or a comparison of ideological purities? I half-ban myself.
Apostropher: "I'm a feminist."
"Well, are you a third-wave feminist?"
"Are you a pro-sex feminist?"
"Are you one of those man-hating feminists?"
"Are you a Dworkin feminist?"
Apostropher: "Yayyyyy, feminism!"
Alternatively:
Apostropher: "I'm a feminist."
"Well, are you a third-wave feminist?"
"Are you a pro-sex feminist?"
"Are you one of those man-hating feminists?"
"Are you a Dworkin feminist?"
Apostropher: "Shut up, hooker."
Maybe all the subfeminisms thing doesn't work because each one of them is so goddamn moralizing about all the others.
43: Thatcher repeatedly denied being a feminist. This was because the extreme individualism of her general outlook led her to believe that if she could become Prime Minister, then so could any other woman who wanted to badly enough. I won't waste pixels explaining why this is crap. Her legislative record in enabling women in public or private spheres was close to zero, which means it was effectively regressive because expectations advanced during her decade in power.
76: There's a bit of Judaean People's Frontism there for sure. Has been as long as I can remember. While it's infuriating when you meet it, it has to be better than an undeviating Stalinist line.
69 -- or "I'm effeminist".
I suppose its utterly déclassé to mention bell hooks in this context, but I do kind of like her phrase "support feminist movement." I guess the problem I've run into with actually publicly identifying as a feminist is that there's so much right-deviationism within the avowedly feminist scene. As much as I know a lot of people with really good politics who identify as feminists, it seems like the worst positions (transphobic, racially insensitive, pro-capitalist) get the most press. Also, I guess I've always felt that, as someone who identifies as an anarchist, it is implicit that I support equal freedoms accruing to women as to anyone else. But we must remain ever-vigilant to ensure that this is always the case.
There's a bit of Judaean People's Frontism there for sure.
People's Front of Judea.
I would respond to some of the above posters by saying that yes, institutions can be morally responsible, but only insofar as institutions are made up of and enact the intentions of morally responsible individuals. And so I conclude it's only those individuals who are responsible for what the institution in question does.
The acts of Nazi Germany from 1933 to 1945 implicated plenty of Germans, but did those acts implicate even Germans who opposed the Nazis? Did those acts implicate German children alive at the time the Nazi regime was in power? Do those acts implicate Germans born 30, 40, 50 years after the Nazi regime fell? My answer to each question would be no. Does anyone here think differently?
? Do those acts implicate Germans born 30, 40, 50 years after the Nazi regime fell?
Mmm. No, but I'd be shitload more uncomfortable if the Germans started tracking everyone by genetically identified ethnicity than if any other state did. Or with arguably anti-Semitic comments from a German govt. official, etc. I don't think that's inappropriate.
My argument with the "I'm not a feminist because feminism doesn't mean anything any more" would be a series of rhetorical questions. Are you a liberal? A Democrat? An American? A Southerner? A man?
Because, you know, those things have all sorts of conflicting meanings, too.
Because, you know, those things have all sorts of conflicting meanings, too.
But, as a guy, Apo has less authority to help define "feminism" than he does "Southerner," "man," "American," or "cock-wielding avengers of injustice." Which is one reason why I'm uncomfortable with men who claim to be feminists.
Are you a liberal? A Democrat? An American? A Southerner? A man?
I do not describe myself as a liberal, because it has the same level of non-meaning. The others, though, are not remotely ambiguous. I am a Democrat, because I'm a registered member of the Democratic Party. I am a natural-born citizen, recognized as such by the government of the US, and was born and have lived my entire life in the South. As for the last, I have testicles.
Mmm. What I get stuck on with the sub-feminisms is that a lot of the names seem to be applied pejoratively rather than descriptively. If someone called me a liberal feminist, I'd probably gulp and say "Guilty." A lot of the feminist issues I find interesting and important are issues that relate to the otherwise fucked up society we live in now -- the Linda Hirshman stuff -- and I think it's important to work on them in the context of currently existing reality. That, in so far as I understand it at all, makes me a liberal rather than a radical or socialist feminist.
But if I call myself a liberal feminist, rather than accepting being called that by someone else, I feel as though I'm implying that I think our current fucked up society is the right way to do things, and that all that needs to be done to bring feminist utopia is to work on gender equity without changing anything else. And I don't think that -- all sorts of other stuff should be changing as well.
So I call myself a feminist, and defer to whatever anyone else wants to call me sub-group wise.
I'm uncomfortable with men who claim to be feminists.
To me it sounds way too "lefty hipster trying to get laid".
I usually respond with "Dude, of course I'm a feminist; so are you, I'd bet."
To me it sounds way too "lefty hipster trying to get laid".
That's why, though I'm not comfortable with men claiming the label, I'm willing to selectively self-apply it as the situation demands.
87: I still think that the "it doesn't mean anything" argument sounds more than a wee bit Nader voterish.
86, 87: Wouldn't you call yourself a liberal if you were in a conversation with someone who was dividing the world into liberals and conservatives and wanted to know which box you fit into? Between those two choices, in American parlance, you're comfortably in the liberal box -- to explain why 'liberal' isn't exactly the right word, you have to get into a complicated discussion. If you said "Well, I'm not a conservative or a liberal," you'd be confusing your interlocutor unnecessarily, because you're really not a conservative in any currently applicable sense, but you're only 'not a liberal' because you're being persnickety about precise usage of terms. Someone who was really as poorly described by 'liberal' as by 'conservative' would be someone with different politics from yours.
Similarly, from what I know of the two of you guys, you're more likely to agree with feminists on gender questions than with anti-feminists -- if the world is split up into feminists and not-feminists, you fit more comfortably in the former category. I'm not saying that there's no value to getting precise about it, but at some point there's also a value to affirmatively declaring roughly which side you're on.
if you were in a conversation with someone who was dividing the world into liberals and conservatives
I respond to such people by saying it's idiotic to try to divide a country of 300 million people into liberals and conservatives and say that I have voted straight-ticket Democratic my whole life, aside from one judicial race in the 90s. If they want more clarification than that, they can ask me about specific issues.
you're more likely to agree with feminists on gender questions than with anti-feminists
Sure. Self-proclaimed anti-feminists are often as stridently annoying as the most stridently annoying feminists. I don't see why I should have to claim either as teammates, since I'd just as soon avoid both.
Wouldn't you call yourself a liberal if you were in a conversation with someone who was dividing the world into liberals and conservatives and wanted to know which box you fit into?
No. I'd probably insist on a third box, because I am, by lots of measures relevant to lots of genuinely liberal people, not terribly liberal. I'd feel odd signing on to something I genuinely didn't believe, and worse claiming the right to modify, from the inside, the understanding of a label to which I wasn't particularly wedded. For the same reason, I wouldn't be comfortable calling myself a "black nationalist" or whatever the relevant term wold be, despite the fact that (I think) I'm relatively sympathetic to many African-American claims about the need for societal change.
by lots of measures relevant to lots of genuinely liberal people, not terribly liberal
This, too.
67: Sounds like the kind of thing that caused me to insert a clause into my contract giving me the right to cross-post material on my blog.
SG's obviously out to corner the market on hipster porn and is trying to invent a hipster-porn-inflected version of MySpace while they're at it. They've got money, obvs., and they'll use it to browbeat anyone who undermines their marketing strategy. Pretty standard corporate bullshit. Dunno what'll happen if/when the squabbling starts over, say, Wil Wheaton's writing for them, though I imagine most writers aren't a whole lot better-protected than most 20-something women who are willing to pose nude or semi-nude on the web.
Though at least writers aren't really compromising their future employability by working for the site. I hope.
Self-proclaimed anti-feminists are often as stridently annoying as the most stridently annoying feminists.
Oh come on, this is bullshit.
Yeah, you're right. Less strident, but just as annoying.
I can't begin to tell you how sick I am of idiots--I'm sorry, apo, but really this is rather beneath you--who bitch about feminism because of "the most stridently annoying feminists." Gimme a fucking break. Who are you--Rush Limbaugh?
WHAT THE FUCK DO YOU MEAN STRIDENT, YOU FUCKING IDIOT?!
Who are you--Rush Limbaugh?
Well, that shows Apo's wrong. (Who are the "feminists," though? Rare are the self-identified feminists in the media who are young; the old ones seem--old.)
See, I'm not getting what you're doing here, Apo. I've been reading what you write for a couple of years now. And on gender issues, I haven't had a lot of primary disagreements with you. Which indicates to me that for someone who's genuinely anti-feminist, you're going to have a hard time agreeing with them about much of anything.
Are you really suggesting that as between a self-described feminist (Hi!) and a self-described anti-feminist, on gender issues, you're as likely to think the first is as annoyingly misguided as the second? Because if that's actually the case, I don't know you as well as I thought I did, and I'm very sorry to find it out. If it's not the case, I'm not sure why you're being a prick about this.
101: Yeah, I'm strident. Ooooooh, scary, I'm damaging the cause.
I'm not bitching about *feminism* because of that B. I'm saying that each side of this divide has its partisans that are too annoying to listen to. You can argue that this isn't true, but you'd be wrong.
Why is everyone misreading the apostropher? He said that he wouldn't align with anti-feminists because they're also strident and annoying.
each side of this divide has its partisans that are too annoying to listen to.
What on earth does this have to do with anything? Any group of people larger than five or so includes some who are too annoying to listen to. If that were a sufficient motivation to disassociate yourself from them, you couldn't ever vote for anyone. Heck, you could hardly leave the house.
Are you really suggesting that as between a self-described feminist (Hi!) and a self-described anti-feminist, on gender issues, you're as likely to think the first is as annoyingly misguided as the second?
[sigh] No. I've stated plenty of times that, as a rule, I'm much more comfortable around self-described feminists than their counterparts. And I'm plenty happy for people to describe themselves as such. I just don't use the word to describe myself, and that seems to make people very, very angry, to the point that I'm being a prick for not signing on to the team.
106: Because who the goddamn fuck cares about who's annoying? The thing about anti-feminists is that they're wrong, and what they want to do to our society is evil and fucked up. And to the extent that Apo places feminists on the same level as anti-feminists, as people he's just kind of irritated by, that shows a kind of horrendous undervaluing of the level of evil fucked-up-ness going on.
I thought the Ferguson op-ed was a horrible mish mash, trying to force arguments together. BUT, why do we refer to the Trans-Atlantic slave trade as "slavery", when slavery has exsisted since the dawn of civilization, and still exsists in parts of Africa and Asia? Also, it can be argued that the Barbary pirate slave trade was stopped by the American Navy, not the British. That's the whole "Shores of Tripoli" thing in the Marine hymn.
who the goddamn fuck cares about who's annoying?
Lots and lots and lots of people. On the one hand, you can say "well, fuck them, then" but on the other hand, they won't vote for Hillary.
105: I'm saying what LB said in 107.
No one's especially bothered by you're not saying "I'm a feminist." I, and I presume LB, are especially bothered by your going out of your way to say it, and explaining that decision by alluding to "the most stridently annoying feminists." Which is a pretty classic . . . anti-feminist "argument."
109 crossed with 108. The point is that sometimes, the question being asked is which side you're on, not 'are you absolutely comfortable with every nuance and implication of the word.' If someone asks whether you're a liberal, and you answer that you're a Democrat, you've answered which side you're on.
If someone asks if you're a feminist, it behooves you to figure out some way of answering that demonstrates that you put a higher priority on indicating which side you're on than on disassociating yourself from those annoyingly strident people. If the word gives you the willies, you don't have to use it, but figure out a circumlocution that gets the point across.
I've wandered off-topic. The point is that the word has such a fuzzy definition that when I'm asked "are you a feminist," it's very much like being asked "do you support family values?" Neither question is much useful and no answer is much informative. The questions seem very, very important to the people asking them, though, and seemingly for reasons that are not quite germane to the actual questions. So, what I mostly want is just to play a different game.
FUCK. "Was" was me. I don't even know what it was I was trying to type there.
More coffee.
by alluding to "the most stridently annoying feminists." Which is a pretty classic . . . anti-feminist "argument."
Yes, that was the point, b. Rather than salivating at the Pavlovian bell, put the "even" back in front of the phrase and discover the irony.
Neither question is much useful and no answer is much informative. The questions seem very, very important to the people asking them, though, and seemingly for reasons that are not quite germane to the actual questions.
Bullshit that the question isn't useful and that the answer isn't informative. It is a useful, although not infallibly accurate, question for figuring out who is out to knife me -- someone who's got a real problem with feminism is someone I have to keep an eye on, because they're likely to try to fuck me over because I'm female. You can move on to whatever other game you want to play, but if you won't give a straight answer to whether you agree with feminist goals generally, then I can't possibly trust you ('you' generally, not 'you' Apo).
I'm with Apostropher. There are a lot of people who hold views with which I agree that I can't stand to listen to and don't want to affiliate myself with because they're so goddamned annoying. Besides feminism, some of the anti-war people come to mind. I'll admit it (and this is gonna piss some of y'all off) -- I was far more vocal about self-identifying as a feminist before I started reading a lot more left-wing literature and blogs where I came across a larger volume of annoying writing and arguments that people were calling "feminism". Even though I think my views are closer to the mainstream of feminism than those, they just annoy the hell out of me and leave me less likely to want to call myself that word.
114: Still not buying it. Everyone who uses "family values" in a non-ironic way means it positively: to the right it means "object to abortion, believe women should stay home with kids, and go to church" whereas to the left it means "support working moms, educational spending, and quality daycare." Whereas "are you a feminist" means, to those who support feminism, "do you support women's equality," and to those who oppose it, "do you hate men."
Saying that the "strident" feminists are as bad as anti-feminists basically reinforces the anti-feminist argument that feminists are strident.
While I am generally happy to describe myself as supporting the 'feminist' line on many many things, I would never self-ascribe the label to myself.
117: So, what do you get out of insisting on the Sister Soljah moment every time feminism comes up? What's the profit?
Arg. So it still boils down to the idea that feminists are okay as long as they're not too loud or too controversial.
if you won't give a straight answer to whether you agree with feminist goals generally
Argh. This is the problem. There *aren't* generally agreed-upon feminist goals, unless you boil it down to "equal rights and access for women" which, really, is just saying that yes, I support the golden rule. I will give straight answers about any specific issue you'd like to raise.
This is the same reason I don't call myself a socialist, despite being generally in agreement with most of the European democratic socialist parties. "Socialist" covers such a broad range of beliefs that it's meaningless.
122: It makes women like me hysterical, which is funny. Ha ha!
121: And, you know, that's a perfectly comprehensible thing to say, which answers the question understandably. And anyone who wants to go on and have a detailed conversation about what precisely 'feminism' means to you such that you wouldn't apply the term 'feminist' to yourself can -- someone who just wants to know basically where you stand does.
So, what do you get out of insisting on the Sister Soljah moment every time feminism comes up?
I'd be bringing it up lots lots more around here if I did that, since feminism gets touched on nearly every thread. I'm fairly certain this would make the second or third time I've mentioned it in four years. I brought it up this time because the conversation had *specifically referenced* the ambiguity of the term.
There *aren't* generally agreed-upon feminist goals, unless you boil it down to "equal rights and access for women" which, really, is just saying that yes, I support the golden rule.
So what the fuck is so hard about saying that?
when I'm asked "are you a feminist," I reply, "Define "feminist". Then I light a Lucky, and disassemble, clean, and put the .45 back together while they tell me.
IMO, it's pretty much a useless word now, it's been so mangled by both far ends of the curve it carries very little meaning unless there's an abundance of particular context available.
126: How different is
No. I've stated plenty of times that, as a rule, I'm much more comfortable around self-described feminists than their counterparts. And I'm plenty happy for people to describe themselves as such. I just don't use the word to describe myself,from
While I am generally happy to describe myself as supporting the 'feminist' line on many many things, I would never self-ascribe the label to myself.
128: Because "I support the golden rule" doesn't rise to the level of an -ism.
re: 130
I said it in a scottish accent, which has more gravitas ...
It's obviously not a useless word at all, since it can so easily be used to mark pretty much any argument as extremist and unworthy of serious consideration.
Violating the sanctity of off-blog communications, rfts and I just had a discussion about this. Her suggestions for the boundary case of "feminist" were "do you support (at least) equal rights for women and men" and "do you believe that gender inequity is a problem". I would take these to be too broad to be really meaningful (I'm sure Larry Summers and David Brooks would happily answer in the affirmitive), but thinking about it further, I'm not sure I'm right, because I think they are very unlikely to provide a false negative.
For almost any thing we're I'm asked to self-describe with a controversial label, I'll say something like, "Yes, I am a liberal/feminist/Yankee-fan, but let's talk about particular issues, it's more interesting."
131: No, but the idea that women's rights are part of the golden rule is. Hence feminism.
130: Not at all different, if it were an initial answer. The fucked up bit about it was Apo's initial insistence that he's in a position equally removed from feminists and anti-feminists:
Self-proclaimed anti-feminists are often as stridently annoying as the most stridently annoying feminists. I don't see why I should have to claim either as teammates, since I'd just as soon avoid both.
For someone who is, actually, a hell of a lot more closely affiliated with feminists than with anti-feminists, the 'Oh, god, you're just all so dreary' routine is maddening.
I do sympathize with the view that many of these kinds of terms (feminist, progressive, liberal) are for many people more usefully or appropriately applied to policies and actions, rather than personal identity: not "Are you a progressive?" but "Is this policy progressive?" Still, I believe that when someone asks you flat out if you are a feminist, and you feel weird about the term as an identity category, but consider yourself in sympathy with my basic qualifiers and/or tend to support policies you'd consider "feminist", the correct answer is "Yes, though the term is pretty degraded at this point [or something]" not "No" or "I don't like that word."
Fuck, I fell behind the thread and get preempted.
135 provides a fine option for "[or something]".
134: Exactly. If, by that loose standard, someone calls themselves a feminist, that doesn't necessarily mean you can count on them for much. But someone who won't call themselves a feminist by that standard is not someone to be trusted.
Following what w/d said, we should sort out which ideological labels people are willing to self-ascribe. I'm having trouble thinking of any for myself. I don't even think I say I'm a Democrat, just that I "tend to vote Democratic." I think the hesitation is more distaste for group identification than anything about feminism specifically.
It is a nuisance when somebody won't use a basic label such as feminist, but I'm also a bit sympathetic since I myself am very resistant to self-labeling in other contexts.
Over the years I've found that asking: "Do you think people deserve the same pay if they do the exact same job?" does the trick. If the person hesitates or says "It depends," I can reliably assume they're not an ally. If the person says "Of course" or gives me an are-you-kidding look, then they're a feminist. Or at least close enough.
136: That also make me pro-black, pro-gay, pro-Muslim, pro-Christian, pro-Satanist, pro-released felon, yadda yadda yadda if only they had their own ism word. Which, in a sense, I am and, hey look, we're back to meaninglessness! Honestly, there seems to be a much deeper attachment to the word than to the movement for many people, such that they are willing to stretch and torture the definition as hard as possible in order to ensure that people will sign on to the term. That's just puzzling.
I don't even think I say I'm a Democrat, just that I "tend to vote Democratic."
Ha. Yes, this is also me. It's easier to preserve this distinction in states with open primaries, however. Registering as an Independant in New York gets you ... rather fewer options.
Apostropher is the blackist gayist Felonist Muslimist Satanist!
Over the years I've found that asking: "Do you think people deserve the same pay if they do the exact same job?" does the trick.
Right, but this strikes me as something about which there is such widespread agreement as to make it, as a tell, pretty trivial. Are there that many anti-feminists who would answer "No"? Doubt it--the disagreements are going to be over the extent of the problem, the nature of the changes that need to be made, etc.
re: 142
I'm pretty unlikely to self-ascribe much at all if it's at the level of simple one-word terms of that type.
However, it's not due to a reluctance to group-identify per se but rather because there aren't many groups out there who i) are labelled in a way that clearly delineates the views that fall under the term and where ii) I agree with all of those views.
There *aren't* generally agreed-upon feminist goals, unless you boil it down to "equal rights and access for women" which, really, is just saying that yes, I support the golden rule.
The reason women would rather know if you are/are not a feminist rather than if you do/do not support the golden rule is that for most of the history of the golden rule "I support the golden rule" has meant "I support the golden rule, except of course, for women." And still does for a lot of Christians.
Which, in a sense, I am and, hey look, we're back to meaninglessness!
But we're not. For each of those groups, there are people who believe that treating them equally is a bad thing. If you think treating gays, for example, equally is the right thing to do, that's not meaningless, it's a political position.
Honestly, there seems to be a much deeper attachment to the word than to the movement for many people, such that they are willing to stretch and torture the definition as hard as possible in order to ensure that people will sign on to the term. That's just puzzling.
It's not a complicated movement. The goals are equal access and equal treatment for women -- the complexity is all in how to get there. Reducing feminism to those goals isn't torturing anything -- the point is that there are lots of people who genuinely don't want to sign on to that much, and it is useful to know if the person you're talking to will or won't sign on.
I think the hesitation is more distaste for group identification than anything about feminism specifically.
I'd like to believe this, but Apo really seems to be saying that feminism, specifically, is meaningless.
Isn't this discussion a bit absurd anyway? How many of you have had someone ask you if you're a feminist? It's never happened to me.
Personally, I think these are the exact kinds of conversations that make people hesitant to self-identify as feminists. They're annoying and tedious and turn people off.
To violate off-blog etc., it reminds me very much of Smasher when he came home from the hippie-dippie anti-war thing Yoko Ono did this weekend and was like "I support their cause but got that was so annoying. I'm pro-war now. Bomb 'em all."
147: What makes it a useful tell is that someone who's got a lot of anti-feminist issues is likely to not want to concede even that much without a lot of hedging. Again, which is what makes hedging like Apo's maddening, because it's very difficult to distinguish from genuine anti-feminist hedging.
152: It's a linguistic issue, B, not an ideological one.
Right, but this strikes me as something about which there is such widespread agreement as to make it, as a tell, pretty trivial.
I wish that were true. IME, though, what's happened is that people won't actually say "No." They'll just hesitate, or say "It depends."
If I seriously have to have an argument with you (not you personally, Tim) over why we should offer this exceptionally qualified woman the same salary as the identically qualified man we hired last week, I'm going to find it exhausting to work with you.
And if I have to further go through why it is quite possible that a woman might have a child/parent/elderly aunt in the Midwest who is financially dependent on her and you cannot assume that men should be paid more because they have to support others...well, geeze. I'm going to be courteous to you because you're a fellow human being, but it's gonna be hard.
154: Yeah, and he was kidding. If he were doing anything other than kidding, he'd be an incredible shithead for saying that.
153: I get asked constantly. I also get constantly accused of being (1) a feminist; (2) one of those shrill feminazis that gives all feminists a bad name.
Perhaps we should just consider this my version of Farber's there's-no-such-thing-as-black-people and move on.
the point is that there are lots of people who genuinely don't want to sign on to that much, and it is useful to know if the person you're talking to will or won't sign on.
Deny that entirely. I bet if you polled the country on those two issues--"Should women be treated equally" and "Should women have equal access to the opportunities men have"--you'd show massive support, even if you restricted yourself to Republicans. I seem to recall recent polls showing that we're more or less on board for that as regards Gay Americans.
The devil is in the details, and that's were people get wary.
Well ine problem with people really into verbal formulations (which certainly includes me) is that I'd have trouble answering yes to "Do you think people deserve the same pay if they do the exact same job?" I think I'd answer (assuming it was clear from context) that it's un-just for one person to be compensated more or less than another due to gender, or other morally irrelvant attributes, but I deny the comprehensibility of asking whether people deserve their salary, a question which regularly comes up about athletes in annoying contexts.
154: Why, then, isn't it the "I'm not a feminist but" people who get blamed for the conversations, rather than the "what do you mean you're not a feminist"s?
The problem for some people is that 'feminism' often means more than just a particular agenda vis a vis equality and a socio-historical analysis that seeks to explain the presence of current and historical inequality.
It can also mean particular strains of post-60s feminist thinking that are highly contentious -- even for people otherwise committed to both the egalitarian agenda and to the basics of the socio-historic analysis too.
Now those people are reluctant to self-identify as 'feminist' but only because they want to clarify exactly what it is they are self-identifying as and not because they have any anti-feminist agenda or because they're ignorant of the meaning of the word.
162: See 158. In practice, people hedge. On a poll question where they were constrained to yes or now, you'd get yesses, but in conversation not so much.
157: If you don't want people to get pissed off at you, find a way to answer the imprecise ideological question being asked while maintaining your linguistic purity. NattarGcM did it effortlessly.
If that's a problem for you, then why is that?
"Socialist" covers such a broad range of beliefs that it's meaningless.
Hang on. Do you have something against high level categories or something? Would you say that you're not a vertebrate in case it implied that you were a camel?
121: ttaM, yes, but I think it's culturally more acceptable for men to self describe as "feminist" in America than in Britain. Dunno why.
If he were doing anything other than kidding, he'd be an incredible shithead for saying that.
Sure, just as it would be shitty for someone to suddenly say "women should stay barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen" because they were annoyed by some particular brand of feminist rhetoric. However, that's not what apo's talking about. The parallel would be for me to refrain from calling myself an anti-war activist, since I don't want the views of the ANSWER Coalition ascribed to me.
Why, then, isn't it the "I'm not a feminist but" people who get blamed for the conversations, rather than the "what do you mean you're not a feminist"s?
I believe it is the responsibility of the people leading a movement to craft a message so that people want to self-identify as members of that movement, not the responsibility of people who agree with them to justify why they haven't signed on. If people aren't jumping to say "I'm a feminist" or "I'm a Democrat" or whatever, the people trying to get buy-in need to look at why, not just tell people they should.
A vertebrate means only that you have a spine. I can cop to that. Socialist feasibly covers such ideological brethren as Tony Blair and Kim Jong Il, who as far as I can tell don't have anything in common.
re: 171
I believe they are both total bastards.
167: People hedge because--per cMM ("It can also mean particular strains of post-60s feminist thinking that are highly contentious")--the devil is in the details. And if you're moderately politically aware, you realize that. So you try not to sign on to something that is not delineated, and because you don't want to go through a long discussion about what "feminism" means, only to arrive at an answer that will be operative only with the person with whom you're presently speaking.
I believe they are both total bastards.
Well yes. There's that. Hmm, maybe I am a feminist.
All this superscrupulous concern with the meaning of terms people apply to themselves, and loathing of group identification, is the reason the not-neocon, not-republican, not-evangelical, not-antiwoman portion of the population has so little effect on the political discourse of this country, and why that discourse has drifted so far to the right, and why it appears that only hippydippy freaks support the left.
I understand the feeling of being annoyed by the antics of extremists, but I'm not going to refuse to call myself a feminist because crazy people comment on Twisty's blog.
But feminism isn't an advertising campaign or a political party, Becks. It doesn't have leaders, not any to whom I owe any damned fealty. I'm not going to wait for the official feminist position paper to make up my mind about stories and laws that have to do with gender.
I understand the feeling of being annoyed by the antics of extremists, but I'm not going to refuse to call myself a feminist because crazy people comment on Twisty's blog.
I'd be curious as to what blogs you think of as overtly feminist. My suspicion is that I'd find a lot of the commenters on such blogs sort of annoying. For some reason (actually, I think I know the reason--I don't believe them), particularly the men.
Honestly, the comment of mine that sent so many people into a tizzy was a throwaway joke ("even the most stridently annoying"—c'mon people, I chose those words purposefully) meant to convey those who self-identify as anti-feminist are generally not folks I consider good people. I also consider anti-Semites to be bad people; that doesn't make me pro-Jewish (despite getting my kids circumcised).
"Feminism", like "liberal", has been a term that's been hijacked by either people who want to make it pejorative ("against America, apple pie, and puppies") or praiseworthy ("pro-freedom, pro-equality, and sex") that as a descriptive term it's pretty much useless.
You can get someone who will say, "Now, I'm not a feminist, but I believe that women deserve [standard feminist plank]" because "feminist" just means "crazy un-American radical" to them. Or "I am a feminist, but that doesn't mean I don't wear heels."
At that point, it's more of a pain in the ass to reclaim either of the labels, and more fun to redefine "conservative" to mean "party of stupid wars and man-raping canine zealots" and "libertarian" to ".. and a pony."
What sent people into a tizzy (hi!) about that joke, is that it's the same kind of joke you get from people genuinely trying to signal that they're not keen on equal rights and access for women. People are going to make mistakes about where exactly your affiliations lie -- that tone of joke means that they're going to fuck up and think you're lined up with Phyllis Schafely, but it does make sure that no one's going to confuse you with one of those feminist extremists.
Given what I understand of your actual beliefs, setting yourself up for this kind of confusion is going to piss off your friends mostly, but so long as you're happy with that, it's all good.
I bet if you polled the country on those two issues--"Should women be treated equally" and "Should women have equal access to the opportunities men have"--you'd show massive support, even if you restricted yourself to Republicans.
This is, I think, correct. And while LB is likewise correct to ask whether people in their lives live up to their ideals -- you say you treat people the same, but in fact, etc., etc. -- this seems an imperfect way to judge ideological allegiance. Lots of people fail to live up to their ideals.
I would argue that the classic liberal argument for feminism (of which J.S. Mill's is a good example) has basically carried the day intellectually. There is very little mainstream objection to equal rights under the law, careers open to talent, the franchise, etc. This isn't the golden rule, although I think that most of us now think it is equally (if not more) obvious. If agreeing with Mill is a sufficient condition for being a feminist, most Americans are. If it *isn't* a sufficient condition, then things become more tricky. (hence my original question to Bphd which started this threadjack).
"even the most stridently annoying"--c'mon people, I chose those words purposefully
But you didn't say "even the most", you said "Self-proclaimed anti-feminists are often as stridently annoying as the most stridently annoying feminists." Perhaps, in fact, the missing "even" is the reason why people didn't get that it was a joke?
170 - Let's take it as a given that ANSWER is irritating, B is shrill, and Michael Moore is fat. Given that there's a huge swath of the American media dedicated to reinforcing people's beliefs about various ideological positions -- which is why you've heard of Ward Churchill, bra-burnings, and protestors spitting on Vietnam vets -- what exactly is the breadth of boring, accomodationist, NOW feminism supposed to do to get people to sign on? There's a lot to complain about about the feminist movement, from a focus on upper-middle class white women to the ink spilled on important issues like whether trannies are welcome at women's music festivals, but you don't have to be Susan Faludi to attribute a lot of this discomfort with feminism to a successful thirty year smear effort.
But feminism isn't an advertising campaign or a political party, Becks. It doesn't have leaders, not any to whom I owe any damned fealty
That is true, which is why I believe that we can't dismiss tone and such and say "who cares if people think I'm annoying?" Since there aren't (m)any visible leaders or prominant mouthpieces, I think people who call themselves a feminist (I still do, although less eagerly) have more of a responsibility to act like ambassadors or representatives. I don't think that means watering down positions or weakening/changing your beliefs to be more palatable but I do think that sometimes means taking a less inflammatory tone and trying not to alienate people who would be receptive to your message.
I'm sure some of you will interpret this as me saying we need to be more ladylike and conciliatory but that's not what I mean. Because we're talking about feminism, I'm sure some will project that gendered interpretation on it but really I don't think anyone wins when they're trying to antagonize or push someone into believing what they do. I think that's really ineffective -- instead of really changing their mind, it either turns them off or just causes them to throw up their hands and say "fine. whatever."
184: Hmm, maybe. I really did think I'd written it.
I'd be curious as to what blogs you think of as overtly feminist.
This one?
My suspicion is that I'd find a lot of the commenters on such blogs sort of annoying. For some reason (actually, I think I know the reason--I don't believe them), particularly the men.
Sorry to hear that, dude.
If you don't want people to get pissed off at you
I wonder if there's a connection between the anxious-high-achieving women thread and the (now) feminist-or-not thread: that is, whether the women who feel we're sticking our necks out have a lot of anxiety about doing so, and therefore get wound up pretty quickly by statements that sound unsupportive.
170: That's great, except that the reason "feminist" is a bad word these days isn't because of the feminists--it's because of the right wing rhetoric (which is why I invoked Rush Limbaugh) that's convinced everyone that being for equality isn't being a feminist; feminism means hating men and being a professional victim.
This one?
I'm not sure that most people would agree. I think lots of people would say that many of the people who post here or comment here are feminists, but I don't think they'd lump Unfogged in with, say Pandagon, Feministe, or Twisty's. I don't think they'd lump Beyerstein's place in the "feminist blogs" category, either, but I have a hard time believing that (a) Beyerstein doesn't overtly identify as a feminist, or (b) Beyerstein doesn't "merit" that title.
186.---That's fair, and to a certain extent, it's what I try to do in person. Some of the tension in these discussions online seem to come out of the public language available to talk about feminism, a lot of which is unhelpfully associated with stupid culture-war talking points.
186: But it doesn't seem to mean "sometimes" taking a less inflammatory tone. It seems to mean always being polite, and never being angry.
Well, with "feminist blog" you have an ambiguity over whether it means that the central topic and goals of the blog have to do with feminist issues, or just "a blog with feminist sensibilities and author(s)".
190: Exactly. But Lindsay's blog *is* demonstrably feminist--think of her post about the posing of the women soldiers in the NYT article about rape. My blog's feminist, even when I'm writing about PK. One Good Thing is a feminist blog.
If people think of Twisty and Amanda as representative feminists--which I'm not disclaiming, by the way, because I happen to like Twisty a lot--it's *because* they think that only "shrill" = feminist. If you're not shrill, you're not *really* a feminist, you're just someone who believes in the golden rule.
That's the kind of thing that drives me up a wall.
190: What that list looks like to me is: "Here's a list of blogs written (at least in part) by feminists. I'm going to call the ones I find annoying "Feminist blogs", and the ones I don't (Beyerstein, Unfogged) not really feminist blogs. Then I'm going to wonder why all of the feminist blogs annoy me." A blog written by feminists where feminism is discussed frequently is a feminist blog.
And you were more measured and conciliatory about it.
Data point: Ann Althouse considers herself a feminist.
197: Really? I thought I was longer-winded and more shrill. I'll have to try harder.
198: Yes, she does. So why don't you?
I'd rather have a narrower definition, if only because I'd like to exclude everyone who defines "feminism" to mean "culturally conservative but smart enough to spin it as true freedom for women." The problem with a big-tent is that you can't kick people out when they're annoying you.
I wouldn't call Unfogged feminist. It has a couple feminist authors, but it's projection is still "frathaus." Now it's just a guilty frathaus. That's not bad, but, hell, if Unfogged counts as feminist probably Paglia has to, too.
If people think of Twisty and Amanda as representative feminists--which I'm not disclaiming, by the way, because I happen to like Twisty a lot--it's *because* they think that only "shrill" = feminist. If you're not shrill, you're not *really* a feminist, you're just someone who believes in the golden rule.
I'm betting that lots of people who self-identify as feminists would group blogs in the way I've suggested. I don't think this grouping tendency is specific to the issue of feminism. Yglesias has addressed Israel-Jewish American issues a lot, of late, on his blog. I don't think anyone would ID it as a Jewish blog; rather, it might be considered a "jewish blog" in the way that Seinfeld was a "jewish show."
So why don't you?
I believe we've covered that already. But when the originator of the JessicaValentiBreastControversy™ is proclaiming herself a feminist and claiming that Valenti is not a real one, perhaps you can understand why I feel the term increasingly means "exactly what I say it means, no more and no less."
201: Okay, but you do realize that you're making here exactly the kind of argument that you get all bent about when I try to make it: "I think X, and I think I'm right."
203: It means that Althouse's version of feminism amounts to "legal equality" and Jessica's has a third-wave sex-positive angle on it that's threatening to the Althouses of the world. Which isn't at all the same thing as being meaningless.
I'd rather have a narrower definition, if only because I'd like to exclude everyone who defines "feminism" to mean "culturally conservative but smart enough to spin it as true freedom for women."
My sense on how to handle that (where we're talking about someone who's really not advocating equal treatment and access for women, rather than just disagreeing on other political matters) is to just call bullshit -- "You call yourself a feminist, but you're wrong."
I call myself a feminist, but it's possible I'm just a fellow-traveller.
"You call yourself a feminist, but you're wrong."
The Althouse approach, you mean?
201: Okay, but you do realize that you're making here exactly the kind of argument that you get all bent about when I try to make it: "I think X, and I think I'm right."
I suspect I get bent out of shape because I think Y, and I think I'm right. Doesn't that describe all arguments?
I think there's a difference between anger at people who are doing genuinely bad things and anger at potential allies. Anger at pharmacists refusing to dispense Plan B or legilsators trying to pass harmful laws, etc. is helpful. Anger at people who agree with you for not wanting to apply a label to themselves is counterproductive.
206, 208: No, not the Althouse approach. There's a difference between being insane and saying "yes, legally you can't fire someone for having children, but that doesn't mean that women with children aren't still systematically discriminated against in the workforce for the following reasons."
208: The thing is, people don't have any problem calling bullshit on Althouse when she calls herself a moderate -- there was much comic rejoicing about fucking her over when she was campaigning for that 'best moderate blog' award. Why is it that when she calls herself a feminist, suddenly the problem isn't that Althouse is a maniac, it's that the word is incoherent?
"You call yourself a feminist, but you're wrong."
This move sort of annoys me. Althouse is one kind of feminist, but it's a passé "I got mine" kind of feminism that I find unimaginative and illiberal. It's a tendency that isn't unusual, however, and I'd like to be able to engage those people on a few core points and work outwards. Althouse has proved unengageable, but that seems to be particular to her.
210: Getting frustrated with people who agree with you but reject the label because they're buying into right-wing rhetoric may well be counterproductive, but it's also (a) human and (b) the kind of thing you'd expect potential allies to understand rather than use as an excuse.
suddenly the problem isn't that Althouse is a maniac, it's that the word is incoherent
Neither condition has arisen suddenly.
because they're buying into right-wing rhetoric
As a few of us said upthread, this isn't really the reason. Again, I can't think of any -ism or similar labels that I'd ascribe to myself.
212: Mostly because a lot gets swept under the rug of "equal treatment and access" that doesn't with "moderate." I can fit an elephant under that rug. There's just more consensus on the what the terms mean and roughly where the delineations are.
If "feminist" just means "agrees with equal treatment", if that's the only profession of faith necessary, then it's going to be a big tent where Althouse and Twisty are both feminists. "Feminist" doesn't mean anything as a predictor of voting patterns, of political beliefs, of anything. It's not feminism's fault that the term ended up useless; conservatives declared war on it and associated it with All Bad Things. But expanding it to a minimally rigorous definition just means that it's useless as a label. It doesn't carve politics at the joints.
218: I don't actually know much about Althouse's politics -- I just know she's interpersonally kind of an ass (everything I've paid attention to her on has been something silly). But for the sake of argument say she's someone you really wouldn't want to call a feminist. Don't you think you could get there by dissecting specific positions: "While you say you believe in equal access and equal treatment, you look at factual situation X and say that it isn't problematic, as well as situations Y and Z. Given that pattern, I'm going to say that your meaning of 'equal' isn't mine, and you aren't a feminist by my definition."
And you're back to carving at the joints.
Yes, but the label hasn't done any of the work. Dissecting the positions has.
And that's great, and that's what should happen, but then.... why the emphasis on the label to the extent that if someone says "I'd rather not claim it, and just talk about the positions I hold" that they're doing something wrong or antagonistic? Even if you label them, you're still going to have to have the argument.
I think I'm going to start self-identifying as anti-feminist and say that it's because feminism keeps women down. Then I'll point to feminists like Althouse as evidence. I predict awesomeism, which I'm down with.
216: I said upthread myself that I'm not arguing with the "I don't like labels" thing as much as I am with the "feminism is meaningless" and/or "the shrill ones are the problem" arguments.
Seriously, it's a tone thing. I went off on Apo over a misfired joke, but we've talked about it before, and I'm not the only one who's been irked by his firm refusal to identify as feminist (last conversation, it was his wife). NattarGcM disavowed the label in a way that made it perfectly clear where he stands, and that he doesn't feel the need to disassociate himself from feminists; Apo made a crack about how annoyingly strident we are.
When one of the standard attacks on feminism is how unpleasant and awful feminists are personally, having the same "God, feminists" tone coming from someone who's basically on your side is really irksome, and it clogs up the discourse. Sure, you can be a feminist if you want, but even the people who agree with you are going to dislike you for talking about it.
Sure, you can be a feminist if you want, but even the people who agree with you are going to dislike you for talking about it.
Exactly. Unless, you know, you're really sweet about it. All the time.
having the same "God, feminists" tone coming from someone who's basically on your side is really irksome
Shouldn't it be a "gee, maybe we are irksome moment?
Off to swim, please direct your aggression toward the apostropher in the corner...
151: It's not a complicated movement.
I'm just looking at that statement in disbelief. Have the past several decades of intra-feminist debate and polemics all been a mirage?
Becks has it right, IMO. And Tim's classification of blogs shouldn't really be that controversial: feminist blogs are blogs that focus chiefly on feminist issues, not just blogs that feminists happen to write on. (And taken in that sense, it shouldn't really be news that the feminist blog commentariat has a bad rep.)
Shouldn't it be a "gee, maybe we are irksome moment?
You're mighty white, for a Mexican.
226: Would the next several words ("the complexity is all in how to get there") help you any as a gloss?
Exactly. Unless, you know, you're really sweet about it. All the time.
And? How is this different than any other political position?
Kinda like saying there's nothing complicated about Christianity. The goal is getting to heaven; there are just differences on the interpretation of every single doctrinal point.
Most other political positions you get less shit about from the people who are pretty close to being on your side.
230: And complicated as Christianity is, people Baptists don't have any trouble calling themselves Christians for fear of confusion with those weirdo Eastern Orthodox.
A whole bunch of 'em have trouble calling the Eastern Orthodox Christians, though, along with Catholics, Mormons, and a slew of others. You'll probably be unsurprised that I don't call myself a Christian either.
Most other political positions you get less shit about from the people who are pretty close to being on your side.
What, like pro-labor? I can't think of a specific reason why I would identify as anti-labor, if "labor" is identified in the most anodyne way possible, and yet I always identify as anti-labor, because I think it would be misleading to people on whose side I normally am on to do otherwise. That sounds pretty parallel.
No, pro-labor is another one where the forces of truth and decency get all sorts of undeserved crap from people who haven't figured out the issues yet. But I have faith you'll come around one of these days.
Since ogged is gone, an analogy. Someone asks you if you're (to use the college argot) queer-friendly. Do you say, "I'm mostly sympathetic, but I don't call myself that because of those flaming homos"?
Someone asks you if you're [...] queer-friendly
Not *just* friendly, I say!
Part of the issue is that, as used even here, "are you a feminist" translates to "are you a good person" in the same way that "are you a liberal" translates to "are you a bad person" elsewhere (and depending on location, one can reverse the implication of each). That's the point at which lots of people sigh heavily and change the subject.
228: I think it's not clear that "there" is defined the same way by all parties, as becomes most obvious in (say) arguments between the sex-positive and radfem parts of the spectrum, or between Marxist feminists and capitalist feminists.
Complexity isn't a problem in itself, except that many parties to feminist debates are often accustomed to activist language -- which for tactical reasons tends to emphasize a "here's what we're doing, are you with me or against me?" approach. So they often wind up with all the drawbacks of ideological diversity and few of the benefits*. (I'm in favour of activist rhetoric in certain situations, mind you... but only if it's possible for the activists in question to agree on a simple, supportable goal at the outset. Feminism in the West has arguably moved past the point of having simple goals that everyone agrees on.)
[* This isn't a uniquely feminist problem, obvs.]
And, having very recently been a party to a conversation where someone used the term "women's libber" unironically—the option to burst out laughing in ridicule was not, sadly, on the table—I'm ever more inclined to think we shouldn't start (or keep) holding ourselves above the fray.
Mmmm. One of the fun features of my recent pro-bono adventures was having Supervisor Guy point out that from a policy point of view, we didn't want to advocate a certain provision because we'd look like a bunch of crazy man-haters.
And 239 is right, but when "joining the fray" feels like negotiating a No-One's Land between hostile camps before you even get to talking about your opponents, of course fewer people will feel inclined to do it.
. Feminism in the West has arguably moved past the point of having simple goals that everyone agrees on.
I think this is really true. As some argued regarding neo-liberalism, the problem is that at the most basic level, and for the cohort we're all probably talking about (cf. the post above), feminism has won on its most basic goals, at least in ideology if not in practice.
Oh, the work one simple hyphen can do.
Part of the issue is that, as used even here, "are you a feminist" translates to "are you a good person"... That's the point at which lots of people sigh heavily and change the subject.
The thing is, you're right -- the ability not to run away from the word 'feminist' is a shibboleth. I just don't get why that means you need to sigh and change the subject, rather than agree that you're reasonably on board with feminist goals.
Mostly because being a feminist doesn't, in my experience, track neatly with being a good person any more than being a liberal does.
242: when "joining the fray" feels like negotiating a No-One's Land between hostile camps before you even get to talking about your opponents,
I don't get this. All the hostility in the current discussion comes from unwillingness to sign on to a general umbrella term. I don't have a sub-feminism I'm identified with, and no one gives me 'Peoples Judean Front, or Popular Front of Judea' shit. The fear of intra-feminist hostility, for someone who's not interested in doctrinal fine points seems overstated.
245: But it does track with being someone you're generally likely to agree with on gender issues, which for me, at least, is an important component of being a good person.
The fear of intra-feminist hostility, for someone who's not interested in doctrinal fine points seems overstated.
Have you ever read the blog Unfogged?
But it does track with being someone you're generally likely to agree with on gender issues, which for me, at least, is an important component of being a good person.
I think in this thread you pointed out that this proxy-claim doesn't hold true for Apo and, perhaps, others.
someone used the term "women's libber" unironically
The specific question was, "Oh, is she a women's libber?" and came in response to news that so-and-so hadn't taken her husband's name. I should have said "No, worse: a suffragette", but I wasn't swift enough of tongue.
This is starting to seem like the flip side of Ogged's no-makeup filter.
251: I was going to make that comment.
This is starting to seem like the flip side of Ogged's no-makeup filter.
If I take you right, either both the makeup filter and the feminist filter are valid, or they're both not. Which is it?
253: I think he's talking abut the structure of the discussion.
At this point, I'm arguing out of pique more than anything, so if the point was "My oh my, how fun baiting feminists is," I hope you've had an enjoyable afternoon. I figure you probably understand everything I have to say on the issue.
I still don't follow what you lose by being willing to agree that you generally support feminist goals, given that you do, or what you gain from making sure that no one could possibly think you were willing to associate yourself with the word 'feminism', given that you're "much more comfortable around self-described feminists than their counterparts". From over here it feels personally hostile -- the important aspect of feminists to you is that so many of them are annoying -- but I'm clearly not going to change your mind about anything.
It's not just the shibboleth factor, though, it's also the issue of marginalization and isolation that mcmc describes in 175.
That "though" comes a few turns too late in the conversation to be entirely felicitous, sorry.
With respect to the makeup filter discussion, I think the more salient connection is the sense that one is unwilling to catch the girl cooties.
246: In the context of Standpipe's comment I think we've drifted into talking about feminisms-in-general rather than this debate in particular. The point is that there is no general umbrella term that won't let you in for the "Peoples' Front of Judea" treatment -- your positions or lack of positions will automatically put you in that fray whether you like it or not. (Remember "sympathy for ordinary women" from the "Unfogged bloggers" thread? That would be one manifestation.)
And really, it's hard today to isolate a package of "feminist goals" for people to be on board with. Pro-choice and equal pay for equal work are the last remaining obvious rallying points (but even with the former case the most heavily-publicized "feminist" positions often take a hardline form that doesn't seem to track with or acknowledge the opinions of many of feminists' potential real world allies). Apart from those, I'd say there really is no unified "feminist" position to agree with on hot-button issues like porn and the sex trade, the feminization of poverty and how to alleviate it, or what effect class and race has on feminism and how that should be tackled, and so on. This is why it makes the heart sink to hear people say that they judge people to be "good" or not based on agreement on gender issues. That's depressing.
unwillingness to sign on to a general umbrella term.
What's unreasonable about that unwillingness? I don't sign on to "gun nut" because I'm reasonably convinced the hostile crazies who (used to) hang around Hollywood & Vine shouldn't be able to buy whatever they want, and I'm also reasonably convinced that a free market in Stingers would increase the aluminum litter around LAX.
As long as "feminist" includes the MacDworkinites I'm not willing to get under that umbrella either.
From over here it feels personally hostile -- the important aspect of feminists to you is that so many of them are annoying
The ones pounding that point were you and B. When I used it, however ineptly, it was to label proclaimed anti-feminists as annoying, and was meant to be an ironic usage of a familiar stereotype. I certainly am not personally hostile to you or anybody else who hangs out here regularly, and of course I find elements of every group annoying, as I'm sure you do as well. The dander that gets raised at somebody who won't pledge allegiance to a very poorly defined and ambiguous word, though? Puzzling. It seems like Elizabeth Bumiller barking "Are you a liberal? Are you a liberal?" at John Kerry during the debate in '04.
With respect to the makeup filter discussion, I think the more salient connection is the sense that one is unwilling to catch the girl cooties.
To paraphrase B, I think you're wrong, and I think I'm right.
No. The difference there is that 'liberal' was being used as a pejorative.
Here, the personal element comes from the fact that while you mostly seem to agree with broad femininst goals, you're absolutely unwilling to put yourself in the position of being personally associated with feminism or feminists. Given that the ideology isn't the problem, it's hard to read it as anything but not wanting other people to think you're one of those people. And as one of those people, when I have to sit through meetings talking about the risk of being seen as one of those crazy man-haters, it's a little rough having people I think of as allies drawing the hem of their garments away from me.
And again, the point is not that I don't like feminists. It's that I don't think the word is meaningfully descriptive. I suppose the best parallel argument is that if I think Christian ritual is bs (which I mostly do) but that the basic philosophy is based on good principles (which I do), then why would I object to having my kids baptized as infants, since it would just be a meaningless sprinkling.
I guess the only real answer is I'm just stubborn like that.
you're absolutely unwilling to put yourself in the position of being personally associated with [...] feminists
Oh, come on. I am married to woman with a graduate degree in women's studies, belong to a coed fraternity that was filled with ardent feminists, I blog here, I'm surrounded by strong women day in and day out, and so on. I've got no problem being associated with feminists. I, along with several other people here, just don't consider myself one. Why this distinction is so hard to grasp is eluding me. Not calling myself an X-ist != fearing or having a distaste for X.
Right. But you're 'stubborn' about making certain that no one thinks you're one of them -- it'd be a natural mistake, and you don't want anyone to make it.
Oh, that was snippier than it needed to be. I just don't see the force of your 'the word isn't meaningfully descriptive' argument at all, and I'm cross.
266: For whom would it be a "natural mistake" exactly? And I don't see why speculation about apo's supposed neuroses is now more interesting than his argument -- which looks valid -- that the term "feminism" isn't necessarily usefully descriptive.
266: But...
No. I've stated plenty of times that, as a rule, I'm much more comfortable around self-described feminists than their counterparts. And I'm plenty happy for people to describe themselves as such. I just don't use the word to describe myself,
If the above is the best description of Apo's position,it seems to me that it's not him that requires no mistake; instead some people, including you, I think, are adamant that he identify as a "feminist." I'm not sure how this is different than requiring him to identify as a Christian if he believes and follows the general precepts.
268 now rendered irrelevant. But I'm not seeing what's wrong with the "not usefully descriptive" argument.
Because he is: "married to woman with a graduate degree in women's studies, belong to a coed fraternity that was filled with ardent feminists, I blog here, I'm surrounded by strong women day in and day out, and so on. I've got no problem being associated with feminists." Clearly, the word describes something, or he wouldn't be surrounded by them.
If he can identify feminists when he's surrounded by and agreeing with them, how does the word get to be meaninglessly vague when the question is whether he is one?
If he can identify feminists when he's surrounded by and agreeing with them
Because that's what they call themselves. It just takes a long time to keep typing "self-identified."
I wonder if part of what makes people wary of self-identifying as one thing or another is how extreme the generally known extreme positions of people in that group are. Partly the difference in crazy-salience is due to the right-wing noise machine, but partly it's due to the fact that there's no real pro-union equivalent to "all sex is rape."
273: Exactly. Whatever the noise generator, it's still noise.
273: Well, there's "property is theft" or "the boss' right to live is mine to die," but those are currently out of fashion.
"all sex is rape."
Which is apparently apocryphal.
275: Because the unions have been smashed, so there's no need for the right to continue to portray them as crazy commies.
Maybe we can get at it this way.
(1) I believe that if you polled American women as to whether they thought that women deserved "equal treatment" and "equal pay," the overwhelming majority would say "Yes." I think those saying "No" would be, at most, in the single digits.
(2) I believe that if you polled American women as to whether or not each was a feminist, a significant portion, if not a majority would say "No."
(3) I think that if (1) and (2) are true, then it is reasonable to infer that some significant portion of American women believe that to be a feminist means a commitment beyond "equal treatment" and "equal pay." They believe it requires a commitment to some extra X.
(4) I think American women are best situated to both describe and and define "feminism."
(5) It's not, therefore, unreasonable for men to believe in the existence of X.
(6) X is, at least through #273, undefined.
(7) It's not unreasonable to not want to commit yourself to some undefined position X.
"all sex is rape."
As I understand it, there might not be a feminist equivalent of it either, since neither of the two people to whom it is commonly attributed, MacKinnon and Dworkin, ever said it.
I think American women are best situated to both describe and and define "feminism."
Fucking imperialist.
Every time I see the title of this post on the sidebar, I keep thinking it should be a Prince song.
The problem with your 278, SCMTim, is that the word "feminist" has been so viciously demonized that the X most women seem to think it requires is bra-burning, man-hating, lesbianism, mandatory abortions, and humorlessness. Even women who generally hold feminist views and haven't bought into the reaction might answer "oh, I'm not a feminist; I'm not on any crusade or anything."
Dworkin did in fact say plenty of things for which "all sex is rape" is not an unfair shorthand. (Intercourse is full of examples.) She sometimes backed off such pronouncements slightly when confronted about them, but not very consistently or convincingly IMO.
282: That demonization isn't a strong enough reason for people to avoid the term? Do they need a stronger justification? Sure, it'd be nice if they fought back, but I don't see how we can blame them for not doing that.
is that the word "feminist" has been so viciously demonized that the X most women seem to think it requires is bra-burning, man-hating, lesbianism, mandatory abortions, and humorlessness. Even women who generally hold feminist views and haven't bought into the reaction might answer "oh, I'm not a feminist; I'm not on any crusade or anything."
Fair enough, but I'm not sure the problem can be laid at Apostropher's door. He's badly positioned, as a man, to fight for the appropriate description of the term. (I feel certain there is a Being and Time (which I have not read) or Wittgenstein (also unread) quotation that would be just the apercu with which to make this point and sound smart. Please infer it.)
You may have missed those marches for choice in which all of those women were wearing "This is what a feminist looks like" T-shirts. That's one way to try to un-demonize the word; another way is to have private conversations with friends and family and random people on the internet. Anyway, I'm not going to convince anyone by abusing them, so I'll be off for a while now.
Coming in here late, as ever, I'm also not keen to label myself as feminist. Partly this is because in the subculture in which I grew up (lefty circles in Britain and Australia in the 80s), men weren't supposed to - it would have just been men trying to take over feminism like everything else. Either that or it looked too transparently like you were trying to get into someone's pants. So of course we were pro-feminism (or we'd never get any action with the hott rad-fems), but go too far and we always ran the gauntlet of becoming the dreaded feminist-fuckers and being mocked roundly. It was a thin line we walked in those days, lads.
When I hear a man say he's a feminist, I still look around to see who he's trying to score with. But it seems to play differently in the US.
When I hear a man say he's a feminist, I still look around to see who he's trying to score with. But it seems to play differently in the US.
Yeah, I'm not sure about that.
When I hear a man say he's a feminist, I still look around to see who he's trying to score with.
Where is Weiner nowadays, anyway?
Not fair. Weiner's genuinely sincere about that. OTOH, I seem to recall that your (male, I assume) friends IRL often identify you as the lefty-feminist....
286: That just seems non-sequitur. I'm not trying to deny the value of defending the term, just saying it's not a moral imperative to use it in the sense it'd have if it hadn't been demonized.
287: It was a thin line we walked in those days, lads.
Still is, I think. What you describe is the biggest part of why I don't call myself a feminist.
I might be willing to publicly identify as a feminist in exchange for a good blowjob.
292 et al.: But it seems like that, in itself, would only mean you don't go out of your way to tell people you're a feminist. But if they asked, you'd still say "Yeah, of course." Is that how it goes?
FWIW, that's how I do it. I don't hide from the term, but I don't wear it.
I imagine he's packing his stuff in preparation for moving to a very different climate than Lubbock.
You guys are crazy. Part of the reason the label "feminist" is so fraught is that well-intentioned men and women keep running away from it. I'm a feminist, and I think that has meaning, and I'm not afraid to say so.
When I hear a man say he's a feminist, I still look around to see who he's trying to score with.
Ladies, I am now open for business.
But if they asked, you'd still say "Yeah, of course." Is that how it goes?
I'd say "Yeah, of course I'm pro-feminist." (Depending on how involved the discussion was, "Yeah, I'm in favour of certain feminisms.") But I actually would feel a little weird, appropriation-wise, about taking on the title "feminist."
men weren't supposed to - it would have just been men trying to take over feminism like everything else
This really goes to the heart of it. B and LB might want you to self-identify as feminist, but there are other self-identified feminists who will tell you that that's wrong and anti-feminist. Which takes us back to comment 47.
No, it really doesn't. Someone identifying as pro-feminist, or in favor of feminist goals, or 'certain feminisms', or whatever, is plenty feminist enough for me -- while the appropriation thing doesn't bother me, I don't have any issue with someone who's bothered by it.
But there's no way to know in advance what you or someone else is going to think, so when someone asks me if I'm a feminist (which, as I've noted, has never happened and probably will never happen) I don't know whether "yes" will give offense or not. And unless I'm willing to get into an argument about whether men can be feminists without thereby enacting a patriarchal appropriation of feminism, I'm just going to beg off.
300: You can just say "I'm pro-feminist, but I don't know if men can call themselves feminists", then you get into an interesting discussion, and later teh hott sex. Everyone wins.
You know what this discussion is like? The discussion about atheism vs. agnosticism we had last year.
Except that you haven't yet found an example of anyone offended by either 'I'm a profeminist' or 'in favor of feminist goals' or whatever it was nattarGcM said way back up this thread. This conversation has not been about poor intimidated men afraid that mean feminists will berate them if they appropriate the word feminist, it's been about a denial that 'feminist' means anything coherent that Apo can sign on to agreeing with.
302: I've completely forgotten that one, but I could see it getting irritating.
Wait, "I'm pro-feminist" is acceptable? Then I'm down with you, sister.
The discussion about atheism vs. agnosticism
I presume that was similarly driven by somebody's fear of girl cooties?
Is it atheism or agnosticism that gives you girl cooties?
306: I think it was "God cooties" on that one, but I can see how one might confuse the two.
307: Oh sorry, didn't mean to interrupt *that*!
Now that we're having sex, LB, maybe you'll admit that guys who say not "I'm pro-feminist" but "I'm a feminist" are tools. They're not necessarily tools, but empirically it's true that guys who say that are.
311: Possible -- I haven't noticed it but I wouldn't rule it out.
Oh, I didn't mean I was having hot sex with you, as such. But as long as you've found someone, that's good.
One of these things is not like the other ones.
You won't keep him pro-feminist for long with those shenanigans, LB. Put out for the good of the movement. It can be the 60s all over again.
Eh, feminism-wise, the 60's weren't so great the last time around. Can I hold out for the 70's?
I can give you a special deal on the 20s plus the 50s.
I didn't mean I was having hot sex with you, as such
You're going to have sex with him qua swarthy persian? Sweet.
Mcmc: Don't miss comment 138 in the Redacted thread. And of course it's 'think'.
And of course it's 'think'.
If you don't speak English as a first language.
323: So, so, krazeee. Some day a real rain will come and-- or, um, not.
324: I been speakin' english longer'n you been alive, sonny.
I been speakin' english longer'n you been alive, sonny.
A non-denial denial.
I'm just saying that I've had plenty of time to brood over the thing/think problem, and my conclusion is that I'm right and apostropher is wrong, wrong, wrong.
All the wrong people think they're right about this issue. You are merely another one, mcmc.
You're another one? "Thing" makes no sense at all; "think" is perfectly clear.
328: Oh, Nakku, your diet of rancid bats has unhinged you. Pity.
You might believe it to be 'think'. But you've got another believe coming.
Think. And go right ahead with your pro-feminist selves. So say I!
330: Also, I'll have you know nary a bat has passed my lips in many months now.
"thing" is obviously not ungrammatical, but neither is "think", since "think" can be used as a noun, meaning "an instance of thinking". Arguably, that's not the sense of "think" used in the idiom, but I think it is. Perhaps those that say otherwise need to sit down and have a think.
I didn't know disagreement existed on this topic. I have for my entire life used, and assumed other people were using, "another thing coming." I've now spent a little time thinking about it, and I realize I've been wrong all these years. "Another think coming" is the correct phrase. 329 is right -- "thing" makes no sense. I vow to change, although it will be awkward and uncomfortable. My only recompense will be the smug delight I'll take in reprimanding all those around me who butcher the phrase.
I vote for "think". I've always thought think.
340: Does politeness require that you clean your plate? Or your giant leaf, or whatever?
338: Oh yeah, and then we can schedule *another* think for later on, which will mean we discover the first think was wrong. I get it.
Shame it's still wrong. Bonejarringly wrong. And you guys are worse than Hitler.
I think "thing" does make sense, though. It's not as congruous as "think", but to "have something coming" is to be due for that something, and "thing" in the phrase functions as a pointer to the implied change of attitude or belief in the listener. The corrupted idiom probably wouldn't be used if we didn't have the original idiom (assuming that the "think" version *is* the original, and this question should be resolved empirically), but the reason that people mishear it in the first place (besides the phonetic similarity) is because it *does* make some sense.
Although on second thought if Judas Priest is wrong I'm not sure I want to be right.
339: We talked about this before on John & Belle's blog, and a feature of the confusion is the fact that pronounced as most people do, "another thing coming" and "another think coming" sound absolutely indistinguishable, so whichever way you say it, it sounds to you as if everyone agrees with you. But welcome to sanity -- when you're typing, you do have to get it right.
you guys are worse than Hitler.
We're just a friendly little cult. A cult of correctness. Join us, and be saved. Oppose us, and your afterlife will be like one of those buddhist hells, where the idioms you mutilated will mutilate you.
Coming after you, endlessly, one thing at a time.
"Think 'Think'" makes a delightful dada-esque slogan.
"Another think coming" is the correct phrase.
Brock, Brock, Brock. You were expecting one thing, but you have another thing coming.
348: In "another think coming", I would think that "think" would be emphasized more, and in "another thing coming", that "coming" would be emphasized more. I've always heard it with the emphasis on "coming". So they're not indistinguishable, just almost so.
Nope, the emphasis is on 'coming' when I say it, and I'm a 'think'er.
(351: Sorry about that, chief -- I forgot anyone here was on that bench.)
353: Oh, sure, just drag expectation out of thin air. You thought one thought, but you were wrong, and now you have to have another think. Brock, don't listen!
You all can scream your wrongness loud as you like, but Rob Halford is on my side.
If you think that cuts any ice, you have another think coming.
where the idioms you mutilated will mutilate you
If they think they can do that, they've got another ... well, they can just get fucked.
343: Well, I thought politeness required me to eat it. But mostly it turned out not to be a big deal. Often it made a better story that I couldn't eat this stuff, so that became the accepted version even if they'd seen me chowing down on some poor old (literal) chilli dog a few hours before. So on my trip last month I figured I might as well Just Say No (Thanks), since people's personal narratives would have me being unable to eat anything except bread anyway. I think I only had a forest rat by way of festive meats. (Quite tasty).
Furthermore! The entire expression is always "if you thought X, you've got another think coming."
Nobody says "If you thought only one thing would be thinged at you, you've got another thing coming."
OK, I'll do it myself. But not well.
I've always heard it with the emphasis on "coming".
I always knew you had no stamina.
but you have another thing coming.
But that's just your point of you.
Judas Priest and googlefight, people. Cling to your ivory tower illusions all you like, we'll drag you out kicking and screaming.
359: I'll have you know I'm typing in low, measured tones. Unlike the shrill hitler-invoking members of the thing team.
This just in: people on the internet make a lot of mistakes.
You know, I hear that in other cultures, there isn't so much vitriol (real or facetious) over usage variation.
369: yeah, 140,000 mistakes. Luckily, more people got it right.
Breakin' the law, breakin' the law, dun dun dun...
My experience is that "thing" is how the idiom commonly is used, regardless of the derivation. In almost half a century of using and hearing that phrase, this blog in the past year is the first time I heard it suggested that it was "think."
See my 348: people have been saying 'think' to you your whole life, and you never noticed.
I don't understand those googlefight results. Shouldn't there be about 40 million hits for each? These are common phrases, right? 140,000 is nothing. You get more results than that searching for maggot cock.
And, honestly, I'm starting really to dislike both phrases when written. I think this is one of those idioms that ought to remain primarily oral.
I can't believe I missed an opportunity to call you minions. Shrill, Hitler-invoking minions of Thing.
370: I have not found that to be the case. I worked on a language with a couple of hundred speakers, but in one village they would crack up about how in the next village they said yarong instead of yorang.
375: I too was blissfully unaware of the wrong kind until the J&B discussion. But now my life's main purpose is to fight that stupid 'think' version. It must be driven into the sea.
But for now it is late on this side of the pond and I shall rest, so as to fight the good fight stronger tomorrow, proud in my role as a minion of Thing. Or perhaps to forget all about it until the blogosphere throws it my way again.
I can hear the difference between thing and think.
Maggot cock gets approximately 143,000 hits.
Anyway I can't believe we let Ogged goad us into that. We really ought to kick his ass.
When the next word starts with a hard 'c'? In my idiolect, it's almost impossible to hear the difference -- there might be some, but not enough to tip you off that you were hearing something other than the version you expected.
I never heard anyone say 'another thing' until I saw it online, and there are enough of you freaks that I must have heard it and not known what I was hearing.
381: which is more than 140,000, no?
In my idiolect, it's almost impossible to hear the difference
We Southerners speak slowly, y'know.
people have been saying 'think' to you your whole life, and you never noticed.
It is only the last 13 years that I have been living in New York, where people cannot pronounce words right. Like Apostropher, I can hear the difference between thing and think. .
Then how do you explain as, common as us 'think'ers are, that you never heard one of us say the idiom until you saw it online? While googlefight doesn't settle who's right, it establishes that there are a whole lot of people saying it either way.
The difference really is extremely small in the context in question, and expectation really does have a significant effect on what you hear. Not that I'm going to convince you.
I WILL NOT BE SWAYED BY YOUR SEDUCTIVE LOGIC.
I'm 98% convinced that the "think" camp is right, for the reason explained in 362.
The difference really is extremely small in the context in question, and expectation really does have a significant effect on what you hear.
That is a good point. But of course it cuts both ways in terms of discussing what common usage is.
And, like some above, "think" just makes no sense to me.
I have had similar arguments with LizardBreath regarding other idioms (when you make up something, did you "djin up", "gin up" or "gen up" the data or whatever). That she is always convincing does not mean that she is always right, however.
Googlefight, schmooglefight. A quick perusal of the top results for "another thing coming" reveals a disproportionate number referring specifically to the Judas Priest song, as well as instances of other conceivable uses of the phrase (e.g., "another thing coming in 2007"). The number one hit gets it right.
I thought you people were all smart and everything.
377, 381, and 385 have convinced me that the real version of the saying should indeed be 'maggot cock'.
That is a good point. But of course it cuts both ways in terms of discussing what common usage is.
Oh, sure. That's not evidence for 'think', it's just evidence that 'what you've been hearing all your life' doesn't mean much one way or the other.
And I'm never living down that Broccoli thing, am I.
And I'm never living down that Broccoli thing, am I.
My memory is filled with things I will not forget. But in this case, I was not even thinking of the broccoli thing, I was thinking of "gen up" which you convincingly argued, but which still does not seem right. But thanks for bringing up the broccoli thing.
My self-identifying liberal feminist wife says "think" is absurd. She then adds, "Don't draw me into that shit, man." Is think ever used as a noun anywhere else in the language?
393 explains it all. I knew there was something that was supposed to be off in the idiom; it was one of those non-joke jokes that cracked me up when I was a kid.
Gen up. But it's RAF slang -- English speakers saying 'gen' sound more like 'gin'.
Is think ever used as a noun anywhere else in the language?
Yes, but in this case it's a jocularism.
393: I thought you people were all smart and everything. Yeah. We were fooled by the re-norming of the SATs and grade inflation. It's "think". Or it used to be until the barbarians took over.
"Gen up" means to acquire information -- "please gen up on the product specs before our customer meeting tomorrow". "Gin up" means to create, usually used in a context that means something close to "pull from your ass" -- "please gin up some product specs before our customer meeting tomorrow."
If you look around, the origin of 'gin up' in that sense is obscure. My guess is that it's a mutated version of 'gen up' -- it went from studying preexisting data to producing data when there wasn't any available. But I admit I'm speculating.
You guys should chill out and watch this.
You know, I bet one of these days Pfizer will make a pill to help people with the unfortunate affliction of feeling strongly attached to a particular variation of some bit of language.
"Gin up" means to create, usually used in a context that means something close to "pull from your ass"
This would make more sense if gin tasted like ass. Accordingly, I propose "grappa up".
I always assumed it derived from gin rummy, although I, too, am just speculating.
Here's my data points:
- I never had any idea that "another think" might be "another thing", because I associate it with "Well, if you think that, you've got another think coming".
- I have never heard the term "djinn up" in any spelling.
- What I'm more concerned about is whether the proper term is "jury-rigged" or "jerry-rigged". I can think of quite good etymologies for each.
"djinn up" is wonderful. I'm definitely on the side of "djinn up".
405: That might be the best thing I've ever seen on youtube.
I think it's jerry-rigged, but a nautical slang book we once had in the bathroom maintained that etymologists argued about both and had no good proof for either.
I also think that LB's explanations for her use of "gen up" are getting thinner and thinner.
I've always seen "jury-rigged" and "jerry-built".
Goddamnit, I have to take PK to "zoo camp" in fucking Moorpark and I miss a good fight.
Ogged *eventually* comes around to the correct position, which is that being pro-feminist, or supporting feminist goals, or whatever phrase you like, is fine. You can add the "men who call themselves feminists are tools" if you like, and I, for one, will probably laugh and agree with you. (Though I don't know if that's inherently the case, or just a function of the toolishness of men generally.) It's only the long explanations of why you're *not* a feminist, or not willing to use that word, or that you really have a problem with Dworkin or radical feminists generally, that make people who otherwise don't suck sound like quislings.
Armsmasher is a man.
That's one of the best blog posts I've ever seen.
Jury rigged, jerry-built. "Jury rigged" is a much older phrase.
Jury rigged, but jerry-built. They mean quite different things -- the former means improvised the latter means constructed from shoddy materials.
And it's obviously "thing" btw.
NO! IT'S "THINK", MEANING "IDEA"! GOSH!
I HAVE READ NONE OF THE EARLIER COMMENTS ON THIS!
You can add the "men who call themselves feminists are tools" if you like, and I, for one, will probably laugh and agree with you.
Seriously? Not just because I'm the only man on the thread to call himself a feminist, but do you really think this is productive?
Am I just being a humorless feminist?
You can add the "men who call themselves feminists are tools" if you like, and I, for one, will probably laugh and agree with you.
I also was taken aback by this (and the jaunty jape about the toolishness of all men following it).
Am I just being a humorless feminist?
Who can say? The word is so vague...
Apostropher is cruising for a biting. Bite! Bite!
I also was taken aback by this
It's a joke.
I'll pile on with mrh and redfox, but I have to admit this is a juicy morsel for the opposition.
Apostropher, are you accusing B of having a sense of humor?! On the other hand, SB's link pretty much washes your "it's so vague" claim out the window. Here we have a succinct and completely defensible definition of feminism that everyone can get behind.
I'd stay and argue some more, but I have to get up way too early tomorrow for a meeting which will Decide The Course Of My Career so...
are you accusing B of having a sense of humor?
Yes. She is a quisling.
422, 423: I've had bad experiences with leftier-than-thou very sincere men. ::cough::H/go Schwyz/r::cough
And hey, why didn't y'all jump Ogged's shit when *he* said it, hmmmmmmm?
427: Wasn't that previously linked in this thread?
And by "pile on", I mean "have a threesome". Because I'm a feminist.
430: Because he was right? (mrh being the exception that proves the rule.)
Wasn't that previously linked in this thread?
I linked it accurately, but by a stroke without volume.
430: I should say that I haven't actually had a bad experience with HS, just that he's the type I had in mind.
430: I was unfamiliar with him, but having now read the front page of his blog, bleah.
Actually, Tim, I just checked, and the answer is no.
440: I could swear I've seen that today.
It was linked in two other threads recently.
439: Yup.
But for the record: no, not all feminist men suck. But jeez, people. Decide amongst yourselves if I'm supposed to be humorless or not, and then let me know, kay?
This is the phenomenon of creeping feminist threesomes.
Jeez, Apo, no link for 444? You're slipping.
It's a joke.
"Men who call themselves feminists are tools" wasn't a joke, I don't think. Some dudes seemed to lean on it pretty heavily to avoid calling themselves feminists.
"The toolishness of all men" was a joke, but see "jaunty jape": joke recognized, still taken aback.
447: Men who call themselves feminists often *are* tools.
not all feminist men suck
No one said they did. The claim is that men who call themselves feminists are tools. (mrh doesn't seem like a tool, but someone should beat him up just to be sure; after his meeting.)
But for the record: no, not all feminist men suck.
I'm sure that's right. But I genuinely don't understand what's different so different about a man calling himself a feminist and (not the best example, which may show a point in itself) a white guy raising a fist and saying, "Black Power!" That would be weird to borderline offensive, I would have thought.
You boys fight it out amongst yourselves, okay? I'll just keep my mouth closed on this subject, like a good girl.
B, I was correcting what I thought was apo's misreading of redfox's comment. The truth of 448 is a separate matter.
Pretty much the only men I've ever met who call themselves feminists are either staid academics or middle-aged fathers of more than one daughter.
445: "feminist threesome" yields surprisingly few hits, though one is a link to lame Office slash. I guess it just isn't an idea whose time has yet come.
Merriam-Webster New Int'l 2d: Gin (from OF engin - see engine) 1. Contrivance, artifice, trick, scheme (obsolete). 2. any of various machines
cf. cotton gin. gin block
Or is that fanfic? These things confuse me.
The truth of 448 is a separate matter.
But see "Some dudes seemed to lean on it pretty heavily to avoid calling themselves feminists."
We're going to end up having to settle this with a new Battle of Salamis, aren't we?
Tim, the truth of 448 is utterly irrelevant to whether apostropher implied, incorrectly, that rfts was taken aback by something she didn't realize was a joke.
utterly irrelevant
A touch overwritten, SB.
I'm getting impatient with folks trying to rebut something I didn't say.
I think SB meant "some dudes..." as evidence that it wasn't a joke, where I read it as a separate comment.
We've moved past what you actually said, SB, and are on to what it would have been more convenient for you to say. Try to keep up.
Brewer's impressive. The Lakers need to plant some drugs and a gun in his dorm room.
Try to keep up.
47 seems older every year.
454,456: It is both slash *and* fanfiction.
In what impoverished fucked up version of the English language does 'another think coming' count as anything other than an abomination?
'Another think coming' may be the true historical origin of the phrase but that just shows that your forebears were abusers of language too.
Plus, as apo says, Rob Halford ...
450: No -- the analogous situation would be a man, say, leading a "take back the night" march, or raising his fist and shouting "girl power!" A man claiming to be a feminist is the equivalent of a white man claiming to be against racial discrimination.
I think a lot of the "feminist men are tools" sentiment comes from this assumption that "feminism" is somehow an extreme position. While there are certainly extremes within feminism, just like there are/were extremes in the civil rights movement, to let the extremes stand in for the whole by, for instance, claiming that men can't really be feminists, or else if they are there's something wrong with them, is at best counter-productive and at worst anti-feminist.
Yes, yes, I know, a joke. All in good fun.
Anyway, thanks very much for all the good wishes, and I will submit to my beating this afternoon, or at your earliest convenience.
Hilarious story of Brock's online and offline worlds colliding: last night my wife says to me, apropos of nothing and rather unexpectedly, "Sometimes I really wish you were more of a feminist."
"What on earth are you talking about?" I replied. "In what way could I be more of a feminist?"
"You're not a feminist. Would you even refer to yourself as a feminist? You generally support women's rights, but you're not a feminist, and I don't even think you'd claim to be."
"No, I wouldn't claim to be a feminist, but that doesn't really mean I'm wrong about any substantive issue. What opinions would you like me to change?"
"No particular opinions, it would just be nice if you were more of a feminst..."
At that point I told her she was obviously being silly, and to leave me alone so I could go back to watching the game. Still: disturbing.
471: Wait until she rips off the latex mask and reveals herself to be Standpipe Bridgeplate.
"In what impoverished fucked up version of the English language does 'another think coming' count as anything other than an abomination?"
It is proof that with enough repetition anything will sound reasonable.
Still: disturbing.
Again, for some reason, it's the *word* that's important, rather than the beliefs. [shrug]
I think a lot of the "feminist men are tools" sentiment comes from this assumption that "feminism" is somehow an extreme position.
Honestly, no; it comes from the fact that most of the men I've met in person who made a point of calling themselves feminists were tools.
it would just be nice if you were more of a feminst..."
At that point I told her she was obviously being silly, and to leave me alone so I could go back to watching the game.
Mmmmm, yes.
the analogous situation would be a man, say, leading a "take back the night" march, or raising his fist and shouting "girl power!" A man claiming to be a feminist is the equivalent of a white man claiming to be against racial discrimination
The similar thing to being against racial descrimination is, I would think, being against gender discrimination. They look more similar, facially, at least.
a man, say, leading a "take back the night" march, or raising his fist and shouting "girl power!"
At the March for Women's Lives, Mr. B. (who can shout REALLY LOUD) led some of the chanting, but fell silent (quite noticably) at some chant about keeping the law off our ovaries or something. A couple of dykes marching next to us laughed about it when he admitted that he just didn't think it would sound right to have a man shouting that one.
Brock, you maroon, when your wife says something like that, you're supposed to gently figure out what's bothering her, not win the argument.
Having cogitated on this a bit more, I'd say my reaction to hearing a guy call himself a feminist (and mrh really does seem like a good guy, so...) is to assume that he falls somewhere on the spectrum from "has lots of rape fantasies" to "beats his wife." Not someone to be trusted without lots and lots of other information.
474: Apo, you stubborn ass, it isn't the word: it's the distancing. Dammit.
you're supposed to gently figure out what's bothering her
Pussy.
Distancing from the word, not the basic goals. But, as I suggest above, no one distance themselves from the minimal goals.
Nonsense. Dsquared gets away with it, and I actually *have* one.
Apo, you stubborn ass, it isn't the word: it's the distancing.
From. A. Word.
"Look, you support public education, a 40-hour work week, and the right to unionize. Why don't you just fucking call yourself a socialist already?"
"Because I don't consider myself a socialist."
"You're just afraid you're going to get working class cooties on you. What problem do you have with the working class?"
There are two of us continuing this conversation, love.
True, I am stubborn as hell. Also, you'll notice that it's 5:30 am my time, which should tell you something.
Part of the problem with the word "feminist" is that feminism has been extremely successful in making once radical claims ("Harvard should be co-ed") mainstream, and while there's a lot of work to be done, there's a lot of differences within the broadest possible definition of "feminist" as to what that means. So Twisty's readers will leave B because B writes for SG and can't really be a feminist. The other part of the problem is that because feminism has been so successful at the basics, the word was hijacked to mean only those mythical strawfeminists who hate men and children, burn bras, and wear only organic free-range sackcloth.
So there's a kneejerk reaction to associate feminism with that straw extreme. So, one might propose, it's time to reclaim the word to mean "believes in equal pay for equal work." I said earlier why I think that's probably too big of a tent, but there's also something to the idea that it's hard to work up a activist movement when you're committed to the idea that everyone already agrees with you.
What actually seems to happen is that everyone uses "feminist" to mean their own set of goals. So if I say "are you a feminist?" to apostropher, and he says "yes", my response could be everything from "don't you believe that abortion is really the curse of femininity? ("I believe in equal pay for equal work, but women almost never do equal work"-types) to "you can't be because you are an evil patriarchal oppressor what with being male and all."