Post on Mormon Feminist housewives upsets "male allies"

[_Res Ipsa]

Ty Hasa. I do think she wasn't clear in parts of the post and worded things poorly. And I am drawing on some experience in interacting in and observing feminist forums. So, I'll admit I'm giving her the benefit of the doubt when she is unclear.

I agree with the point about setting up one's own blog to discuss broader issues. And I wouldn't particularly care whether the OP would consider it "feminist."

[_Res Ipsa]

I found the tone to be quite off-putting and, while I agree with some of the content, there are a few items in there that irk me.

I am a feminist insofar as I wish to end the harms caused by arbitrary gender norms and think people should feel free to take on any social role as their desires and talents allow. Calling myself a feminist is not a description not benevolently granted to me by female feminists, and I resent any notion that women inherently run feminist thought and advocacy. It's not necessary to marginalize men to advocate on behalf of women. That's sexist and an affront to liberal feminism.

That said, the post isn't the end of the world. You can spend all day reading wackadoodle, repugnant arguments in the feminist blogoverse that are far worse than this either in tone or message. It's an intellectual diverse body of people. It's no trouble to find annoying feminists being annoying.

OK, I'm puzzled. Here's the post you linked to:

Sometimes xkcd gets it right. And sometimes xkcd gets it wrong.

This? Would be getting it wrong.

Explains Shaker Gnatalby, who emailed the link to me:
It IS **** creepy when men just assume that because you exist in the world while female you are open to sexual advances. I get hit on with some frequency while I'm walking to places, and it pisses me off. Am I doing something to suggest that I am open to being hit on? No. I am not out at a pick-up bar, I am not making flirtatious eye contact, I am just existing, as a woman, walking from place to place. That's not flattering; that's patriarchy.

I feel like if xkcd dude, or any of the dudes who hit on me while I'm assuming my blank face of public transportation, considered the possibility that I was a doctor, or a lawyer, or, basically, a human being of any importance beyond a personalized ***-hole for their enjoyment, they wouldn't feel like it's appropriate to interrupt me in the middle of my **** commute in order solicit sex.

Spot-on. The interrupting is really the key. Forget flirtatious eye contact; how about some eye contact, any eye contact at all, being considered a requisite, a bare minimum, before deciding to hit on another human being.

I guess it's easy to convince yourself that sort of thing isn't necessary, though, when you believe women play games like: "Ignore the Guy So He'll Hit on You."

What's wackadoodle or repugnant here? (Other than the ****s)

[_EAllusion]

What's wackadoodle or repugnant here? (Other than the ****s)

Read the cartoon. Read the commentary on the cartoon. Then read the user comments following that commentary.

[_zeezrom]

May I ask whether you identify as male or female? Or neither?

Definitely male.

I envy women sometimes because I think they have more freedom in areas of my personal interests.

[_Sethbag]

Are you your wife's ally? If she asks for your help, do you ask her what she wants you do to, or just decide for her what kind of help she should be asking for and do that? That's the point of the analogy.

Yes I'm my wife's ally. But my wife and I have a give-and-take relationship. Go back and re-read the OP. Would you be married to someone on those terms?

I wouldn't either.

Your analogy is an interesting one. Given that the post was made at Feminist Mormon Housewives, I'd say she was in her house, so to speak.

The title of her post is "so you want to be a male feminist?", not "so you want to come post at Feminist Mormon Housewives?".

So why is she not entitled to speak out against them?

So, as a matter of curiosity, how would you go about applying the golden rule to the OP?

She's entitled to make her bed. And she's entitled to sleep in it. I very much doubt she actually wants any male allies, though. I don't think the OP was really written to men. I think it was written to her fellow women feminists.

[_Res Ipsa]

What's wackadoodle or repugnant here? (Other than the ****s)

Read the cartoon. Read the commentary on the cartoon. Then read the user comments following that commentary.

Okay, I did that. What I don't understand is how the notion that women should be able to ride the subway, walk to work, etc. without being hit on is either wackadoodle or repugnant?

[_Res Ipsa]

Are you your wife's ally? If she asks for your help, do you ask her what she wants you do to, or just decide for her what kind of help she should be asking for and do that? That's the point of the analogy.

Yes I'm my wife's ally. But my wife and I have a give-and-take relationship. Go back and re-read the OP. Would you be married to someone on those terms?

I wouldn't either.

Your analogy is an interesting one. Given that the post was made at Feminist Mormon Housewives, I'd say she was in her house, so to speak.

The title of her post is "so you want to be a male feminist?", not "so you want to come post at Feminist Mormon Housewives?".

So why is she not entitled to speak out against them?

So, as a matter of curiosity, how would you go about applying the golden rule to the OP?

She's entitled to make her bed. And she's entitled to sleep in it. I very much doubt she actually wants any male allies, though. I don't think the OP was really written to men. I think it was written to her fellow women feminists.

I didn't understand the OP as setting terms for a marriage relationship. If I wanted to know what she would want in a marriage relationship, I would ask her.

I get your point about the title of the post, but that doesn't address why she shouldn't be entitled to speak out against customs that she feels injured by?

So, you would apply something like: "Do unto others as you think they deserve?" And why would you think that a post that is clearly, on it's face, directed to men actually be written to women? Do you have some inside information I don't have about the individual?

[_ludwigm]

So I'll ask you, do you think it's okay to touch a woman in a sexual manner without her consent?

To cause her consent, for example?

[_moksha]

1. It’s not about you. You are not the oppressed minority. Seeing the pain is not the same as living it. As much as you may not want it to be true, you are part of the privileged class, and you don’t get to pretend otherwise just because you see how problematic it can be. Don’t insult us by co-opting our pain.

I pictured a woman carrying skins of river water to her home in India to wash her baby perhaps saying this to the ladies at Salon D'Elegance Spa as they sipped their mineral water. The only trouble with this scenario is that they will never exist in the same place for this to be said.

[_Res Ipsa]

So I'll ask you, do you think it's okay to touch a woman in a sexual manner without her consent?

To cause her consent, for example?

Once you do the touching, consent to that touching is moot, isn't it?