Post on Mormon Feminist housewives upsets "male allies"

[_honorentheos]

It sounds to me as if you would view making the relative power of men and women more equal, but that it would be wrong to try and address that problem directly. Why do you think it would be wrong? I view the existing distribution of power as a societal choice. If the distribution of power between men and women results contributes to gender inequality, then I see nothing wrong with attacking the problem on both an individual as well as a structural level.

Have you ever noticed how certain discussions can begin in a civil manner but then as the parties try to grab points the discussion polarizes into a place where both sides seem to be unsatisfied with anything other than unconditional surrender by the other party?

I'm not saying that you are arguing for this. But I think when the discussion becomes about who has power or how it should be shared, the thinking of those involved is about how much power they have and how much they are willing to let the other side have. And that brings out the worst in people.

In one-on-one relationships I don't believe most counselors would advise a couple to approach problems in their relationship this way, even if much of the problem could be attributed to a similar cause. Most solutions come from seeking mutual understanding, reciprocated respect, and focusing on mutually beneficial outcomes.

While "wrong" might be the wrong word, I think it's counterproductive to the goals we've been discussing because it pushes past most people's reasonableness and triggers instinctive reactions that cause more problems than they solve.

[_Res Ipsa]

I decided to take some time out to read the comments section. What I found was a large number of women's voices being ignored by the original poster. The following comment sums it up.

Let’s start with the post.

The message seems to be: feminists don’t like exclusionism so let’s be exclusionary. Feminists don’t like marginalization, so let’s be marginalizing. Feminists don’t like condescension, so let’s be condescending. Feminists don’t like to be lectured to so let’s lecture. Feminists don’t like stereotyping, so let’s stereotype. Feminists don’t like division so let’s be divisive. Feminists don’t like their perspectives and experiences discounted, so let’s discount those of men.

Now let’s talk about the comments (the bigger problem):

Tresa and her wingwoman Risa went on a defensive power-trip and plowed over anyone who voiced criticisms about the post (either its content or its tone), bullying them with loud assertions of their mind-blowing leadership experience and superior understanding of feminism that the rest of us simple-minded women can only hope to aspire to, and reminders that they have been abused and thus their feminist cred is more legit that ours and their views and opinions exempt from criticism. Those of us women (and there were a lot) who dared disagree with her methods were accused of failing to get the point of the post, of not being “real” feminists, of “siding with patriarchy,” and of “needing male approval,” among other digs. That’s anti-feminist.

If fMh is supposed to be a safe place for women to have a dialogue about feminism and where women’s voices are heard, why aren’t you hearing us? You’re doing exactly what the patriarchy has always done: you’re setting up a hierarchy of authority within which you make the rules, dictate to everybody else, and demand obedience, or else. That is anti-feminist.

Whether you agree or disagree with the above it is a valid feminist opinion from a woman. Instead of listening to women that disagreed with her original post it seems that the poster decided instead to merely dismiss and label them as part of the problem.

I don't think the aim of this post was dialogue it was to dictate a specific viewpoint and one that is apparently not shared by a large number of feminists at Fmh.

So I’ll tell you what it’s about. It’s not about men. It’s not about women. It’s not about feminism. It’s not even about fMh. It’s about Tresa.

Thanks,

Hasa Diga Eebowai

Hasa,

You're seeing something that every group struggles with -- what and who defines the group. We talk about this kind of thing all the time here. What constitutes being a Mormon? Who gets to decide? What constitutes being a Christian? Who gets to decide? Is feminism any idea expressed by a woman? Who decides? Can me be feminists? Who decides? Groups struggle to work this stuff out all the time. Me, I'm not a Mormon Feminist Housewife, so I'm going to leave it to them to figure it all out.

The core tension I see within feminism is between an ultimate goal, equality for all, and a shorter term goal, empowering women. If you want equality for all, but you see a disparity in power between men and women that results in inequality, what do you do? If you treat everyone the same, but there are structural inequalities in the society, all you do is perpetuate the inequality. So the real fight I see is between those who think the solution is treating people the same and those who think it takes more -- it takes empowering women. Feminist Mormon Housewives is going to have to figure it out. And either they will, or the "movement' will collapse or morph into something else.

I also think there is some false equivalence going on. If you believe that men are generally dismissive of women in online forums and dominate discussions over women's voices, then why is that the same as women saying "this is our forum, don't do that here?"

[Guest]

-

[_Res Ipsa]

It sounds to me as if you would view making the relative power of men and women more equal, but that it would be wrong to try and address that problem directly. Why do you think it would be wrong? I view the existing distribution of power as a societal choice. If the distribution of power between men and women results contributes to gender inequality, then I see nothing wrong with attacking the problem on both an individual as well as a structural level.

Have you ever noticed how certain discussions can begin in a civil manner but then as the parties try to grab points the discussion polarizes into a place where both sides seem to be unsatisfied with anything other than unconditional surrender by the other party?

I'm not saying that you are arguing for this. But I think when the discussion becomes about who has power or how it should be shared, the thinking of those involved is about how much power they have and how much they are willing to let the other side have. And that brings out the worst in people.

In one-on-one relationships I don't believe most counselors would advise a couple to approach problems in their relationship this way, even if much of the problem could be attributed to a similar cause. Most solutions come from seeking mutual understanding, reciprocated respect, and focusing on mutually beneficial outcomes.

While "wrong" might be the wrong word, I think it's counterproductive to the goals we've been discussing because it pushes past most people's reasonableness and triggers instinctive reactions that cause more problems than they solve.

I understand what you are saying. I think that discussions about distribution of power tend to be threatening to those who are told they have power. Because of privilege, they don't perceive themselves as having power, and so they fear that they will lose something unfairly. I think that's a pretty natural human reaction. It also creates a significant amount of defensiveness -- nobody likes thinking that they are abusing power.

The thing is, I don't think pretending that the distribution of power doesn't matter is helpful. If you buy into the notion that patriarchy is harmful to men, then changing the allocation of power can make things better for both groups. I don't see it as some sort of zero-sum game. I see the distribution as a moral choice that those who choose the rules of the game are directly responsible for. Looking at the issue from that perspective changes my thinking quite a bit. I see the issue as how to construct laws, rules, cultural norms, etc. in a moral and ethical manner.

[Guest]

I understand what you are saying. I think that discussions about distribution of power tend to be threatening to those who are told they have power. Because of privilege, they don't perceive themselves as having power, and so they fear that they will lose something unfairly. I think that's a pretty natural human reaction. It also creates a significant amount of defensiveness -- nobody likes thinking that they are abusing power.

The thing is, I don't think pretending that the distribution of power doesn't matter is helpful. If you buy into the notion that patriarchy is harmful to men, then changing the allocation of power can make things better for both groups. I don't see it as some sort of zero-sum game. I see the distribution as a moral choice that those who choose the rules of the game are directly responsible for. Looking at the issue from that perspective changes my thinking quite a bit. I see the issue as how to construct laws, rules, cultural norms, etc. in a moral and ethical manner..

Have you noticed how the discussion can't help but drift into "Your fault" language, though?

ETA: I should expand on that. One of the three xkcd's EA's article linked to included a side-by-side panel. On the left were two men at a chalk board. One had finished writing an equation, wrong it turns out, and the caption said "Dude, you suck at math" or something similar. The panel on the right was the same but replaced the man with a woman who wrote the equation incorrectly. The caption was not in the singular, but a broad condemnation of a class of people - "Women suck at math."

You want to fight to end abuse, the unequal treatment of women, the imbalances in society, and balancing out access to achievement based on ability I'm with you. You want to target specific individuals or specific institutions that have internalized these behaviors, I'm with you - "Dude, you suck at equality". You want to broadly target male power dynamics against women? You lost me at "Men suck at equality".

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Welp.

I guess we know who the White Knight on this forum is...

- Doc

[Guest]

-

[_Res Ipsa]

Welp.

I guess we know who the White Knight on this forum is...

- Doc

If being concerned with making moral and ethical choices in how I treat my fellow humans makes me a "white knight," so be it.

I guess it's marginally better than board douche bag.

[Guest]

-

[_Res Ipsa]

Haha!

Who gets to be the Dark Knight?



Thanks,

Hasa Diga Eebowai

Unless you are really attached to the white shirt, tie, and name tag, I nominate you for the job.