The Feminine Perspective against the Manosphere

[mixed_biscuits]

I don't know why you 'progressives' are so hung up on the unprecedented and unusual nature of things since that's the whole raison d'etre of progressivism. You can't have the new practices tapping into thousand year old traditional cultures because what would be progressive about that?

 

[CorpseysEvilTwin]

I don't know why you 'progressives' are so hung up on the unprecedented and unusual nature of things since that's the whole raison d'etre of progressivism. You can't have the new practices tapping into thousand year old traditional cultures because what would be progressive about that?

congratulations, ya got a scooby after all. amazin'! can forum now melvyn your sock finally ya've arrived at this Harry monkin' rrealisation? We want to get rid of yer Hampton Wick traditional bottle. . ain't pete tong with that, these are anguishes of the piping china with a case of the ace.

 

[CorpseysEvilTwin]

But this is the bleedin' icecream lollipop that refuses ter answer god's callin' wot can ya say ter such a 'eathen? 'e might be on a ruthless crusade against secular ideology, but 'e's damned ter burn forever in the ding dong. waste of nickle, 'tis a pity he's just a forest gump gary whore.

 

[Mr. Tea]

You came up with a handful of practices that weren't the same out of countless cultural configurations - you're a country mile away from providing a universal.

You have, as usual, misunderstood me. I wasn't saying that the idea of a third gender is universal, but that your assumption that "men are men and women are women, and that's that" is universal (or would be, were it not for us decadent deviants in the modern West) is incorrect. I came up with a handful of examples that I've heard of, but I'm obviously not an anthropologist, so someone who studies this stuff for a living could no doubt cite many more.

 

[malelesbian]

Only a page ago you said individuals could self-identify legitimately and that communities that disagree would be letting them down.

No, I said that an individual can self-identify with a non-binary gender, and the community would usually fail to understand and accept them. The community lets them down only insofar as they refuse to count them as an intelligible member of society. So there is room for disagreement between individuals and their communities. Butler and I just believe that all these people untelligible to mainstream culture deserve recognition and acceptance from their communities. Thus, we pursue gender-equal cultural representation.

I need you to spell out how you define gender without reference to biology.

That's easy. To quote Butler, "stylized, repeated" performances define gender. A gender performance's style is our interpretation of the individual's free expression of their identity in a larger cultural context. We need to repeat gender performances, thus our gender can change as fast as our behavior does. I am only a man for as long as I act like a man. I could lose my manhood at anytime. The community determines what particular behaviors define an individual as, for example a man. If I fail to act manly enough, my community will cease to accept me as a man. Thus I will become a marginalized individual. Communities accept only those individuals behaving in ways governed by the norms, the rules, the conventions, the regulations that say what behaviors men must do in order count as men. Individuals unregulated by these norms lose the acceptance of their community.

Society is completely dependent on human biology and the genotype. Culture expresses itself in a limited set of ways constrained by our biology.

Well that's just biological determinism. Social constructionists like me or Butler reject that. Culture is irreducible to nature. The humanities don't reduce to natural science. Again the claim is one about meaning, not existence. Matter composes all cultural artifacts, but science alone cannot understand the meaning of a cultural artifact. Yes the cosmetic makeup a woman puts on her face is made up of "natural" materials. But the scientific analysis of these materials doesn't help us interpret what it means for a woman to wear makeup in society. Yes, science shows us the limits of our ability to express culture using our bodies. But science can't tell us that, for example, a man with a limp wrist is seen as gay by the majority of society. So our bodies can express more cultural meaning than science gives us the conceptual resources to understand.

How will you know when it's 50%?

When we actually achieve gender equality in our society. Then we will live not in a patriarchy or matriarchy, but an androgynarchy, a society ruled by both men and women. I don't know what empirical material conditions we need to satisfy to realize a gender-equal society, but I know that it helps to increase and improve representation of marginalized groups, like feminine people.

 

[linebaugh]

You came up with a handful of practices that weren't the same out of countless cultural configurations - you're a country mile away from providing a universal.

@linebaugh it only appears a 'small' matter if all you can see is the culture in which you are already embedded.

I dare say many cultures don't even have the terms to distinguish between sex and gender, not least because all the work that 'gender' does can be done in plain English in a far more comprehensible way, natch.

No one cares if the mayans and pigmies had different words for sex and gender or not. That it doesnt need special terms because its an intuitive concept is exactly the point.

 

[Mr. Tea]

No one cares if the mayans and pigmies had different words for sex and gender or not. That it doesnt need special terms because its an intuitive concept is exactly the point.

If bullets were points, @mixed_biscuits would be Agent Smith:

 

[ghost]

Yes, well neither of us can name any website that counts as feminine culture

Let me quote myself again because you chose not to read it either of the last two times:

Please, go on pinterest, go on Tumblr

 

[malelesbian]

Let me quote myself again because you chose not to read it either of the last two times:

I'll consider going on Pinterest or Tumblr. But those are massive sites. The point is neither of us can name any particular site, not even a site part of Pinterest or Tumblr, that represents feminine culture.

And besides, my goal is to promote feminine culture on this site, right here. I don't see why you oppose my efforts.

I ask again, what do you do to promote non-phallic culture?

 

[linebaugh]

Ive seen a picture of beiser he had his hair dyed like a woman.

 

[version]

Is anything actually interesting happening in this thread? I can't be bothered to read it all.

 

[linebaugh]

Is anything actually interesting happening in this thread? I can't be bothered to read it all.

Did you see male lesbians book? Thats not a euphemism for his posts here he actually wrote a 90 page book

 

[ghost]

I'll consider going on Pinterest or Tumblr. But those are massive sites. The point is neither of us can name any particular site, not even a site part of Pinterest or Tumblr, that represents feminine culture.

80% of Pinterest users are female. i promise you they are creating feminine culture. If that's not enough for you, go ahead, go on ao3, go on fanfiction.net.

what do you do to promote non-phallic culture

I have repeatedly expressed the idea that I think there's nothing inherently wrong with phallic culture, and that I don't see a need to master-plan the content landscape by trying to subsidize things. im not gonna spend my time sanctifying culture by engaging with the right things. im gonna do what i feel like doing.

 

[malelesbian]

I have repeatedly expressed the idea that I think there's nothing inherently wrong with phallic culture, and that I don't see a need to master-plan the content landscape by trying to subsidize things. im not gonna spend my time sanctifying culture by engaging with the right things. im gonna do what i feel like doing.

There's nothing wrong with doing what you feel like doing (as long as you do good). Just don't try to say you're doing feminism simply by doing what you like. I mean maybe you like doing feminism, but if feminism is not your priorit And don't try to stop me from promoting feminine culture here.

But phallic culture does wrong because it represses femininity. Phallic culture is totalizing culture, it tries to reduce everything to matters of self interest. There's nothing wrong with self interest of course. But there is something wrong with phallocentrism's tendency to listen to no voice other than its own. It says there is no alternative to the phallus, everything is about the individual.

 

[version]

Feminine Pressure

I've been thinking about starting a thread like this for a while but since it's International Women's Day today it seems apt to start it now. The idea is a thread to highlight music written/performed by women, and also to discuss stuff relating to gender in music, such as representation in...

www.dissensus.com

 

[ghost]

There's nothing wrong with doing what you feel like doing (as long as you do good). Just don't try to say you're doing feminism simply by doing what you like. I mean maybe you like doing feminism, but if feminism is not your priorit And don't try to stop me from promoting feminine culture here.

If you'll recall, early in the thread my stance is that, in keeping with the radfems, I think it is not possible for men to be feminists:

I actually think that generally, men aren't very good at making art specifically about the experiences of women. I don't think it's the best thing to encourage. Maybe Elena Ferrante, but there are rumors there was a co-writer. Definitely it's no good to seek plaudits for one's mere decency.

I would suggest that men would do better to support women's movements, and to speak favorably about the work women do that they appreciate, than try to get in on the game themselves. Maybe if they feel ineffectual or feckless they can write about that on its own grounds—it works for Ben Lerner—rather than impugning women with their stance.

 

[malelesbian]

If you'll recall, early in the thread my stance is that, in keeping with the radfems, I think it is not possible for men to be feminists:

That's a clear non-starter for me. I believe male femininists exist, and I think more men should do feminism.

Also, it is gender essentialism to say that only women can be feminists. You assume that there is some element in womanhood that men can never have and that enables them to do feminism. I'm saying that any person can represent femininity, independent of their gender.

But if men can't do feminism, then what do we call the anti-manosphere movement?

And isn't it a bit silly to say that a man can contribute to feminine culture but not do feminism? For me, doing feminism just is promoting feminine culture. Or do you think that men can't promote anti-phallic culture?

It is pure non-sense to say that a man who promotes feminine culture "impugns" women by doing so. As long as he actually promotes and represents femininity, he benefits feminine people, including women.

 

[ghost]

You've picked up very strange usages. Nobody would talk about "doing black power" or "doing black self-determination". Very few would speak of how obviously possible it is for white people to "do black power."

None of this should be construed to say that men can't support feminists or feminism. That's obviously false. But as I said above—the idea that men should get a little merit badge for not having regressive politics is sad and I don't know why you're so fixated on it.

As to what to call the anti-manosphere movement? I reckon "the anti-manosphere movement" is quite clear.

Once again—your "promoting feminine culture" is a hegemonic project of gender stereotyping, and the "just" there shows that you've constrained feminism from a material fight for rights and freedoms into a cultural project of watching the right TV shows.

 

[malelesbian]

You've picked up very strange usages. Nobody would talk about "doing black power" or "doing black self-determination". Very few would speak of how obviously possible it is for white people to "do black power."

I think most people agree that white people can actively support anti-racism and pro-blackness. It is incredibly sophomoric to say that, if a white man ended the racist system of mass incarceration, then his act would not count as an action supportive of black power just because he's white. Again, you are affirming a kind of essentialism that says that people can only do identity politics in the context of how it applies to their own identity group, e.g. only black people can participate in black identity politics. This view also ignores intersectionality, and the overlap between the struggles of multiple identity groups. For example, gay men and women both suffer objectification by men. On your view, gay men and straight women shouldn't cooperate and organize together. For you, gay men should only attend to the issues gay men face, and the same for women. But marginalized groups are stronger when they join together, and they're even stronger when white men help them. Your claim that white men can do nothing to help marginalized cultures is again, a non starter.

But there's a deeper question: can men do feminism among other men? You say no, since you deny that men can do feminism at all. How then, do we fight the manosphere? You still haven't explained why you think men expressing femininity and supporting non-phallic culture fails to combat the manosphere. The manosphere is obviously phallic culture par excellence. Are you saying that the anti-manosphere movement can't benefit from the promotion of the literal opposite of phallic culture? I think a great way for men to fight the manosphere's toxic masculinity is for them to get in touch with their feminine sides. I don't know why you reject that.

None of this should be construed to say that men can't support feminists or feminism. That's obviously false. But as I said above—the idea that men should get a little merit badge for not having regressive politics is sad and I don't know why you're so fixated on it.

The fact that you think that calling oneself a feminist is just a "little merit badge" shows that you have no interest in feminism. If you are a real feminist, then feminism is a part of your lifestyle and worldview. "Feminist" is not an honorific I use to praise myself. It describes the fact that I really do express my feminine side and encourage others to do the same. You only think I'm using feminism to celebrate myself because you're only interested in what you like, not feminism. If you were a real feminist you would know that being a feminist is just a part of who you are.

As to what to call the anti-manosphere movement? I reckon "the anti-manosphere movement" is quite clear.

And what do you do to combat the manosphere? Again, having good relationships with women does nothing to take away power from the culture of misogyny that dominates most of the internet and hip hop.

Once again—your "promoting feminine culture" is a hegemonic project of gender stereotyping,

How it feminine culture hegemonic? If anything phallic culture is hegemonic. Creating and endorsing non-stereotypical female characters is clearly a part of increasing and improving feminine cultural representations. I don't see what stereotypes my view endorses. If anything the stereotypical view sees the woman as a phallic object: traditional culture views women as entirely dependent on men. I'm promoting an image of femininity as something independent from male desire.

the "just" there shows that you've constrained feminism from a material fight for rights and freedoms into a cultural project of watching the right TV shows.

I meant doing feminism at the level of cultural representation. I acknowledge that feminism as a material fight for rights and freedoms counts as feminism. It's true I'm talking about a specific type of feminism, the kind that focuses on the politics of representation. But the struggle for gender-equal cultural representation is an important battle and it will always be a part of feminism.

 

[ghost]

I think most people agree that white people can actively support anti-racism and pro-blackness. It is incredibly sophomoric to say that, if a white man ended the racist system of mass incarceration, then his act would not count as an action supportive of black power just because he's white.

Two things here:
- Black Power is not the same as anti-racism or pro-blackness. I have never argued that white people can't be anti-racist, only that their actions can't constitute Black Power.
- I was not saying that the actions of white people can't be "supportive of Black Power", I'm saying that white people can't do black power.

This is the core of my argument here—that there's a substantial difference between support—whether theoretical or material—and claims of membership. In my conception, what matters is the support—whether someone is or is not doing beneficial work in the world. What

Your claim that white men can do nothing to help marginalized cultures is again, a non starter.

This is not what I have claimed. Let's check the record:

None of this should be construed to say that men can't support feminists or feminism.

I have to ask—why is malelesbian unable to understand that I am differentiating membership and identity from helping people?

I bring this up specifically because "malelesbian" has continually shown a desire to produce his identity out of the social position of the feminine, and to co-opt the legitimacy of feminist movements towards his own sense of self. I think that's a little sus, if he's going to keep identifying as a straight, cisgender man!

But there's a deeper question: can men do feminism among other men? You say no, since you deny that men can do feminism at all.

I say that a man can support feminist ideas and projects among other men. It is strange and confounding that this is not enough for you, and that they must also be given an identity label as well.

and what do you do to combat the manosphere? Again, having good relationships with women does nothing to take away power from the culture of misogyny that dominates most of the internet and hip hop.

I feel constantly in this conversation like I am engaging with the Gish Gallop. I'm forced to regularly make decisions like "should I double down on my original points until they make it through this man's thick skull, or should I point out how cartoonishly racist it is to say, unsolicited, that hip hop is dominated by a culture of misogyny." And—I disagree. Gender segregation is everywhere it shows up a way to enforce misogyny; having good relationships with women is the opposite of this.


And finally, the tour de force:

The fact that you think that calling oneself a feminist is just a "little merit badge" shows that you have no interest in feminism. If you are a real feminist, then feminism is a part of your lifestyle and worldview. "Feminist" is not an honorific I use to praise myself. It describes the fact that I really do express my feminine side and encourage others to do the same. You only think I'm using feminism to celebrate myself because you're only interested in what you like, not feminism. If you were a real feminist you would know that being a feminist is just a part of who you are.

This paragraph feels like the final boss of the malelesbian copypasta. I would like to remind that I am not claiming to be a feminist—I in fact think neither of us are capable of satisfying the role. So with that in mind…

The phrase "If you were a real feminist you would know that being a feminist is just a part of who you are." is an incredible one, because it encapsulates the worldview: "feminism" is a kind of unquantifiable essence, that by claiming the identity of, will spontaneously change the world. This is the "little merit badge" I'm referring to. I am in fact interested in feminism—I just think that constructing my identity around it would be a kind of narcissistic seizure of a concept that belongs to other people.

"If you are a real feminist, then feminism is part of your lifestyle and worldview." Here it is again—lifestyle, you're once again reducing feminism to a kind of consumer ready-to-wear identity, an off-the-shelf positioning that gives you the ability to gatekeep. Your self-proclaimed feminism is, in practice, a cudgel that you use to establish your own credibility.

And yet—with all that thunder, all that noise—the sole contribution you name, your great act in support of women, the very truth of what makes you a feminist—is to "express yourself," or in other words, to perform an identity. This is exactly what I have been accusing you of—wanting a little merit badge, and not actually engaging in any actions that improve the lives of women except in the most speculative, circuitous, and ineffective ways.