The faces of feminism
Deacon Duncan over at Free Thought Blogs made an interesting post today about feminism and what he calls, “counterfeminism.” Duncan grappled with the question of why some women are vehemently against feminism when, indeed, it has been the feminists who “are fighting to win them equal rights. It boggles my mind.”
OK, so when approaching questions like this, especially when referencing writers at FtB, it becomes necessary to determine whether said writer is referring to the type of hypersensitive, reactionary and every-male-is-a-potential-misogynist-or-rapist brand of feminism of the Rebecca Watson, Jen McCreight, or the run-of-the-mill hypersensitive feminism that has been with us for decades. Since Duncan has voiced his support for Atheism Plus, I suggest that it’s the former.
Duncan provides his definition of feminism and counterfeminism:
The feminist is working to establish women as autonomous and respected individuals who are equal in status, opportunity, and financial compensation, as compared to their male counterparts. The feminist assumption is that the ideal condition for women is equality. But that’s not necessarily an assumption shared by all, not even by all women.
It’s possible that there’s a counterfeminist assumption that the ideal condition for women is one of dependency and entitlement …
I prefaced this with a brief mention of Atheism Plus because Duncan’s post seems to suggest that in characterizing those who oppose feminism, he seems to be referring to the women who are against the A+ brand of feminism. It’s not believable that he would be referring to any other group since he’s writing at a place called Free Thought Blogs. But at the same time, I have never met, for instance, a female atheist, online or in person, who thinks that the ideal condition for women is dependence and entitlement, other than the aforementioned jaded individuals who think the male world is out to get them. So, I can only conclude that he is talking about some type of mid-20th century housewife, or perhaps, a 19th century Southern belle, neither of whom could in any sense be described as feminist in the modern sense. Or, as he describes it:
… that in a perfect world, a woman would live by forming an attachment to a man, who would then provide her with food, clothes, a home, and some spending money in return for a bit of light housework and some sexual gratification now and then.
This seems to me to be an outdated characterization that isn’t anything like feminism at all. Thus, I don’t know from where this theory of a type of “counterfeminism” comes.
I have already identified two types:
- Feminism 1: reactionary and every-male-is-a-potential-misogynist-or-rapist brand of feminism
- Feminism 2: run-of-the-mill hypersensitive feminism
and here is a third type:
- Feminism 3: non-reactionary brand that fully supports equality, rights, critical thinking, rationality and female emotional and mental strength that is not necessarily comfortable with the “feminist” label.
I wouldn’t dare speak for them, but I have a small hunch that the women who do not support the Atheism Plus brand of feminism, and further, if the word “feminist” weren’t so damaged by overemotional, reactionary whiners of the current stripe, they may be willing to consider adopting the title if it truly signaled a characteristically strong form of female-ness with all the aforementioned rights in tact. That word, however, may now be damaged beyond repair at this point.
“…every-male-is-a-potential-misogynist-or-rapist brand of feminism of the Rebecca Watson, Jen McCreight…”
Are you referring to this:
“When you approach me in public, you are Schrödinger’s Rapist. You may or may not be a man who would commit rape. I won’t know for sure unless you start sexually assaulting me. I can’t see inside your head, and I don’t know your intentions. If you expect me to trust you—to accept you at face value as a nice sort of guy—you are not only failing to respect my reasonable caution, you are being cavalier about my personal safety.”
And if so, what do you find unreasonable about it?
If not, what the heck are you talking about?
David E
11 Oct 12 at 9:36 pm
Yes, the Schrödinger’s Rapist blog entry presented the general idea to which I was referring, even if Watson, McCreight, etc., or their readers didn't reference it by name. They certainly have implicitly or not supported the "every-male-is-a-potential-misogynist" charge.
What don't I find unreasonable about this passage? A guy approaches a girl at Starbucks and asks to buy her a coffee, or just asks her name: she immediately assumes that he might be up to no good because she can't see inside his head? It works both ways. Plenty of females are taller and some are stronger than males. What if a female asks a male for his name or offered to buy a drink? The guy should then question the girl's motives or outright condemn her as a deviant? It sets, not only a dangerous and socially corrosive precedent, but it makes meeting people even more insurmountable than it already is, and it turns females into chilly, unapproachable, scared juveniles incapable of living in an adult world, and this is how I view the likes of Watson, McCreight, etc. And I'm not comfortable with viewing people in either of those lights.
jeremystyron
12 Oct 12 at 12:14 am
"what do you find unreasonable about it?"
if you were black, hispanic, or of middle eastern descent, you wouldn't be asking.
ikonografer
12 Oct 12 at 12:33 am
The essayist applies the idea to all men. Nothing in it remotely implies racism. You do realize that women who aren't white also have to, for their own safety, think in the way described in the essay I quoted?
David E
12 Oct 12 at 8:51 am
"What if a female asks a male for his name or offered to buy a drink? The guy should then question the girl's motives or outright condemn her as a deviant?"
The essay does not claim or imply that a man is deviant because he approaches a woman he doesn't know. What it says is some very commonsense things like:
"You want to say Hi to the cute girl on the subway. How will she react?
Fortunately, I can tell you with some certainty, because she’s already sending
messages to you. Looking out the window, reading a book, working on a computer,
arms folded across chest, body away from you = do not disturb. So, y’know, don’t
disturb her….On the other hand, if she is turned towards you, making eye contact, and she
responds in a friendly and talkative manner when you speak to her, you are
getting a green light. You can continue the conversation until you start getting
signals to back off."
David E
12 Oct 12 at 8:59 am
You have, almost certainly and quite sensibly, never feared that a woman you approached might rape you. Because the odds of it happening are vanishingly small. One in six women has been sexually assaulted. For women, the odds are most definitely NOT vanishingly small. It's a very real danger.
That's why it most definitely does not "work both ways."
David E
12 Oct 12 at 9:09 am
I would place myself as a #3. I am not at all comfortable with the more vocal "feminists" on many social media outlets on the Internet because they seem to have the mindset that all men are rapists and should be vilified. The words "feminist" and "feminism" are becoming severely damaged by these people. If and when we go back to the roots of feminism, I'll be glad to take up the label once again. Until that time, I'll just stick with humanist.
BeliefBlower
12 Oct 12 at 11:51 am
First, the "common sense" suggestions in the above quote are anecdotal. In the real world "signals" are sometimes often so subtle or misleading that you have to just about be telepathic to know just what it is a woman expects from you, if anything. The quote is confusing in any case because it begins by assuming that the guy is just thinking about approaching a girl, and then a few sentences in, he has already initiated contact ("when you speak to her").
"You have, almost certainly and quite sensibly, never feared that a woman you approached might rape you. "
No, but it's because I don't think in those terms or approach the world in that way. She could, for instance, just as well wish me some kind of mental harm. Again, not likely, but there are some nuts out there and not all of them are male.
While I, like any sensible person, don't visit a rest area on the interstate at 3 a.m. or walk down back alleys alone at night, I don't view other people, male or female, as potential threats, although the stats say that I could just as well be the victim of some type of assault as a female:
"For the first time, males (15.7 per 1,000) and females (14.2 per 1,000) had similar rates of violent crime victimization in 2010. Historically, males have had higher rates of violent victimization compared to females. Males and females were equally likely to report violent victimizations to the police." — http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/press/cv10pr…
I assume upon meeting a person or passing them on the street that they are generally sensible and don't wish me harm. My chances of being wrong in that regard are just as likely as a female's, even if the nature of the assault may be different.
jeremystyron
12 Oct 12 at 12:00 pm
""For the first time, males (15.7 per 1,000) and females (14.2 per 1,000) had similar rates of violent crime victimization in 2010. Historically, males have had higher rates of violent victimization compared to females. Males and females were equally likely to report violent victimizations to the police." "
Most violent crimes against men are perpetrated by men—the ones that aren't are generally domestic violence situations. Not particularly relevant to the question of whether a man should fear that a woman hitting on him at Subway will assault him. The discussion was, after all, not about violence in general but the possibility of sexual assault. It does not "work both ways" in this respect. Men are not in the same situation with respect to being approached by women that women are when approached by men. All the writer of the essay does is discuss the reasonable precautions women take—there's nothing in the essay that fits your description of "overemotional, reactionary whiners."
Have you even read the essay which discusses this topic?
David E
12 Oct 12 at 1:34 pm
"I am not at all comfortable with the more vocal "feminists" on many social media outlets on the Internet because they seem to have the mindset that all men are rapists and should be vilified."
Neither Watson nor McCreight display such an attitude. I can't think of any feminist in the atheist or skeptic community who does. Nor have I yet read a quote of them displaying any such attitude.
David E
12 Oct 12 at 1:37 pm
Here's a link to the essay A BLACK MAN'S VIEW OF SCHRODINGER'S RAPIST:
http://goodmenproject.com/featured-content/shuffl…
David E
12 Oct 12 at 1:49 pm
Sorry for the late reply. Got off work yesterday and crashed out and never got back up and worked half a day today.
Anyway, the question is about perceived safety. I realize that I am ill-equipped to speak about a how a woman might feel about such and such scenario, but I was merely pointing out that if we want to meet new people or even go out in public, certain risks are involved for everyone. The thing that I find most unreasonable about the whole Schrodinger's Rapist post is that throughout it, she admits to be addressing a "good guy" but at the very end, still feels the need to tell him "don't rape:"
"… Nor should you commit these similar but less severe offenses: don’t assault. Don’t grope. Don’t constrain. Don’t brandish. Don’t expose yourself. Don’t threaten with physical violence. Don’t threaten with sexual violence."
So, I don't believe her when she says she is addressing a "good guy" at all; sounds to me like that is just paying lip-service whereas, in reality, she thinks nothing of the sort since a truly "good guy" would not need to be told not to do these things. Thus, this common sense advice does paint men, all men, as potential rapists since, again using the Schrodinger's analogy, there exists a 50 percent chance the "cat" (or the inner rapist) is alive in the box and a 50 percent chance the cat is dead (not a rapist). So, if we play the analogy out, she seems to think that every man she meets actually has a 50 percent chance of turning out to be a rapist, and not the more realistic 1 in 6 figure (And actually going on a date, in essence, forces the issue). The scenario is further skewed because she is apparently living in New York; a woman's experience in New York is obviously not the same as a woman's experience in rural South Carolina, Vermont or Denmark.
I just referenced the Schrodinger column; I was not speaking to it directly. In any case, while I already admitted that I have not feared that I would be raped by a girl that I approached, the perception here, among many of McCreight and Watson's readers (or former readers) was that they were purporting a type of hypersensitive feminism that many people, women included, want no part of because it makes women look weak and seems to set feminism back for decades. Reality of not, that's the perception.
I can't speak for Belief Blower, Wooly Bumblebee, etc., but calling Christina, McCreight, Watson and others hypersensitive and reactionary is not something I'm gleeful about; I used to read their blogs frequently, but like others, this was my perception based on how they reacted in post, to criticism and how they acted in that initial A video conference.
jeremystyron
13 Oct 12 at 2:31 pm
Nothing she says remotely suggests that there's a 50 percent chance a man is a rapist. Here's what she actually says:
" One in every six American women will be sexually
assaulted in her lifetime. I bet you dont think you know any rapists, but
consider the sheer number of rapes that must occur. These rapes are not all
committed by Phillip Garrido, Brian David Mitchell, or other members of the
Brotherhood of Scary Hair and Homemade Religion. While you may assume that none
of the men you know are rapists, I can assure you that at least one is.
Consider: if every rapist commits an average of ten rapes (a horrifying number,
isnt it?) then the concentration of rapists in the population is still a little
over one in sixty."
What annoys me most about what you and others are saying is the blatant mischaracterization and exaggeration being used.
David E
14 Oct 12 at 7:35 pm
"…among many of McCreight and Watson's readers (or former readers) was that they were purporting a type of hypersensitive feminism that many people, women included, want no part of because it makes women look weak and seems to set feminism back for decades. Reality of not, that's the perception."
I have yet to see you quote anything from either of them providing anything like a reasonable basis for this perception.
David E
14 Oct 12 at 7:36 pm
I'm familiar with what she actually said, but she is making a clear analogy between the Schrodinger Cat thought experiment and men, saying unequivocally, "When you approach me in public, you are Schrödinger’s Rapist." She can quote all the stats she wants, but if she meant something other than what the Schrodinger's Cat reference implies, she should have used another analogy. In the experiment, the cat has a 50 percent chance of either living or dying inside the box. Thus, by her comparison, the men that she meets have a 50 percent of being a rapist or not.
You have been commenting on my opinion of the A+ feminists and of my perception of them. I have followed this issue since the early summer and before A+, I had no preconceived notions against McCreight, Watson and the like, but after seeing how they have carried the banner of A+, I'm not impressed. In fact, I used to like reading McCreight's blog, but lost respect for her, Watson, Miller, PZ Myers and others in this fiasco. Again, that is my perception. Why should I take my time to dredge back through all of their posts and comments through the summer to prove something to you?
jeremystyron
14 Oct 12 at 11:27 pm
"Thus, by her comparison, the men that she meets have a 50 percent of being a rapist or not. "
She's quite clear that what she means by that is that any particular either A is someone who would rape or B is not and that she has no way of knowing which it is short of being assaulted. Nothing about that suggests that it's a 50/50 chance. Especially when she's specific about see the odds of any particular man as being a rapist being around 1 in 60.
"Again, that is my perception. Why should I take my time to dredge back through all of their posts and comments through the summer to prove something to you? "
You're under no obligation to support your assertions with, you know, actual evidence in your rant against atheists who blog on feminist issues. And we who are reading your post are under no obligation to take you seriously when you not only don't do so but make grossly exaggerated claims and fail to admit being wrong when someone else takes the time to do the research you didn't and point out your mistake.
Which is about as much time as I intend to ever waste on you or your blog.
David E
15 Oct 12 at 5:02 am
"Nothing about that suggests that it's a 50/50 chance. Especially when she's specific about see the odds of any particular man as being a rapist being around 1 in 60."
Ok, fine but she should have picked a different analogy because in the experiment, there is no room to question whether the cat may or may not live or die. It's either or.
"You're under no obligation to support your assertions with, you know, actual evidence … make grossly exaggerated claims and fail to admit being wrong when someone else takes the time to do the research you didn't and point out your mistake."
What research have you done other than take issue with my general impression of McCreight, Watson, etc.? It is interesting that you call me out for not providing any quotes to support an opinion when you are trying to show me the wisdom of the Schrodinger's Rapist piece, which doesn't provide a single reference for its claims (stats or otherwise) and is written anonymously. I'll happily dig out the posts and quotes that led me to my interpretation, but I don't see how this will be constructive since presumably, you will just disagree. For the record, I have already written about A+ and/or feminism some half dozen times since this summer.
jeremystyron
15 Oct 12 at 11:32 am