I’ve been reading the blogs and Reddits of people who hate me lately, and all of this has bubbled up in the form of a rant! To wit:
YES I AM A FUCKING FEMINIST.
I am not sure what I have to do to CONVEY this message to some people. Interpretive dance? Commission a plane to drop leaflets around the world that says “Ozy Is A Feminist Blogger”? Put a disclaimer in front of every post that says “I know more about The Second Sex than you do, do not fuck with me”?
I mean, it is just fucking dispiriting to read people arguing against me and saying positions I agree with. I’m not even sure what you do with that. It’s like finding a screed on the Internet going all “I think Ozy Frantz is a stupid fuckhead because zie believes that dinosaurs and humans live at the same time! Dinosaurs and humans didn’t live at the same time, you moron. We have carbon-dating evidence of that!” I know! Stop arguing with me!
Second, I am not interested in dialogue with MRAs. It’s an oddly common idea that if you’re interested in talking about how the patriarchy has disadvantaged men, you want to establish a common ground between MRAs and feminists and resolve their differences and lead us all into a happy utopia of singing Kumbaya and holding hands.
Fuck that shit. That’s like saying that because you think that sex-positivity needs more awareness and validation of the experience of asexuals, low-libido people, and those who only want sex within committed monogamous relationships you should go hang out with the abstinence-only crowd. What the fuck? Why am I going to give up on a movement that, although very flawed, I fundamentally agree with in order to make nice with a movement I don’t?
Don’t get me wrong: if you’re an MRA, and you like NSWATM and get a lot out of it, I’m not going to send my flying monkey minions to stop you from reading it. You’re welcome to comment, as long as you mostly refrain from being a stupid fuckhead, a term which is here defined as “perpetrating rape culture, transphobia, the idea that feminism is the most important cause of sexism against men, or the idea that Trayvon Martin was shot in self-defense on account of he smoked pot.” I am not biased against MRAs, I am biased against stupid fuckheads, who come in all kinds of stupid and fuckheadish disguises.
(Tangential rant: what’s up with this whole “moderate MRAs” and “moderate feminists” shit? Moderation is not necessarily a good thing! A lot of my viewpoints are very extreme compared to the mainstream– complete legalization of sex work, the existence of genders outside the binary, etc. I just happen to be, you know, right.)
And if you personally want to work on building a bridge between MRAs and feminists, knock yourself out. That completely and utterly thankless task can be yours now! I just don’t want to do it, and I’m kind of miffed that it’s assumed that I want to do it just because I’m a feminist talking about men. I don’t want to! I just want to talk about men! Is that allowed?
Third, my pronoun is “zie.” It is really not difficult. And every time you complain about it it just means that, in addition to ameliorating my gender dysphoria, I’m ALSO pissing off people I don’t like. And in case you haven’t noticed, pissing off people I don’t like is like chocolate orgasm Christmas to me.
About ozyfrantz
I’ve seen “moderate” used as a synonym for “correct” so many times, and had the argument so many times, and being accused of derailing for having it so many times, that I’ve basically just stopped noticing it. Good luck with that.
Can’t really comment on the rest without seeing the posts in question.
“And in case you haven’t noticed, pissing off people I don’t like is like chocolate orgasm Christmas to me.” Ozy, I’m sorry that the making of my day came at the expense of somebody else ruining yours, but this is my current Favorite Words On The Internet.
This is pretty much exactly what I was going to say.
Also, Ozy, can I just say how lovely it is to read your posts and go “yup. yup. yup.” pretty much every single time? Because it’s pretty fucking great. I’ve been reading your blog for ages and never commented, but something prompted me today to just pop in and let you know how much I appreciate you and your writing.
It is if you want to talk with people who do not share your views. Your comment is a common refrain among feminists. You want to talk about men, but you do not want to actually to or with them, especially if they do not agree with your views. The irony is that you never end up having the conversations you want, at least not with men, because you are calling the very people you want to talk to that they are “stupid fuckheads” of they do not agree with your views.
It really does not help to spit in the face of the people you are trying to win over. As a male survivor (and yes, I know that you think I lied about being abused just to attack feminism, unfortunately, feminists disbelieving does not make my experiences any less true), it just goes to show that I am right to wary of feminists claiming to want to listen to me. Why should I or man talk with someone who seems only interested in talking about their own views?
Wait, wait, what? Of course I think you’re a survivor of abuse, why wouldn’t I? I apologize deeply if anything I’ve said or done has given you this mistaken impression. I may disagree with the opinions of survivors, but I have prided myself on NOT doubting their experiences, and am appalled that I might have given the impression that I did.
Kudo’s to Ozy for the apology. A lot of male victims of females feel like every time they speak, many feminists take it as an attack on women, simply because a male is saying a woman did a bad thing.
Irony? Yes.
Productive? No
Taking male victims seriously is a stepping stone to more of them feeling free to speak. Unfortunately I have read a few feminist blogs lately where ludicrous stats like 95% of victims are female have been thrown around with no references or links to back up their fallacious core.
Every time you tell a man, teen male or a boy that females don’t abuse them, you(that is to mean anybody) make their chances of coming forward zero – nil.
I was sexually abused by two female members of my family. The chances that I would have ever come forward dropped relative to the marginalization of the issue and the portrayal that this never happens.
I can tell you it’s an interesting position to be in being told by media and extreme people that women are the only real victims and men are never. It’s double so to be simultaneously a victim and also accused, you see, my female cousin used to take all her clothes off and start “grinding” against me (me aged 9 her aged 5). I would run away, but one day in walks an Uncle who proceeds to belt me for my misdeeds.
Turns out the Nanny was a touch inappropriate with my cousin, which came out eventually. (5 years later)
Did I mention it’s triply punishing to be a victim, be accused and then the actual perp against you is female and the perp against your accused victim is female and therefor assumed to be free of possible and potential accusations.
I can tell you what it’s like to be suicidal at thirteen from false accusations. I became an MRA to help shed light on male victims, because they need to be believed.
Unfortunately some feminists just wont accept any scenario where male victim – female perpetrator. I have met many of them personally because I have been told many times how I must be making up lies.
Ugh. Let me just say that those individual feminists who deny male sexual assault victims are really bad at feminism. The point isn’t to one-up men or be better than you guys. The point is, sexism has fucked things up for both women AND men, in different ways, and we need to do something about that.
I’d give you a hug, but I’m not sure if that would trigger. Instead, have some e-brownies.
I’ve been reading Ozy’s blog posts at NSWATM for a while now and it’s pretty clear to me that zie is extremely aware that men can be abused by women and does not write in a way that erases the experiences of male abuse survivors. I believe the original commenter was making a generalisation about feminists. It is also unclear when Ozy is supposed to have done all this writing about men that was not intended to address men or engage men in discussion, considering posts on NSWATM used to always have a comment section in which discussions would take place with many regular male commenters (it’s hard for me to tell which are male by the screen names alone, but judging from the context of the comments I would even say that they majority of commenters on Ozy’s posts at NSWATM were male. Not sure what the proportions are now we are hosted at GMP though).
Extreme or strong or radical views don’t have to be controversial views, and they definitely don’t have to be the complete opposite of another group’s. Despite the way many people conduct themselves with people of differing ideals, common ground usually DOES exist.
Moderation just means it jives better with that status quo. If you’ve got two groups in a disagreement who both want to change the same things, moderation isn’t what you’re after, even if your goal is cooperation.
It sounds to me like you’ve been burned, but if you read through the posts of NSWATM, you’re realize: the people here are on your side. Maybe not standing right where you are, but they’re neither directly against you or out to get you.
If you’ve got two groups in a disagreement who both want to change the same things, moderation isn’t what you’re after, even if your goal is cooperation.
The problem is depending the sides in question the difference can actually amount to one side concluding (either right or wrong) that the other side does not want that same thing.
Jacob makes a good point here:
You want to talk about men, but you do not want to actually to or with them, especially if they do not agree with your views.
Its going to be hard to find common ground with someone when you try to shut them out of the conversation or limit them to only saying certain things that you already agree with.
The differences can’t be allowed to ruin the attempt at common ground to be sure. However we just can’t pretend that the differences aren’t there for the sake acting like common ground exists where their might not be any.
The problem is depending the sides in question the difference can actually amount to one side concluding (either right or wrong) that the other side does not want that same thing.
That’s not an argument for moderation, that’s an argument against arbitrarily dismissing people.
Its going to be hard to find common ground with someone when you try to shut them out of the conversation or limit them to only saying certain things that you already agree with.
There’s locking people out of legitimate conversations and there’s shutting down accusations directed at wholly the wrong people. If you get off your cross and say something people can actually choose to agree/disagree with and step out of this circle of You’ve wronged me/not we didn’t/you’re wronging me by saying you didn’t/STFU, you’ll find people will talk to you instead of trying to shut you up.
There’s locking people out of legitimate conversations and there’s shutting down accusations directed at wholly the wrong people. If you get off your cross and say something people can actually choose to agree/disagree with and step out of this circle of You’ve wronged me/not we didn’t/you’re wronging me by saying you didn’t/STFU, you’ll find people will talk to you instead of trying to shut you up.
Off my cross? Goodness I’m agnostic.
Yes there is is a difference between shutting people out and shutting down wild accusations. The point I was trying to make is that even with that distinction there are still cases of doing the former under the guise of the latter.
And actually I have been saying things that people can agree with but low and behold I’ve still run across people that were more intent on shutting me out than trying to talk things out.
I would like for more courtesy and understanding to be extended to all sides on this. But again its hard to do that when there are people on all sides that are demanding courtesy while refusing to extend it to others.
Like that comment a short ways down. You went straight to accusing me (and maybe Jacob) of attacking straw feminists. No “Are you sure that’s how it happened?” or even a “I find that hard to believe.”. No straight to, “That’s not true and the people that you think did it don’t exist.”
“That’s not true and the people that you think did it don’t exist.”
^ That, I agree, is really frustrating.
But I think the following situation happens more often:
“Yes, I agree that some people do this and they’re meanies, but -we- are not doing this -now- so please don’t treat us like we are?”
So basically people bring their aggression and anger about what some other feminists said and “respond” to a person that said nothing of the sort. But it’s really hard to type out that above response when one is being treated aggressively from the get-go. And I would imagine it’s unsatisfying for an angry person to read and won’t really help unanger them?
Feminists are not a uniform blob. The nice ones can’t really be held accountable for something the meanies said, even if they tend to be more accessible and less shutting-outful than the mean ones. =(
So basically people bring their aggression and anger about what some other feminists said and “respond” to a person that said nothing of the sort. But it’s really hard to type out that above response when one is being treated aggressively from the get-go. And I would imagine it’s unsatisfying for an angry person to read and won’t really help unanger them?
Oh yes this does is a good point. However the main culprit behind that aggression and anger coming from someone else is because of stuff like what Amanda just said.
Notice that unlike Mori and TheL who did try to make that distinction Amanda went straight to acting like that stuff doesn’t happen, and in effect doing exactly what she claims does not happen, feminists dismissing the experiences of others.
Feminists are not a uniform blob. The nice ones can’t really be held accountable for something the meanies said, even if they tend to be more accessible and less shutting-outful than the mean ones. =(
What makes bearing this mind is that just as they are telling us not to treat them like a uniform blob they turning around and treating others like a uniform blob. So if the nice ones can’t be held accountable for the meanies when dealing with feminists then why can’t they practice what they preach?
That being said its nice to see there are some that do practice what they preach but fact of the matter is there are a hell of a lot of that don’t.
I think you would find it very helpful to not attack feminists for believing things which they do not actually believe.
It would help if they had some reason other than “you’re trying to attack feminists!” for their disbelief.
For disbelieving survivor’s experiences? Hon, you’re attacking a straw man. The people you’re fighting don’t exist in the form you think they do.
And what makes you so sure such people don’t exist sweetie?
Sure you can point out that such people aren’t the mainstream of feminism but what exactly allows you to know for sure that what Jacob says did not happen?
Its amazing that when someone points out negativity in feminism all of a sudden a movement of people that is not a monolith is guaranteed to have no negative element in it. I have negative experiences with feminists myself.
The vast majority of feminists tend to automatically believe abuse stories, because lying about being abused is such a dick move that 99.9999999% of people don’t do it.
I’m very sorry you’ve had bad experiences, and that people have been unwilling to believe you when you talk about them.
People shouldn’t dismiss other people’s pain like that.
Thankfully the bad experiences I have with feminism don’t involve anything as harsh as what Jacob has gone through (for the record I have never been abused) and I have seen a few bits of his treatment first hand. That’s why its so disheartening to hear for the godzillionth time that feminism is both a movement of different types of people and a movement with no negativity in it and any such negativity is either a misunderstanding or an attack on feminism’s apparently negative free image.
Mind you I’ve had my dark days where I’ve nearly gone off the deep end and taken on the stance that all of feminism is bad. And it happened at a time when most of what I was seeing from it was actually bad. But I see its not all bad. However I still don’t appreciate this dismissal of dismissals.
Hmm…just found this website and thought it would be interesting to read, but now not so sure. There are so many words in the English language not sure why you are afraid to use ones that convey the same sentiment without having to use common swear words – really loses your argument. And it is a big world with lots of varying opinons, when you come across one who thinks differently it is a great opportunity to teach, not rant. But it seems like many online sites have this type of column now, I guess it appeals to some. I will check back once in a while but I guess this really is not for me. Too much anger and not enough substance. And I am glad you are a feminist though, so am I.
I think if we knew the comments Ozy was referring to, this article would look super-mild in comparison?
Hey, lets not use things like “stupid” as an insult. Its ableist as hell.
‘Stupid’ isn’t actually ableist, contrary to popular belief, ‘stupidity’ has it’s original meaning as a form of emotional reaction, to be ‘stupid’ was to be frozen with terror, traumatized stiff, dumbfounded, etc, how it mutated the way it has eludes me.
Please don’t use the “that’s not its original meaning” argument.
The original meaning of “faggot” was a bundle of sticks, that doesn’t mean it’s OK to use it to describe people.
Anyone trying to bridge the MRA and feminists should first try to get lions and spotted hyenas to lie down together first. Just so we know they can perform a miracle before trying one with people.
I’m not sure meeting in the middle ever works. More like getting outside the poles and doing something new. Still hard.
Radical centrism, ftw.
“Radical centrism, ftw.”
That’s Tony Blair’s self-proclaimed political philosophy.
In other words, fuck that.
Oh dear. Loads of people use that term in different ways. Nick Clegg’s also said that the Lib Dems are a ‘radical centrist’ party, which isn’t quite the case. At the minute when a mainstream politician throws on the “radical centrist” hat, it’s probably an attempt to gain votes as opposed to actually reflecting their ideas or policies.
Well, can you explain what the term means outside of mainstream politics? Because that’s the only context I’ve ever encountered it in.
Well political/economically it’s a bit like this: the left is all about the state; the right is all about free markets. The radical centre is a position saying that really both sides are right. Free markets are important and state regulation is important. That argument misses the point…which is that we need to properly apply state regulation to the free market. It’s not either/or. Socially, it’s largely associated with progressivism.
I tend to take it further and argue that most binaries are really false dichotomies. This applies to discussions of gender too. So that’s where Julie’s comment comes in. A more ‘moderate centre’ might argue that you could get these opposing groups (political right and left, MRAs and feminism, etc) to meet in the middle. The radical centre would suggest that the arguments between these groups and even viewing these groups as two poles is a problem in itself.
Well, that’s not radical, it’s just centrist. I say it’s not radical because it’s neither uncommon nor innovative, people have been advocating a mixed private-public economy since, oh, Adam Smith? Probably earlier? And really, even in modern politics, the idea that we should apply state regulation selectively when it’s useful isn’t the kind of mind-blowing game-changer that the word “radical” implies, it’s actually the declared position of almost every contemporary politician.
In other words, your idea that this is radical seems to imply a level of intellectual rigidity on both the contemporary left and contemporary right that doesn’t exist. Even Stalinists don’t believe the state should control everything, even Friedmanites don’t think that government regulation isn’t selectively useful.
And once again, what you’ve described is the position of Tony Blair. Not just the declared position, but the actual position (e.g. selective state management, with an eye towards utilitarianism, while being careful to preserve free markets)
The radical is the thought that compromise between what appear to be two opposing sides isn’t the answer…it’s getting rid of the ‘two opposing sides’ itself that’s the answer. Something doesn’t have to be new to be radical.
OK, good point. But I still maintain it’s not radical because what you want to do doesn’t require getting rid of the opposing sides, and is in fact largely what they want to do anyway.
Alrighty, question…are you in the U.K.?
@Heather: No I’m not. But in defense of my ability to comment on British politics, I’ve lived there in the past and have a degree in Political Science with a focus on contemporary European politics (which included the UK) so I feel entitled to talk about it.
Naw, I just meant that the U.S. both the left and right are so polarized right now…and we’d been talking about the U.K. so I was just wondering if that was what you were familiar with. To me the U.K. doesn’t seem quite as polarized as the U.S. at the moment…well except about some things.
But also, I’m not just talking about left and right in politics, but rather most opposing sides in arguments.
Oh right. Well, what you’re saying might be a -little- more true, although it is possibly to exaggerate the ammount of polarisation in the USA in relation to the rest of the world.
I mean, you said that the “left is all about the state, the right is all about the free markets”. This isn’t true even in the USA! You couldn’t reasonably claim that the Democrats don’t believe in any role for the free market, and even the most anti-state Republicans, like Ron Paul, believe that the state has a legitimate role to play in regulating the market in some areas.
The debate in contemporary politics isn’t about “state always” or “free market always” it’s around the detail and circumstances of selective state intervention in the free market. A mixed free market/state economy is not an idea that’s incompatible with anybody’s position, it’s just a restatement of the basic premise of the issues that divide the parties.
Right well I was being a bit simplistic in my explanation because these are internet comments…I mean I get that the two parties are not as simple as I painted them. But also, as I mentioned, this goes beyond economic ideas. And my reference to Julie at the beginning was literally about her response to the perceived opposition between MRAs and feminism.
Well, I get that some level of simplification is required, this isn’t a thesis or even an essay, but you simplified it too much for me to understand I’m afraid. This has actually been a huge derail, I’ve just realised, but I would like to talk about it further – hughteg@gmail.com if you’re keen. No pressure.
As for getting it back to MRAs and feminism, that kind of implies that you would like to see feminism vanish as much as you would either political party… seems like quite a controversial statement? Or is the idea more to reform feminism from the outside? (And if so, also reform MRAs from the outside?)
I wonder if the thought that meeting in the middle fails because deep down, most people really don’t want to meet in the middle. And while your idea of poles is sound I think that’s going to be a hard go as well. But it might be possible.
It could be emotion-shaming? I guess?
Wait, what? Why do MRAs and feminists have to be mutually exclusive? I thought it was pretty clear that both males and females are disadvantaged by society. I don’t see why this has to be some kind of war.
Your under the (mistaken) impression that MRAs are typically as reasonable as their name “Men’s rights activists” suggest, but the premise of the movement is “feminism fucked us over, and we oppose everything feminism stands for.” Meeting feminism and anti-feminism in the middle would probably implode the world.
But I agree that people for equality focused on women and people for equality focused on men should be able to band together. As a feminist, that’s why I’m comfortable and supportive here at NSWATM. I agree that it’s not like when society was handing out gender advantages, it dumped it all on men — or hell, that all genders might be disadvantaged by the same thing (appearance-based employment discrimination anyone?) Equality is awesome. Specifically, equality for all.
Your under the (mistaken) impression that MRAs are typically as reasonable as their name “Men’s rights activists” suggest, but the premise of the movement is “feminism fucked us over, and we oppose everything feminism stands for.” Meeting feminism and anti-feminism in the middle would probably implode the world.
I’m finding them to be quite the mixed bunch. The premise of the reasonable ones is that “men are being fucked over, it needs to be fixed”. But its simply amazing where opposition for the concern of men can come from.
As a feminist, that’s why I’m comfortable and supportive here at NSWATM. I agree that it’s not like when society was handing out gender advantages, it dumped it all on men — or hell, that all genders might be disadvantaged by the same thing (appearance-based employment discrimination anyone?) Equality is awesome. Specifically, equality for all.
I love it when I come across a reasonable feminist.
Not all feminists think exactly alike, because, you know … they are human, and humans are individuals. You can find a wide variety of feminists as is the case in any group. I find now that I`m in my 50s I`m less firey about things and more willing to cooperate, but I think that just comes with time on the planet.
Not all feminists think exactly alike, because, you know … they are human, and humans are individuals.
Precisely. I know and understand that just like any group they are a mixed bag. Which is why I have a bit of a problem with how pointing out any negativity is met with accusations of straw. If they are such a mixed movement is it really that hard to consider the existence of ones that would do such bad stuff?
We’re not. We know the bad ones exist. It’s just…they’re rare, and we’re trying to get across that they’re rare.
As a Neopagan, I’ve been around awesome Pagan folk who do tons of research and are fascinated by world religions in general….and I’ve been around the annoying fluff-bunnies who wear way too many crystals and think that they were Cleopatra or Napoleon in a past life. Just because you frequently encounter the suck doesn’t mean the non-suck doesn’t exist, and vice versa.
But feminists in general aren’t a bad lot. You’ve just had the horrible luck to encounter a lot of the rotten ones in quick succession. (Avoid AROOO, by the way. They’re not feminists in the traditional sense–they’re rabid man-haters. Appalling website.)
We’re not. We know the bad ones exist. It’s just…they’re rare, and we’re trying to get across that they’re rare.
I’m still not totally convinced that they are rare.
But feminists in general aren’t a bad lot. You’ve just had the horrible luck to encounter a lot of the rotten ones in quick succession. (Avoid AROOO, by the way. They’re not feminists in the traditional sense–they’re rabid man-haters. Appalling website.)
Oh I’m not even talking about bottom of the barrel sites like that. Oh it would be nice if all the negativity of that movement could just be passed off as the spew of a few small sites that only have a reputation for venom. No I’m talking seeing such negativity on even your larger more generally accepted sites.
I appreciate you speaking up though.
I disagree. A LOT of feminists really suck. Now its not their fault, in fact the average feminist is probably better than the average American. But… the average American thinks that sexually assaulting A.K.A. genitally mutilating babies is okay, so its reeaally not saying much.
Feminist groups like NOW frequently throwing their weight behind and supporting sexist legislation without any sort of caveat. You have feminists supporting the Vagina Monologues despite its rape apology. Every time a feminist says that women are overwhelmingly the victims of sexual violence they are either unbelievably delusional* or don’t believe that male genital mutilation is sexual violence. They will repeatedly leave males out of the discussion of being the victims of rape culture, and leave women out from being the perpetrators of rape culture.
*literally, I don’t believe they are that delusional.
Here’s the problem Amanda.
“MRA” is an identity like any other. You are effectively saying that a man who identifies as an MRA but doesn’t hold anti-feminist views is not an MRA even if he chooses to identify as one. In other words, you’re invalidating his identity because it doesn’t meet your preconceptions. It’s rather like a man who thinks “feminists” are all lesbian separatists who want to exterminate men, and when a woman cares about gender equality but doesn’t hold those views, tells her “Oh, that’s OK, you’re not a feminist”.
This is kind of allied to Ozy’s line about Trayvon Martin which I also had a problem with. As far as I know even the most misogynist MRAs wouldn’t call Trayvon Martin responsible for what happened to him.* Ozy seems to just be conflating MRAs with everything zhe doesn’t like in the blogosphere, or at least everything done by men.
And for the record I do not identify as an MRA.
*They might claim feminists were responsible for what happened to him, though.
Oh yeah, you’ve DEFINITELY been on reddit. I think I might’ve even seen some of the threads you’re talking about.
I went to a college where Zie is used quite frequently (perhaps the most in the country I would think). My daughter starts there next fall. I think the whole idea is crap.
Here’s the thing. I am fine with gender theory, with people who want to get all wrapped up in patriarchy, how men have been screwed in divorce, in sexism, feminism (whatever that means these days…I grew up on a commune with a radical feminist mom), and broad generalizations of how the power dynamic works itself out in our society. It just bores me to death.
I care about one person and one story. That’s it. In this case, I founded GMP based on the belief that one true thing told with utter honesty about one’s own life can change the teller and the listener permanently for the better. I got sober because of that, became a better father, husband, and ultimately man. Not a good man necessarily but a better one for sure.
The problem with gender theory by its very nature is that it doesn’t deal in specifics. It deals in generalities. I don’t care about generalities. I care about Julio Medina who spent 15 years in Sing Sing, or Michael Kamber who covered the whole of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan with nothing but a camera and a beating heart, or John Oliver who was in the 82nd Airborne and survived the war but lost his 3 year-old daughter at the hospital in Fort Bragg from some freak disease.
Each of those men and their stories changed me. Am I a feminist? Sure. But that isn’t the point. I didn’t even know what an MRA was until I started this site. I had never heard of Jezebel or read Hugo S. I found out in a hurry that if you want to talk about individual men and their stories pretty soon the world is going to start trying to push you to take up sides in a gender war that I couldn’t care less about.
This is the worst part of the growing importance of the web. It allows useless debates to fester rather than focussing on what is really important. What is your story? What is the radical truth that you aren’t admitting even to yourself? Have you ever heard another person speak from someplace so deep in their heart that you saw a part of yourself you didn’t even know existed?
That has nothing to do with a pronoun or theory and everything to do with how you define your own reality.
“That has nothing to do with a pronoun or theory and everything to do with how you define your own reality.”
Wait…my understanding on the point of gender neutral pronouns is that the current gendered pronouns don’t reflect some people’s individual realities…
Well said Tom.
The point of zie and similar pronouns is that some people do not identify as male or female; they are trans or androgynous or neither or other. They use new pronouns to define their reality as individuals who do not neatly fall onto either side of the gender binary.
So yeah. What you dismiss as crap is, for many people, one of the most basic tools they need to tell their stories.
I remember going to a “womyn’s” coffee shop in Santa Cruz in the early 1990′s and instead of an “open mike” night, they were having an “open Michelle” night. I’ve always thought that was pretty funny. I’m not sure they were being funny though. I think they were serious. I was in college during the height of the political correctness era, and I always felt that changing language in order to change people’s ideas was kind of Orwellian. But on the other hand, it’s a very common tactic, like the Republicans talking about “death panels” and whatnot. Language can be a worm that gets in your brain and really does influence your thoughts. So I understand why various groups introduce new words or new spelling or new pronouns as a way of initiating social change (or trying to).
But on the other hand, a language can be completely gender neutral and the people who speak it can be incredibly sexist. Chinese is gender neutral, but China is one of the most patriarchal cultures on earth. This goes back to the old debate in linguistics over whether differences in language affect how people think, or not. (Like, if you don’t have a past or future tense, does that change your perception of time). I think the evidence on that is mixed.
Okay, “Open Michelle” is just silly. As with objections to “history,” “seminar,” and “niggardly,” it shows a willful ignorance of word origins.
Addendum: it’s weird, but I felt guilty writing “niggardly.” intellectually, I know it has nothing to do with “N*****,” but I still feel uncomfortable with it.
Oh yes. I hate when people say stupid stuff like that. Especially since it’s not “open mike” it’s “open mic”
I once saw somebody claim that the word woman came from the phrase “woe of man.” It’s lucky for them that this was over the internet. If we had been in the same room I likely would have, quite literally, thrown a chair at their face.
I thought the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis was mostly accepted by linguists, and the debate was mostly over the strong and weak forms.
But Tom isn’t that pronoun and theory about other people trying to tell their own stories and declaring that the pronouns that existed before don’t allow them to tell their individual stories?
On the pronoun thing, I kind of wish English had a gender-neutral third-person pronoun (which does exist in some languages; in fact, there are also languages which lack gendered pronouns altogether) because even if people outside the binary didn’t exist, it would still clear up a lot of misunderstandings and awkwardness in the cases where someone’s gender is unknown or irrelevant. Also, so long as we don’t get rid of gendered language altogether, it might help a bit if there were gendered first-person pronouns as well (which also exist in real-world languages, though they’re not common)… though fat chance of that happening. Mostly I just opt to use the plurals as singulars, though there is sometimes ambiguity and/or weirdness to that approach.
Since there’s currently no standard… what’s the object form of zie? Zier, ziem, zam, zor, something else? The possessive? Zies, zie’s, zier, de zie, what? Is it pronounced “zai”, “zey”, “zee”, “zyeh”,”zee-eh”, “zippa-dee-doo-dah”, how would anyone know? Which form of “to be” does “zie” take? (I’m guessing “is”, though English isn’t 100% logical in this regard, otherwise we’d be saying “you is” when “you” refers to a single person). And so on. I suppose if I looked around online somebody might have an answer to such things, but that wouldn’t guarantee it would be your answer. That’s the problem with trying to use nonstandard pronouns.
Agreed Not Me. I am certainly not trying to say that anyone’s story is crap no matter their gender orientation, preference, or status might be. But what Zie is, IMO, a political statement first and foremost not a tool to tell a person’s story. You can tell the story of being transgendered and tell an amazing, inspiring story without inventing a new pronoun. Besides this is the good MEN project. By definition the subject is men. All are invited to the discourse. And the discussion of how men deal with sex and gender is certainly an important topic. But in the we are talking about HE not Zie.
Well Tom if you have a person who wants to tell a story even if not here and they don’t identify as male or female what do they call themselves?
“You can tell the story of being transgendered and tell an amazing, inspiring story without inventing a new pronoun.”
No, actually, sometimes you can’t. Now I can’t speak for Ozy, but I know people who literally do not identify as men or women. They are not ‘he’ and they are not ‘she.’ It’s not political; it’s really personal.
Also, I mean, yeah NSWATM merged with GMP a bit…but it’s maintaining it’s own identity in which the focus isn’t necessarily men. (Again, not trying to speak for Ozy. That’s just what I’m picking up on).
I see “zie” and “hir” as a very simple and pragmatic solution to intersex and non gendered people’s issue with pronouns. I doubt they’d need to politicize it, if people didn’t fight the easy solution. It’s a pronoun. People without a male/female gender aren’t “its” they are something, if not new, then not recognizable in the bigger narrative (story) of gender. So finding an elegant and respectful pronoun seems logical to me. It only becomes political when people aren’t being respected.
You can tell the story of being transgendered and tell an amazing, inspiring story without inventing a new pronoun.
But why should it be necessary to do so?
Besides this is the good MEN project. By definition the subject is men. All are invited to the discourse. And the discussion of how men deal with sex and gender is certainly an important topic. But in the we are talking about HE not Zie.
Ah come now Tom. I’ll be the first to defend this place as a place for men (because heaven knows we need them despite what certain folks say) but at the same time there’s no harm in hearing from a non-man from time to time is there?
Think of it like this. This is a place for men and men first. But haven’t the likes of Lisa, Joanna, etc… shared bits and pieces of their stories here as well? I’ll agree that stories and voices from non-men should not take over the place but it can’t hurt to hear from them from time to time right? Because ultimately all of us, men, women, and everyone, have to interact with each other.
@Danny did you read the anthology that was the inspiration for the website? There were 31 stories of men–black, brown, white, gay, straight, rich, poor, famous, and not. Lisa and Johanna, as much as I love them and think they do a great job, were not in the book.
The idea here is a nationwide discussion of manhood. That has always been the goal. Certainly women are invited to the party. And issue of gender and sexuality come into play. But as they relate to men.
My problem with Zie is that it isn’t about a story it’s about a generalized indictment of our society and who is left out. I just think that is much more powerfully explained by opening one’s heart by telling the story rather than shouting about pronouns.
@Danny did you read the anthology that was the inspiration for the website? There were 31 stories of men–black, brown, white, gay, straight, rich, poor, famous, and not. Lisa and Johanna, as much as I love them and think they do a great job, were not in the book.
The idea here is a nationwide discussion of manhood. That has always been the goal. Certainly women are invited to the party. And issue of gender and sexuality come into play. But as they relate to men.
I haven’t read it but I understand the need to discuss manhood and I understand the need to discuss it free of people that are holding a Hammer of Judgement over us, waiting to swing any time we say something they don’t like.
My problem with Zie is that it isn’t about a story it’s about a generalized indictment of our society and who is left out. I just think that is much more powerfully explained by opening one’s heart by telling the story rather than shouting about pronouns.
People have to be able to identify themselves and in bringing up these pronouns folks are able to identify themselves and tell their stories. Trying to lock them down into he or she and then getting left is a part of their story.
Thing is those folks are trying to tell their story but the listeners get so caught up in the pronoun thing that they don’t get very far.
And just like with women we as men are going to be interacting with folks like this as well.
And its not like Ozy is going to take over the place (because by the intent for this site you stated I won’t let that happen).
And again I’d ask, if only for accuracy in telling the story and for grammar, if the person is gendered non normatively what pronoun do you use? Calling someone she when that is not
The story in hir heart is then denying her hearts story. Does zie just have to default to she even if that isn’t accurate? This is actually important to people, much like being called by ones proper name. If I say you can’t use your own name or your own identity as you tell your story, how do you tell it, Tom? Its a very pragmatic solution. Creative too. I don’t have an issue
Respecting someone’s story means respwcting how they identify.
Applause to Ozy and Tom!
Yeah, let’s talk …all of us without shouting the other down…okay, the extremists of each party (ie., MRA’s, Rad Fems, whatever…) will sit at the far end of the table shouting at each other…Okay, I get it…you don’t agree….you have different views on things….can the rest of us just sit down and talk…calmly and rationally…and in Tom’s words, from the heart about ourselves and particular stories….
The fact that I was abused for several years does not negate that some of the men here were abused by females (or by males, too)….And can we get beyond the 2 D stereotypes? I am an Asian- American and I understand that people make assumptions about me before they even hear me speak….I am also a feminist but don’t try to assume you know everything about what kind of feminist I am…perhaps I will listen better to your views and hear out your stories if you just tell your story (from the heart)…I will open my mind if you open yours….
I am still trying to understand my husband better (with all his faults and things that piss me off)…my almost 12 yo son, who is funny and lovely and sweet…my karate sensei, who is going through crisis after crisis (I think I have cracked the tenderness and vulnerability under the “Raging Bull” exterior)…and my husband’s best friend, who is all stressed about but won’t admit it (and is prone to violent, unpredictable rages)….
This is my plea for more respectful discussion…please help me understand the men in my life better….please help me raise a kind, respectful, well-adjusted son, who will encounter all sorts of challenges and strange people as he gets older….
Speaking as a self-identified extremist I have no desire to shout at anybody.
Having said that, tone argument much?
This is a good example of how tainted the MRA label is. Just by having a blog which at least by name focus on men Ozy is associated with MRAs by some who then try to revoke/deny zir feminist card. Ozy then goes on to publicly wash zir hands of the MRAs (“I am not interested in dialogue with MRAs”).
Will that be enough remains to be seen.
@Ozy:
I try to avoid taking up labels like “feminist,” because these labels take on different meanings for different people. My own brother thinks that “feminist” is synonymous “misandric” because he’s had bad experiences with people who identified as feminists in the past.
I hesitantly adopt the label “egalitarian” when forced to do so, but in general, I circumvent these problems by instead restricting my comments to issues. I just so happen to agree with you on most of your stances on various issues, which also happen to coincide with the stances of some people who identify as feminist.
So, because I agree with you (and I, too, feel like I’m right most of the time, even when I’m immoderate, because my views follow a clear chain of reasoning to basic premises): tell anyone who fucks with you to take a hike. =)
Well, I’m late to the party, but anyway…
o you have to use so many cuss words?
Good article Ozy, but to quote one of my favourite movies,
Yes.
Okay, Dude. Have it your way.
(I’m just teasing)
Speaking of, has someone come up with a gender-neutral word for dude/dudette?
I’m from California; I, personally, use ‘dude’ for literally everyone. Other then that, I don’t have an answer.
For the record, I was quoting word for word from The Big Lebowski. I was just being silly.
Would ‘Dude*’ do? Or maybe it’s a bit too geeky
Hah, you reminded me of a rant my friend went on about the usage of “radical” as an insult (eh, anything political gets turned into an insult). Pretty much he complained that racism never would have decreased without people with radical views and actions against slavery, etc..
Wow, I’m sorry for my comment, Hugh is right.