Jump to content
pigasus

Men Running The Feminism Kritik

Recommended Posts

Me and my partner are both men, but we want to run the fem k. What are some troubles we might see and how should we respond to those?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

there are cards in the ir fem k on the openevidence that talk about how men are needed in movements like these because they're a part of the patriarchy

also i feel like if ur part of an oppressive power structure then if ur sorta like 'turning ur back on it' ... idk like that's a super weak argument "ur not a girl so u cant do this" and that's really exclusive in the first place.. and if you run gender binary addons with ur fem k then that instantly links..

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My partner and I both identify as males, and we have run both the Feminism K and the Queer Theory K. The only thing you want to worry about are rep's K's, which there are easy answers to with the fem K and slightly less easy answers to find on the Queer Theory K. You can make good Analytics if you have to, especially if you have Util cards with you. 

 

But it's mostly just going to be Rep K's. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That picture's argument is only true depending on your definition of patriarchy. It risks obscuring the possibility of feminists acting in a way that's detrimental to men. Also, there are some parts of patriarchy that don't do those things. There are even some parts of patriarchy that promote the opposite beliefs.

Please don't interpret this as HURRR HURR MRA MRA MRA MRA. I wish I didn't need to make this disclaimer.

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That picture's argument is only true depending on your definition of patriarchy. It risks obscuring the possibility of feminists acting in a way that's detrimental to men. Also, there are some parts of patriarchy that don't do those things. There are even some parts of patriarchy that promote the opposite beliefs.

 

Please don't interpret this as HURRR HURR MRA MRA MRA MRA. I wish I didn't need to make this disclaimer.

No you're right. The picture doesn't outline a specific methodology of what "feminism" is. But that isn't the point. It merely acknowledges that there is more to male existence than monolithic destruction. An opposite to the patriarchy. A different, inclusive, and better way of viewing the world. Other than that your argument is asinine. Obviously people can do bad things in the name of something that is supposed to be good. Other than its pretty fucking obvious you are trying to start a flame war. 

 

Also the second half of your comment is just factually round. There is a difference between patriarchy good and patriarchy inadvertently did some good things. Its like saying we should stop a nuclear war because it would kill white people, then me saying that's racist, and then you saying in the 2AC "oh yeah its kills some black people too". You are quite literally saying that the patriarchy should stay around because it has done some good stuff. That is a post hoc, ergo proptor hoc fallacy. The ability to acknowledge other believes is a side effect of fucking communication. Not the patriarchy. The patriarchy is responsible for philosophies like realism. Which is the exact opposite of understanding opposing beliefs and the forced subjugation of an entire population for thousands of years.

 

Also your arguments beg a really important question. Which beliefs does the patriarchy help promote? Because it sure as hell doesn't help promote the opposing view of eastern women in third women countries. There is only a risk the patriarchy is bad for deliberate dialogue. To so other wise is fucking ignorant. Stop trying to start a flame war. 

 

A few weeks ago some kids were advocating racism good as a legitimate argument. I refuse to allow the same for sexism. Delete your account and throw your computer out the nearest window. 

  • Upvote 7
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please don't interpret this as HURRR HURR MRA MRA MRA MRA. I wish I didn't need to make this disclaimer.

tumblr_inline_mjx54uwWl11qz4rgp.gif

 

Other than its pretty fucking obvious you are trying to start a flame war.

 

I've stopped engaging with him. If you fight with an idiot, they'll drag you to their level and win from experience. It takes a lot of privilege to respond to a thread about male engagement with feminism with "well patriarchy is good sometimes".

  • Upvote 10
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're misinterpreting my argument so nothing you said was responsive. I wasn't claiming that patriarchy is good. I was criticizing the picture as an instance of lazy and essentialist popfeminism. I apparently need to go into more detail to be understood.

First, the picture's thesis is just wrong because the claim that "men are stupid and monolithic and unchanging and incapable" hardly seems likely to come from many patriarchs, nor do most of the other phrases displayed. Calling every bad thing patriarchy is a sloppy and obvious mistake. We can criticize dumb beliefs, even those about gender, without incorporating them into a titanic struggle of the evil patriarchy vs. the good feminism, but this picture's author felt the need to do the latter instead of the former.

Second, the tone of the picture is very militant. It uses bold text and repetition as well as inaccurate and inflammatory language in order to generate strong feelings of outrage in the reader. Black vs. white, evil vs. good, patriarchy vs. feminism. I dislike the picture for the same reason that I dislike the politics memes I see on facebook.

Third, it essentializes both patriarchy and feminism. There are definitely some patriarchs who'd say that men are awesome and multifaced, and feminists who think that men are evil or interchangeable. Most of patriarchy isn't overt, and that which is rarely claims anything like the picture wants you to believe it does. Patriarchy is complicated and can't be described in any useful way through an image macro. But this macro isn't attempting to teach people about patriarchy, it's attempting to seem insightful and brave so the creator gets more popular, thus the watermark.

For me, this is all understood in the context of broader negative trends within identity politics that encourage aggression instead of engagement with different views, which is reasonably well demonstrated in this thread even though I tried to anticipate and prevent it. Even though I'm not arguing for patriarchy, because of the binary message underlying the picture my criticism of it was taken as support for its named Enemy. The message delivered by the macro is ostensibly one of outreach for men who need support. But the reality seems far from it if it's encouraging such lazy thinking, because those who really need help rarely hold such positions as the macro needs them to in order for it to be effective.

tl;dr I hate tumblr.

  • Upvote 5
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, Snarf's hardly disengaged with me. He makes inflammatory remarks about me constantly and neg reps me every time he gets the chance, even on irrelevant threads. He probably spends more time thinking about me than most other people on the site, because to him I'm figuratively Hitler. Why you people gave Snarf four upvotes for a useless insult and zero to jacobstime for his post with actual arguments is something I'll never truly understand.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that this thread escalated much more than it had too and escalated based on a severe misunderstanding.  

 

That picture's argument is only true depending on your definition of patriarchy. It risks obscuring the possibility of feminists acting in a way that's detrimental to men. Also, there are some parts of patriarchy that don't do those things. There are even some parts of patriarchy that promote the opposite beliefs.

Please don't interpret this as HURRR HURR MRA MRA MRA MRA. I wish I didn't need to make this disclaimer.

Nothing in here even remotely defends patriarchy.  It only criticizes the picture.  

 

I've stopped engaging with him. If you fight with an idiot, they'll drag you to their level and win from experience. It takes a lot of privilege to respond to a thread about male engagement with feminism with "well patriarchy is good sometimes".

I think this is unwarranted because no one gave any arguments that patriarchy does good things.  He only said that not all types of patriarchy are identical to what the picture points out.  

 

I'm saddened by how quickly this thread turned to insults and name-caliing.  

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First start by understanding that politics is currently very masculine.

 

Next understand that when you treat these masculine assumptions as neutral you are ignoring and concealing how current political practices are gendered masculine.

 

This is feminism.

 

It is looking at gender as a node of social power. For the scientists its looking at gendered knowledge production as a variable. This is different from, but not mutually exclusive with, looking at UN HDR stats on poverty and using Gender as a variable.

 

Marxists look at class. Decolonialist/post-colonalists look at Race. Feminists look at gender and how its social construction justifies certain practices.

 

Whether or not you are considered male or female is not important. What is important is the ideas you are producing. Do they attend to gender? Do you recognize gender as a discursive force? You are a feminist.

 

Read one or both of these.  Carol Cohn1   Woolf 2

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First start by understanding that politics is currently very masculine.

 

Next understand that when you treat these masculine assumptions as neutral you are ignoring and concealing how current political practices are gendered masculine.

 

This is feminism.

 

It is looking at gender as a node of social power. For the scientists its looking at gendered knowledge production as a variable. This is different from, but not mutually exclusive with, looking at UN HDR stats on poverty and using Gender as a variable.

 

Marxists look at class. Decolonialist/post-colonalists look at Race. Feminists look at gender and how its social construction justifies certain practices.

 

Whether or not you are considered male or female is not important. What is important is the ideas you are producing. Do they attend to gender? Do you recognize gender as a discursive force? You are a feminist.

 

Read one or both of these.  Carol Cohn1   Woolf 2

I just wanted to quote you because your  name is Rick Ross, lol.

 

On the thread, I haven't read all the comments on this, but I know that feminism and masculinity are both social constructs and not identifiers for boys and girls. Identifying gender with sex is unresponsive. I am sure that good research will open the gate for some evidence that resembles "focusing on sex is the root cause of our problems and hurts x" or "they shackle us to the status quo by enforcing masculinity and saying we can't run this argument due to our sex."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 "they shackle us to the status quo by enforcing masculinity and saying we can't run this argument due to our sex."

I think a very interesting argument could be made here. You could basically link them to the K again by saying that they assume your gender based on your outward appearance and how society denotes it as "male" or "female", which reinforces a binary view of gender/sex etc.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think a very interesting argument could be made here. You could basically link them to the K again by saying that they assume your gender based on your outward appearance and how society denotes it as "male" or "female", which reinforces a binary view of gender/sex etc.

That's good! Something to note though, is that while it's true that they make these assumptions, and these are potentially problematic (like mis-labeling a trans* or intersex person with the wrong pronoun repeatedly - especially after being corrected or admonished), I'd shy away from making these arguments as anything other than examples of the everyday violence experienced by those people; it's not really an in-round impact if Asher & partner both identify as cisgendered men, and it's worse for them to pretend (or insinuate) otherwise. It is a good link though, and it's great to hit them on during CX by asking what made the other team refer to you as "men" or "guys" or whatever (like "what do those terms mean? What's a man, and how am I one? Who are 'guys'?") - it's just proof that anything but ardent committal to good ol' privilege-checking feminism just habitualizes the daily practices that put already-vulnerable bodies (queer bodies generally but specifically trans*, genderfluid, intersex person etc) at risk of those kinds of life-negating experiences. I'm probably not explaining that part that well because I don't run queerness or feminism arguments, but hopefully it's helpful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's good! Something to note though, is that while it's true that they make these assumptions, and these are potentially problematic (like mis-labeling a trans* or intersex person with the wrong pronoun repeatedly - especially after being corrected or admonished), I'd shy away from making these arguments as anything other than examples of the everyday violence experienced by those people; it's not really an in-round impact if Asher & partner both identify as cisgendered men, and it's worse for them to pretend (or insinuate) otherwise. It is a good link though, and it's great to hit them on during CX by asking what made the other team refer to you as "men" or "guys" or whatever (like "what do those terms mean? What's a man, and how am I one? Who are 'guys'?") - it's just proof that anything but ardent committal to good ol' privilege-checking feminism just habitualizes the daily practices that put already-vulnerable bodies (queer bodies generally but specifically trans*, genderfluid, intersex person etc) at risk of those kinds of life-negating experiences. I'm probably not explaining that part that well because I don't run queerness or feminism arguments, but hopefully it's helpful.

 

Since this discussion seems to be segwaying a bit towards Q Theory I just have a word of advice.  While many Q Theorists (and indeed many feminists as well) approach their critical project not solely as an affirmation of femininity, but as a broader acceptance of Otherness and a breaking down of binarization.  However, there is perhaps an even larger group that would criticize such a notion as a destruction of identity and a cessation of struggle - if you are actually LGBTQ then this is a fine strategy but if not you are setting yourself up for a very complicated counter-k (or at least speaking for others).

 

For the same reason that white people cannot put on a mask and suddenly be able to start freestyling poems about their experiences in the hood while running Afropessimism I think there is a problem with males running a fem k AND THEN claiming to be re-setting gender norms.  While I have NO PROBLEM with guys running fem Ks and it probably is a way to break down binaries, claiming to move beyond your identity without a very blocked out defense of that is a bad idea (e.g. I have a lesbian seperatism file that is the wilderson of fem ks but I don't feel comfortable using it as a way to get a ballot - especially when the alt is to castrate politics).

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since this discussion seems to be segwaying a bit towards Q Theory I just have a word of advice.  While many Q Theorists (and indeed many feminists as well) approach their critical project not solely as an affirmation of femininity, but as a broader acceptance of Otherness and a breaking down of binarization.  However, there is perhaps an even larger group that would criticize such a notion as a destruction of identity and a cessation of struggle - if you are actually LGBTQ then this is a fine strategy but if not you are setting yourself up for a very complicated counter-k (or at least speaking for others).

 

For the same reason that white people cannot put on a mask and suddenly be able to start freestyling poems about their experiences in the hood while running Afropessimism I think there is a problem with males running a fem k AND THEN claiming to be re-setting gender norms.  While I have NO PROBLEM with guys running fem Ks and it probably is a way to break down binaries, claiming to move beyond your identity without a very blocked out defense of that is a bad idea (e.g. I have a lesbian seperatism file that is the wilderson of fem ks but I don't feel comfortable using it as a way to get a ballot - especially when the alt is to castrate politics).

I agree. I think that probably the best understanding of identity and being would involve a plurality of forces at work between ontology, discourse, and social-constructivism. How do you think about whites or non-blacks running afro-pessimism arguments like Wilderson?

 

Also, who's the author for your lesbian separatism file? That sounds really interesting, if you have recommended essays/articles/books to read, I'd love to read them sometime.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that it is okay for people who aren't black to run a Wilderson K using, for example, the paradigmatic analysis or burn down the state alt; they don't actually require affirmation of blackness to be effective - one is basically a genealogy and the other... well its kinda self explanatory.  While I think that it is okay for white people to participate in a breakdown of structures of oppression I think that there is a big problem when they try to rap or freestyle specifically as a means of affirming blackness - that would seem to be a marvelous example of academic co-option.  While I know very successful white teams who run the former type of advocacy I can't see how white people affirming black ontology fits within Wilderson.  This is especially true in the context of how many authors like Moten are showing up in debate - the case literally becomes a DA to anyone who isn't black and regardless of the ideological truth of that position there is certainly no strategic merit to some approaches to Afro-pessimism.  

 

As far as lesbian separatism here are some cites and authors.  Most of the impacts and answers to generics can be found in a fem K, just because there is a broader lit base.  Here are a few things:

http://scriptorium.lib.duke.edu/wlm/womid

Susi Kaplow

Sarah Lucia

Charlotte Bunch

Vivienne Louise

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since this discussion seems to be segwaying a bit towards Q Theory I just have a word of advice.  While many Q Theorists (and indeed many feminists as well) approach their critical project not solely as an affirmation of femininity, but as a broader acceptance of Otherness and a breaking down of binarization.  However, there is perhaps an even larger group that would criticize such a notion as a destruction of identity and a cessation of struggle - if you are actually LGBTQ then this is a fine strategy but if not you are setting yourself up for a very complicated counter-k (or at least speaking for others).

just came across this, and i think while it's true that we need to be sure that we keep identity autonomous and not a tool for winning a ballot, but i think you can advocate for others without assuming the Other's identity. my partner and I won jv state running a q theory aff and while neither of us identify as LGBTQ, we think that it's still acceptable and possible to advocate for them while not eroding their autonomy... maybe i'm taking your argument out of context but yeah.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

just came across this, and i think while it's true that we need to be sure that we keep identity autonomous and not a tool for winning a ballot, but i think you can advocate for others without assuming the Other's identity. my partner and I won jv state running a q theory aff and while neither of us identify as LGBTQ, we think that it's still acceptable and possible to advocate for them while not eroding their autonomy... maybe i'm taking your argument out of context but yeah.

 

I understand your point and while I agree that it is certainly valid I don't think that is mutually exclusive with what I was saying earlier.  I think that everything depends on a) your positionality B) your opponent's positionality and c) the author's positionality - while certain brands of any political theory based around identity politics may be acceptable in one scenario they may not be in another, and vice versa.  In my post I was referencing a specific argument which I personally felt uncomfortable with running (as I am not a lesbian women with the express attempt of castrating politics); even though I think that the political value of the argument is extremely relevant I feel that I would have been violating the author's intent and obscuring the Other's Identity.

 

This naturally varies from argument to argument, and I am (hopefully) not a hypocrite.  I run a variety of the Edelman K because personally think that I can use the debate as a way to "choose to not choose the children" or rather, to recognize the value that LGBTQ bodies have in the political sphere.  

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Being a man is irrelevant with a Fem K. You can support women's equality to men as a man. If the other team tries to tell you otherwise just say that's "ad hominem" and not a reason any of the claims being made are any less valid.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...

First, no.  The subject positionality of the speaker is inherently tied to the efficacy and political value of what is spoken.  Understanding where we stand (excuse the pun) is especially important when dealing with issues of identity politics (and this is even more relevant in the context of policy debate, where legitimate experiences are often, but not always, co-opted for a ballot).

Second, that is not the position being taken on this thread - none of us are saying that men should be, without exception, prohibited from running a feminism K. Rather, I was simply pointing out the importance of one's socio-political standing in relationship to specific brands of arguments and alternatives.  To draw a parallel to race Ks, there is a difference between being a white person running Wilderson and saying that we should do a paradigmatic analysis of oppression and saying kill all the white people and burn the state.  It is not a question of ad hominems, it is a question of what constitutes genuine interaction with the Other.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...

First, no.  The subject positionality of the speaker is inherently tied to the efficacy and political value of what is spoken.  Understanding where we stand (excuse the pun) is especially important when dealing with issues of identity politics (and this is even more relevant in the context of policy debate, where legitimate experiences are often, but not always, co-opted for a ballot).

 

Second, that is not the position being taken on this thread - none of us are saying that men should be, without exception, prohibited from running a feminism K. Rather, I was simply pointing out the importance of one's socio-political standing in relationship to specific brands of arguments and alternatives.  To draw a parallel to race Ks, there is a difference between being a white person running Wilderson and saying that we should do a paradigmatic analysis of oppression and saying kill all the white people and burn the state.  It is not a question of ad hominems, it is a question of what constitutes genuine interaction with the Other.

 

Be careful equating sex and gender. Oppressive gender norms hurt men as well as women (and those aren't the only two options), especially when you also analyze cissexism and heterosexism. 

  • Upvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Be careful equating sex and gender. Oppressive gender norms hurt men as well as women (and those aren't the only two options), especially when you also analyze cissexism and heterosexism. 

 

I am quite cognizant of this, especially since most of my close friends are LGBTQ and I was bullied during my middle school years for being too feminine. Nonetheless, this forum (I thought) is centered mostly around the Feminism (IR?) K and how that is complicated when it is run by the typical/average male debater (even if the approach of traditional Feminism Ks are problematic - which they may be - it is at least less problematic than the model they criticize)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am quite cognizant of this, especially since most of my close friends are LGBTQ and I was bullied during my middle school years for being too feminine. Nonetheless, this forum (I thought) is centered mostly around the Feminism (IR?) K and how that is complicated when it is run by the typical/average male debater (even if the approach of traditional Feminism Ks are problematic - which they may be - it is at least less problematic than the model they criticize)

Right, and my answer is "likely not at all", because most Fem IR Kritiks don't rely on the specific positionality of the speaker and don't purport to represent an oppressed group of people. Instead, they focus on the ways in which the symbols, rituals, and patterns which inform conduct are imbued with gendered meanings, and how the pursuit of specific gendered symbols can lead to conduct.

 

Since the claims traditionally made have little to do with the position of the speaker,and because men cannot (and should not) be blanketly excluded from feminism, I'm not sure how identity as male would complicate reading the Kritik.

 

Edit - it's likely also cissexist to assume someone is a man because they "look like a man". Means it's unstrategic for an aff to make that argument because there's no good answer to a 2NC saying "how do you know I'm a man?" or "how do you know that I've always looked this way?"

Edited by Snarf
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...