Feminist Critics is a single issue, single viewpoint blog. The issue is gender and gender politics. The viewpoint is what we call “Feminist Critical”, that is to say we look at feminism and other positions and belief systems about gender from a critical point of view. If we come across as broadly opposed to feminism, then this is because we find that it doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. Currently there are three co-bloggers – Daran and HughRistik, who are the founders and toysoldier who joined shortly after the blog was started. We intend to invite other contributors who views and approach to discussion is concordant with ours. We may invite guest bloggers with different viewpoints to be the salt in our stew.
We believe that ideas and belief-systems benefit from critical and in some cases adversarial discussion. That includes ours, so we want to encourage intelligent, courteous, evidence-based discussion and debate in the comments from a variety of viewpoint. In particular, we wish to attract feminists to defend their position. And if we’re unable to persuade them of the error of their ways, we want to feel that we have gained from the experience anyway, and for them to feel that they have gained from it….
January 19, 2007
Announcement: Feminist Crititics
9 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Creative Destruction 
Ok, you asked for it.
So, if I understand your thesis (or at least Hugh’s), it is really men who are oppressed. Fine, it’s a hypothesis. But can you back it up with any data. For example, can you name:
-Any situation (apart from gender, which would be a circular argument) where members of an oppressed group make, on average, signficantly more money than the oppressor group or
-Members of the oppressed group are much more likely to be in leading governmental roles than members of the oppressor group or
-Members of the oppressed group are more likely to be heads of major companies than members of the oppressor group?
Can you name a movie–any movie–in which 1. there are fewer than two male characters or 2. there are two or more male characters but they never talk to each other or 3. they talk to each other only about women. Movies in which there is only a narrator and no dialog are considered trivial exceptions.
How many men have suffered a date rape experience? Or been raped by their spouse?
You have often mentioned that men are more often the victims of violence than women. True and not something I want to minimize, but how often are men victims of violence perpetrated by women?
Comment by Dianne — January 19, 2007 @ 6:28 pm |
Dianne:
Here? Won’t you come into my parlour?
The thesis is that men suffer group oppression. He also says that women can oppress men, but not that they are an oppressor group. He doesn’t appear to accept such a simple division.
You appear to be attacking the strawman thesis you describe above. The real claim at issue is that men are subject to group oppression. If identifying certain comparative advantages enjoyed by men was sufficient to demonstrate that they were not oppressed by a group, then a similar list of comparative advantages enjoyed by women is sufficient to demonstrate that they too are not oppressed as a group. No?
I don’t know whether the thesis that women are oppressed as a group is your thesis. I claim that it is the mainstream feminist thesis. Do you disagree?
Do you doubt that I could produce such a list?
I’ll respond briefly to the points you raise.
This is a disputed area, but it’s outside my competency to argue, however I would invite you to take it up with David Byron, if you can lure him back here. Alternatively there’s an open thread here currently lying idle. I don’t think you’ll be subject to personal abuse in either forum, by David – he’s quite the gallant with the ladies – or by anyone else, and I promise you full moderator support if you are.
I’ve never seen the wage gap subject to an adversarial debate between competent debaters, and I’m sure I would enjoy the discussion.
The likelihood is miniscule in either case.
Ditto.
That’s the Mo Movie measure, of course, and it’s a good metric, which I use myself.
I don’t know, probably more than you think.
Again, probably more than you think.
I could respond with counterpoints, of course, but you haven’t stated a thesis of your own, nor have you effectively attacked Hugh’s.
Comment by Daran — January 19, 2007 @ 11:45 pm |
That’s the Mo Movie measure, of course, and it’s a good metric, which I use myself.
Actually, it’s the Om Movie measure, the opposite of the MMM. The only movie I’ve ever seen that failed it, apart from nature movies and IMAX which contained no people except the (usually male) narrator, is the Triplets of Belleville. Triplets contained very little dialogue, but what there was was almost always between the female main character and someone else, usually also female. On the other hand, there was a lot of non-verbal communication between male characters.
Comment by Dianne — January 20, 2007 @ 12:57 pm |
Well, obviously I realised it was being applied in reverse.
I have little measure for you, though I haven’t given it a name. How big is the largest group of women you’ve seen killed on-screen? How was the incident portrayed emotionally? Same question about men?
I was thinking about whether the book Tehanu failed it (The Om measure, that is). It didn’t. Right at the start two male wizards talk about a third who had just died, while ignoring what a woman had to say, which incensed her no end. But as far as I can recall, the major male characters didn’t talk much to each other at all.
Comment by Daran — January 20, 2007 @ 8:51 pm |
How big is the largest group of women you’ve seen killed on-screen? How was the incident portrayed emotionally? Same question about men?
I’m probably not the best person to ask this of since I tend to avoid movies where a lot of people are killed onscreen. And I haven’t watched a lot of movies lately. Probably Schindler’s List for both and it was potrayed as a tragedy when either men or women were killed. Though, in partial support of your theory, I think that when a random person needed to be killed it was usually a man.
Well, obviously I realised it was being applied in reverse.
Ah. I thought perhaps you’d read and written the response in a hurry and therefore had missed the role reversal component.
Comment by Dianne — January 20, 2007 @ 11:26 pm |
I don’t know, probably more than you think.
Data?
Comment by Dianne — January 20, 2007 @ 11:29 pm |
Dianne:
Why don’t you start? In any case, I don’t know how much you think men are date raped, raped by their spouse, or domestically assaulted. How high is the bar you want me to jump?
Comment by Daran — January 22, 2007 @ 11:32 am |
Dianne, I would like to answer your questions, and I will probably do it on Feminist Critics. Thanks!
Comment by HughRistik — January 22, 2007 @ 4:11 pm |
I don’t know how much you think men are date raped, raped by their spouse, or domestically assaulted. How high is the bar you want me to jump?
Oddly enough, I don’t have an agenda on it, except that “probably more than you think” is a lousy basis for a discussion. Could be true, could be untrue. That’s why I asked for references–because it’s almost impossible to comment meaningfully otherwise.
Comment by Dianne — January 22, 2007 @ 5:47 pm |