Fannie's Room
On every anti-feminist rant I see on the internet, there is always at least one man who uses the draft/men being chivalrous as the reason feminism isn't needed.
They don't realize that these forms of benevolent sexism only serve to keep women in their place as meek, weak, and needing the defense of a strong man. Sure, some women expect this from men (like opening doors for them, or paying for dates), but that also isn't feminism's fault. These are long-standing traditions based on benevolent sexism that were in place long before women started fighting for equal rights. Women didn't ask for those "privileges." They were put in place by men, who had higher status and power, who decided to "be nice" to women and defend them, because you know... women are so weak and stuff.
A-der.
*claps*
I never articulate my response to this "gotcha" properly. Now I can. Very well said. 
Another brain dead straw man argument against the evil "MRAs". Feminism will inevitably recognize it's own irrelevancy and is doomed to become as uncommon and outmoded as doctors bleeding patients.
Joel, you do realize that your comment is a conclusion and not an argument, correct?
I wonder if you have anything of substance to add to the conversation, like perhaps an actual rebuttal?
Thus far, all you've done is the equivalent of lighting a bag of dog poo on fire, leaving it at my doorstep, and running away. That sort of behavior doesn't give MRAs or their ideology much credence.
Fannie, you have overlooked the point of the draft argument with stunning deliberateness. It is irrational to claim that feminism is unnecessary, wrong, or that gender inequality does not exist due to the existence of the draft.
The point is this: if you support gender equality, then to be consistent you must either support abolishing the draft or including women in the draft. Otherwise, you are advocating female supremacy. So, riddle me this: where exactly do you stand on this issue? Do you believe that women should be included in the draft? If not, how do you reconcile your position with your philosophy of gender equality?
Zak,
Welcome to my blog. You are certainly welcome to comment here and I hope that, unlike your brethren, you do more than just pop in to lob some insults before scurrying out the door never to return.
You are new here and judging from the fact that your very first comment was an accusation of deliberate misbehavior on my part, you probably haven't bothered to read my disclaimer. Specifically, this part:
"My overall intention in blogging is to do no harm. While I do not intend to make mistakes or write erroneous information in Fannie's Room, I will correct errors if I discover them or if they are brought to my attention."
If you don't take me at my word, I am confident that many who regularly read my blog would probably attest that I do not make it a habit to "deliberately" overlook or misrepresent anyone's argument. And unfortunately, Zak, you have waltzed in with only an accusation, rather than an argument to support your accusation.
Secondly, I find your question odd because (a) I have a hunch that you mean it as some sort of "gotcha" and (2) the US does not currently have a draft. Are you referring to the fact that males of a certain age have to register with the Selective Service? And, did you actually mean to ask whether I believe that women should also have to register with the Selective Service?
If so, the answer yes. I think that as long as there is a Selective Service, women should have to register and be eligible for the draft as well. That women are excluded from the registration (and from combat positions) is based on stereotypes regarding the inherent weakness of women. Further, it is based on ideas about women's "proper place" in society and stereotypes about how women lack courage, strength, and the ability to be team players. Needless to say, I in no way believe that the exclusion of women from the draft/combat positions results "female supremacy," as you seem to think it does.
Although, I would love to hear your reasoning as to how keeping women out of the draft results in "female supremacy."
Please be more specific in your replies.
Thanks for the reply.
You are right, I did not read your disclaimer, I stumbled on your post after googling the terms "feminism" and "draft".
"Accusation" is a rather strong term, implying wrongdoing. I merely suggested that you were putting spin on the issue - which isn't exactly a deadly sin.
I don't quite understand what you mean by "gotcha," but I have a hunch that your nitpicking over the semantics of "draft" might be some sort of "gotcha." But yes, I was referring to registration with Selective service and eligibility for the draft.
I must say, I am surprised and impressed that you believe that women should have to register and be eligible for the draft. However, I think the reason that women have historically been excluded from combat is so that they could bear and raise children, providing the next generation of soldiers. Here's another question for you: you say that women's lack of strength is a stereotype; Do you not agree that the average man is larger, stronger, and a better hand-to-hand combatant than the average woman?
I don't think that merely keeping woman out of the draft results in female supremacy. What I stated was that if you advocate a policy of gender equality in all areas of society except for the draft, then that would be a policy of female supremacy. Let me clarify again: I was referring to policy, not stating that we have female supremacy in society now.
I find that often times when people discuss anything, the discussion devolves into righteous debunkings of strawmen arguments. People refuse to see or acknowledge the opposing side's point of view, ignoring or misinterpreting legitimate points. I haven't looked at any of your other posts, but unfortunately that's what I see you doing here.
Zak,
"I find that often times when people discuss anything, the discussion devolves into righteous debunkings of strawmen arguments. People refuse to see or acknowledge the opposing side's point of view, ignoring or misinterpreting legitimate points."
I agree. That is certainly not a Startling Revelation about conversations on the internets.
"unfortunately that's what I see you doing here."
How? By welcoming you to my blog and requesting that you be more specific in your queries? By responding directly to your question and ensuring that I was answering the question I thought you were trying to ask?
What I find is that conversations on the internet devolve very quickly when someone's first couple of comments on a blog he's never read before include vaguely accusing a writer of deliberate distortions, "righteous debunkings of strawmen arguments," refusing to "see or acknowledge the other side's arguments," and "ignoring or misinterpreting legitimate points." For, I hope you realize that you have made those accusations (yes, accusations) without explaining how I did all of those things. Nor have you actually rebutted any specific point I made in this one post of mine that you have read.
In the future, I think you should stay on topic and focus solely on the substantive points here.
Thus, moving on. I find it interesting that you are "impressed" that I favor allowing women into combat and the draft. This is a pretty common position among many feminists.
To answer your question:
"Here's another question for you: you say that women's lack of strength is a stereotype; Do you not agree that the average man is larger, stronger, and a better hand-to-hand combatant than the average woman?"
Obviously, the average man is stronger and larger than the average woman. Regarding combat skills, however, that is not something that is "inherent" or biological, but a skill that people learn. What does "better" mean in terms of combat skills, and how does strength and size factor into that? My question is somewhat rhetorical, but as someone who trains in martial arts I know that women can learn how to fight just as well as men can.
Furthermore, the thing about averages in terms of strength and body size is that they do not hold true for everyone. A complete ban on women in combat is, therefore, overbroad. It excludes women who are physically capable of performing those duties- all because of the All Women Are Weak stereotype.
My question to you, then, is this: What is your position on having a draft that includes women and allowing women into combat positions?
And, do you find anything troubling about a worldview in which the dominate sex stereotypes posit that the purpose of men is to be cannon fodder and the purpose of women is to create cannon fodder?
"What I find is that conversations on the internet devolve very quickly when someone's first couple of comments on a blog he's never read before include vaguely accusing a writer of deliberate distortions, "righteous debunkings of strawmen arguments," refusing to "see or acknowledge the other side's arguments," and "ignoring or misinterpreting legitimate points." For, I hope you realize that you have made those accusations (yes, accusations) without explaining how I did all of those things. Nor have you actually rebutted any specific point I made in this one post of mine that you have read."
Well, your specific points are legitimate, but irrelevant. You are correct in stating that the existence of a male-only draft doesn't prove that women are not oppressed. But nobody in their right mind would argue against that sentiment.
Do I really need to explain all of what I said above? OK... the position that feminism is at fault for the draft and therefore women are not oppressed is a strawman argument. You debunked it in your main post. Also, in your reply to my first post you seem to deliberately misinterpret my use of the phrase "female supremacy." Perhaps I was unclear, or perhaps you misunderstood. But that is what I was referring to. Does that explanation work for you?
"My question to you, then, is this: What is your position on having a draft that includes women and allowing women into combat positions?"
In the current system we have, I am totally for allowing women into combat positions as long as they are qualified to be there. I think that a draft that includes women would be more egalitarian than what we have now, but personally I don't mind having a male-only draft.
"And, do you find anything troubling about a worldview in which the dominate sex stereotypes posit that the purpose of men is to be cannon fodder and the purpose of women is to create cannon fodder?"
Oh, sure. I believe that this worldview has historically been responsible for the gender roles that we have today, but of course this worldview does not apply to today's world, at least for the US.
Zak,
I am finding that we are in agreement about many things. Women should absolutely be allowed into combat positions assuming they are qualified, AND I would add to that, men should not be automatically assumed to be qualified for such positions just because they are men.
"the position that feminism is at fault for the draft and therefore women are not oppressed is a strawman argument."
But I didn't claim that MRAs blame the draft on feminists. I was just stating a fact- the draft is not the fault of feminism. If you re-read the first few sentences of my post, you will see that I clearly laid out what I believed to be a common MRA argument regarding the draft:
"A) Male privilege is a 'myth' because women have privileges too, like not having to register for the draft. Therefore, feminism is unnecessary and wrong.
B) Men are the ones who are truly oppressed in society because of things like the draft, where men have to register and women don't. Therefore, feminism is unnecessary and wrong."
Do you see the difference? I'm not saying that MRA's claim that feminism is at fault for the draft, but rather that MRA's sometimes claim that the existence of a male-only draft shows that feminism is unnecessary, wrong, and/or that it proves that men are the ones who are *really* oppressed.
I didn't just pull these arguments out of thin air. They are paraphrased from actual MRAs. (I tend not to link to anti-feminists and MRAs because they usually only pop in here to call me something along the lines of a Know-Nothing Feminazi Dyke before scurrying out the door to brag to his buddies at anti-misandry about his latest adventures in harpy-killing).
Nonetheless, a 1-minute search of the internet demonstrates Real Live Men making the arguments I've claimed they make:
Here, this inarticulate man is questioning and/or justifying the existence of male privilege by joking that he'll take his wife's last name when she signs up for the draft.
Here, a man puts "male privilege" in scare quotes, indicating that it doesn't exist, while criticizing feminists for supposedly not protesting an unfair selective services law.
The argument, you understand, is that male privilege is not real because of the existence of a male-only selective service registration. Those who deny the existence of male privilege, also tend to believe that feminism is unnecessary, wrong, and/or *really* about "female supremacy."
"Also, in your reply to my first post you seem to deliberately misinterpret my use of the phrase 'female supremacy.'"
Remember how we talked about how it's problematic to accuse someone of "deliberate" misinterpretations? When people who don't know each other are communicating via the internet, misinterpretation and misunderstanding is very common. A good rule of thumb is to give people the benefit of the doubt before jumping to conclusions about their malicious intentions.
"Perhaps I was unclear, or perhaps you misunderstood. But that is what I was referring to."
Ah. So you do get it. See, your "gender supremacy" argument (to me) was not at all clear. After re-reading it again, I think I get what you're trying to say.
I do thank you for your civility here.
I see what you are saying now. I agree with you that arguments A and B make no sense. I looked at the two links you put up - the author of the first one is an idiot, but the author of the second one does make a rational argument (regardless of whether it is correct or not) in asserting that feminists are hypocrites for only pursuing equality where it benefits them.
I guess the purpose of your blog post was to address arguments A and B only, not the entire issue of gender equality and the draft. It kinda looked like you were trying to say that the draft is fine the way it is by virtue of arguments A and B being wrong, but perhaps that was just my reading of it.
"Remember how we talked about how it's problematic to accuse someone of "deliberate" misinterpretations?"
When I first read this I thought it was one of those famed "gotchas". But then I read this:
"Ah. So you do get it."
Thanks for acknowledging that. I appreciate that you didn't deliberately ignore parts of what I wrote.
When googling for feminist and the draft, I also stumbled across this. The author believes that as long as inequalities exist in our culture and our society (e.g., women earn less money, women are disproportionately represented in government, etc), federal policy should exempt women from the draft. I think this is the sort of position that is subject to legitimate criticism from MRAs.
On a less related note: you mentioned male privilege. I think that the male privilege card is overplayed by feminists, and I am curious what you think on this topic.
My understanding is that a male privilege would be something that applies to all males, and is a privilege. For example: not being whistled at by male construction workers is definitely a male privilege. But feminists like to list legally protected rights, or things that don't apply to all males, and call that male privilege. For example: not being attacked and raped while walking through a dark ally. Not being attacked/raped isn't a privilege, it's a civil right, and sometimes men are also victims of violence. Those lists of male privileges get passed around have very few actual male privileges on them, as far as I can tell. What do you think?
I work in a male dominated department (IT) of a male dominated industry (Engineering).
But I have worked with several women programmers and engineers, but in every case, when I am designing a pressure vessel or writing a computer program, my expertise is taken for granted and my, ideas, and only my ideas, are scrutinized on their merits.
Never, even once, has someone questioned my education or training.
Not so with the women.
It would be common to hear comments to women like:
"Where did you go to school ?"
"Why do you write in BASIC ?"
"Do you understand intergral calculus" ?
Now these are valid questions when deciding to hire someone, but every woman I have ever worked with (in these fields) has had to face, at one time or another, a re-examination of her credentials when working on a routine project, even though they had years of experience.
And, here's the killer.
I have no degree in anything; I was a self taught programmer, and my engineering skills are based entirely on experience. I am very weak on theory.
And yet, my designs and my programs are automatically considered valid, while the women's are automatically considered suspect, even though every woman I have worked with, (again, in these fields) have been degreed engineers and programmers.
Now, I happen to think I'm pretty bright, and I bring to the table some real-world experience that sometimes transcends theory, but I have never had to prove that I had what it takes to do the job. They did and still do.
That is male priviledge.
"but the author of the second one does make a rational argument (regardless of whether it is correct or not) in asserting that feminists are hypocrites for only pursuing equality where it benefits them."
Actually, I think that this argument is way overbroad. While it is true that some feminists oppose the draft and only pursue equality where it benefits women, that is certainly not true of all feminists. Many feminists, myself included, favor the eradication of all gender stereotypes believing that they are harmful to both men and women. Many feminists believe that nothing is more harmful to men than cultural norms of masculinity- norms that prevent men from realizing their full humanity all in the quest to be a (sex-obsessed, overly-aggressive, emotionally-stunted) "real man." The Male-only draft feeds right into the cultural norm that views men as inherently aggressive and suited for war.
Regarding male privilege, I think John's anecdote is a good example of one facet of male privilege- namely, the Myth of Automatic Male Competence.
While male privilege was much more obvious 50 years ago, I think that vestiges and consequence of men having excluded women from the public sphere (via restricting education and work opportunities) remain. Furthermore, I think that the fact that every man-made monotheistic religion includes a supreme deity that looks (and acts) remarkably like ordinary mortal male humans results in a lot of entitlement among men. How could it not, when you are told since boyhood that the great and all-powerful creator of everything is a "he"? Do you think that the "maleness" of "god" has any bearing on how male human beings are perceived in the world, especially with respect to their competence as compared to women?
Anyway, this site gives a pretty good rundown of male privilege (although I don't necessarily agree with everything there).
I find Zak's argument rather disingenuous... at least on a first reading. There is criticism of feminists because the draft registration only targets males-- but then also the rhetorical question: "Do you not agree that the average man is larger, stronger, and a better hand-to-hand combatant than the average woman?" and a reading of history that implies women are not required to register because they are/were seen as "brood mares" for whoever was starting wars.
In other words, it is men who have tried HARD to keep women out of the army (and the astronomical levels of rape and assault suffered by female recruits at the hands of their male "buddies" is only one manifestation of this.) Fannie and I are feminists, and oppose the gender segregation of the draft...
but it's NOT feminists asking for it to be separate! It's the "men are special and 'better'" contingent doing that, and it is in fact another tool in the arsenal keeping women "in their place."
Yes, I do find it odd when men criticize feminists for supposedly not favoring an integrated draft (even though many feminists do), and then they themselves turn around and admit that they personally don't have a "problem" with a male-only draft.
I think that many men are somewhat neutral about the male-only draft precisely because of the benevolent sexism that the male-only draft is rooted in. Essentially, I think that many men *know* that while a male-only draft is unequal from a gender standpoint, the policy exists only because of stereotypes that are beneficial to men- namely that they are bigger, stronger, larger, more competent, and all-around just BETTER than women.
"Regarding male privilege, I think John's anecdote is a good example of one facet of male privilege- namely, the Myth of Automatic Male Competence."
This is a very good example of where you and I disagree. I don't think that the Myth of Automatic Male Competence is a male privilege, because it doesn't apply to all males. Even if males are assumed to be more competent than females most of the time, there will be instances where the reverse happens (maybe not so much in the tech sector, but in other fields).
In a college class I had, the professor handed out a list of heterosexual privileges. All of them were privileges, and all of them applied to all heterosexuals, all the time. I find that so-called male privileges often aren't privileges but rights, and often they don't apply to all men all the time. I looked at the link you provided. I also don't necessarily agree with everything there.
Perhaps we're having semantic issues - I admit that latent sexism against women is fairly pervasive in society, but I think that the label of "male privilege" is often misused.
"Do you think that the "maleness" of "god" has any bearing on how male human beings are perceived in the world, especially with respect to their competence as compared to women?"
My short answer is yes. My longer answer is that since humans invent religions, it's not really the case that religion is responsible for entitlement among men. Religions have male gods because of how male human beings were already perceived in the world before those religions were invented. But I agree that religions with male gods serve to reinforce the sentiment that males are better than females.
"There is criticism of feminists because the draft registration only targets males-- but then also the rhetorical question: "Do you not agree that the average man is larger, stronger, and a better hand-to-hand combatant than the average woman?" and a reading of history that implies women are not required to register because they are/were seen as "brood mares" for whoever was starting wars."
Well, I don't believe I actually criticized feminists because the draft registration only targets males... the feminists didn't create that law, after all. Also, my question regarding average men and women wasn't rhetorical. If I had meant to say that women shouldn't be allowed in the military due to average size and strength differences, I would have stated so.
Do you believe that my reading of history is incorrect? For example, as recently as WWII, the Nazi government espoused that the role of a good German man was to fight for his country, and the role of a good German woman was to have children. That's an observation, not a value judgment.
"Yes, I do find it odd when men criticize feminists for supposedly not favoring an integrated draft (even though many feminists do), and then they themselves turn around and admit that they personally don't have a "problem" with a male-only draft."
I don't see what's odd about that. The way I see it, feminists can be legitimately criticized for inconsistency if they do not favor an integrated draft. Do I need to favor an integrated draft myself to point that out? Personally I don't really care if the draft is male-only or not, that's why I said that I don't have a "problem" with it.
"I think that many men are somewhat neutral about the male-only draft precisely because of the benevolent sexism that the male-only draft is rooted in. Essentially, I think that many men *know* that while a male-only draft is unequal from a gender standpoint, the policy exists only because of stereotypes that are beneficial to men- namely that they are bigger, stronger, larger, more competent, and all-around just BETTER than women."
I somewhat disagree with this. In some cases, I'm sure what you wrote holds true. But I think many men are neutral about the draft because they dislike the required registration, and they don't want to be forced into the military in the event that a draft is instated. So, many men don't advocate for integrated draft registration because they don't want to force the draft on women in the name of gender equality. If I had the option of not registering for the draft, I would have taken it. If I could have granted my male friends the option to not register, I would have. So why would I advocate forcing women to register?
"Perhaps we're having semantic issues - I admit that latent sexism against women is fairly pervasive in society, but I think that the label of "male privilege" is often misused."
Do you think NOT having pervasive latent sexism working against you isn't privileging? I think that's a seriously difficult argument to be making...
oh... and about the draft... my personal opinion is that the army should have a check to it similar to "jury nullification" in law...
Basically... if you can't get enough people to volunteer for the army to fight a war, than you shouldn't be fighting the war. And it should be entirely sex-neutral.
Do you not agree that the average man is larger, stronger, and a better hand-to-hand combatant than the average woman?
Yes, but the draft does not conscript the "average man" and would not conscript the "average woman" were it to be integrated by sex; it currently conscripts men of all sizes and physical abilities, and a man who is smaller or weaker than the average woman is not exempt.
*By "conscripts" understand, of course, "requires to register for Selective Service," at the moment.
"Do you think NOT having pervasive latent sexism working against you isn't privileging? I think that's a seriously difficult argument to be making..."
The two aren't the same thing. For example, there is what you feminists call "benevolent sexism," aka female privilege. So pervasive latent sexism can just as easily be female privilege. But once again, I think we're getting caught up on semantics.
" my personal opinion is that the army should have a check to it similar to "jury nullification" in law... Basically... if you can't get enough people to volunteer for the army to fight a war, than you shouldn't be fighting the war. And it should be entirely sex-neutral."
I agree.
"Yes, but the draft does not conscript the "average man" and would not conscript the "average woman" were it to be integrated by sex;"
I agree. I asked the question about average size and strength because I thought that the discussion would head in a direction where that might be a relevant point. I didn't intend to imply that average size/strength difference somehow justifies gender discrimination.
ok, I'm going to just go with zak's "semantics difference" because I think we are defining things differently. Personally I think my definition is better but that's par for the course in a semantics argument, and they usually don't mean that much anyway.
btw, could someone link me to the original blog post? somehow I cannot find it, only the comments in the "recent comments" window and I'm kinda feeling contextless with respect to the larger conversation lol.
Yes, here is the original article. Sorry for the confusion, it's an annoying glitch that Haloscan Commenting has failed to address.
Zak,
I got busy in the real world and realized that I hadn't answered some of your remaining questions/concerns. If you're still checking in here, here are my thoughts regarding male privilege:
Something I disagree with some people about (specifically, at the feminist website at the link I provided in an earlier comment) is that I don't think it applies to all men- or, at least to all men in exactly the same way. Considerations of race, ethnicity, class, and other characteristics always play a factor. For instance, the fact that all women used to be prohibited from voting in our nation did not confer a "privilege" on the black men who were also denied that right.
I do think that when some people use "male privilege" they need to do so with more specificity and to understand that, without using specific examples as to how (some) men are privileged in certain ways, they are unlikely to convince anyone who doesn't already agree with them.
I have seen more than a few earnest feminists try to shut down discussions on their forums and elsewhere by telling men and anti-feminists with any sort of opposing view to pretty much just shut up because "their male privilege was showing." I think a better way of dealing with people with opposing ideas is to let them speak as long as they're not being abusive, and then to counter their arguments with arguments of one's own.
I have seen more than a few earnest feminists try to shut down discussions on their forums and elsewhere by telling men and anti-feminists with any sort of opposing view to pretty much just shut up because "their male privilege was showing." I think a better way of dealing with people with opposing ideas is to let them speak as long as they're not being abusive, and then to counter their arguments with arguments of one's own.
I think there are instances where that's reasonable - for example, I've seen too many serious threads about trans rights get derailed with commenters asking "but isn't gender the problem? why do you need surgery?" or saying "I wouldn't want men in my bathroom." I think under such circumstances it is reasonable to ask someone to refrain from commenting until they have educated themselves about the issue.
Yeah, that makes sense. Every blog and forum exists for its own purpose, and if people want to keep discussions limited internally between feminists, they certainly have that right. Oftentimes, feminists disagree with each other and need/want the space to have those discussions without an anti-feminist coming in and monopolizing the thread with Femininst 101 criticisms and questions.
Fannie,
Thanks for your reply. It's interesting that you and I agree on a lot, despite looking at things from pretty different angles. I like testing my own beliefs by talking with people who disagree with me, as long as communication problems don't get in the way. It would be interesting for me to continue this discussion. I don't know if you feel the same way - perhaps to you, my objections to feminist lore are straight out of Feminism 101. I feel it would be interesting if we continued to compare views on feminism, etc - if you feel the same way, may we continue via email?
Zak,
Certainly feel free to email me and we can continue this conversation, when we both have time to response of course
Commenting by HaloScan
