Letters to the Editor
btrader
Published Letters: 156 Editor's Choice: 4
-
I read the piece linked to by Ms. Harding and
[Read the article: See? See why I get hysterical?!?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]When I consider this statement of Harding's: "We're not looking for reasons to get pissed off -- we're trying to help other women get pissed off at the people who really deserve it instead of themselves." I started to wonder how critically she looked at Cihangir's work.
Let's assume that the sample size of 10 interviewees is in fact sufficient and a fair representation of women in the developed world across all cultural backgrounds. I'm also not sure that being rejected for giving the wrong answers after being hit with a string of clearly sexist questions necessarily qualifies as subtle sexism, but I'll assume it does.
"Victims tend to deny that they are being discriminated against...you are admitting that you belong to a social group which is evaluated negatively by others....If it is socially acceptable to question whether you are being discriminated against, then the consequences in terms of self-esteem and performance are less disastrous for the victim."
Clearly feminists have no problem admitting their membership in a discriminated against population, so I guess the issue is more for women who don't identify as feminists. This is where I get into trouble with the piece and wish Carlin were still around. At least in the US, in my opinion, the self-esteem movement has been all about unintended consequences. Getting back to Harding's concluding statement, the piece isn't about anger or advocating it. It's about rising above and avoiding destructive and unnecessary introspection in the event of sexist rejection. Of course, in the US, this becomes a delicate dance as "the system" is all about conditioning the masses that they are indeed special and rendering them incapable of objectively dealing with disappointment...which is, unfortunately, one of the guaranteed realities of adulthood.
But for me, this is really all about the concept of confrontation vs rising above. Some of Ms. Harding's past work for Salong have celebrated confrontation, anger, and the escalation of rhetoric, rather than simply rising above the fray. Juxtapose Harding's concluding line with that of the piece: "If men confirm that sexism does play a role, women are more likely to protest than if other women confirm suspicions of sexism. Cihangir: 'You could say that in their struggle against sexism, women need men more than they need other women.'"
If while pointing out sexism, perceived, subtle, imaginary or real, you use the shrillest, most condescending and alienating language possible, you're voluntarily disregarding a study that you purport to embrace.
I've always thought that if we're going to take feminism into this millennium (and I continue to consider myself a feminist even if many contributors and posters to broadsheet disagree) it will be because we've opened the tent and embraced new members of both genders. Sure, certain lyrical choices will increase page hits and contribute to flame wars on the letters pages, but are they really contributing to your goals as a feminist?
As I've posted in the past, I believe that many vocal feminists, despite their assertions to the contrary, have a real need to perpetuate sexism or at least alienate those who would otherwise give the movement critical mass. It's a perverse symbiosis...
Ms. Harding, to answer your question. Having read your post and the article you link to, no, I don't see why you get hysterical. Furthermore, if you're embracing Cihangir's work, I'm not sure why you'd continue with the hysterics.
-
@Canuckistan Bob
[Read the article: See? See why I get hysterical?!?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Very interesting post, in many ways it illustrates gadgiiberibimba's point in an earlier post: "in a sense, we are all functioning in a kind of Asperger's simulation here in comments, with very little in the way of cues about tone, for example, and odd problems of pacing and processing as we try to have a conversation in comments which can leapfrog each other and in which it is not always clear which comment responds to which."
I can speak only for myself, but not only do I respectfully disagree with your reading of my post, but I also drew entirely different conclusions from other posts you commented on...yet we both consider ourselves feminists.
As for alienating the fringe...
-
Not only
[Read the article: Save boys from tween tramps!]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Do I love the outrage, but I also love the outrage over the outrage.
As for the poster who mentioned the martyrdom contest, that would be an interesting direction to take this thread....although the jury is still out from an athletic wear standpoint....but this doesn't feel like the appropriate starting point. No different than TCF using the subject of girl crushes as the segue to "asking" that "we retire the idea that men don't also have their selfhood constantly called into question, and that being a woman necessarily comes with greater defensiveness and scathing self-scrutiny."
Of course, it is fun reconciling that post with this one.
-
As a feminist, I should prob stop reading this "blog"
[Read the article: It's (pretty) good to be a girl]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]But I do love the occasional amazing piece and get a solid chuckle from the irony and unintended humor (from my perspective) of the other posts.
As the number of contributors to broadsheet has climbed in recent months, I was wondering how the editors managed to attract so many minions?
My new theory: Broadsheet at Salon.com! Get paid to have your readers do your work for you.