All,
I
will have civility and respectful behavior from everyone involved in this discussion. There's a lot I will tolerate in the name of open discourse, but please make your points while being nice. It will go a long way towards keeping the tone academic and not personal if you remember to use pleases, thank yous, and acknowledge how others took the time to address your points or added to contributed the thread. Make sure that
you are contributing to the thread. Try not to make comments which are overly inflammatory or which might derail the thread.
While it's true
outlawed wrote:I'll try to get y'all back on topic.
So how does this video clip make you feel?
Outlawed, thank you for engaging in this topic, and it's good to see you. Long time, no see.
This is "on topic" from a
feminism perspective, but from a
"I'm looking for people to post experiences of misogyny in AMV communities" perspective, perhaps not so much. That said, you posted two excellent examples of blatant misogyny in our wider culture, and I'll go ahead and address them. Although I'm rather more curious if you have some examples which fit the latter perspective and not just the former.
Well, obviously, I find Lou Dobb's shift to the right as wholly problematic (I used to watch him on CNN and he was much more balanced). It isn't just his views on women which now appear to have regressed. Addressing this video specifically, of course I very much dislike how disingenuous I believe it portrays this actual issue. The "problem" with more women as breadwinners isn't women as breadwinners, it's the fact the wage gap means that as women continue to become a larger share of the household income, especially as the primary income, the family's total relative income and earning potential goes down. Accounting for vast variances in individual circumstances, the wage gap is something like 75 cents to the dollar. For women of color, it's more like the low 60s. For trans women, it's even less.That's intersectionality at work there. Individual women may do quite well, but women as a class
typically earn less. They are generally promoted less. And there are pressures even still today to cut work back or leave the workforce entirely for the sake of family and/or children which means that many women choose shorter career tracks,
even when they don't want to do so. It's very important to understand this distinction between
aggregate numbers and individual circumstances. Wealthy, financially independent women exist
more and more, and we have great examples of women CEOs, but the trend in general is still worrying.
As for the blog post you linked, I think her take down stands by itself. I don't feel the need to go into it. So, uh,
.
seasons wrote:I have a lot of questions about this post you just made. Should I take the time to break it down into specifics? Because I will. Let me know. Really, I'll be at work tonight with nothing but time.
I don't feel there is any purpose in doing so. I understand your frustration, and I'm sympathetic to it, but don't let it get the better of you. In this case, I believe just moving on is best. Help me keep the tone civil.
AMVGuide wrote:Can we do a better job avoiding TL;DR please? Not that I mind; I just don't have the time-- Clear and Concise is golden.
No. I choose my words very carefully. I revise a lot. I consider my tone. Did I get all of my information out there? Did I address the points I wanted to? Did I deal with any objections or potential objections? Am I being polite and civil even when I strongly disagree or am even deeply offended or hurt by the person two whom I am responding? This means I write however much it takes.
I think I've been clear and concise about the goals of this thread: to challenge misogynistic behavior when it happens, as it happens, and also to encourage folks to use this space to mention incidents which have occurred in the past they they'd like to share. I don't think those two goals are unclear in my previous statements.
One thing we can do is: Avoid making Assumptions of gender. (Most mistakes arise from assumptions.)
Even adding Sir, and Ma'am or Miss --though polite-- can lead to mistakes later on.
Granted, I still do it myself; but only if gender is outwardly displayed. And it takes experience too. (Believe me... I worked in customer service for a while... and you learn a lot about communication.)
Sure, proper gendering is important. But accidental misgendering is not a huge deal. Just a small correction and everyone moves on. Happens every day. Now,
intentional misgendering is something else entirely.
Unfortunately, the English Language doesn't have much in terms of a gender-neutral designation. In the Old West, "Hello Stranger," came pretty close... but it all depends how neutral you can say it IRL. Over the net it works pretty good; although "Hello Anon." seems to be the de-facto standard. One day, it may become standard IRL too, but the internet isn't wide-spread enough for anything like that to happen.
It's typical to use a singular form of "they." It used to be standard, but it was phased out starting about two hundred years ago as something which is formally recognised. Yet we've all used it, because language has its own life to it. Many people advocate returning to they and their in singular form (just like you can be both). I'd suggest we do that until the person identifies themselves.
Fall_Child42 wrote:Oh is this more of a trying-too-hard-to-be-serious, and thus comes off a comedic exaggeration?
Like is this poster not meant to be funny, but I'm finding it funny because of it's incorrect use of hyperbole?
is that what this is?
Because, you know, I'm no PHD in comedy or anything, but it seems to me that this comic was made to be funny.
Who knows I could be wrong. I laugh at things that weren't meant to be funny all the time.
I'm not sure what you're asking here. I think perhaps you're underestimating the power of the "humorless bitch" trope in our communties, and that includes the AMV communities. The humor value derives from the fact that this is a "sorry, not sorry" statement by the artist. She apologises for being a "feminist bitch" when in fact the apology is unnecessary because the definition being applied to her is that "feminist bitch = woman who doesn't like my jokes about women" and when it comes to stupid sexist jokes, she
is a woman who doesn't like sexist jokes. However, that is a very one dimensional definition of feminist, is insulting because of its use of "bitch," and implies that her views of the sexist jokes are not valid or not worthy of consideration.
I would say that the
primary focus of the poster is serious. The "humorless bitch" trope is a very serious issue, and the poster brings attention to that fact. Humor enhances it, but it isn't a joke.
