So here again it's unclear how a set of traits can be identified by an outside observer as expressing a property which is given by the person 'manhood'. There are traits/expressions/ways-of-being which result in hatred of an identified group (identified by the one doing the hating), but then you link those traits/expressions/ways-of-being to a property (manhood) which is self-identified. How is it that you (the third party) are doing the linking then? — Isaac
To give a concrete example. Let's say a boss at a bank is traditionally toxicly masculine (bullying, competitive, and misogynistic). He favours the promotion of a man over an equally qualified female colleague because he somehow feels a man would be 'better for the job'. Later he finds out that the female colleague he overlooked identifies as a man.
What has happened in that instance? Has he, unbeknownst to him, not been a misogynist because he resented a man? Or has he been a misogynist all along, but the target of his misogyny is not self-identified? — Isaac
So I'd go with your latter -- he has been a misogynist all along, — Moliere
People don't identify as misogynists — Moliere
What has happened in that instance? Has he, unbeknownst to him, not been a misogynist because he resented a man? Or has he been a misogynist all along, but the target of his misogyny is not self-identified? — Isaac
Yes. I think that's the tension that many traditional feminists feel with the newer gender identity prescriptions. If there is a group that is oppressed in some way, it can't be a group that is self-identified because the oppressor does not ask questions about identity before oppressing, the object of their oppression is that group identified by them as deserving oppression and so the subject of any fight against oppression is the group the oppressor identified, not the one any other group identify. — Isaac
That's a bit oppressive of you, isn't it? If your theory is also — unenlightened
The philosopher psychologist assumes the position of superiority, which is a power relation whereby even bosses are what we say they are. The man/woman at the centre of the hypothesis is a cypher, and we do not care a jot about their identity for themselves, or whether or not they even want promotion. Of course our power is also hypothetical here - our writs do not run the world. But they are to a great extent a product of the way the world is run. — unenlightened
I think the way out of this jungle is to see that oppression is power without love. The inequality between men and women or black and white or whatever, is one of power, and that is why it is always the boss who is oppressive in relation to his minions, even though they may all have equally uncaring and prejudicial views, and the minions may have their own pecking order.
Thus masculinity becomes toxic to the extent that it identifies itself with power, and femininity with love.
Thus masculinity becomes toxic to the extent that it identifies itself with power, and femininity with love. — unenlightened
... the loving oppression which is paternalistic in nature. It comes from a place of love, but the power differential matters if the loving person is ignorant in some way of their amor's needs. — Moliere
I think this is the main reason women might be expected to present themselves as childish. I'm thinking more about Japanese culture where women are simultaneously ridiculed for behaving childishly, but the women themselves say they have to behave that way for acceptance and career advancement. — frank
Why do you call it paternalistic rather than maternalistic? Don't confuse paternal with patriarchal here. — unenlightened
The infant is helpless, so the power relation is real and necessary and its neglect would be the abuse. But even here, the nature of love is communicative - one does not force feed the infant, though one does force clean them because one literally does know better. — unenlightened
Interesting that in your example 'ignorance' is expressed as 'knowing better'. Something to look out for, along with infantilising language. But voting is for adults, and one does not marry one's father, so that particular 'knowing better' is patriarchal rather than paternal, I think. I treat my children as children, until they become adult, and then love has to grow towards respect and equality. I recall there was a radio 4 disability series called "Does he take sugar?" — a gentle reminder of how easily one can fall into that kind of ignoring, belittling ignorance. Sometimes, of course, a disability is a communication difficulty, but a communication difficulty is necessarily mutual in this sense:- one expresses inadequately and the other understands inadequately; although in the other direction of communication there may be no difficulty.
chauvinism in popular discourse is associated with men — Moliere
I just have to stipulate I'm talking about the system here, something that men and women can do -- the way that a country can be chauvinistic towards another country. That's the sort of chauvinism I mean. — Moliere
The criteria by which people socially count as women can be quite different from those which correctly count women as women in accordance with a robust theory of identity. In that respect, what matters for being a recipient of misogynist acts isn't "being a woman" (in accordance with a robust theory of identity) it's "counting as one" for practical purposes. — fdrake
Source? — fdrake
The Gender Recognition Act 2004 provides that the gender of a person with a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) becomes the acquired gender ‘for all purposes’ and recognised as their legal sex, broadly equivalent to the way sex recorded at birth is recognised in law for other people. This concept of ‘legal sex’ has been confirmed by the courts in their interpretation of the meaning of the protected characteristic of sex in the EqA. The EHRC has consistently understood this to be the position in the law as it currently stands and we have based our guidance and interventions until now on that understanding. However, this raises questions in legal interpretation and in practice. Notwithstanding the existence of statutory exceptions permitting different treatment of trans people where justified, and our guidance to explain the law, it has not been straightforward for service providers and employers to apply the law, including in areas such as sport and health services.
we have come to the view that if ‘sex’ is defined as biological sex for the purposes of EqA, this would bring greater legal clarity
There is a clear need to move the public debate on these issues to a more informed and constructive basis. This would be welcomed by the many who do not take the polarised positions currently driving public debate.
Well yes. we're back to power here, are we not? — unenlightened
Thus masculinity becomes toxic to the extent that it identifies itself with power, and femininity with love. — unenlightened
, it is also a deeply violent emotion if what we love is threatened. — Moliere
With the scenario of law, and in taking into consideration the wider system of patriarchy, I'd say that trans individuals are targeted by patriarchy as much as women. — Moliere
Consider the same scenario where a trans woman is skipped over promotion because our misogynist believes the woman is a confused man. — Moliere
There is a clear need to move the public debate on these issues to a more informed and constructive basis. This would be welcomed by the many who do not take the polarised positions currently driving public debate. — Isaac
...certainly a position I recognise. — Isaac
There needs to exist at least one definition of 'woman' (in the EHRC's case for the purposes of the Equalities Act), which is based on traditional criteria. Women (the oppressed grouping) are not having their protected characteristic adequately defended if they cannot be defined (in at least these areas) by visible biological sex traits - the traditional means by which the patriarchal system would have identified them as targets for unequal treatment. — Isaac
While I can see the utility of it for the law, there was also some utility in leaving some points as it was. — fdrake
I'm sure you see the distinction between recognising an act of misogyny in the workplace and operationalising/defining terms in the law. — fdrake
this appears quite distinct from studying "toxic" masculinity as a category of social style/personal identities, since identity of that sort is largely autonomous from the legal codes surrounding it. — fdrake
functionally it wouldn't matter what the psychological type is if it results in misogyny either way. — Moliere
But at the systemic level, clearly a biological woman (grown up as a woman) has been exposed to discrimination that a trans woman (grown up a man) has not. — Isaac
With regards to the clash with traditional feminism, this fully exhausts the area of conflict. I don't think any of those branded Terfs argued that trans women shouldn't be treated as women in everyday circumstances (and that would include an act of misogynist discrimination). It is the insistence, from many in the trans movement, that the definition of woman include trans women in all those other frames too. For example the recent Scottish bill to have birth certificates changed, which Baroness Falkner argues would undermine attempts to monitor systemic discrimination against women (much of which takes place during childhood, education etc). — Isaac
Misogyny is largely about sex. The 'othering' is sex-based, the effects are heavily sex-based (reproductive rights, treatment of female children,..). The lens through which it's examined needs to match that. — Isaac
There exists a group who are misogynist. — Isaac
I think that's true, but I'm not sure it's relevant from the perspective of what counts as a woman. — fdrake
There'd need to be an argument that past oppression experiences which are typical for women to experience are necessary for being a woman. Effectively this would exclude anyone trans. If it's treated as a theory of social identity as well as a legal classification. — fdrake
Isn't this against the point you made earlier? About the definitions of an oppressed minority should not depend solely upon the oppressor? Did I misread? — fdrake
Though I imagine we're having the frames discussion you highlighted at the end of your post. — fdrake
Perhaps a decent angle to come at this from, giving charity to the "cancel culture brigade" is that the frame separations are also politically charged, perhaps precisely because it's difficult to tell when the frames have switched. — fdrake
there'd be nothing stopping the a code from having trans misogyny guidelines which enable some of the same legal protections. — fdrake
It's a pretty fine line between an organisation allowing someone into a space because legally biological sex lets them preclude it vs not allowing someone into a space under that same law because they're not seen as who they are. You see what I mean? — fdrake
I doubt it makes sense treat its vectors as independent. Since we already stipulated that there are plenty of times trans women will be the recipient of acts which would be called misogynist acts if they were directed toward a cis woman. That articulation necessitates an underlying construct - gender. — fdrake
Yeah. Couch this in terms of race and see how it sounds. Does one need to have had the past oppression experiences of being black to suffer the loss of privilege associated with that experience? Yes. Without a shadow of a doubt. If I had some random medical condition which darkened my skin, it would not be the same as having been raised black, I don't inherit that identity, just by meeting the criteria currently - there's a history which informs our current identities. For women (biological) that history is their childhood. For trans women it cannot be. That creates two separate identities (insofar as the idea of identities makes any sense at all, which I'm not sold on) — Isaac
'Woman' always was a loose term which meant slightly different things in different circumstances, it never cropped up as an issue because there were so few non-overlapping elements, but the criteria for membership was never stable. — Isaac
Yeah, In the Equalities Act as we have it right now, gender reassignment is a protected characteristic. I'd like to see more gender identity types included than that. I think gender reassignment is too high a bar to qualify. Merely being trans should be enough, like being gay is. — Isaac
Reminds me of a thing I noticed about some US women - voices like the Chipmunks — unenlightened
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.