
Being a woman on the internet - Mz
http://micheleincalifornia.blogspot.com/2016/10/being-woman-on-internet_29.html
======
drcross
I personally found it sanctimonious when the author spoke of women enjoying
their freedom of wearing more revealing clothing at the same time as
_millions_ of men were walking towards the greatest fear they had ever
experienced in their lives and ultimately their death. They are not even
remotely relatable.

~~~
peterwwillis
The women might have been doing the same - if it were legal for them to do so.

Whoops.

~~~
makomk
At least here in the UK, they were more interested in demanding the government
send men off to die more aggressively and shaming individual men into doing
the same - apparently to the point that the government had to clamp down
because men critical to the war effort at home were quitting and going off to
die on the frontlines as a result. The Pankhursts in particular were very
enthusiastic about this.

------
tlb
Thanks for sharing your experience.

Historically, sending men off to war has been good for women's rights and
social status, but at the cost of many dead men. Do you think the same is true
for other projects that took men away from home? For instance, long voyages of
discovery in the age of sail?

If someday AI can replace most jobs while basic income allows everyone to live
comfortably without a job, how will that affect the dynamic between men and
women?

------
legodt
This is some next level neoliberalism. Although there are cases of periods of
military engagement coinciding with increased power for women, this view
wholly disregards the role of the military in quashing human rights abroad and
only considers the empowerment of women within the reigning imperial force.
This is not feminism, it is feminism white washed for the ruling class.
Repeatedly the united States has removed what it viewed as leftist leaders and
installed dictators in foreign countries, creating opressive regimes with poor
human rights records. Furthermore, the united States military's strong
internal structure of subservience to upper commanders and reliance on
internal courts has led to a culture of sexual violence unpunished. Luckily,
this is being eroded and things ARE getting better on this front. What about
the sexual abuse at guatonomo? What about the support of sexist regimes such
as Saudi Arabia? What about the trickle down of the military's "might makes
right attitude?" And perhaps most importantly, what of the military's
exploitation of young, poor people through shady enlistment tactics?

    
    
      :

~~~
gizmo686
She was talking about her own experiences; and argues for a particular
influence that the military has had on her. You might disagree with that
argument, but the effect that the military has on people with a different
relationship to it is entirely irrelevant to the points being made.

In response to some particular points of yours:

>This is not feminism, it is feminism white washed for the ruling class.

She is describing her own experiences and the influences on it.

>Repeatedly the united States has removed what it viewed as leftist leaders
and installed dictators in foreign countries, creating opressive regimes with
poor human rights records.

Subverting democracy and creating oppressive regimes with poor human rights is
not inherently anti-feminist (although some of the regimes might be). This is
also not relevent to the points being made in the article.

>Furthermore, the united States military's strong internal structure of
subservience to upper commanders and reliance on internal courts has led to a
culture of sexual violence unpunished.

Again, problems within the military are irrelevent.

>What about the sexual abuse at guatonomo?

I have seen no evidence that the sexual (or non-sexual) abuse at guatonomo
were sexist in nature; and so entirely irrelevent to a discussion of feminism.
(You could argue that the underlying reasons prisoners ended up at guatonomo
is sexist). Also, as with your other points, this is irrelevent to the
article.

> And perhaps most importantly, what of the military's exploitation of young,
> poor people through shady enlistment tactics?

Again, relevence to the article in particular, and feminism in general?

~~~
danharaj
Cutting up someone's post into bitesize pieces not only obscures the coherence
of their ideas, but makes it impossible to read your response.

> Again, relevence to the article in particular, and feminism in general?

> I have seen no evidence that the sexual (or non-sexual) abuse at guatonomo
> were sexist in nature; and so entirely irrelevent to a discussion of
> feminism.

> Subverting democracy and creating oppressive regimes with poor human rights
> is not inherently anti-feminist (although some of the regimes might be).

These positions demand that I ask you what you think feminism is. There is no
one feminism. The feminism of white, able-bodied women in the United States is
different from, say, Womanism (Black feminism) or Xicanisma (Mexican-American
feminism). Indigenous feminism only shares a few common themes with western
feminism: their roots reach into different histories of people living in
different conditions. This is not surprising.

Liberal feminism as it is allowed to exist in the mainstream discourse is
neutered of any radical potential to challenge the hegemonic power structures
of the world. However, for example, take anarchafeminism: In this feminism,
all power structures that dominate all bodies, not just women's bodies are
rejected. So in this conceptual framework, _by definition_ sexual abuse of
_anyone_ is sexist: It is the use of sexual violence to create a relationship
of domination between two people.

As I said at the beginning of this reply, I have to ask: What is feminism to
you? I feel like you are coming from the point of view that feminism is the
identity politics of women in the United States. I think this narrows the
scope of what feminism is to many people.

------
yarou
Anonymity (and by extension, pseudo-anonymity) confer certain benefits. For
example, the chilling effects of holding an unpopular viewpoint (increasingly
untenable in today's polarizing political environment) are entirely absent in
most online forums of discussion.

However, there is an insidious trend going on. There are those out there who
would seek to remove anonymity entirely, and there are very few places left on
the net where one can be truly anonymous.

The internet was once a great platform in that nobody cared who you were,
where you were from, what ethnicity you were, etc. Now it is a place where
ones views can be held on trial, and have real world implications.

So, forgive me for asking a potentially ignorant question, but how exactly are
you brave for holding a viewpoint that is mainstream?

------
peterwwillis
Devil's advocate: HN's pathological self-moderation towards being polite and
down voting/booting anyone who doesn't is the most likely cause of their lack
of sexist antagonism. They may not act the same at all on other forums.

Also: prohibition was arguably much more instrumental in women's lib than
"donating to the war effort". Previous wars did not have the same effect. But
women were instrumental in introducing prohibition, and speakeasies invited
them in during prohibition, and then they were instrumental in revoking
prohibition. Each of those was a victory of power and acceptance that hadn't
been seen before.

~~~
gizmo686
I am not sure what causal line you can draw between women's liberation and
prohibition.

Prohibition was caused mainly by women's groups, so it clearly demonstrated
that women had political power. However, it is not clear that prohibition gave
them political power. Indeed, the prohibition movement became so powerful
because of how narrowly tailored it was to the issues of prohibition, so it
seems difficult to make an argument that the infrastructure they built for
that fight translated into more general women's rights infrastructure.

Prohibition was also a fairly backdoor movement. It did not pass because a
bunch of advocates organized to gain mass public support. Instead, they
concentrated funds to destroy any politician who opposed them. This might
inspire fear and acceptance in the eyes of the positions at the time (in the
sense of thinking "I have to take this women's group seriously, they might
destroy me"), but would not help with the general public.

