Erase men from your lives: this week in feminism

[Toni]

Pointing out a racist statement is different than calling someone a racist. I would think this is something a moderator should understand.

In my view, purely as a co-member of this forum, it nonetheless alleged (I would not say 'pointed out') racism on the part of another individual poster.

I'm happy to leave it there. I will not be discussing moderating here.

My apologies for bring up moderation in a public sphere. I honestly have no wish to put you or any other mod in a bad position.

People can and do make racist statements out of ignorance or without thinking it through and considering the implications. That is not the same thing as being a racist. Pointing out a racist statement is not the same thing as calling someone a racist.

When I was a child, there were a number of playground sayings/insults/'jokes' that I don't think any of us understood as being insulting, demeaning or racist when we were 7 or 8. But as soon as I grasped that the words were referencing actual peoples, I immediately felt ashamed and stopped participating because my intention was never to insult or demean any actual person or group of persons. I've never felt that it was ok to regard anyone as 'less than' or less than deserving of the same rights and privileges that I expect nor the same responsibilities. I did not as a child and I do not now.

Yes, there are times when people use a term or a description that they are simply mimicking without realizing the negative connotations it is meant to cast on some person or group because of inborn characteristics such as race or gender or sexual preferences. Ignorance is not necessarily racism. But I believe that ignorance is a necessary if not sufficient grounds for racism to exist.

 

[spikepipsqueak]

... Being anti-feminist is not being anti-woman.....

Originally posted by spikepipsqueak[If you are against feminists, but not against other women, that leaves you only approving and supporting the rights of those women who don't think they have any rights.

Um, what? Now only women can be feminists? So, sympathetic men are not feminists but 'male allies'?

I was told that feminism is about equality of the sexes. I didn't realise it excluded people by sex.

I am confusion.

You made a statement to dissociate your hatred of feminists from any ill-will towards women in general. I pointed out the logical corollary of that very specific statement and you suggest that I am somehow excluding men from feminism.

The two arguments do not touch at any point, and you are moving goalposts.

It won't wash.

 

[Metaphor]

First, she wrote "what the racist fuck". For a pedant, you seem to have a real problem actually getting people's words right. Second, endorsement of a two-parent family is not normative whiteness - other races endorse the two parent family. So your observation is wrong. In fact, it could be viewed as "racist". .

I linked to several sources explaining it was normative whiteness. Whether some other races also endorse it doesn't not make it normative whiteness.

Using your historical posts as the standard, your unnecessary explanation of nastiness is unbelievable. I strongly suspect you would take umbrage at being called a "white racist fuck" even though, according to your explanation, you must be one.

Well, here's the deal. I actively opposed the concepts taught in critical race theory. I think it is nasty and divisive and most importantly of all, wrong. So I reject that DiAngelo or Kendi's view of the world describes me (or, indeed, the world). I don't know if Toni rejects it. If she doesn't, she is calling herself racist.

I apologise for my nastiness to Toni. She triggered me by swearing and implying I had said a racist thing, when in fact she had endorsed normative whiteness. According to the new rules of critical race theory, you can summarise entire races with a few stereotypes.

 

[Metaphor]

I am confusion.

You made a statement to dissociate your hatred of feminists from any ill-will towards women in general. I pointed out the logical corollary of that very specific statement and you suggest that I am somehow excluding men from feminism.

The two arguments do not touch at any point, and you are moving goalposts.

It won't wash.

You made an assertion with an unspoken premise: that hatred of feminism is a hatred of women in general. Why is a hatred of feminism a hatred of women?

Second, you made the even more bizarre assertion that hating a certain ideology means I do not support the rights of people who hold that ideology. How do you get there?

 

[laughing dog]

I linked to several sources explaining it was normative whiteness. Whether some other races also endorse it doesn't not make it normative whiteness.

It makes the claim meaningless. If races X, Y and Z endorse it, then it also normative whiteness, X, Y and Z. Really, your observation is vacuous.

Well, here's the deal. I actively opposed the concepts taught in critical race theory. I think it is nasty and divisive and most importantly of all, wrong. So I reject that DiAngelo or Kendi's view of the world describes me (or, indeed, the world). I don't know if Toni rejects it. If she doesn't, she is calling herself racist.

I apologise for my nastiness to Toni. She triggered me by swearing and implying I had said a racist thing, when in fact she had endorsed normative whiteness. According to the new rules of critical race theory, you can summarise entire races with a few stereotypes.

By the standards of some in this forum, since you identified something by race, it was "racist" (I don't buy that definition). But to endorse a notion, you have to accept it. Words do have meaning. There is no evidence any other poster here was endorsing any "normative" nonsense.

 

[Metaphor]

How far does that principle go? If a child only chooses to eat sugar, is that all the child eats? If a child chooses to only draw pictures in school, the teacher should not try to teah that child reading or numbers or anything else?

The principle extends to choosing toys to play with, as might have been obvious from the context of discussing what toys children can play with.

 

[Metaphor]

It makes the claim meaningless. If races X, Y and Z endorse it, then it also normative whiteness, X, Y and Z. Really, your observation is vacuous.

No, it does not make the claim meaningless. If anything, I imagine critical race theorists would say it's evidence of normative whiteness that other races express support for white practices, because whiteness is so pervasive.

Second, the articles I linked to specifically said black culture does not support it, and that black families are 'matriarchal'.

But, if you have a problem with critical race theorists summarising entire races by stereotypes, I'm glad.

By the standards of some in this forum, since you identified something by race, it was "racist" (I don't buy that definition). But to endorse a notion, you have to accept it. Words do have meaning. There is no evidence any other poster here was endorsing any "normative" nonsense.

I don't endorse the notion that all white people are racist.

 

[Metaphor]

According to this report - https://www.huffpost.com/entry/karen-keller-bans-boys-legos_n_564f5009e4b0879a5b0abc9e the school says something different.

Good catch, imo. I suspected the initial story was not entirely accurate.

The school had good reason to disavow the practice, because it's outrageous.

The confessed feelings of the teacher worry me, however. How can somebody who resents boys for playing with lego be an effective teacher to boys?

 

[Metaphor]

First, she wrote "what the racist fuck". For a pedant, you seem to have a real problem actually getting people's words right. Second, endorsement of a two-parent family is not normative whiteness - other races endorse the two parent family. So your observation is wrong. In fact, it could be viewed as "racist".

Now it's true she didn't call me a racist fuck, merely implied I said a racist thing. But I also felt obliged to point out to Toni that all white people are racist, so that she was, in fact, the racist fuck.

Using your historical posts as the standard, your unnecessary explanation of nastiness is unbelievable. I strongly suspect you would take umbrage at being called a "white racist fuck" even though, according to your explanation, you must be one.

My point is you have a real habit of such nastiness. And your explanation simply buttresses my point.

There's really no point in discussing this with Metaphor. He violated TOU and resorted to name calling and that is really not worth the effort to point it out to him or try to convince him of anything. It only wins him attention and that's all he's after anyway.

Is calling someone a misogynist name calling, Toni? Asking for a friend.

 

[Metaphor]

Dodge.





Dodge

I completely agree with your last sentence though it doesn't relate to this discussion, but have to point out that your definition of "feminist" excludes all those who just think all people are equally entitled to a chance in the world.

I agree that people should have a fair go in the world.

Assertion not supported by evidence.

What a thoughtful,substantive, and considered response. Thank you, Toni.

 

[laughing dog]

According to this report - https://www.huffpost.com/entry/karen-keller-bans-boys-legos_n_564f5009e4b0879a5b0abc9e the school says something different.

Good catch, imo. I suspected the initial story was not entirely accurate.

The school had good reason to disavow the practice, because it's outrageous.

The school did not disavow the practice - they said it did not happen. The school claims the teacher set aside a 30 minute time period for only girls to use the blocks. When I was in kindergarten about 60 years ago, my teacher had a similar rule for certain items (blocks, the sand box, and swings) so that girls and boys would have a chance at the activity that was monopolized by the other gender.

The confessed feelings of the teacher worry me, however. How can somebody who resents boys for playing with lego be an effective teacher to boys?

She did not resent boys for playing with Lego. She is upset that girls do not seem to want to play with Lego.

 

[Metaphor]

The school did not disavow the practice - they said it did not happen. The school claims the teacher set aside a 30 minute time period for only girls to use the blocks. When I was in kindergarten about 60 years ago, my teacher had a similar rule for certain items (blocks, the sand box, and swings) so that girls and boys would have a chance at the activity that was monopolized by the other gender.

Except that it wasn't a 'girls thirty minutes, boys thirty minutes' arrangement. It was a 'girls only for an exclusive time period'. And it was made the worse because the story indicates girls were still not playing with them during the exclusive access period, but the boys wanted to.

She did not resent boys for playing with Lego. She is upset that girls do not seem to want to play with Lego.

“I always tell the boys, ‘You’re going to have a turn’ -- and I’m like, ‘Yeah, when hell freezes over’ in my head,” she told Bainbridge Island Review. “I tell them, ‘You’ll have a turn’ because I don’t want them to feel bad.”

That does not sound like a woman who does not resent the boys. But perhaps I'm mistaken. The teacher did omit that when she used outside funds to purchase the Lego sets, that she intended to exclude the boys:

She asked for funding to purchase LEGO Education Community Starter Kits for three Blakely classrooms, writing that “while it’s not necessary to board up the playhouse and adopt the babies out, concrete steps can be taken to ameliorate the gender gap in the kindergarten and present engaging ways to develop girls’ spatial skills.”

What she didn’t tell BSF, however, was that the boys wouldn’t get to play with the new 1,907-piece sets.
“I had to do the ‘girls only Lego club’ to boost it more,” she explained. “Boys get ongoing practice and girls are shut out of those activities, which just kills me. Until girls get it into their system that building is cool, building is ‘what I want to do’ — I want to protect that.”

Building is not 'cool'. Building is building, and if you have the aptitude and interest you should be encouraged, but if you don't, you don't.

One wonders why Keller didn't become an engineer if building is so cool. Maybe she didn't have a teacher to force it on her gently encourage her.

 

[laughing dog]

Except that it wasn't a 'girls thirty minutes, boys thirty minutes' arrangement. It was a 'girls only for an exclusive time period'.

According to the school, it was the girls only 30 minutes. There was no need to exclude girls since there was no demand.

And it was made the worse because the story indicates girls were still not playing with them during the exclusive access period, but the boys wanted to.

Oh, the horrors - some children did not get to do what they wanted for 30 minutes Mon-Friday.

 

[Metaphor]

According to the school, it was the girls only 30 minutes. There was no need to exclude girls since there was no demand.

I don't understand what you are saying here. You mean, there was no need for an equivalent 30 minute boys-only session, because girls were not playing with the Lego anyway? It seems to me that's a good reason to get rid of the girl's session.

Oh, the horrors - some children did not get to do what they wanted for 30 minutes Mon-Friday.

Some children did not get what they wanted based on their sex. I know it's unpopular to say so, but I am tired of people discriminating by sex.

But it was worse than that. The original story, and the teacher's comments, indicate that the boys were not allowed to play with the Lego at all. And, worse, they (the boys who wanted to play with it) saw that nobody was playing with it but the teacher still refused it for them. It's one thing to deprive somebody of a resource when they don't know they've been deprived. It's another to deprive them of it when it is in front of them and being denied to them for no good reason.

 

[ruby sparks]

The school had good reason to disavow the practice, because it's outrageous.

If it was in fact only for an experimental month then it would have been ok, imo. I'm temporarily assuming that that is the truth, and not that it was only for a month because the school intervened.

The confessed feelings of the teacher worry me, however. How can somebody who resents boys for playing with lego be an effective teacher to boys?

If she did say those things (and we have no reason to think she didn't, as they are also in LD's follow up report/article) then that would worry me a bit yes, especially if, for example, I had a boy in her class.

 

[Metaphor]

If she did say those things (and we have no reason to think she didn't) then that would worry me a bit yes, especially if, for example, I had a boy in her class.

The story quotes her directly.

But I'd worry about a child of either sex in her class. While I think she would treat boys worse, I would not want a teacher imposing her gendered preferences on girls, either. I would not want a teacher to think my girl needed 'fixing' (that is, she needed to be more like a boy to make her better).

 

[ruby sparks]

But I'd worry about a child of either sex in her class. While I think she would treat boys worse, I would not want a teacher imposing her gendered preferences on girls, either. I would not want a teacher to think my girl needed 'fixing' (that is, she needed to be more like a boy to make her better).

In principle, I'm not against encouraging children to go outside their preferences, which to some extent are norms and to some extent peer norms (there may have been one or two girls who did like playing with lego, but felt they might get teased by other girls) and as I said, if it was only a time-limited 'experiment' I'd say it would be ok.

Though I think it would have been much better to explain to all that it was that. And the comments, of themselves, do sound a tad off. But even they could have been taken somewhat out of context.

 

[laughing dog]

I don't understand what you are saying here. You mean, there was no need for an equivalent 30 minute boys-only session, because girls were not playing with the Lego anyway?

Yes.

[
It seems to me that's a good reason to get rid of the girl's session.

And the sessions were ended. Are you under the impression that all social experiments are ended after one failed trial?

Some children did not get what they wanted based on their sex.

OMG - 30 minutes a day Monday - Friday. Get a grip.

I know it's unpopular to say so, but I am tired of people discriminating by sex.

And I am tired of people blowing things out of proportion.

But it was worse than that. The original story, and the teacher's comments, indicate that the boys were not allowed to play with the Lego at all. And, worse, they (the boys who wanted to play with it) saw that nobody was playing with it but the teacher still refused it for them. It's one thing to deprive somebody of a resource when they don't know they've been deprived. It's another to deprive them of it when it is in front of them and being denied to them for no good reason.

You base your outrage on a version of reality that is in dispute.


I have no doubt there are grade school teachers who give preferences to one gender over another. When I was in grade school, most teachers gave girls breaks and perks that boys did not get. I suspect it was because girls tended to be compliant and quiet while boys tended to be unruly. It wasn't right, but it was not the end of the world either.

 

[ruby sparks]

But I'd worry about a child of either sex in her class. While I think she would treat boys worse, I would not want a teacher imposing her gendered preferences on girls, either. I would not want a teacher to think my girl needed 'fixing' (that is, she needed to be more like a boy to make her better).

I also think it's fair to say that there is evidence that the tables have turned in modern/recent times and that it is now boys who are slightly disadvantaged in primary schools.

The changing curriculum may have something to do with it. More emphasis on literacy and numeracy and stuff that involves sitting still.

 

[Jarhyn]

Except that it wasn't a 'girls thirty minutes, boys thirty minutes' arrangement. It was a 'girls only for an exclusive time period'.

According to the school, it was the girls only 30 minutes. There was no need to exclude girls since there was no demand.

And it was made the worse because the story indicates girls were still not playing with them during the exclusive access period, but the boys wanted to.

Oh, the horrors - some children did not get to do what they wanted for 30 minutes Mon-Friday.

Like, is it deleterious discrimination when teachers don't call in that annoying piece of shit who was the only one who knew any of the answers and always raised his hand (a descriptor which describes me-the-younger)?

I don't think it is. It is to be expected that the people who use a particular toy, in a social toy-centered environment, be expected to set it aside and give others the opportunity and even an implied expectation to use it. It doesn't matter that there is a lack of expressed interest; what matters is the perceived lack of availability or prorpiety in using the resource as it is dominated by "icky boys".

Now, perhaps the legos are still too tainted. Perhaps they are too infected by boy cooties for girls to touch them even in this half hour window. But there may be the rare girl who sets aside her fear of cooties to play with the blocks, even if the genuine article of boy may still be repellant.

At any rate, the opportunity is probably necessary given the elements of kindergarten and elementary school culture: boys will probably always have cooties, as will girls, however they exist as social groups -- though maybe there will be such youths as are neither, or neither yet; but they shall still have cooties.

The point is, there can be all sorts of reasons why kids don't use certain toys, and some of it has to do with nonsense of gender. Some of that is personal preference, some personal preference is comorbid with gender, but a good deal of it has to do with cultural beliefs of propriety that are just fucking stupid.