3 ms·
I am going to convey my experience of reading this, in the hopes that it might be helpful. The message that I get from this essay is as follows. "We are angry
by escape_goat 12y ago
I am going to convey my experience of reading this, in the hopes that it might be helpful. The message that I get from this essay is as follows.
"We are angry with the way we are treated as women, by men. We are angry with the way we see other women being treated by men. Even though you might not personally have treated us like this, we know that you are a man, like other men, and we hold you responsible for what has happened to us and what we have seen. You have power, and we don't. It is by your choice and negligence as men that we are powerless and demeaned. You are not innocent, even though you think you are. We aren't interested in your opinion. You don't know anything. You need to change to make us not angry."
The reason I think this might be interesting is that I know (re-reading the letter, especially) that THIS IS NOT WHAT THE LETTER SAYS. For one thing, it is far from the only thing discussed in the letter; more importantly, however, I don't think this interpretation is all that fair a reading of what the authors have actually written. I know that it's a distorted version of what they intended to convey, and it might not even represent a correct interpretation of how any of them feel.
So why is this my impression? Your own conclusions are welcome, of course. You're free to dismiss me out of hand. But for myself, I think that it has to do with the confluence of two factors. Firstly, I don't really feel that I have a lot of power over women. Actually, I feel like women have a lot of power over me. My life is inextricably entangled with the lives of women, and it would be a meaningless, barren hell were this not so. But instead, and secondly, I am being told how separate I actually am --- and always will be --- from women. I am being told that women are not being treated as people by writers who go on to talk about women, and men, and the relationship of victimization between the two, without hardly a word about people, and how people treat each other, and how some people come to treat other people differently, and what we can do about it. Instead, I feel, I am being told that I am wrong to treat people as 'women' by people who are using the power of that identity as leverage to demand my compliance.
If feminism is the radical notion that women are people, then a feminism that is not about people is radically flawed. I don't like people having power over me, either. I don't like being treated as the avatar of someone's fears, pain, and disappointment, either. I don't like not being treated as if I'm me, really a person, either.
This is all off the cuff, and I have no time to be writing it, but that's my experience, and my reaction, and thanks for reading it.
- jberryman 12y agoI think your reaction is really interesting and honest. And isn't part of the problem that we can't really solve this problem or come to real understanding by way of open letters and blog posts? Which is not to say that this article or this discussion isn't useful, but I find when you talk in person all the sort of "point-winning" and defensive reactions and misunderstandings get dispensed with extremely quickly. And that's unfortunate because we're all so plugged in and used to doing great things and solving problems by way of posts, uploads, and comment threads. Just some off-the-cuff thoughts as well.
- FD3SA 12y agoPrecisely. This article, and all others like it just come off sounding like childish boolean logic applied to billions of people, each as different as a randomly generated hash code. If the only observation one can make about a case is that the accused has a Y chromosome and the accuser doesn't, one clearly needs to perform deeper analysis.
- litmus 12y agoI also was worried that there was something wrong with my reading comprehension. To me, one of the most critical parts of the essay seemed the most weakly written, namely the "Encouraging greater diversity in the workspace" section. Here I am thinking "ok, here comes the concrete suggestions for what men should do"--and then I'm left with a phrase without a definition. That section talks about events thrown by women for women it seems--precisely the things companies that "only pay lip service" would point to as evidence of their feminist credentials. In other words, those places and events don't look like "workplaces" at all. They may be encouraging women to work in tech "in general" and improving their skills but they are no means directly getting the women hired into the workplaces in question. So just so I get this right: When they say "Encourage diversity in the workplace" do they mean "all things being equal, hire the women", or do they mean "all things being not immensely unequal, hire the women"?