michaelz13 reblogged your post and added:
I give a shit about the struggles women go through…
I wanted to contact you privately, but I cannot find any ask box on your blog, so I will post it here.
I see that you have already been called out on some of the things you have said in response to this post, so you are probably a little tired from hearing about it. But as the person you follow and reblogged this from I feel personally responsible to respond to some of your comments.
First, what I want to address is the original message, which I do not see you referencing in your comments. What the original poster is getting at, albeit through particularly inflammatory language, is the problematic ways that some men and male allies refer to women in the context of sexual assault. The language of “our wives, sisters, and daughters” is an act of erasure to the autonomy of women, placing their ideology back within context of her male “protectors.” One of the more overlooked elements of the institutionalized patriarchy is that the able and powerful male is viewed as the protector of the less-powerful female. Feminism works against this unnecessary protection, asserting that women have the inherent autonomy to keep themselves safe. By continuing to classify women in relation to the men in their lives, these efforts are violently subverted.
This is a frequent problem, as many prominent politicians, including President Obama, use such language, especially in regard to sexual assault.
It should also be added that such referential language completely disregards the woman who is not a wife, a sister, nor a daughter. The woman who has no acceptable relationships with men is subsequently erased or “disqualified” from the discussion.
The second thing I wish to address is the inflammatory language of the original poster, which I believe you reacted to the most. What I believe you take issue with the most is its generalizing nature. Reading some of the responses you received from your own post, I would say they explained the purpose of generalizing fairly well: it is meant to force ALL men to evaluate how they think and speak in reference to women. If the post merely stated that “some” men did this, many would simply tell themselves that they are not the problem, even if they really are. If you have thoroughly evaluated your language and actions and have come to determine that this is not a problem for you personally, you can simply go on your way - no one is attacking you as an individual. Generalizations are not meant to hurt, merely to instruct.
Another note about the inflammatory language: women are angry. Women are allowed to be angry. They are rising out of thousands of years of institutionalized oppression and violence and their use of language is bound to be reactionary. In your reactionary response, you equated these angry women to rape apologists, which is highly offensive and I am by no means excusing that remark. But you were angry and you were using reactionary language. And guess what? People listened. People have started a discussion. Perhaps the irate language of some feminists may offend some men, but it just might also begin a discussion from which we all can learn.
I hope I was able to address most of your post through this response (though I do know you weren’t necessarily looking for a response). I am aware that my blog is very active when it comes to feminism and occasionally veers into light misandry. However, I have a growing foundation in the study of feminist theory and evaluate the legitimacy of all feminist posts before I reblog or write them. If you take issue with any of them or have any questions, please feel free to contact me, either anonymous or not, and I would be glad to respond to the best of my ability.
