Linkety-Linkety

[moominmuppet]

An excellent dissection of a well-meaning but horribly misguided article in favor of chivalry

A good article on The nonviolent philosophy of clinic escorts
Feministing interviews the ever-awesome Audacia Ray, feminist, activist, co-founder of Sex Work Awareness, author of Naked on the Internet: Hookups, Downloads and Cashing in on Internet Sexploration, director of The Bi Apple, and generally rockin' woman
Metal Foam: nifty!

Comments

[rhonan.livejournal.com]

You can talk non-violence all you want. I still think the nature of clinic protests would change for the better if you had a phalanx of pro-choice rugby players physically clearing a path and isolating the clinic visitors from the religious freaks. It would certainly make a more interesting spectator sport.

[moominmuppet.livejournal.com]

You pretty much just described the 80s, prior to the FACE act. It's what was necessary, and no, it _really_ wasn't better.

First and foremost, we need to not make the scene out front about us; it's about getting the patients and their companions in safely, and with a minimum of escalation. The more escalated things are outside, the scarier it is for the patients. It's why we don't even have the pro-choice protestors directly in front of the clinic (they demonstrate on the nearest corner, instead).

[blackbyrd2.livejournal.com]

I get peeved when I see men being bashed for being chivalrous. Especially when the feminists jump on the word, and assign all those motivations to the word, without considering the actions, or the possible motivations of the men.

Because obviously, ALL men who act in a chivalrous manner are doing so with the full knowledge of the history of the word, and only in that context, and with the full intent to oppress women. And, apparently, have sex with them, because lets face it; that's all men think about.

[moominmuppet.livejournal.com]

I don't think people are necessarily assigning sexual motivations to it. I certainly don't, and I haven't generally found it described in that context when it's come up. I don't recall that being one of the points in the article, either. I also don't think that it's anything other than well-meaning, nor have I generally heard other people claim such (nor did they in the article). It doesn't change that whether the guy realizes it or not, it is rather patronizing, and the article addressed that pretty effectively, I thought.

[blackbyrd2.livejournal.com]

The only people to do so were the commenters.
I agree with everything else you say here.

[moominmuppet.livejournal.com]

This bit, especially, encapsulated it for me:

Respect for women means respecting our wants, irrespective of your ideas of what’s best for us. It means making our lives easier through substantial change rather than through “courtesies” that make you feel good and make us feel less than.

[blackbyrd2.livejournal.com]

I would like to point out though, that one can work for substantive change while still being a decent person. They are not mutually exclusive acts. Also, being deferent does not necessarily mean one is being dismissive. I show the same courtesies to soldiers (of both sexes) and I certainly don't think I'm perpetuating any sort of system of oppression, or acting on my superiority (Hah!) when I do so.

Yes, the guy who wrote the original article is misguided at best, and doesn't grasp the concept of male privelege or how it molds his motivations. I understand that the response is only relevant to the article, yet it appears to make generalized statements about "chivalry" and men. The comments seem to bear this generalized viewpoint out.

[moominmuppet.livejournal.com]

I do think that some of the commenters got something right, though. What you're describing is courtesy, or manners, or being a decent human being. It's not chivalry in any accurate use of the word, which is pretty inextricably sex and class-linked. I do the same for people; I give up my seat, open doors, etc. And I don't mind if others do it for me, although I strongly prefer when it's not obviously just because I'm female.

[moominmuppet.livejournal.com]

I just reread the article, and I'm honestly and truly lost as to where you got this reaction. Can you explain more? In this case the motivations were quite explicit -- the guy was writing about exactly why he thought this was a beneficent thing to do. I do not see the bashing, or any of the rest of this, anywhere in there, or in what I said about it.

[blackbyrd2.livejournal.com]

I have to admit it was the comments which set me off. By the time I read halfway through, I had forgotten the article. And I certainly didn't mean to imply you were doing any bashing. My apologies for not being more explicit.

[moominmuppet.livejournal.com]

Ah, I hadn't even read them; long experience with Alternet has led to an automatic skipping of most comment threads, regardless of site, before the crazy eats my brain.

[blackbyrd2.livejournal.com]

I generally try not to read comments, but slipped up here. I had not yet read the original article (have now, and agree the guy was a dip) but gathered the general gist of the conflict from the response. The idea that being courteous and working towards substantive change were mutually exclusive concepts drove me to look for someone calling this out. I didn't find it.

[moominmuppet.livejournal.com]

I read through the comments later on, and I did see a lot of people calling for a distinction between courtesy and chivalry, and arguing that courtesy is something we could all use more of.