Being a woman on the internet | Hacker News Reader

Being a woman on the internet

micheleincalifornia.blogspot.com

23 pointsMz17 comments

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.

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

Whoops.

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.

It's worth thinking about why the absence of millions of men led to women being drastically more autonomous and liberal in the ways they go about their lives. And, somehow, despite centuries of being told they weren't worth their labor, women were well capable of managing the labor of an entire industrial superpower all themselves.

>They are not even remotely relatable.

Except causally. If you are going to disagree with a central thesis of someones argument, at least acknowledge that had an argument. Preferably followed by explaining why their argument is incorrect.

Women had other great fears. 64M women died in childbirth in the 20th century, comparable to the number of male soldiers who died.

And don't underestimate the horrors that women experienced in war-torn countries.

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?

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?

I've been cast out of progressive liberal circles for pointing out that, in spite of anything President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have done for advancing women's right in America, their foreign policy decisions are fundamentally incompatible with feminism which rejects the ordering of the world along structures of violence, domination, and hierarchy. I think there is a common theme to be extracted.

Neolib establishment is gonna neolib. It's hard to convince the MIC and its proponents that its existence is antithetical to social progress when there is just so much capital to be extracted.

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?

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.

I mostly disagree.

First - it is the US government - not the US military that supports the Saudi regime and made whatever policies regarding which governments to support. I'll suggest that most US military personnel, on a personal level, are probably uncomfortable with the support for some regimes, particularly Saudi Arabia. It is you the American voter - that de-facto keeps that policy in place - not the US military.

Second - it's wrong to suggest that because the USA favoured 'right wing' or 'left wing' governments somehow equates to the 'oppression of women' and it does not stand up to scrutiny.

Russia, Poland, Croatia, Ukraine, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Moldova, Czech, Slovakia, Montenegro, Hungary, Bosnia, Serbia, Macedonia, Bulgaria, Romania, Belarus, Tajikistan, Afghanistan, Turkministan, Khazaktstan, Vietnam, Cambodia, China, Cuba ... arguably Venezuela ...

Shall I go on?

This 'short list', comprising maybe 1/4 of the planet - are of countries where totalitarian leftist regimes have viciously oppressed everyone's rights in the name of a 'glorious egalitarian ideology' and let their people rot in ruin.

In almost every scenario of American intervention, there is a pretty high degree of moral ambiguity. A Chilean Communist, with only 30% of the vote, who invites the Soviets to come in support his total takeover and to impose their version of soviet-style socialism, is hardly a situation of moral progress on the part of such leftists. After US intervention, the US backed right-wing Pinochet tortured 3K people and killed 300 on his path to power, which is obviously terrible, but it might very well have been the far less evil choice of two evils. It's wrong to imply that a soviet backed, non-populist communist takeover of such a country would have yielded much better - and probably worse.

"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."

1) 'Subservience to upper commanders' is a military thing, not a US military thing, and it's a fundamental part of the equation.

2) This is not what led to a culture of sexual violence - moreover, the US military does not have a greater level of sexual violence than many other institutions - the US military does have a group of very aggressive people (by design) which will lead to more negative outcomes. It's very good that things are getting better, but your analysis I think is off.

"What about the support of sexist regimes such as Saudi Arabia?"

Even a very simplistic geopolitical assessment of the situation answers your question quite readily. The only pragmatic option for Saudi right now is a) House of Saud or b) total chaos w/ISIS etc.. There is absolutely no 'movement' of progressives in Saudi Arabia of sufficient popular influence or power to even contemplate a secular government as we might expect in the West. There are competing houses, a somewhat oppressed Shia minority who would love to rise up and mass murder their perceive oppressors (with the help of Iran). Even in a moderately more secular country such as Syria - we can see what happens when there is instability: there is no clear path out of that Pandoras box.

Also - overwhelming majorities of people in that region support most prevailing cultural institutions such as how women are to dress and act etc. Who are you but a Western Imperialist to decided for them what is appropriate and not? Given a vote, you'd be surprised at what many people would chose. It would be far, far more conservative (in the sense of 'traditional') than most progressives would be comfortable with.

Anyhow - it's besides the point. Those policies are chosen by your elected representatives, not the military.

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?

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.

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.

I think that's a bit US-specific; the UK got votes for women in 1918, as a consequence of the war, without Prohibition. There were a few "dry" parishes, but no national success of the movement.

(HN moderates active, obvious rudeness, but feminist material tends to get flagged off the front page rapidly.)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com