"Last fall, all seven city council seats were up for grabs. On 7 November, after a campaign season packed with candidates, Minnesota’s capital city elected its new city council – comprised entirely of women. Last week marked the group’s inauguration.Noecker’s fellow council members – Nelsie Yang, Cheniqua Johnson, Hwa Jeong Kim, Saura Jost, Anika Bowie and Mitra Jalali – are all women of color and, like her, progressive in their politics. All council members are also below the age of 40.In 2019, Nevada became the first state with a majority-women state legislature. Today, women make up 62% of the Nevada state legislature – the largest percentage of any state.But experts have noted that no major city has achieved the feat of electing an all-woman city council like St Paul.Notably, St Paul has a population of roughly 300,000 people, the second most populous city in the state after fellow Twin city, Minneapolis. Around 46% identify as a race other than white, according to the US census."
More at The Guardian. The City Council president offered these comments from the podium at the inauguration of the council:
“If you read my Twitter replies lately, the responses sure are something. They’re fighting for their lives in there,” Jalali said. “Let’s just say a whole lot of people who are comfortable with majority male, majority white institutions for nearly 170 years of city history are suddenly sharply concerned about representation.”“My thoughts and prayers are with them in this challenging time,” she added, the crowd erupting in cheers.
Worth mentioning: The City of Asheville, North Carolina, also has an all-female city council, making state history in 2020.
Reposted from just a week ago to make readers aware of the lengthly comment thread (50+) about the subject matter of this post. I get quite a few compliments on TYWKIWDBI, most of which boil down to "nice blog", but the one that I remember and cherish the most is from a reader who said that TYWKIWDBI was the only blog they read where they enjoyed reading the comment threads, and specifically clicked on the comments. I do review and curate all comments before they get posted, weeding out trash, spam, and trolls, but I try to leave in opposing viewpoints, which sometimes results in long and well-thought-out exchanges from readers who are both knowledgeable, opinionated, and... civilized. There are certainly an abundance of topics in modern news cycles on which one is not going to change one's mind, but it is still useful to hear/read well-expressed differing viewpoints.
If you add up their ages, is the result less than the combined ages of the two oldsters running for president?
ReplyDeleteThis is the most hopeful political event I have seen in awhile. Thanks.
ReplyDeleteI hope they were not elected because of their gender, age, or skin color, and they are actually capable of doing a good job. It's important to the city but even more important for future candidates.
ReplyDeletexoxoxoBruce
Jesus, Bruce, who hurt you? You're honestly concerned that young women of colour are having too easy a time of it?
Delete"Who hurt you?" I hear that one in the context of any critique of feminism; that is, no matter the ridiculousness of any feminist position. It's an ad hominem attack. Hang in there Bruce.
DeleteI think there was a quote in the Guardian article claiming this was the most diverse city council ever elected. I laughed so hard I spit out my coffee. Then I guessed St. Paul has no White men, Black men, Asian men or Gay men, so why would there be a man on the council? Next, I assumed the entire population of St. Paul is under 40, hence no one over that age could possibly be elected. I assumed there's no one in a wheel chair in St. Paul. And probably everyone is middle class and probably all these women are middle class. It all makes sense now. 30-ish women with diverse skin tone is a huge step forward in diversity-type representation given the unique nature of St. Paul. Can this work for the whole country? A great leap forward for us all? I hope it will someday be true that there is no one over 40, and White men, Black men, Asian men and Gay men vanish so we can have real diversity in government everywhere.
ReplyDeleteExactly brother, but we need to be really conclusive and add in to your list: real men, self-made men, right thinking men, best men, Amen, manly men, hard and hard working men, left-handed men, etcetera.
DeleteWhat you’re describing is tokenism, which is diversity for its own sake. Men weren’t excluded here. Voters chose a group from backgrounds that have historically been excluded, and they just happened to all be women.
DeleteJalali said: “Let’s just say a whole lot of people who are comfortable with majority male, majority white institutions for nearly 170 years of city history are suddenly sharply concerned about representation.” ... My thoughts and prayers are with them in this challenging time,” she added, the crowd erupting in cheers."
Deletehttps://i.pinimg.com/originals/0c/4a/73/0c4a73d8a49739ee9d4ca6e41d118a1b.png
Yes Nepkarel, I read the quote. Just the sort of snarky nonsense that'll get Trump elected again. I wonder if anyone ever thinks about how this sort of thing affects black male voters, for example:
Deletehttps://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/12/us/politics/biden-black-democrats.html
Are you now saying diversity matters?
DeleteJust the sort of snarky nonsense that'll get Trump elected again.
DeleteI'm just curious what the snarky nonsense is in the statement. That's quite literally what white men have been telling everyone else for centuries.
The fact that such a statement is taken as offensive shows the hypocrisy.
And finally, it's a little much to get lessons on the hurtfulness of snark from the "fuck your feelings" crowd. Duck your feelings indeed.
Snarky white men, yes.
Delete@Crowboy-- that's dumb-- when has there been a counsel of all men with that many races, backgrounds, and ethnicities? Likely never as when it's all men, it's also mostly one race/ethnicity because bigots like to bigot. Gender is just one dimension.
ReplyDeleteGoing from one kind of homogeneity to another is what's "dumb." Well, if we accept the premise that "diversity" is a good thing. Not sure all the DEI folks really believe this--well, they don't. It's more a question of scoring points for one phenotypical tribal group or another, in an ultimately self-defeating identity war.
DeleteNaw, he's technically correct. You can't claim it's diverse when it's only women under 40. But let's remember, from the article, "a whole lot of people who are comfortable with majority male, majority white institutions for nearly 170 years of city history are suddenly sharply concerned about representation"
DeleteCrowboy, you’re making a strawman argument here. I believe I found the Guardian article you referred to and it offers a detailed analysis of why this council is not and it has nothing to do with “point scoring”. There have been historic barriers to women even being able to run for office, and this is just a sign things are changing.
DeleteMen weren’t excluded here. They just weren’t elected. That’s democracy.
"Men weren’t excluded here. They just weren’t elected. That’s democracy."
DeleteThat's what's got 'em scared.
But if this was a council of 100% 60 year old white men I'm kinda guessing this would not apply: Women weren’t excluded here. They just weren’t elected. That’s democracy.
DeleteIf this were a council of 100% 60 year old white men it would look like a lot of councils around the country, which is why it wouldn't be newsworthy.
DeleteAnd if you read the Guardian article beyond the photo caption it cites a study conducted from 2010-2023 that found that "Several barriers to women’s political representation were discovered: women’s unequal access to monied networks in campaign fundraising, low salaries for public service jobs and political party influence."
So, you're right, "They just weren't elected" wouldn't apply because there have been obstacles to women in politics that 60 year old white men haven't had to deal with.
A council of 100% 60 year old white men wouldn't be newsworthy because it would look like a lot of councils that have existed, and still exist, around the country. Women face a lot of barriers to even running for office that 60 year old white men don't.
DeleteYou can certainly make the argument that the full-time rearing of children WAS an obstacle to women doing a whole lot of things men did; and that's a really solid position in describing 1924. In 2024, those obstacles are gone, with women in the majority in med school, law school, etc. So, why do feminists live in the past? Well, it's ideologically useful to continue describing women as an oppressed, victimized group, even as they are clearly in the ascendancy (hmm...the St. Paul city council, maybe...). I can imagine those of this same mentality celebrating the day a Harvard Law School graduating class is 100% female. I see no difference in the logic that would pertain. Or a 100% female Supreme Court--even if every member is a political clone of Nikki Haley. At some point, we might wonder, Where are the men? What happened here? Did we get this right when we made girls winners and boys losers? Is there anyone on the left willing to look at the evidence? Is it possible male potential is being lost due to a gender war? I think ideology makes any such discussion blasphemous on the left. Wanna be canceled? Ask these questions. Bottom line: homogeneity is not "diversity" and it doesn't take a lot of heavy mental lifting to comprehend the concept. PS: My US Senators were both women for decades (one beginning 30 YEARS AGO). I don't remember them playing the gender card. They just did the work.
DeleteCrowboy, no one here has described women as "an oppressed, victimized group". Could you please not put words into people's mouths? Also women face many more obstacles than just being tasked with child-rearing, which still largely falls to them even now. The Guardian article, which you brought up, cites a report that found challenges to women in politics, or just entering politics, from 2013 to 2013. This is not old history. It's not "living in the past".
DeleteTo be clear just because women face obstacles that their male counterparts don't doesn't make them "an oppressed, victimized group." It just admits the reality that male privilege and sexism still exist, according to the experiences of women, and that gains by women still deserve to be celebrated because the challenges they've had to overcome are different from, and sometimes greater than, those men face. And celebrating the accomplishments of women doesn't make boys "losers". Men aren't going anywhere. If some are displaced by women who prove themselves more qualified in a more level playing field, well, men have to work harder then.
You bring up a lot of things that are tangential at best, if not unrelated to the subject. Perhaps it's not the questions you ask but the way you respond, or don't respond, to the answers.
If you want to rain on the city council's parade feel free to keep doing so. You seem to have a number of reasons for doing so. But please don't say the St. Paul City Council is "homogenous" just because all the members are women, or imply that they only won by playing "the gender card". If you want to make honest arguments you'll have to look deeper than that, and provide evidence.
I'll be very excited when women are doing 100% of the really dirty jobs in America vs nearly 0%. In such a reversal, women would then be doing the 95% of dying on the job, and incurring 95% of the disabling injuries, as is now the privileged province of males. If only men would work harder. Try saying that to the guy working on that oil rig at 30 below. I could cite examples all day long.
DeleteHow does that “example” have to do with the city council? Are you saying there are jobs men do that women shouldn’t?
DeleteI'll be very excited when women are doing 100% of the really dirty jobs in America vs nearly 0%
DeleteNurses and day care workers could not be reached for comment, as they were too busy changing diapers. Neither could all the female agricultural pickers.
It is nonsense to say women don't do dirty jobs.
Also, it's an distracting statement because it's not relevant to the current discussion. The amount of dirty-job participation is not a factor relevant for elected office.
No, I'm saying there's a female aristocracy in the US where women camp on the indoor jobs while men keep on doing the brutal outdoor work. If equality was really a thing, this might be interesting. Bottom-line problem: Poor men and women (anyone in the bottom 50%, all races, where net worth is zero) are experiencing tremendous financial stress and this will never be addressed by moving more affluent, highly educated women ever further up the food chain. It's an illusion of social justice. So, instead of celebrating a gender monolith on the St. Paul city council, we ought to be looking at what matters: What do these people stand for? Who's money got them elected? What are they going to do about the quality of life of the people most brutalized by the neo-liberal policies of the last 40 years? The ruling class just loves all this attention to identity as long we stay away from class identity. The gender of a person gives me no comfort. Must I cite examples?
DeleteYou really believe there's a "female aristocracy" that's oppressing men and some women in this country and that's why male privilege and sexism don't exist?
DeleteThe questions you're asking about whose money got them elected and what they're going to do for the people they represent have been asked, and are asked of every politician who runs for office. Why direct it specifically at these women who didn't conspire to be a "gender monolith" but worked hard enough to outperform the men who were also running?
"...these women who didn't conspire to be a "gender monolith" but worked hard enough to outperform..."
DeleteConspire is too strong a term, IMO, but according to the NYT, the 7 women went together when they filed to run and they campaigned together, even going door-to-door in the various Wards as a group. Nothing wrong with that, looks like it worked out for them.
No, I'm saying there's a female aristocracy in the US where women camp on the indoor jobs while men keep on doing the brutal outdoor work.
DeleteYou're moving the goal posts. You said women weren't doing really dirty work. I cited a few, now you're moving to outdoor work, ignoring the outdoor agricultural work and a bunch of other outdoor professions that women do.
Tangentially related:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.visualcapitalist.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/Racial-Diversity-in-the-US_Site.jpeg
Election results:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.mprnews.org/story/2023/11/07/st-paul-city-council-election-results
Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) in St. Paul:
https://www.rankyourvote.org/saintpaul
Interesting data. None of the male candidates were even close.
DeleteWell, to be fair, some female candidates did not do so well either. Also worth noting that candidates do not run under any party affiliation, though it is likely obvious which party party they are with just by looking at endorsements.
DeleteAlso of interest
Voter turnout: 30.2% (164,141 registered, 49,659 voted)
Off-year elections generally have a lower turnout. Many local news outlets were predicting a turnout of 20-25%.
(https://www.ramseycounty.us/sites/default/files/Elections%20and%20Voting/Abstracts/Saint%20Paul_signed.pdf)
Overall, the candidates were a fairly diverse group. Here is synopsis of the candidates in each ward.:
https://sahanjournal.com/democracy-politics/st-paul-city-council-candidates-race-election-guide-2023/
This shows endorsements: https://www.mprnews.org/story/2023/10/30/election-2023-st-paul-council-candidates
Here's a more general question: How's this gender fixation working for us? In 2016 we could have nominated Bernie Sanders, who would have beaten Donald Trump. Instead we nominated an unlikable, neo-liberal war hawk who repeatedly played the gender card and insulted poor white men and their families with her "deplorables" dog whistle. Feminists (i.e., affluent, centrist liberals like Gloria Steinem) were obsessed with having the first female president. Women were shamed for supporting Sanders.
ReplyDeleteAny learning take place? Not from what I can see. How did we get Kamala Harris around our necks if not by the same idiotic logic? Anyone see Harris as an asset, especially next in line to fragile Biden? So, the monocrop St. Paul City Council? Cause for a knee jerk celebration? Just 'cause we got us more women folk in office? I object to this kind of sexism.
And, if you read the Guardian for any length of time, as I have, you'll notice its editorial bias on gender. The coverage of the St. Paul story is as much editorial as news. All predictable. None of it helpful.
Thank you for the comment re Bernie, which I agree with.
DeleteYou can't be certain Sanders would have beaten Trump. After all Clinton got almost 2.9 million more votes than Trump did. No one knows if Sanders would have gotten more just because he's a man.
DeleteMy opinion has nothing to do with his genitals or chromosomes. He would have outperformed Hillary because his program appealed to working-class Americans. He would have been labeled a "socialist" by Trump, but that isn't as much a slur nowadays as in years past, and is frankly appealing to young voters.
DeleteI’m sorry, I didn’t mean to implicate you since it was Crowboy who blames feminists for Trump’s win in 2016.
DeleteDogmatic feminists certainly had a role in nominating Clinton and defeating Sanders in the the 2016 primary. So, in part, I do blame feminists for the rise of Trump. But equally interesting is the failure of identity obsessed Democrats to fully understand that they've pitted tribal identity groups against the working class. Or at very least abandoned working class people in large numbers, as the crack cocaine of phenotypic sentimentality became the drug of choice. I'm fine with being described as a "class reductionist."
DeleteUntil the Democratic Party gets further beyond its gender, race and sexual orientation fixation and begins to unite the majority of Americans around common economic interests (MLK had this 100% right), there will be little forward motion on true economic justice. We can keep blaming the "other guys," but the Dems lost their souls to neo-liberalism and identity pandering long ago.
I don't know why you're holding Democrats solely responsible for pitting "tribal identity groups against the working class". You should look at which party has made it more difficult for women to access health care, banned books by Black authors, and keeps pushing to roll back LGTBQ rights.
DeleteIt's also insulting to the memory of Martin Luther King Jr. that you would claim he'd agree with you that race is not an issue in this country.
The failure of Democrats is most disturbing and interesting because this is the party that's supposed to effectively pursue economic justice. I don't expect this from Republicans and conservatives. Blaming people on the right for failure on the left is a perfect recipe for more failure on the left. My reference to MLK is best understood in his intentions for the Poor People's March on Washington. Poor blacks and poor whites. Listen to NPR for the next 1,000 years and see if there's one reference to white poverty. And yet, there are 30 million whites below the poverty line. Poor blacks have more in common with these poor whites than they ever will with rich women or rich blacks or anyone who has climbed the ladder of success in an aspirationally gender blind, color blind glorious future of meritocratic combat. We lost all class consciousness to a grievance cult. It's a great irony, but Trump, the ostentatiously rich blowhard, understands this, intuitively if nothing else. Sadly, especially materially comfortable Dems are still at the self-serving trough of identity ideology, signalling virtue. A person like Hillary Clinton could play the gender oppression card while having a 3 million dollar wedding for her daughter. While Clinton called people deplorables, The Donald was tapping their anger. Bernie actually talked about this and affluent white feminists were sure to use it against him. Are we learning anything?
DeleteYou haven't responded to a single thing I've said. You expect Democrats to focus solely on economic issues as though other issues don't exist, as though there's not another party with its own priorities. Also the " an aspirationally gender blind, color blind glorious future of meritocratic combat" you describe doesn't exist. It's difficult to tell whether you really mean it to be "future" or present since you say there are those who have "climbed the ladder of success" to reach it. But the identity issues you claim should be ignored still permeate our society. That's part of why Trump, who saw white men as his primary base and tried to appealed to them through racism and sexism, failed to gain a majority even in 2016.
DeleteAlso I listen to NPR and there are regular reports on poverty and economic inequality. But if you expect a single source to only address the issues that concern you you're going to be disappointed.
As for the women of the St. Paul city council, do you have any evidence to back up the implication that they got where they are through anything other than hard work?
Pretty sure I'm "responding" though what I'm saying may be unwelcome. Here's an exercise you might try over the next year: Listen to NPR and every time you hear "disproportionately affecting people of color" substitute the more inclusive "poor people." It'll be obvious it works 98% of the time. But the affluent white liberals, who fund NPR, are armchair race and gender identity warriors, which costs them nothing, as opposed to class warriors which might actually cost them something.
Delete"Hard work": The hardest "hard work" is roofing houses, producing crops, commercial fishing, logging, truck driving, etc. Stuff that often destroys your body by the time you're 50. Are council members hard workers? Politicians in general? They're certainly ambitious. Many had to "work" at getting their elite educations. Nikki Halley appears to be a hard worker by some definition. In any case, I don't think I said anything about the St. Paul council being lazy. I'm sure they're quite animated. Energetic.
You've either ignored or waved away things I've said in favor of your own views. I've asked you for evidence and your response is vague insults against "affluent white liberals, who fund NPR" and an unrelated definition of what you believe is the only thing that qualifies as "hard work".
DeleteI never even suggested you "said anything about the St. Paul council being lazy" but when you bring up "the gender card" in this context it sounds like you're implying they didn't win their elections fairly. If you think that I'll ask again: do you have evidence? Do you have any basis for thinking they won't try to do the best for their constituents?
You may have missed my point. These women, on the St. Paul council, could be the best people on earth. Every one a Bernie with a vagina. But here's what I think you may be thinking I should do: Celebrate the election of a monolithically under-40 and female council BECAUSE it's a monolithically under-40 female council. And further, to ask no questions about whether or not it might be unhealthy to have a lack of diversity masquerading as diversity. As in, to not ask, "Is there anything wrong with this picture?" If this was Marjorie Taylor Greene or Sarah Palin, cloned seven times, would I be expected to cheer? To paraphrase MLK, I dream of the day we can look beyond the shape of a person's genitals and instead see the content of their character--and the courage in their political and moral philosophy. My other point is that all this nonsense is impeding any real examination of what economic justice might mean in America and who might pursue it. On that basis, I see no "evidence" this can be accomplished by phenotypic type. None at all.
DeleteAll I've asked you to do is provide evidence to back up your criticisms. You claim this group isn't really diverse because no men are represented. You asserted that there's nothing historic about this election because, aside from being tasked with child-rearing, women have always had the same opportunities as men. When you claim there's a "female aristocracy" that oppresses the lower classes, especially white men, and "the gender card", you're making allegations that, so far, you haven't supported with any evidence.
DeleteYou don't see anything worth celebrating in the election. That's your opinion and you're welcome to it. But don't tell others how they should interpret it as though you have access to special knowledge.
Evidence the council isn't diverse: See photo. I've said that this is not 1924, but 2024 and that a female presence in politics is far from new. I think there's plenty of evidence for that; I cited my own state where female senators dominated for decades.
DeleteTo the question of oppression: As women become more visible in their roles as members of the ruling class (as opposed to less visible beneficiaries), they become the visible oppressor. Their gender does not give them a dispensation. Does that assertion require evidence? Seems self-evident to me. (Perhaps you have evidence that females are innately morally superior to males, which allows them some sort of pass. If so, please provide.)
Yes, I don't see a cause for celebration in the photo of the St. Paul City Council. Because, as I've said, I contend there's no correlation between sex and justice seeking. Nor does it make sense that a 100% female governing body is proof of gender justice; in fact, it's the opposite.
Let's extend this to imagining a state legislature that's 100% female and all under 40. Anything amiss? Any cause for wonderment? Or time to pop the champaign? The whole US Congress? (We know RBG wanted a 100% female Supreme Court. I wonder if nine Amy Coney Barretts was what she had in mind.)
I get it that people (many feminists) see this as a war that women must "win." In my opinion that's a losing direction and a fraud. Especially as women are so seemingly reluctant when it comes to doing even 5% of the many shit jobs men do, as mentioned above. Therein lies your aristocracy.
You say "the council isn't diverse". That's your opinion. You're offering your evidence, but others have offered evidence to the contrary. Either way it's still an opinion.
DeleteYou say "As women more visible in their roles as members of the ruling class (as opposed to less visible beneficiaries), they become the visible oppressor." This idea that women pose a threat is a matter of opinion, not a fact, and there are plenty of examples of women generally having fewer rights than men. See health care, for instance.
You don't see a cause for celebration in the photo. As I said previously that's your opinion. You can say all you like but nothing will make it a fact, nor is there any merit in your imagined scenarios.
Please don't say "your aristocracy". That's attributing your beliefs to me. You're the one who used the term "female aristocracy". I appreciate that you clarified what you meant by that, though. You mean that, according to your standards, men work harder and are more willing to take on "shit jobs" than women. This is also an opinion, based in terms as you define them, not a fact.
I hope you'll realize that there's an important distinction here.
Golly, yes, we're exchanging opinions. This is understood. My opinion and your opinion.
DeleteAs to any "threat": It's not women that are a threat; it's a lack of critical thinking that threatens us. That is, along the way to creating a more just world, as opposed to one in which we substitute illusions of progress based on phenotypic score keeping. I prefer class-based approaches.
As to the notion that women have fewer rights than men in the arena of health care: Women absorb far more health care resources than men and also live about five years longer. Women commit suicide at about 25% the rate of men. As I've mentioned, industrial effects on health are absorbed mostly by men; that is, on the job death and injury.
But, here's what's most important, if you look at health care from a socioeconomic perspective instead of a gender-fixated perspective, I think you'll see that it's poor people who have less "rights" in the medical arena. That is, poor people--men, women, children--are not well served. In fact, the bottom 1% of Americans die 30 years younger than the top 1%. Notice that's not the top and bottom 1% of women exclusively; the poor are equally male and female. (Related: 80% of the on the street homeless deaths in the US are male.)
I think it's a grave mistake to divide people by gender and race where something like health care resources are concerned. It's the poor that suffer and we ought to care about poor men as much as poor women. This applies to housing, transportation, education, etc.
Another way of thinking about this: compare the health care received by the top 10% of women with the bottom 10% of men. Then try to make the argument that it's women who are losing in the system. Affluent men and women win together, on every level, and poor men and women lose together, on every level. Continually claiming that people suffer by gender, rather than by virtue of their class is a really unhelpful, but well entrenched bit of feminist dogma...in my opinion.
Similarly, the interests of the poor are not served when we divide them by race. Another subject.
"Golly, yes, we're exchanging opinions."
DeleteInsisting someone else's interpretation of data is wrong and telling me I should not only go out and search sources but what you believe I should conclude from those sources is not "exchanging opinions". That's telling people what to think.
When I talk about women's healthcare I'm not talking about distribution of resources. I'm talking about the level of regulation and the fact that women are subject to restrictions that don't exist for men. Women of color especially have a much harder time even getting access to health care. You may think it's a mistake to look at things in terms of gender or race but we don't exist in a colorblind, gender-blind society. Ignoring those issues isn't going to make them go away.
Perhaps it's hard to see that, though, when your opinion is that society is designed to benefit women because, in your opinion, men do 95% of the "hard work".
Addendum on health care: I support 100% government funded universal health care to include state of the art reproductive medicine (see France and the rest of the civilized world). While I don't discount the principles of those who see abortion as murder (in fact I have some respect for them, including the millions of women who oppose abortion), it's my opinion that abortion should be available to those who seek it.
DeleteAs things stand, there is obviously less availability in some US states (thank you Amy Coney, et al). I see this as a step backward, but NOT ONLY AS A WOMEN'S ISSUE. Men are also heavily impacted where reproductive medicine is missing or compromised. Here again, when considered by class, the rich woman, from the most backward US state will have little trouble securing an abortion in the many parts of the US where abortion is safe and legal. The poor woman and her supportive partner? Maybe not at all.
To further complicate the matter, there is not one US state or country in the world where a man can end a pregnancy in cases where no consensus is achieved. At the same time, said man is, at very least, financially responsible for the results of an unwanted (in his view) pregnancy. As a men's rights issue this is not trivial. In my opinion, men should have the right to opt out on a pregnancy when there is no consensus, assuming we're talking about an environment where abortion is available.
Would letting men opt out lead to a materially lower standard of living for offspring? It could, but I'd rather see this addressed through a guaranteed annual income for all parents, if not the entire society. Coercing men into supporting a child they do not desire, while women have unilateral say in whether a child is born is not my idea of honoring the rights-responsibilities social contract.
If there's any possibility it can be construed that I'm saying men should be given the right to unilaterally force the termination of a pregnancy: nope, not what I've said.
So you’re continuing to frame things primarily in terms of how they affect men because you believe men are oppressed, in spite of your insistence that all considerations should be gender-neutral. And you’re opposed to framing things in terms of race except, as above, when you warned of supposed harms fo Black men resulting from women being elected to office.
DeleteFinally i am thinking critically. Don’t assume I’m not just because I’m not framing things according to your terms or coming to the conclusions you expect.
If we are going to break things down by gender, I think it's important to look at how issues affect both men and women. That's kind of unavoidable unless we imagine men don't exist as beings with moral or material interests. It seems to me the St Paul article opens that can of worms.
DeleteBut I think I've been pretty clear, or as clear as I know how to be, that we ought to be "framing" things in "terms" of class. This theme has run through every one of my comments.
I'm saying identity ideology, other than economic identity, is problematic and impoverished as a platform for moving forward on economic justice. I think we know this on the basis of the terrible results we see in America today, after many decades of identity politics myopia on the left: housing insecurity, student debt, a shitty medical system, shorter life expectancy, more homelessness, a wider wealth gap, etc.
BTW, props to everyone for conducting a heated discussion on a civil level (and Godwin's Law has not been triggered yet).
ReplyDeleteThere must be room for Hitler somewhere in this conversation.
DeleteTo your addendum: I appreciate your curating of many a conversation, over many years.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I appreciate the blog in general, which I mentioned years ago was the only one I followed. Still the only one. Still excellent. (I'm thinking it's been 15 years of reading posts? Wild guess. Amazing stuff.)
Huh-- I actually disagree that this is civil. It's an attack on women and diversity being made under a veneer of politeness. It's not actually polite. It's not actually civil. It's some dude questioning that anything that does not include white men could possibly be diverse, even though there are many directions to diversity. And lots of time was wasted engaging with that. Classic Sealioning (but what about the men?), which is a "polite" way of attacking marginalized groups.
ReplyDeleteOne star.
Anonymous, you are clearly referring to Crowboy's side of the discussion. In your view, should I be deleting his comments rather than let them be posted?
DeleteAdding-- what a way to turn something that should have been a celebration of progress to yet another attack on women's progress. No matter how "polite" it's still a message that we're not allowed to celebrate anything that breaks the status quo. I'm really disappointed that this is being lauded as civil discourse.
DeletePoint taken. What do you think I should have done?
DeleteI'm not an expert on how to deal with sealioning, but definitely not lauding it!
DeleteMinnesotastan, your blog, your rules is my go-to position. That said, you did ask (not me but the question is there for the answering) what you should have done.
DeleteI've engaged with Crowboy once. It was not pleasant and I've not commented since. However, I've read every comment they've made and some of their positions on women, diversity, and politics are almost word for word how MenGoingTheirOwnWay (MGTOW) think and talk. If I'm correct, this means they have a cadre of fellow believers who've already had every conversation reflected here so they come with an arsenal of whataboutisms and deflections. Which leads me to what you can do differently for next time.
When the topic goes totally off track with the 'look over there', false equalities, or 'alternative facts, nip those comments in the bud. Don't delete, show the spanking so that others who want to try the same thing understand such bad behavior and manners will not be tolerated.
I know you don't monitor the blog constantly so this would have to be as you can schedule such a thing. Maybe it's not worth it? Ultimately it's not my decision.
Gray One - "nip those comments in the bud. Don't delete..." I'm not sure how to nip comments without deleting. I can delete invisibly, or delete leaving a note "this comment has been removed by an admin" but neither of those show viewers what was omitted.
DeleteI shall clarify. When Crowboy says this:
Delete"To the question of oppression: As women become more visible in their roles as members of the ruling class (as opposed to less visible beneficiaries), they become the visible oppressor. Their gender does not give them a dispensation. Does that assertion require evidence? Seems self-evident to me. (Perhaps you have evidence that females are innately morally superior to males, which allows them some sort of pass. If so, please provide.)"
They start with logical fallacy - that women were silent 'beneficiaries' from the patriarchy when history (not just that written by the ruling class but that as told through the arts) is quite clear that any benefits were outweighed by the costs.
You value facts and education, not just a belief in a thing, at least that is the impression I've gleaned from reading your posts. Just state the facts. That it's a partnership, a balance of all things that make the world work. That if men hadn't valued the input of their female spouse... I could make the argument for days but this is not the time nor space. And no one, I repeat no one has ever automatically changed their mind over a conversation on the intertubz. It takes time and research and a curiosity of Hmmm, that's odd.
Let me know if I need to be clearer. I tend to be fuzzy sometimes.
Crowboy sure loves to gloss over all the obstacles while cisgender males created for women. Until 1974 women couldn't even have credit it their own name and it took an act of Congress to make it so. No market equality for women! They also, and I know they are going to come after me for this but it bears saying - they also are part of the "if it didn't happen to me then it's not an issue" crowd. I stand by my assessment that Crowboy is part of the MGTOW movement. Their words and beliefs dovetail tighter than a Amish made joint for a dresser.
ReplyDeleteAlso - the MGTOW crowd has yet to 'go their own way'. Instead they reside in their chat rooms complaining how no one else recognizes their great contributions to life, taking credit for every act a male has ever achieved while slamming anything a woman has done. There were blogs dedicated to covering the movement but reading all their toxic conversations wears on a person. If one exists today I'm not aware of them, and I've been looking.
I'll just note that I'm quite familiar with sealioning -
ReplyDeletehttps://tywkiwdbi.blogspot.com/2023/05/word-for-day-sealioning.html
Funny that "sealioning" is being used in this context. Seems to me, without going back and counting, it was my interlocutor that kept asking for "evidence"--trolling? Anyway, thanks for introducing me to a new word...of sorts.
ReplyDeleteAs to Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW), I'm barely familiar. My roots in thinking about men's rights go back to Robert Bly and the Men's Movement of the 80s--also threatening to dogmatic feminists. I've been thinking ever since about what it means to be male, especially on the left.
I've spent the last 10 years on homeless human rights activism and I'm sure this has further enraged me, as I watch men die on the streets (as mentioned earlier, that's 80% of who dies), the male homeless population being the most shit on of all people in the US, bar none. All while the left fails so terribly in stepping-up on uniting the poor and working class. Rather it divides us by race, gender and sexual orientation; to be charitable I can imagine this is well intentioned. ("The road to hell is paved with...")
There are many devices used to shut down the conversation. Any of the points I've made, regardless of how valid, will get you called a misogynist, rape apologist, troll-er, etc., on the way to being canceled. I've heard 'em all.
Seems to me I'm seeing implied shaming for even posting my arguments. How fragile are the identity ideologues? And why is scrutiny of their beliefs so unwelcome. Long ago, this struck me as similar to the way the fellow Catholics of my youth approached articles of faith, but with feminists lacking the intellectual rigor of ,Jesuits.
Lastly, for an idea of how all this pre-dates MGTOW, and whatnot, I recommend reading The Pillow and the Key (Bly) and any of the books by Warren Farrell. And Chaucer, and much of the canon of at least Western literature, for that matter. The gender war has been around for some time, with our current version probably uniquely toxic; certainly frighteningly distracting, given the current raft of serious problems confronting humanity and the rest of Earth's creatures.
Mistake: Bly's book is called Iron John. First chapter, "The Pillow and the Key." Farrell's first book was, Why Men Are The Way They Are; an exploration of what it's meant to be providers and protectors historically--and still means. Also published sometime in the 80s. If you read Farrell, he's rational and persuasive and humanistic. In the eyes of radical feminists, the devil.
ReplyDelete