What is your opinion on Kellie Jay Keen?

cloven hooves The Personal Is Political Women's Rights What is your opinion on Kellie Jay Keen?

Print Thread

Pages (4): Previous 1 2 3 4

wormwood

Feb 10 2025, 10:06 AM

#31

(Feb 10 2025, 9:50 AM)YesYourNigel
(Feb 9 2025, 10:26 PM)wormwood Critical of U.S. interventionism, both military and humanitarian, and happy it will end. (this type are also often vaccine deniers)
Do you mean the general conspiracy theory association with anti-US-interventionism? I find that this tends to be the melting pot of atheist and Christian conservatives, where both come together on the basis of a distrust of the state, with atheists mainly motivated by typical male edgelordiness and jealousy of authority (it's not fair that those guys have all this stuff when it should be ME telling people what to do!), and for Christians it results from pushback against secularisation (in some cases due to a communist background) and openness towards weird new-agey beliefs. I think both crowds get a lot of ego stroking for not being "sheeple", which makes them gravitate towards conspiracy theories and especially any that would feed into that persecution complex.

Quote:quite distinct from the hidebound religiosity of even our very ugliest traditional conservatives, at least originally, though in the internet generation they are starting to blend.

Why do you think they're different? There is a distinct association between Christianity and nationalism in most places, especially the less developed ones, even if the exact agenda might differ a little due to political and legal landscapes. The state power differences inform some of it, but often it comes down to "They shouldn't be running things, it should be us/big brother Russia instead!"-jealousy. A lot of anti-USA sentiment isn't due to genuine grievances with US interventionism and political meddling, but rather petty jabs at how "stupid" and "hypocritical" they are, ironically coming from countries with lower rates of education, high religiousity and where open contempt of women and minorities is normal. And USA isn't even that well-developed in that area (hence Trump) but their backwardness at least causes controversy, instead of being "business as usual". They also control most pop culture and also the loud American religious conservative crowds appeal to foreign Christians' persecution complex - look at those fellow Christians being persecuted!

I guess the question is whether this is a flanderised mass-appeal nationalistic version of genuine US criticisms, or if the two sentiments developed separately, aka one side being anti-US for ethical, anti-war reasons, and the other just being anti-US because they're not "on our side" nor as morally backwards as they are (these tend to be the warmongering pro-Russia crowds).

Quote:Neither of these is exactly an expression of the traditional “level of backwardness” in my country (a phrase to which I take some exception).
How is open racism and misogyny not the most standard-issue manifestation of backwardness? More religiously motivated and less educated countries will feel at the very least protective of their regressive values, if not aggressively pushing for them.

Trump politicians are a dime-a-dozen where I live. Misogynistic and racist statements from politicians, especially in private but also in public, do not result in much controversy here, unless we're talking about "crazy militant radical" feminist groups. It's taken for granted that the male politicians are racist rapey misogynists because they're men, and if they're not, it's because they're especially saintly or refined.

honestly I am disagreeing about detail, not substance.

I think they are different because I have observed them. The “angel in the house” veneration of motherhood and paternalistic benign (sic) sexism of traditional culture is a different flavour of horrible from the pornified sneering of Trumpism, though both are misogynistic as hell.

As for backwardness, I resent people from a country that just elected fascists calling anyone else backward, especially when their country has been practicing colonialism in Europe for the last Century or so, and other parts of the world for even longer.

wormwood

Feb 10 2025, 10:06 AM #31

(Feb 10 2025, 9:50 AM)YesYourNigel
(Feb 9 2025, 10:26 PM)wormwood Critical of U.S. interventionism, both military and humanitarian, and happy it will end. (this type are also often vaccine deniers)
Do you mean the general conspiracy theory association with anti-US-interventionism? I find that this tends to be the melting pot of atheist and Christian conservatives, where both come together on the basis of a distrust of the state, with atheists mainly motivated by typical male edgelordiness and jealousy of authority (it's not fair that those guys have all this stuff when it should be ME telling people what to do!), and for Christians it results from pushback against secularisation (in some cases due to a communist background) and openness towards weird new-agey beliefs. I think both crowds get a lot of ego stroking for not being "sheeple", which makes them gravitate towards conspiracy theories and especially any that would feed into that persecution complex.

Quote:quite distinct from the hidebound religiosity of even our very ugliest traditional conservatives, at least originally, though in the internet generation they are starting to blend.

Why do you think they're different? There is a distinct association between Christianity and nationalism in most places, especially the less developed ones, even if the exact agenda might differ a little due to political and legal landscapes. The state power differences inform some of it, but often it comes down to "They shouldn't be running things, it should be us/big brother Russia instead!"-jealousy. A lot of anti-USA sentiment isn't due to genuine grievances with US interventionism and political meddling, but rather petty jabs at how "stupid" and "hypocritical" they are, ironically coming from countries with lower rates of education, high religiousity and where open contempt of women and minorities is normal. And USA isn't even that well-developed in that area (hence Trump) but their backwardness at least causes controversy, instead of being "business as usual". They also control most pop culture and also the loud American religious conservative crowds appeal to foreign Christians' persecution complex - look at those fellow Christians being persecuted!

I guess the question is whether this is a flanderised mass-appeal nationalistic version of genuine US criticisms, or if the two sentiments developed separately, aka one side being anti-US for ethical, anti-war reasons, and the other just being anti-US because they're not "on our side" nor as morally backwards as they are (these tend to be the warmongering pro-Russia crowds).

Quote:Neither of these is exactly an expression of the traditional “level of backwardness” in my country (a phrase to which I take some exception).
How is open racism and misogyny not the most standard-issue manifestation of backwardness? More religiously motivated and less educated countries will feel at the very least protective of their regressive values, if not aggressively pushing for them.

Trump politicians are a dime-a-dozen where I live. Misogynistic and racist statements from politicians, especially in private but also in public, do not result in much controversy here, unless we're talking about "crazy militant radical" feminist groups. It's taken for granted that the male politicians are racist rapey misogynists because they're men, and if they're not, it's because they're especially saintly or refined.

honestly I am disagreeing about detail, not substance.

I think they are different because I have observed them. The “angel in the house” veneration of motherhood and paternalistic benign (sic) sexism of traditional culture is a different flavour of horrible from the pornified sneering of Trumpism, though both are misogynistic as hell.

As for backwardness, I resent people from a country that just elected fascists calling anyone else backward, especially when their country has been practicing colonialism in Europe for the last Century or so, and other parts of the world for even longer.

YesYourNigel

114

Feb 15 2025, 6:24 PM

#32

(Feb 10 2025, 10:06 AM)wormwood I think they are different because I have observed them. The “angel in the house” veneration of motherhood and paternalistic benign (sic) sexism of traditional culture is a different flavour of horrible from the pornified sneering of Trumpism, though both are misogynistic as hell.

That just sounds like the PC version of conservativism sold to women vs the actual realistic version by men - women are sold the myth of the loving servile family-oriented husband who, even if he's a piece of shit, will surely change once you serve him and provide him with enough love and sex and repair all his burnt bridges, and men are told to worship Trump's dick waving because he's rich, powerful and open about his misogyny and general supremacist attitudes that need to be maintained, aka everything they themselves hope to be and profit from.

Quote:As for backwardness, I resent people from a country that just elected fascists calling anyone else backward, especially when their country has been practicing colonialism in Europe for the last Century or so, and other parts of the world for even longer.

I'm not exactly sure who "colonialism in Europe" is referring to, I thought we were talking about the US?

Why would living in a backward misogynistic country mean you can't criticise the backwardness and misogyny of another country, or acknowledge they're significantly worse for women?

I understand why people need to work on looking past their own biases (because the backwardness that we're used to can feel normal and unremarkable) and focus on enacting change in their own countries where they have control instead of having their feelings weaponised by powerful "familiar" regressive parties for racist, warmongering and colonialist means. But that doesn't change the fact that some countries are absolutely in the shitter when it comes to their approach to human rights, and the only thing moral relativism and whataboutism does is justify and excuse their mistreatment of women and minorities under the guise of cultural differences.

Edited Feb 15 2025, 7:33 PM by YesYourNigel.

I refuse to debate two obvious facts: 1. the patriarchy exists 2. and that's a bad thing

YesYourNigel

Feb 15 2025, 6:24 PM #32

(Feb 10 2025, 10:06 AM)wormwood I think they are different because I have observed them. The “angel in the house” veneration of motherhood and paternalistic benign (sic) sexism of traditional culture is a different flavour of horrible from the pornified sneering of Trumpism, though both are misogynistic as hell.

Quote:As for backwardness, I resent people from a country that just elected fascists calling anyone else backward, especially when their country has been practicing colonialism in Europe for the last Century or so, and other parts of the world for even longer.

I refuse to debate two obvious facts: 1. the patriarchy exists 2. and that's a bad thing

wormwood

Feb 16 2025, 1:21 AM

#33

Okay, I’m obviously not making myself clear here, and I don’t really see how I can, because the wires of this set of communications are thoroughly crossed.

I was saying that the appeal of Trumpism in Europe (much of it seeded here, as there, by Putin-backed online propaganda) is more complicated than the summary given here, and basically, that I resent sweeping generalisations about my continent, even about the worst of it, from women in the U.S, a nation that has interfered in our affairs in an arrogant and condescending fashion for my entire lifetime, and before, in patent ignorance of the culture and history they are messing with (just as the U.S. has done everywhere else, sometimes with genuine humanitarian intent and beneficial results - often not). The word “backward” has featured frequently in the justification for this interference. To put it another way: Where is the forward to this backward?

In attempting to describe some of the sources of this appeal, some of the roots (I’ve recently seen the word “diagonalism used, by people who explain things better than I do), I have made a huge tangled mess and I’m tired of trying to untangle it.

I hereby retreat from the field. We have better uses for our eloquence and energies. Let’s have more productive discussions on other topics or at other times. I’m done with this thread. Peace, sisters.

Edited Feb 16 2025, 1:28 AM by wormwood.

wormwood

Feb 16 2025, 1:21 AM #33

YesYourNigel

114

Feb 19 2025, 9:43 AM

#34

(Feb 16 2025, 1:21 AM)wormwood Okay, I’m obviously not making myself clear here, and I don’t really see how I can

There are plenty of ways you could make yourself clear. For starters, you could address what I said about how this attitude is harmful to women's rights and why you disagree with that. You could also actually address what I said about how this alternate benign religious form of misogyny isn't different from generic misogyny at all for previously stated reasons (start with those). Really, any actual response to what I said, instead of repeating the premise that I already explained is faulty.

Quote:I was saying that the appeal of Trumpism in Europe (much of it seeded here, as there, by Putin-backed online propaganda) is more complicated than the summary given here

Just saying "it's complicated" about issues that come down to plain old regressivism, misogyny, nationalism and racism isn't enough. This constantly gets used to shut women up and to put an end to critical thinking - the patriarchy is too complicated, being trans is too complicated, cultural misogyny is too complicated etc. No, feminism can't accept this as an explanation.

Quote:I resent sweeping generalisations about my continent, even about the worst of it, from women in the U.S, a nation that has interfered in our affairs in an arrogant and condescending fashion for my entire lifetime, and before, in patent ignorance of the culture and history they are messing with

So I thought you were addressing the general American sentiments that sometimes pop up but you seem to be under the impression that I personally am an American, which I'm not. I am talking about European primitivism and supremacist tendencies from the point of view of growing up internalising these regressive ideas, actually talking to the people here and observing how their resentment towards "the West" comes from fear of losing the primitive regressive "tradition" of normalised violence over women and minorities.

If you know so much more about the cultural context behind all this, you are free and in fact encouraged to provide it. But if the only thing you have is an appeal to authority, as if happening to have grown up somewhere makes you in the right, well, that easily falls apart once it turns out you're talking to a fellow East European. And I have similar issues with the "listen to women" thought-stopping arguments that just get twisted by men finding and bringing up some tradwife that proves women don't need feminism. "Listen to women" is useful in a sense of actually acknowledging the insanely consistent reality that get dismissed as "coincidences" and "good for women" by the patriarchy, but it is not to be used as a stamp of truthfulness, which is ofc how most people use it.

Also given the amount of trauma East Europe has experienced specifically at the hands of Russian colonialism, I'm still confused what you are refering to when you talk about American colonialism there.

Quote:The word “backward” has featured frequently in the justification for this interference. To put it another way: Where is the forward to this backward?

The barest tiniest minimum of "forward" is to at least have a controversy when women experience violence and when powerful or famous men say misogynistic things, instead of everyone nodding because this is the way it should be, esp if contrasted with those crazy or exploitative "Western" countries (epitomised by the US).

Women's rights are not rocket science and it's bizarre that I need to explain what's the way forward for a country where unchallenged misogynistic statements and policies are so normal no-one even bats an eye.

Quote:Let’s have more productive discussions on other topics or at other times. I’m done with this thread. Peace, sisters.

The problem is you are predicating the discussion being "productive" on ignoring my points and requiring me to blindly accept notions of moral relativism that are at odds with women's rights, on a radical feminist forum. If this was a matter of misunderstanding or differing opinions, that would be one thing, but potentially misogynistic ideas shouldn't get the luxury of being unchallenged here of all places just because someone wants to give them validity under the guise of "deep and complex". As I said, this is a very typical defense of misogyny.

Edited Feb 19 2025, 9:48 AM by YesYourNigel.

I refuse to debate two obvious facts: 1. the patriarchy exists 2. and that's a bad thing

YesYourNigel

Feb 19 2025, 9:43 AM #34

(Feb 16 2025, 1:21 AM)wormwood Okay, I’m obviously not making myself clear here, and I don’t really see how I can

Quote:I was saying that the appeal of Trumpism in Europe (much of it seeded here, as there, by Putin-backed online propaganda) is more complicated than the summary given here

Quote:I resent sweeping generalisations about my continent, even about the worst of it, from women in the U.S, a nation that has interfered in our affairs in an arrogant and condescending fashion for my entire lifetime, and before, in patent ignorance of the culture and history they are messing with

Quote:The word “backward” has featured frequently in the justification for this interference. To put it another way: Where is the forward to this backward?

Quote:Let’s have more productive discussions on other topics or at other times. I’m done with this thread. Peace, sisters.

I refuse to debate two obvious facts: 1. the patriarchy exists 2. and that's a bad thing

Clover
Kozlik's regular account 🍀🐐

639

Feb 19 2025, 2:14 PM

#35

@YesYourNigel it appears to me this discussion has started devolving into criticisms over another member's posts/wording rather than on misogynistic institutions. It would make sense than @wormwood might have a different perception of how Trumpism affects the mentalities of people in her region, based on her personal life experiences. I don't think wormwood pointing out "it's complicated" and wanting to bow out of this discussion is necessarily an attempt at a thought-stopper, because discussions involving geopolitics and systemic misogyny are complicated (I feel like I'm out of my element here for the past few posts in this thread), and such posts commonly require nuanced lengthy discussions that sometimes people just don't have the energy to give. And while I don't think that means others can't further discuss any posts or concepts brought up prior in said posts, let's keep in mind the forum guidelines, especially the ones about assuming good faith from other members and focusing criticisms on patriarchal structures.

Just as a suggestion, from what I learned from technical writing, changing the verbage in a post from 2nd person ("you"/"your") to 3rd person helps keep discussions focused on the issue at hand (as in, the focus shifts from individual women to the overall misogynistic ideas/notions themselves).

Kozlik's regular member account. 🍀🐐

Clover

Kozlik's regular account 🍀🐐

Feb 19 2025, 2:14 PM #35

Kozlik's regular member account. 🍀🐐

YesYourNigel

114

Feb 21 2025, 9:21 AM

#36

(Feb 19 2025, 2:14 PM)Clover It would make sense than @wormwood might have a different perception of how Trumpism affects the mentalities of people in her region

My problem isn't with her differing opinion, which you can tell by the fact that I actually addressed her points (which is much more than she's done for anything I've said so far) and asked for clarification instead of blindly dismissing them on the basis of ad hominems.

I'd say it's pretty disrespectful to rely solely on short curt replies that entirely ignore what the other person is saying only to have the longest response talk about how tiring talking is - just don't comment in the first place then?? Literally who is forcing anyone to post here if they don't have the time or energy? It's already absurd to hide bad takes behind "I don't feel like discussing this" on a public forum literally made for discussion, but it's doubly so when you're the one who made the choice to reply to the person in the first place, and then acting like you're being inconvenienced by the other person because they're replying back and asking you to substantiate your claims in the face of "shut up because you don't get an opinion".

There were several times in the past that I made points that superficially look like they're defending conservative women's attitudes and I made sure to rationalise what I'm saying and why and respond to others so it can't be misconstrued to support misogynistic goals. I want there to be freedom to state imperfect views, but that's completely different from demanding that they be taken at face value for the sake of "good faith" or "civility" or to save me the bother of rationalising my views. That attitude is a massive red flag on a feminist forum.

Using that logic, is any criticism of Trump by non-Americans also off the table on this forum? Can we have American woman tune into anti-Trump posts just to say that ackshully Trump-humping is very deep and complex and beyond your foreign women's comprehension? Or maybe we can just skip the process and call ourselves Ovarit 2.0, because that's how you get Ovarit 2.0. And does this also apply to any posts about women's lives in Afghanistan, or India or any other place we don't live in?

Quote:This discussion has started devolving into criticisms over another member's posts/wording rather than on misogynistic institutions

So if a woman says something seemingly misogynistic and continuously refuses to rationalise or justify it and only repeats ad hominems and misogynistic platitutes, we're not allowed to say anything because that's a personal attack on her posts and assuming bad faith? I don't assume bad faith unless the person continuously refuses to examine their opinions from a feminist POV, and she's made it clear that she has no interest in discussing patriarchal institutions themselves because that's only done by stupid ignorant Americans. If merely posting words up on the forum makes them immune to criticism, then this forum is going to go the way every other fauxminist forum does.

Quote:changing the verbage in a post from 2nd person ("you"/"your") to 3rd person helps keep discussions focused on the issue at hand

The refusal to rationalise and forego ad hominems is not a societal patriarchal issue, it's a personal one, and one that prevents the conversation from being productive in any way. And I've only started using "you" after the person brought the whole thing to themselves and how THEY personally are unable and unwilling to discuss these things in a productive way.

Edited Feb 21 2025, 12:38 PM by YesYourNigel.

I refuse to debate two obvious facts: 1. the patriarchy exists 2. and that's a bad thing

YesYourNigel

Feb 21 2025, 9:21 AM #36

(Feb 19 2025, 2:14 PM)Clover It would make sense than @wormwood might have a different perception of how Trumpism affects the mentalities of people in her region

Quote:This discussion has started devolving into criticisms over another member's posts/wording rather than on misogynistic institutions

Quote:changing the verbage in a post from 2nd person ("you"/"your") to 3rd person helps keep discussions focused on the issue at hand

I refuse to debate two obvious facts: 1. the patriarchy exists 2. and that's a bad thing

Clover
Kozlik's regular account 🍀🐐

639

Feb 21 2025, 1:56 PM

#37

The issue is I keep rereading these posts and I am not seeing where it is implied that wormwood thinks [Eastern] Europe is "better" than America in terms of institutionalized misogyny, just that they're different, and that European reasons for supporting Trumpism are obviously different than American ones. And that she sees how others in her region do not like US interference in their countries. As she says: “The word “backward” has featured frequently in the justification for this interference. To put it another way: Where is the forward to this backward?” Implying, to me at least, that there is no disagreement that there are various levels of "backwards" going on in regards to political policies of a country in terms of misogyny and also in geopolitical interference (among other things I assume).

I don't think she was saying "it's complicated" because she wanted to "give up" on a feminist front, it is because she is not obligated to spend time on a forum detailing every instance of how political interference from the West/USA and from Russia/Putin created the specific flavors of Trumpism being seen in Europe. She is not obligated to continue responding. I am not saying that means others cannot respond, but I didn't see the point in others posting in a manner that puts the focus on a member who has already said she doesn't want to continue the discussion. It seemed needlessly pointed when there are other ways to pick up the dialogue.

I don't see from wormwood's posts attempts to defend or dismiss misogyny/Trumpism in Europe, but more to point out they're different. To me, saying they're different or complicated doesn't mean they're justifiable or excusable. Just that it means to fully understand how to get at the root of the problem there will be different than how it would be done in the United States. Different societies can be misogynistic and support authoritarian regimes, and yet they still, even on the surface, can be somewhat different, and the way they have gotten to promoting misogyny and authoritarianism can be very different. That's what I see, so that's why I don't understand why your latest post (at the time) had become so pointed at her and so I felt the need to remind about forum guidelines. You are of course welcome to continue discussing and criticizing patriarchal institutions, that is not the issue here.

I do not feel her "argument" was "shut up because you don't get an opinion"—everyone in this thread has been entitled to their own opinions, and no one has to "shut up". There are ways to get your points across without feeling like it needs to be an "argument."

Quote:Using that logic, is any criticism of Trump by non-Americans also off the table on this forum? Can we have American woman tune into anti-Trump posts just to say that ackshully Trump-humping is very deep and complex and beyond your foreign women's comprehension? Or maybe we can just skip the process and call ourselves Ovarit 2.0, because that's how you get Ovarit 2.0. And does this also apply to any posts about women's lives in Afghanistan, or India or any other place we don't live in?

I am not sure where I have suggested that any criticism of public figures being misogynistic is "off the table." I am saying there are ways to make such criticisms without it turning pointed towards the members of this forum instead of the misogyny itself.

I think it is "jumping to conclusions" me suggesting to reframe posts to not target the member making the post and to instead focus on the possible misogyny or blindspots in the post is going to turn the place into "Ovarit 2.0." For starters, selective membership here already places a distinct divide between members here and Ovarit. And that is why I thought it relevant to bring up the forum guidelines, especially the one about taking members in good faith here. Because I honestly don't see the issues with wormwood's posts that necessitated such a response. By virtue of the requirements to join this forum, this is going to be a smaller community, and I really prefer we focus here on building up with each other and giving the benefit of the doubt. We can accomplish more with trying to work with each other and understand each other than to argue with each other. We all here have the same general goal of women's liberation either from, or with respect to, a radical feminist framework.

Quote:So if a woman says something seemingly misogynistic and continuously refuses to rationalise or justify it and only repeats ad hominems and misogynistic platitutes, we're not allowed to say anything because that's a personal attack on her posts and assuming bad faith?

Yeah, so part of the issue is I am not seeing the "saying something seemingly misogynistic" and the "refuses to rationalize" and the "only repeats ad hominems and misogynistic platitudes". That is the issue and why I decided to say something. Perhaps it is so "between the lines" that I am oblivious to it, or maybe whatever it was I assumed good faith in her wording and didn't think much further than that. But again, there are ways to frame your points around your issues with perceived ad hominems/misogynistic platitudes without targeting the member themselves.

Regardless, I'll admit I don't know fully what I'm doing when it comes to creating this forum, and so there's no way I can run this forum perfectly. That would be futile to even attempt. Hopefully if this forum falls to either becoming "Ovarit 2.0" or collapses in on itself from feminist infighting, at least we'll have learned some things along the way. Maybe the next woman can learn from the missteps and make something better. But this discussion seemed to me to have veered into infighting that is more likely to detract other women from participating than be productive.

Quote:The refusal to rationalise and forego ad hominems is not a societal patriarchal issue, it's a personal one, and one that prevents the conversation from being productive in any way.

Well, there was no more conversation because she said she stepped out. So at that point on, it was beating a dead horse. And if the issue in a member's posts is regarding a "personal issue", not a societal patriarchal issue, then I recommend to either leave it be or utilize your posting ability in such a way to put the focus back on societal patriarchal issues.

Kozlik's regular member account. 🍀🐐

Clover

Kozlik's regular account 🍀🐐

Feb 21 2025, 1:56 PM #37

Quote:Using that logic, is any criticism of Trump by non-Americans also off the table on this forum? Can we have American woman tune into anti-Trump posts just to say that ackshully Trump-humping is very deep and complex and beyond your foreign women's comprehension? Or maybe we can just skip the process and call ourselves Ovarit 2.0, because that's how you get Ovarit 2.0. And does this also apply to any posts about women's lives in Afghanistan, or India or any other place we don't live in?

Quote:So if a woman says something seemingly misogynistic and continuously refuses to rationalise or justify it and only repeats ad hominems and misogynistic platitutes, we're not allowed to say anything because that's a personal attack on her posts and assuming bad faith?

Quote:The refusal to rationalise and forego ad hominems is not a societal patriarchal issue, it's a personal one, and one that prevents the conversation from being productive in any way.

Kozlik's regular member account. 🍀🐐

Pages (4): Previous 1 2 3 4

Print Thread

Recently Browsing
5 Guest(s)