That is why the matter of privilege is always brought up in discussions like this. Many people claim “others” are privileged, and at the same time vehemently deny that they themselves have privilege. They do this so that opposing views can be discounted, since they are advanced by privileged people who are blind to injustice, and who lack insight about the suffering of others.

But I say that people who discount opposing views because of privilege are just claiming the rhetorical (and supposedly epistemic) advantages of Victim Privilege.

And, yes, all this privilege-based standpoint epistemology is complete nonsense.

All too common feminists claim it’s “Not about the Menz.” But the issue is in part that it has to be at least a little bit about the Menz. Otherwise feminism would be nothing more than empty idealogy with vague catchlines like a Rovian list of bullet points. The reason why is simple, feminism claims to be a gender idealogy that brings justice to the whole world but fails to account for any significant variable in half the world’s population aside from isolating factors that need to be contained or repressed.

Failure of such an idealogy to account for such variables dooms feminism into being unrealistic. The reason why Sam is concerned with this is because by nature, since Feminism does not concern itself with heterosexual male sexuality except to attack its bad points, a heterosexual feminist having sex with her boyfriend is at best a morally neutral act, and at worst an example of his moral failing.

If women have no good model of a man’s sexuality besides a series of commands, of “Thou Shalt nots,” then any man willing to at least try to measure up to feminine standards is forced to engage in a struggle of trial and error, with no prior instruction, and no positive reinforcements. In fact, a man only succeeds by cessating prescribed bad actions, and since they can happen again, he is quickly villified again should he fail, whether it be a trivial or major offense. It’s all sticks, no carrots.

Yes, I know, cookies taste great. Not the issue. Feminism has the unfortunate ability, like all good causes, of degenerating into catchphrases. And before anyone considers bringing up “invisible” privilege, remember you’re invoking Standpoint epistemology, and that any man is therefore equally entitled to infer that if there was a female-centered privilege, she would by the exact same reasoning, be unaware of it.

I think good feminists want more, and I think good men want more, too. I also agree with Sam that a focus on standpoint epistemology and gender solipsism will, left unchecked, ruin any gender argument.

“if you can’t see the that your infinitely elastic definition of “harm”, and your nebulous definition of “women” (which women? All women? Feminists? The Berkeley chapter of Tri-Delta?), make your criterion fatally unworkable, then I guess we have nothing to talk about. Like I said, no sale.”

That’s the dilemma with standpoint epistemology. It’s obviously true that no two people will ever define “harm” alike, whichever their gender. But standpoint epistemology is also an oxymoron, if taken literally – no one will be able to understand the other, no common ground can possibly be found.

Wittgenstein was right – whereof we can’t speak, thereof we must remain silent. So there’s really only two options. We either come up with operationalisations that we can both speak of, we both have access and sufficient empathy to understand the other’s standpoint, or we don’t, in which case everything is down to domination.

The fact that a feminist would choose the latter over even attempting the former is puzzling to me, at least as long as he/she actually believes the philosophical foundations of feminism are not entirely and cynically made up for the political advancement of generalisations about the needs of a group that cannot logically have a common standpoint even according to the philosophy’s proponents.

Speaking of Berkeley, Judith Butler is quite insightful in this respect.

That’s an easy answer and one I’ve already provided.

Women get to decide what is harmful to them.

I really fail to see why anything else needs to be said.

I hardly believe saying “hey, you can’t hurt me” is a presumptuous demand or pronouncement.

Faith, if you can’t see the that your infinitely elastic definition of “harm”, and your nebulous definition of “women” (which women? All women? Feminists? The Berkeley chapter of Tri-Delta?), make your criterion fatally unworkable, then I guess we have nothing to talk about. Like I said, no sale.

That’s an easy answer and one I’ve already provided.

Women get to decide what is harmful to them.

I really fail to see why anything else needs to be said.

“Making presumptuous demands and pronouncements, and then attempting to wash one’s hands of everything else, like saying “your sexuality must not harm women and beyond that we’re not concerned with it”, or “you have to help out more with the housework and the kids and beyond that, we don’t care what other demands you have”, or “you must enthusiastically make women feel welcome and comfortable in every institution you are part of, and beyond that, we don’t care how comfortable you are”, that all just won’t sell. Not in ten years, not in a hundred.”

I hardly believe saying “hey, you can’t hurt me” is a presumptuous demand or pronouncement. As for “washing one’s hands of everything else”, I’d have thought men would be happy to hear a woman state that it’s up to men to define their sexuality beyond what does or does not harm women. It seems to me that saying women have no ability as women to define male sexuality beyond what does or does not do them harm is a pretty reasonable, and respectful, statement. And if it won’t sell to many men, then it’s not women who have failed, to be perfectly blunt.

And men do have a lot to gain by developing their sexuality in a positive, respectful manner. By doing so, they are more able to fulfill and please women. And if women are more fulfilled and pleased, then womean are able to appreciate men more and actually take joy in pleasing them in the bedroom. It’s a two-way street…and speaking from experience, it works wonders for both the man and woman involved.

So, it basically boils down to quid pro quo? What we have to gain is basically because women gain and thus (presumed without qualification), women will do for us? Hmmm…

Lisa KS,

Well, Tom, I can only write about what I perceive about male sexuality ’cause, you know…I can only write about what I perceive, period. Until we all become telepathic and/or empathic, I’m afraid that’s all any of us can write about. Am I attempting in any way, shape or form to declare that my perceptions of male sexuality are superior to any man’s? Absolutely not–that would be nuts, as nuts as any man marching up and declaring that his perceptions of my sexuality are superior to mine. However, I was asked specifically for my perceptions of positive male sexuality, so I provided them. If you have objections to a woman answering such a question about male sexuality, you might wanna take them up with the male questioner, eh?

I think that you hit on it there Lisa. Problem is, and what’s piqued at least my skepticism regarding this whole topic, is that “answers” are being proffered about male sexuality in absence of questions being asked prior, answers that appear when skeptical questions are asked to be rather undeveloped and uninformed.

And that hits at heart with a lot of the problems that I see about what contemporary feminism apparently has to say about men, as I discussed above. Making presumptuous demands and pronouncements, and then attempting to wash one’s hands of everything else, like saying “your sexuality must not harm women and beyond that we’re not concerned with it”, or “you have to help out more with the housework and the kids and beyond that, we don’t care what other demands you have”, or “you must enthusiastically make women feel welcome and comfortable in every institution you are part of, and beyond that, we don’t care how comfortable you are”, that all just won’t sell. Not in ten years, not in a hundred.

“Inaccurate. Men can not define their sexuality in a manner which harms women. It’s a simple as that. Men’s actions in regard to how they interact sexually with women must not cause harm. This is really not difficult to grasp. The fact that we are even having this conversation is depressing. And it’s because of attitudes like this that women need feminism. Again: Men CAN NOT define their sexuality in a manner which is harmful to women.

PERIOD.”

Careful, please. I think that’s becoming a semantic and definitional problem. I completely agree with your statement. What I was referring to is the way in which the definition of the term “harm” in the statement is determined individually and socially. There may be disagreements about the appropriate frame of reference.

I think a useful way to think about this would be to wonder if the requirements of the categorical imperative are fulfilled by the definitional process – to always act in a way that would allow the guiding principles to become a general law. At first sight, that’s definitely the case with your statement.

However, the mutual recognition of the validity of that rule requires mutual agreement about the actual content. Who decides what “harmful” is? And to whom? Is pornography inherently harmful to any individual women? Is it sufficient to be axiomatically “harmful” towards an abstract group “women” according one sociological axiom or another? Who gets to decide these things?

And even though I love the music framework, playing in a duet implies a lot of opportunities to misread the other’s harmonical ideas. Who decides where harm starts? A girl I never saw before grabbed my hand and put it on her behind – have I been harmed? Who gets to decide about the appropriateness of communication? What’s plausible assumptions about what’s ok in an interaction and what not?

Again, I basically agree with your statement, it is not just a moral necessity, it is apparently what nature had in mind by creating brain structures for sexual pleasure, particularly complex ones in the case of the human female. But the beahvioral content of the norm must be mutually accessible and the process in which the terms are defined must be mutually agreed on. Otherwise all this is power politics and we all play a big game of “battle of the sexes” with a particularly negative payout structure…

Inaccurate. Men can not define their sexuality in a manner which harms women. It’s a simple as that. Men’s actions in regard to how they interact sexually with women must not cause harm. This is really not difficult to grasp. The fact that we are even having this conversation is depressing. And it’s because of attitudes like this that women need feminism. Again: Men CAN NOT define their sexuality in a manner which is harmful to women.

PERIOD.