It feels uncomfortable constantly hearing people justify your value based on your relation to men. I know it doesn’t specify men, but let’s be honest, that’s what everyone thinks of. If you have good intentions, that’s good, but that doesn’t stop the implication that women are only valuable as they relate to men. Intentions do not factor into someone’s frustration hearing it for the millionth damn time! Until that phrase gets reclaimed, it’s gonna have that patriarchal association to most people.
True. I need to work on not talking like that more.
A simple but important point.
I always took the phrase “She is someone’s [whatever]” not to suggest that the recipient isn’t thinking of them as a person, but that they are thinking of them as a stranger. As in, “How would you like it if you knew someone was treating your [person you care about] like that?”. It’s still a criticism for the recipient, but it doesn’t go as far to accuse them of dehumanizing anyone. Instead, it suggests you should treat them like you would someone you are close to and care about more deeply.
A lot of men see only the women in their family as human, other women are just potential mates. This is why some people try to humanise women victims by pressing the fact that they are someone’s daughter/sister/mother. Why don’t we see the same language used on victimised men?
Why don’t we see the same language used on victimised men?
Are men victimized systemically and threatened physically to the same extent women are? Feminists speaking up for women’s issues doesn’t preclude men from speaking up for men’s issues, but lo and behold, men don’t have the same issues as a population that women do, and it’s not feminists’ job to speak up for them anyway.
Edit: I misunderstood, see reply.
It’s because if a man is victimised then we don’t need to convince other men that they’re a person and didn’t deserve something bad happening to them. I’m not advocating for feminists to speak about men’s issues (they already do though). I’m saying that women are more often dehumanised which is why some people think they need to specify that a victimised woman is someone’s daughter/sister/mother/etc. The person I’m replying to is rejecting the assumption that dehumanisation of women takes place.
This IS the intended meaning of the phrase, some people just read too much into things…
What if shes hitler’s stan? Or trump’s supporter? Or voldemort’s death eater?
Theoretical a person, though I feel like anyone who is a Nazi loses their humanity.
This is always going to be thorny because it depends what you mean by personhood or humanity, or whatever term is being discussed.
Some people view acknowledging that everyone possesses these innately and indelibly as akin to saying they’re an adequate or worthy person. Not unlike how some people get offended when you call really shitty art what it is - art (albeit shitty).
I’m not going to defend Nazis, but I fall in the indelible camp. To me it’s like acknowledging that someone can feel pain. It’s just a matter of reality.
More likely someone scared and misinformed and has a bit of the old attitude polarization (which comes when not schooled on critical thinking.) We naked apes are smarter than the average hominid but with uncommon exception, not that much smarter.
No, there are plenty of women who actively reinforce hierarchy over egalitarianism for the same reason men do. They want to feel special in comparison and in competition to other members of their perceived cohort. A woman might feel extra powerful from the idea she was disadvantaged and became an oppressor herself.
Or worse, she has the “temporarily embarrassed billionaire” or submissive perspective and reinforces the system at her own detriment because she doesn’t want to stick out and is angered by others sticking out as it would invalidate any progress she has made under the current regime.
The more I learn about Bellatrix, the more I pity her. Voldy never even saw her as a person, I honestly think that he cared more about Harry than he did her.
