“Male-bashing” doesn’t literally happen, in other words, at least not as a result of arguments over feminism.posted by Tomorrowful at 6:07 PM on December 21, 2011 [5 favorites]
Here's the thing: That lost some crucial formatting that was present in the original, which italicized "bashing," like so:“Male-bashing” doesn’t literally happen, in other words, at least not as a result of arguments over feminism.In other words, it's not a statement that men are never criticized qua being men; it's simply a statement that men are not literally bashed, literally being used here in its "correct" sense - that they are not at risk of violence from feminists, whereas it is not without precedent for a woman to be threatened with violence.
One day, Kevin came to class with a duffle bag. I thought little of it, until – in the midst of a discussion about men and feminism – he reached into the duffle and pulled out a football helmet. “I know I’m gonna get killed for what I’m about to say”, he announced dramatically; “I brought some protection.” Kevin then strapped the helmet on as his classmates and I stared in shock. I told him to cut out the cheap theatrics, but not before he’d made a powerful point, though I’m confident it wasn’t the one he intended to make.Oh come on, that's fucking ridiculous. It's a stupid stunt, but at the same time why would you assume he wouldn't pull the same stunt if he was about to piss of a ton of dudes. Why is it implied he's referencing "Woman's anger" instead of "Human anger" People get mad when you disagree with them about something they care about. In fact, I would say men are more likely to be physically confrontational then women, but that doesn't mean women don't get mad.
Kevin’s gag with the football helmet was designed to send a signal about women and anger. The message he wanted to send was, as he told me later, that “feminists take things too seriously and get too aggressive.” The message he actually sent was that men will go to great lengths to try and short-circuit women’s attempts at serious conversation. The helmet was an effort to label those attempts as “male-bashing” or “man-hating.” The hope was that it would shame uppity feminists into biting back their anger; of course, Kevin only ended up inflaming the situation. In less dramatic ways, I’ve seen men use this same tactic again and again.
Kevin’s gag with the football helmet was designed to send a signal about [his level of maturity].Was it immature and stupid? Obviously. But how was it sexist?
Hugo believes there is a pattern where many men respond to women's justifiable anger or even just debate by characterizing these things as violent, whereas with other men it is vigorous debate and discussion. Schwyzer believes this characterization is over-the-top and an unjustified attempt to minimize whatever issues the women wanted to discuss.But see, that just seems completely ridiculous. Men say that they are being "attacked" by other men who disagree with them all the time. And furthermore hasn't the whole anti-bullying movement been premised on the idea that words can hurt people? If that's not true on the internet, then why the focus on 'cyberbullying'? Or is it that bullying is only something that happens to kids?
you have to understand how heavily women are socialized to be nice and to take care of others, especially men. Lots of women, are, of course, actually nice people or like to think of themselves as such, which is why accusing them with trembling lip of being mean to men is an effective debate weapon. … A woman who doesn't care about men's feelings?? It's the fucking apocalypse to some dudes.If you are going to argue with people, you can't set the parameters of what they can and can't say. And you certainly can't set the parameters of their emotional response to your words. If someone is upset by what you say, they are going to feel attacked and perhaps say they are. So what? Claiming that they are being "manipulative" and getting offended that they tell you you hurt their feelings is just ridiculous and is no way to actually have an actual discussion.
Wait, hol' on, you can't set parameters of what they can and cannot say but you can say that their feelings are ridiculous?Yes? I can say someone is stupid for getting upset, but it's ridiculous for me to demand that they not get upset.
And treating women like their criticism of masculinist viewpoints is an attack — especially in the absence of any clarifying examples to earn the benefit of the doubt — is a sign that someone doesn't take women's concerns seriously enough to respect them.First of all, that's just complete nonsense. I mean, it just is. People feel attacked when you disagree with them about things they care about. It has nothing to do with people's genders. Making this about gender is just bizarre. Maybe it is a sign that they don't take the concerns of the person they are talking with seriously, but what does that have to do with gender? There are lots of guys who's opinions I don't take seriously.
To then blame women for that — that it's because women want men to be more like women — is manipulative horseshit.Here's the problem with that logic, in my mind. It sounds like you're putting a restriction on what men are 'allowed' to say when discussing gender. But I don't see any restrictions on what women are allowed to say in response. It's a one-directional restriction. Are there things women shouldn't say?
Maybe I'm not understanding you, because you seem close to conceding that point, but seem to want to have it both ways, where feminists can't complain about shitty behavior, but dudes get to whine about getting called on it?No, it seems like what you want is the other way around: Women can complain about men, but men can't complain about complaints. And if they do women should call out the complaints about complaints about the complaints and they're apparently being manipulated.
Anyone can complain about whatever complaints they want to. However, it is only appropriate to do so after you have addressed the complaint: either by solving and/or mitigating the problem, or by refusing to, preferably with an explanation. To discuss complaints -- discuss discussion -- while the discussion in question is still ongoing, constitutes a derail, and is highly manipulative.Yeah, like I said that's ridiculous and the idea that it's 'manipulative' seems insane. Also, this whole thing seems to be premised on the idea that men are somehow better at manipulating women then women are at manipulating men. Or something.
Now, see, when you're looking for ridiculous nonsense, what you're writing here is it. To use a more extreme example for the sake of clarity, it's like complaining that white people can't call black people "nigger" and still expect to be treated like they're having a reasonable discussion. That's a "one-direction" restriction, but it exists for a pretty good reason and complaining about it, as a white person, is generally evidence of unexamined privilege. The analogy isn't exact, but it's similar enough.No, it's easy to generalize that rule. You simply say that you're not allowed to use racial slurs that apply to your opponents but not yourself.
My good Christ, when I say "To use a more extreme example for the sake of clarity," which you quoted, I expect you to be able to comprehend that.It's not 'clarity', it's just shock value. And either way the two are not structurally equivalent because one can be expressed as a general rule.
Why, if only we had a way to evaluate premises so that we weren't bound by syllogistic fallacies!Huh? Did you think I was trying to write a logical syllogism? Because I obviously wasn't. If you're trying to argue that your little syllogism is somehow isomorphic to what I said by mapping 'dead' to 'has this structure' and the two groups to Socrates and a cat then you're mistaken. I never claimed that the two were identical, or that one was a subset of the other. The point is that they are similar, in the same way cats and humans are similar in that they are both mammals.
Socrates died/All cats die/Socrates is a cat!
Couldn't we say that there are times when people are legitimately offended over the way they've been attacked as well as times when that "offense" is really just defensiveness and disingenuousness?Are you saying that you think people are actually lying about feeling offended? Like that they feel fine and are just claiming they're offended in order to manipulate people?
Further, that has nothing to do with whether or not people feel the discussion is fair, nor whether that subjective feeling is a good proxy for whether the conversation is fair, nor whether people will continue to engage in an unfair discussion (depends on the stakes).Yeah, I think this is ridiculous. Furthermore, it actually seems really sexist to me.
whether or not you personally would continue talking isn't a good guide for conversations in general.Well, what is the point of these conversations? Is there some goal or is it just people arguing because they like arguing? If it's the latter then you do get to pick who you talk too. If it's someone you have to talk too, and there's some goal you want to achieve, then you can't set down any ground rules they don't agree too.
« Older Bank of America agreed to pay $335 million to reso... | Secrecy defines Obama’s drone ... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Oh man, this.
posted by beefetish at 4:42 PM on December 21, 2011 [66 favorites]