Reader Vir Modestus sent me a link to this Melissa McEwan post that appeared while I was out of the country. It’s a powerful piece by one of the best-known and most widely respected of feminist bloggers, calling out men — some of us in one sense, all of us in another — in a searing indictment of the way in which our sex is acculturated to treat women. An extended excerpt:
No, I don’t hate men.
It would, however, be fair to say that I don’t easily trust them.
My mistrust is not, as one might expect, primarily a result of the violent acts done on my body, nor the vicious humiliations done to my dignity. It is, instead, born of the multitude of mundane betrayals that mark my every relationship with a man—the casual rape joke, the use of a female slur, the careless demonization of the feminine in everyday conversation, the accusations of overreaction, the eyerolling and exasperated sighs in response to polite requests to please not use misogynist epithets in my presence or to please use non-gendered language (“humankind”).
There are the jokes about women, about wives, about mothers, about raising daughters, about female bosses. They are told in my presence by men who are meant to care about me, just to get a rise out of me, as though I am meant to find funny a reminder of my second-class status. I am meant to ignore that this is a bullying tactic, that the men telling these jokes derive their amusement specifically from knowing they upset me, piss me off, hurt me. They tell them and I can laugh, and they can thus feel superior, or I can not laugh, and they can thus feel superior. Heads they win, tails I lose. I am used as a prop in an ongoing game of patriarchal posturing, and then I am meant to believe it is true when some of the men who enjoy this sport, in which I am their pawn, tell me, “I love you.” I love you, my daughter. I love you, my niece. I love you, my friend. I am meant to trust these words.
There are the occasions that men—intellectual men, clever men, engaged men—insist on playing devil’s advocate, desirous of a debate on some aspect of feminist theory or reproductive rights or some other subject generally filed under the heading: Women’s Issues. These intellectual, clever, engaged men want to endlessly probe my argument for weaknesses, want to wrestle over details, want to argue just for fun—and they wonder, these intellectual, clever, engaged men, why my voice keeps raising and why my face is flushed and why, after an hour of fighting my corner, hot tears burn the corners of my eyes. Why do you have to take this stuff so personally? ask the intellectual, clever, and engaged men, who have never considered that the content of the abstract exercise that’s so much fun for them is the stuff of my life.
Nearly 300 comments follow beneath Melissa’s post.
Melissa followed up with this post last week: Crank it up to 11, in which she noted how many men had written or spoken to her in the aftermath of her first piece, assuring her that “not all men were like that” and that yes, they felt the same way that she did about those who were. While appreciative of the support, Melissa calls out feminist men to do more:
I can certainly understand why men don’t want to get involved in the rage-making timesucks that are threads about feminist women’s lived experiences. Aside from the crushing feeling of futility such participation inspires, men who engage on the side of feminist women inevitably face a barrage of intense vitriol. In return for allowing me merely to publish his response to the piece, Iain (Melissa’s partner) has been resoundingly pitied by misogynists across the blogosphere for his lamentable fate to be married to such a gruesome harridan.
Now here’s the other thing about leaving the rectification of gender-based inequalities to the ladies: Misogynist men don’t respect women. They don’t listen to women; they won’t acknowledge a woman’s authority on her own lived experiences; they’re not going to learn anything from women, and certainly not feminist women.
Men who think women are less than need to hear that they’re terribly, infuriatingly, and demonstrably wrong from other men. Publicly. Passionately. As loud as the loud, so very loud, voices on the other side. One of the ways their self-reassuring bullshit works is via the effective void of male dissension, which supports their erroneous belief that they are the “objective” arbiters of womanhood. Well, if we’re so wrong, where are the other people [men] to say so? they wonder smugly.
They count on feminist men never showing up en masse for the main event.
As we say in Christian circles, that’s a “come to Jesus” message I needed to hear this week. I learned early a basic truth that I repeat to my students and my mentees every chance I get: the acid test of a man who claims the mantle of feminism (whether he calls himself a feminist or a “feminist ally” isn’t particularly relevant) is not how only how he treats women, but how he deals with the men in his life. Feminist men need to be able to be vocal allies of women even when there are no women around; in all-male and mixed settings, male feminists have a special obligation to stand against misogyny. If that’s too scary to do in “real life”, it surely isn’t too much to ask in the world of the blogosphere, where nasty language doesn’t carry with it the threat of imminent physical violence.
My feminism was developmental, as I’ve said before. I was able to assent intellectually to the principles of feminism long before I was courageous enough to espouse them in potentially hostile settings. I had to take baby steps. Identifying as a feminist in a women’s studies class came before identifying as a feminist in an all-male environment. But I felt a sense of urgency; it is male privilege that allows feminist men to pick and choose to join battles into which women are regularly drafted against their will. If we’re serious about our feminism, we can’t just be allies when it’s safe or convenient, we can’t merely offer soothing reassurance in private to the women in our lives. We’ve got to do it as publicly as possible, remembering that our primary usefulness to the egalitarian cause lies in our willingness to model publicly a different way of living as brothers, fathers, sons, husbands, lovers, bosses, students, roommates, coworkers and friends.
This doesn’t mean we should make the mistake of going into “knight in shining armor mode”. Getting into the fight doesn’t mean we are “rescuing” female feminists in distress from misogynist dragons. Our sisters aren’t looking for saviors, but they do need brothers-in-arms.
We all know the saying that “it’s more important to walk the walk than to talk the talk.” That’s true in many instances, but it misses the basic truth that in an ongoing fight, it’s not enough to “walk the walk” in quietist comfort. Our private convictions and choices matter, but more is needed. In our homes and on the blogs and in the classroom and on the playing field, we’ve got to start “talking the talk” to those who are fundamentally hostile to the basic principles of feminism. If our hearts are in the right place, then our words need to be there as well.
In our homes and on the blogs and in the classroom and on the playing field, we’ve got to start “talking the talk†to those who are fundamentally hostile to the basic principles of feminism.
Why would they listen?
Your ilk has made your contempt for their values and beliefs painfully clear.
Dialog is two-way. Your post is an announcement that you feel obliged to go lecture the heathen on your superior way of life.
Like Columbus going to the Indians, you may have much of value to teach. But your presumption of superiority and of your right to dominate the discourse obliterates the ability of your target audience to hear you.
Robert, I understand that people who don’t feel talked down to and feel respected will be more willing to listen, but hey, that’s why I don’t listen to MRAs. They don’t respect me because I’m the wrong gender.
I’d rather men not have to agree with MRAs before they’re allowed to disagree with them, just to get that elusive respect.
Because other men who aren’t gay are human, whereas women are just life support systems for pussy?
Way to wave the victim flag, by the way. It must be terrible to have those imperialist male-feminist types trying to infect you with smallpox and insist that it’s not funny to tell women rape jokes.
Good post. I commented the following on a similar post at Feministe a couple of weeks ago, but it stands here too. I think it’s important to make it clear when engaging men in pro-feminist conversation that it is not anti-male, rather anti-patriarchy. If I can quickly plug my new book, “Numen, Old Men: Contemporary Masculine Spiritualities and the Problem of Patriarchyâ€, the final paragraph reads:
“I have argued for the rejection of masculine spirituality due to its patriarchal nature and restrictive treatment of gender. But this does not close down in any way men discussing religion and spirituality in terms which resonate with being a man. It opens up a conversation which resonates with any number of ways of being a man (or masculine) that rejects patriarchy. It is a pro-man conversation because it is pro-person, which by necessity must involve the liberation of all people. Feminist and queer theories and theologies have done most of the work in making way for such a conversation. What is needed now is for predominantly straight men to step up and play their part in a process which will benefit the vast majority of people. This is hardly a new or radical suggestion, but its realization remains elusive. Such is the insidious nature of patriarchy. But as the saying goes, the bigger they are, the harder they fall.â€
Robert, I do have contempt for misogyny. And I am happy to wage battle (in a civil fashion) with those who insist on peddling the canard that biology is destiny. I’m not going to let the MRAs open a beachhead on my blog — heck, I deal with them all the time on campus.
That’s not the point I was trying to make. Your blog is a private space; run it as you see fit.
You’re talking about going out as an apostle, full of your wisdom and knowledge and utterly sure that the people you will minister to have nothing to teach you.
I believe I always have things to learn — at the same time, at some point one needs to stop being a perpetual learner and become a zealous advocate, even as one remains open to criticism. I hear the MRA line; I’ve considered it for twenty years or more. And it has been weighed and found wanting, along with the spurious socio-biology that so often accompanies the gender essentialist line.
Robert,
You’re talking about going out as an apostle, full of your wisdom and knowledge and utterly sure that the people you will minister to have nothing to teach you.
Do you raise these same concerns when it comes to missionaries of your own religion?
To some degree. But largely the missionaries of my religion have learned that lesson and lack the hubris of the past.
I read this post yesterday, and instead of jotting down my immediate thoughts, I decided to sleep on it.
This post hurt me.
There’s a lot of pain and anger behind her post, and justifiably so. Even still, it hurts, not only to be expressly mistrusted, especially based on my being born male, especially because I sincerely try to “walk the walk” with the guys (and potentially alienating some people who I consider to be my closest friends).
I know the line “if it’s not about you, than it’s not about you.”, but it still hurts me to be blamed, mistrusted, and labeled.
And saying “I don’t hate men” doesn’t make it any less hurtful and discouraging.
Ok, enough about my feelings.
I don’t think that it’s fair, in a movement for gender equality, to hold men to a different standard than women. I reject the idea that male feminists need an acid test any more than female; Especially because men have as much to gain from gender liberation as women. The (straight) male voice is largely absent from the dialogue, but that doesn’t mean that we are the enemy, neutral bystanders, or morally exemplary white knights, standing out from our heathen brethren. We’re all in this together.
I could have easily written McEwan’s post, although my distrust of feminists and women does stem from violent acts done to my body, along with the mundane betrayals. While I have encountered no feminists who challenged the validity of my distrust (to the contrary, my experiences with them offline and online have only strengthened it) and few women who have done so, I do think it is important for me to understand the impact of my distrust. Most specifically, my distrust of them breeds their distrust of me. The way I treat them, although never with hostility or violence, makes me wonder whether the things I say and do causes those women and feminists to stand on edge. I would hope feminists like McEwan realize that their attitudes play a significant role in the way those they distrust react to them.
On a related note, this thread reminds me of Yamamoto Tsunetomo’s words in the Hagakure:
To give a person one’s opinion and correct his faults is an important thing. It is compassionate and comes first in matters of service. But the way of doing this is extremely difficult. To discover the good and bad points of a person is an easy thing, and to give an opinion concerning them is easy, too. For the most part, people think that they are being kind by saying things that others find distasteful or difficult to say. But if it is not received well, they think that there is nothing more to be done. This is completely worthless. It is the same as bringing shame to a person by slandering him. It is nothing more than getting it off one’s chest.
MER, I understand your hurt. I’ve had my own history of learning how unfair it is that I — one of the ‘good guys’ — would be lumped in with all the jerks out there.
But the point of the original post is, being male, we don’t always see what it is that we do that hurt the women in our lives. Is it the joke at Thanksgiving that Uncle Kenny told that was really misogynistic — and yet WE didn’t call him on it? Was it the quick dismissal of her opinion because you just ‘knew better’ even if it was something she experiences every day? Those are the times when we — as males, as allies — need to stop, apologize, listen, and thoughtfully consider and try to learn.
And for Robert, you’re right. There is nothing I’m going to say that will change your mind (nor you mine, I might add). But for all the men out there who actually consider women to be fully human, who know that they benefit from the privilege accorded to males in our society, and who want to do better, they might hear me speak up against … well, people like you, and take heart. And maybe the women in my life won’t feel they have to fight the battle all on their own. Because you know what? It isn’t just their fight.
Pingback: The importance of “talking the talkâ€: male feminists and visibility – Hugo Schwyzer « Association of Women’s Studies
I see that one thing Melissa–if I’m keeping track here–says bothers her is eye-rolling when she asks people to use non-gendered language.
I think she’s pushing it. I’ve done a lot to support women, without a waiver for the part where I could get hurt, and am prepared to do more.
Swapping “mankind” for “humankind” isn’t on my to-do list.
Tell you what, Melissa.
Make you a deal. You stand against sitcoms and commercials making men out to be doofuses and I’ll think about “humankind”.
I still think it’s owed to me (and everyone) not to be judged based on my gender/race/orientation/ect.
If I’m to be held to the standard of not assuming women to be manipulative/stupid/overly emotional/sex object/ect. Then I’m going to damn well hold them to the same standard, especially people that identify as feminists.
It’s upsetting to me when my entire gender is blanket defamed, by a member of an ‘egalitarian movement’ none the less; and two-faced to hold such a double standard.
I can’t control other people’s past experiences, nor how they feel, but I can control how I react to them. You don’t have to answer my ‘hello’, but don’t expect me to trust you in return.
I still think it’s owed to me (and everyone) not to be judged based on my gender/race/orientation/ect.
The thing to remember is that no one is entitled to trust. It is earned, not blindly given. It is not an easy thing not to be trusted because it is an attack on a person’s character. Very few people think of themselves as untrustworthy and it can hurt even more when a person tells you there is little that you can immediately do to change that.
However, in most instances there does remain the chance to gain that person’s trust. You may not change that person’s view of all people like you (whether your gender, race, orientation, etc.), yet by trying earn the person’s trust you can show that person that not all people are as the person believes them to be. This may not work, but there is no harm in trying. And if it does work, that may make that person more willing to set aside the distrust, if even for a moment, to see if there are others like you.
So, it is not as hopeless as it appears.
Toy.
Trust, like respect, is earned. Civility is owed. Wariness is prudent.
Strikes me that there really isn’t any reason to worry about somebody who doesn’t trust.
Their problem.
If I have anything to offer them, they don’t get it. Somebody else does.
Years ago, helping out at a high school invitational tennis tournament involving several locations, I transported a couple of kids on our team. There were some girls at that location who needed to go back to our school but whom I did not know. Our team manager told them I was okay but they demurred.
No problem.
Somebody else drove them.
I don’t see the issue here.
Unless you want to justify group suspicion, and then we have to start looking at the numbers of actions which would be considered wrong directed at those of the group we are in. No telling which groups might qualify. Deep waters.
Trust, like respect, is earned. Civility is owed. Wariness is prudent.
Strikes me that there really isn’t any reason to worry about somebody who doesn’t trust.
Their problem.
This is what I wanted to say.
It’s fine not to trust, but to expect something different in return is unreasonable.
Robert,
“You’re talking about going out as an apostle, full of your wisdom and knowledge and utterly sure that the people you will minister to have nothing to teach you.”
I’ve often complained about Hugo’s style, but what you say is unfair. Matters of style aside, Hugo has repeatedly questioned his own convictions on a number of issues, and when he does, he usually raises a number of interesteing questions. I’ve been reading his blog for a year or so, and I’ve seen this happen multiple times. He’s certainly far too intelligent to believe that he has nothing to learn.
Feminist men need to be able to be vocal allies of women even when there are no women around; in all-male and mixed settings, male feminists have a special obligation to stand against misogyny.
Perhaps someone can advise me here. I’ve belonged to a mailing list of young-to-middle-aged mainly tech-oriented British and American white guys for the past ten years or so, and I am in no position to deny that it is a veritable festival of homophobia, sexism, shapism, racism, heightism and transphobia, just off the top of my head. Almost certainly we are performing masculinity for each other, and as one with aspirations towards profeminism I nevertheless wondered what the importance of this was as long as it didn’t impact any of its targets. I thought of it as just venting. One often reads of how minorities need to vent at white guys occasionally, and how we shouldn’t take it personally. But perhaps this is one of those many situations where sauce for the goose will be perpetually unavailable to the gander, I dunno.
Anyway, I bestirred myself off here where I read this:
But please listen, and please trust me on this one: you have probably, at some point in your life, engaged in that kind of talk with a man who really, truly hates women–to the extent of having beaten and/or raped at least one. And you probably didn’t know which one he was.
And that guy? Thought you were on his side.
OK, so on the chance that we’re harbouring some utter psycho in our midst we should leave off this stuff just in case. Hmm. I mean, yeah, if I was exchanging random *isms with passing strangers I can see how I would run the risk of potentially encouraging the wrong sort of behaviour, but I do feel I know these guys reasonably well. Perhaps in some strange way our souls are being insidiously corroded each time we type “C***!” (in the British sense, the American one is terrible). Perhaps it makes it significantly more likely that when faced with a situation where a minority individual is on the receiving end of actual oppression we will back down and say nothing.
But perhaps, you know, not.
Perhaps someone can advise me here.
Doesn’t sound like you want to be “advised”; it sounds like you’re pouty that the mean, mean feminists are suggesting that it’s perhaps not all that cool that you and your buddies find it funny to talk about women as being no more than fuckholes.
On the off chance that you’re not concern-trolling, why are you “venting”? Is it so awful that, in real life, you’re not cheered on for making nigger jokes, so you have to turn to like-minded bros online to let it all out?
Doesn’t sound like you want to be “advisedâ€;
Not deferential enough? Well, sorry. I was kind of hoping for advice from a guy, actually, which is why I came to Hugo’s blog. The profeminist men’s community isn’t quite the hotbed of activity I’d hoped, unless I’ve missed some huge network of busy sites. I suppose I should start my own.
it sounds like you’re pouty that the mean, mean feminists are suggesting that it’s perhaps not all that cool that you and your buddies find it funny to talk about women as being no more than fuckholes.
It’s really not that extreme AAMOF – I think of it as being ironic, I’d be really put off if I thought any of them were sincere about it – a performance, as I said.
You could think of me as “questioning” – my patriarchal identity rather than my sexuality, not that there would be anything wrong if it was the latter, obviously. Or you could just dismiss me as a troll, that might be the easiest thing.
On the off chance that you’re not concern-trolling, why are you “venting�
Well, minorities and women have made *some* progress in public life over the last few decades. In a zero-sum world, that can feel like a loss for men. And I’m not claiming that’s anything other than an emotional reaction.
Is it so awful that, in real life, you’re not cheered on for making nigger jokes, so you have to turn to like-minded bros online to let it all out?
Haven’t you ever enjoyed being somewhere you can relax and not have to watch what you say? People who talk about ally work always mention the need to confront the fellow-privileged about their actions and language. And they often say that you need to abandon the friends you can’t convert if you’re going to remain among the righteous, though they’re a bit more circumspect about family. And I’m glad for these people and their turnover, that they can change their friends like they change their underpants, but I’m not in a situation where that’s particularly easy.
You’re not mythago from Making Light, are you? Not that it’s any of my business.
Pingback: When Your Male Privilege Stops Applying To Your Situation, It Goes Beyond Inconvenient, Doesn’t It? at PunkAssBlog.com
“Make you a deal. You stand against sitcoms and commercials making men out to be doofuses and I’ll think about ‘humankind’.”
Because I’ve only seen feminist bloggers take a stand against those portrayals of doofus husbands about five million times. But I can’t remember off the top of my head if Melissa has blogged about it specifically herself, so I guess your point is totally valid and the patriarchy doesn’t hurt men at all because it’s those evil feminists writing those sitcoms. Totally.
Something else that seems relevant: I recall reading about a study that showed feminist women held a higher opinion of men in general than non-feminist women, probably because the trope that men are slave to their animal instincts and just can’t help raping and killing is decidedly frowned upon in feminist circles. And it’s generally not the feminists emphasizing how necessary it is for women not to do anything that encourages men to rape them, such as walking alone at night, or smiling at people.
Yes, Melissa has blogged about the doofus stereotype repeatedly. Not that it matters. It isn’t really up to a straight man to tell her on what conditions she can complain about the patriarchy, and what positions she needs to take on men in order to legitimize her position.
It also isn’t the role of feminism to make men comfortable with friends or in a space that makes them victims. Women are afraid. Afraid of being attacked, afraid of being ridiculed, afraid of being mocked, afraid of being objectified, and afraid of being told that this is not as important as men feeling comfortable.
It is laughable to read that somehow attitudes like Melissa’s somehow created misogyny. So, her distrust of men created distrust of feminists. I am so sorry if pointing out sexism has somehow made some men feel defensive, but I am having a hard time seeing that as more important that the sexism and patriarchy that exists.
@ Hugo, meercat, Vir, momTFH – right on.
@ Adrian Smith:
You want feedback on, if I read you correctly, when it’s okay to “vent.”
ok – you stated this:
“Almost certainly we are performing masculinity for each other, and as one with aspirations towards profeminism I nevertheless wondered what the importance of this was as long as it didn’t impact any of its targets. I thought of it as just venting. One often reads of how minorities need to vent at white guys occasionally, and how we shouldn’t take it personally.”
You totally nailed it with “we are performing masculinity for each other”. But it is not the same thing as “minorities” seeking to ‘vent’ about their stresses and oppressions of White/het/abled/male/etc society. Because when the privileged trade remarks that are sexist, racist, etc, they are re-enacting and re-enforcing their own privilege.
It’s not a release of pressure from a society that thinks you are less-than, or a way to think through oppression to make change – which is what those “minorities” are doing. And their venting does not make it harder for White guys to get a job, live in the areas they want to live, or see themselves represented in all areas of human endeavour (for example). Their venting does not have the power to harm the privileged, whereas the privileged spouting supremacy certainly promoted and maintains inequality across the board.
Thus sitting in a privileged-only space and saying racist, sexist things is exactly a mechanism of maintaining domination and inequality.
And thus when you ask: “I nevertheless wondered what the importance of this was as long as it didn’t impact any of its targets.” – the thing is, it DOES impact all of its targets, all the time. It makes those very ideas seem right and reinforces their use in the ‘real world.’ Just because some woman or Black person isn’t literally there to hear it does not make it ok.
It’s the privileged giving themselves more permission and more fuel to continue their privilege and their sense of superiority.
So yeah – a truly ethical human won’t want to be participating in that sort of framework.
Double standards? How about quadruple standards? So-many-it-makes-your-head-spin standards?
Consider: apparently our entire movement is bereft of all meaning if we say we’re even the wee-est bit distrustful of men. We’re supposed to be full of warm fuzzies for the these fellows, who after all, are mostly a nice bunch.
Yet should one of us toddle back a little tipsy to a male friend’s dorm room, laughing all the way and, whoops! get raped, well, folks just come out of the woodwork telling us she must have known that was going to happen, she must have wanted it, that she should have been more careful, that it was because she was drunk and hey, why ruin the poor guy’s life when he didn’t anything so VERY bad.
Yet should said rape victim, faced not only with the assault on her body but the assault on her dignity by many people she knows and cares about, join the feminist band and take self-defense classes and get mad and get active, we’re back to the trust thing. She should know that it was just that one guy, just that once, that it’s not like this is common or anything. And after all, she’ll drive off all the nice dudes if she keeps acting so angry, since it IS her purpose to be a receptacle for somebody’s spunk, to make the menz feel cozy and never hurt anyone’s feelings.
And then the whiners snivelling about how that same and, unfortunately, frequently necessary caution is hurting them? Who think that including women in the definiton of humanity by sending “mankind” the way of the dodo is just too onerous a burden until feminists do something about the fact that male screen writers write male characters as doofuses, instead of focusing on, for instance, the abysmal rates of rape convictions? Who evidently believe that there’s a level playing field in action, and so men mistrusting women is as perfectly justified despite the reams of evidence that men have greater power in virtually every area of society and are fine with using that to discriminate against gal-dom?
I’d end with something flagrantly obscene, and not in a sexyfun way, but I dunno about the comments policy on this blog.
Minerva: thanks for replying. I’m still a little uncomfortable with the idea that feminist theory has mapped out the connection between my thoughts, words and actions to the extent that it’s possible to say “If you think This and say This then you will eventually go and do That” like it’s Newton’s Laws of Motion or something. The thought (or word) is not always father to the deed IMO – some stuff may just be noise. In our case it’s a childish pleasure in saying ‘forbidden’ things which would annoy right-on types if they could hear them, but since they can’t it’s one of those if-a-tree-falls-in-the-forest-and-no-one-is-there-to-hear-it things. I do appreciate that we would be doing something poisonous if we were sincere, but I have a problem with the automatic assumption that we aren’t fit to judge whether we are or not.
There’s a line that often comes up when guys are having feminism 101 elucidated – “You’re not bad for having privilege” which always seems to have the rider “…but you will be if you don’t change your behaviour now that we’ve explained it to you”. And not just the behaviour, but the underlying attitudes themselves. Not just “Stop making fat jokes” but “Become a person who doesn’t find fat jokes funny” and then “Become a person who will stand up and berate the tellers of fat jokes for insensitivity even in the absence of the fat”. And I think it’s a steep hill to climb for a lot of guys, to the point where a lot of them are likely to go and devote themselves to other things. Being thought “priggish”, or inappropriately judgmental, is quite a turnoff. Naturally, a feminist would say there’s nothing inappropriate about it, but for people who haven’t internalised the idea of the invisible octopus of patriarchy stealthily caressing our spines with its memetic tentacles of privilege it’s going to be a hard sell.
Anyway, with that metaphor I’m clearly up past my bedtime…
In our case it’s a childish pleasure in saying ‘forbidden’ things which would annoy right-on types if they could hear them
Good grief. And you wonder why feminists are such killjoys, when we’re dealing with infants in grown mens’ bodies all the damned time.
@Adrian Smith
OK, so on the chance that we’re harbouring some utter psycho in our midst we should leave off this stuff just in case. Hmm. I mean, yeah, if I was exchanging random *isms with passing strangers I can see how I would run the risk of potentially encouraging the wrong sort of behaviour, but I do feel I know these guys reasonably well.
Hi, Adrian. Have you considered that is usually a woman’s buddy, friend, boyfriend, husband, or family member who rapes her, and not a passing stranger? It seems likely that she probably thought she knew that guy reasonably well too, and that she was relatively certain he wasn’t an utter psycho until the attack. What I am trying to suggest is that you are really in no position to be confident that no one in a group of people that you know through a mailing list (even for ten years), is not a rapist or misogynist who will feel validated by what he perceives as your approval and support.
I get that you don’t really mean that shit. I get that you’re just talking out your ass…
As long as we live in a culture where the good guys sometimes sound just like the misogynists, the misogynists are never going to get the message that they are not normal and that most people–strong, successful men included–do not hate women.
Pick a justification, please. You can’t (believably, anyway) argue that your friends are simultaneously doing all of the following: working through discomfort at changing views of privilege, enjoying the thrill of using ‘bad words’, displaying masculinity, being ironic and totally not at all sincere, and really just needing to relax.
“Ironic” and “satire” are much-abused terms these days. They’re the text equivalent of writing a nasty, assholish post, then slapping a
on the end and pretending that negates the prior nasty assholery. “Ironic” is not when you get when you mix bigotry with a self-perception that one is very, very witty.
Whether the thought is father to the deed is academic, as we’re talking about deeds.