We’ve had more than 90 comments below this post examining the degree to which women’s wariness of men is justified. It’s a fairly good discussion, for which I am grateful.
I wrote a few years ago a post called Words are not fists: some thoughts on how men work to defuse feminist anger. An excerpt:
Part of being a pro-feminist man, I’ve come to realize in recent years, is being willing to face the real anger of real women. Far too many men spend a great deal of time trying to talk women out of their anger, or by creating social pressures that remind women of the consequences of expressing that anger. Many men, frankly, are profoundly frightened by women who will directly challenge them. In a classroom, they don’t really fear being struck or hit. But by comparing a verbal attack on their own sexist attitudes towards physical violence, they hope to defuse the verbal expression of very real female pain and frustration. I know that it’s hard to be a young man in a feminist setting for the first time, and I know, (oh, how I know) how difficult it is to sit and listen to someone challenge you on your most basic beliefs about your identity, your sexuality, your behavior, and your beliefs about gender. It’s difficult to take the risk to speak up and push back a bit, and it’s scary to realize just how infuriating your views really are to other people, especially women.
The first task of the pro-feminist male in this situation is to accept the reality and the legitimacy of the frustration and disappointment and anger that so many women have with men, and to accept it without making light of it or trying to defuse it or trying to soothe it. Pro-feminist men must work to confront their own fears about being the target of those feelings.
I’d like to say a bit more about how men can do this last bit, as it’s not something I addressed in the original piece. I don’t want to imply that I think that a feminist man simply “stands there and takes it”. One of the ideals of traditional American masculinity is of the man as “sturdy oak”, able to withstand any tempest, even that of a woman’s righteous anger. That comes dangerously close to reinforcing the notion that women are “naturally” more volatile (at least emotionally), perhaps even hysterical (a dangerous word, given its origins) — and that is a “real man’s” job to hold his ground, silently, in the face of what will be a formidable, but (it is to be hoped) brief feminine storm. Though I’d like to believe my readers of the original post didn’t infer that I was reifying this myth, it’s important to clarify how I think we ought to help men respond to women’s anger.
Feminist men need to know that it’s “not all their fault.” We live in a system, call it patriarchy or kyriarchy or what-you-will, that gives men (as a class) power over women (as a class). That doesn’t mean that every man is more powerful than every woman; there is abundant evidence to the contrary. But the fact that today some African-Americans are wealthier than some whites doesn’t prove that there aren’t still gross economic disparities, rooted in racism, that privilege whites at black expense. When it comes to rape and sexual abuse, men as well as women can be victims. But more women than men are victimized, and in any event the vast majority of rapists are men. Outside of a prison setting , men generally enjoy a freedom from the fear of being raped that women do not. Women’s anger at the frequency of man-on-woman sexual violence is a justified anger, and it is rightly directed towards men as a class and towards the system that permits that sexual violence to flourish. It’s also rightly directed towards individual men who do rape, assault, molest, or harass women.
Faced with this righteous anger, feminist men need to remember that possession of a penis alone doesn’t automatically indicate complicity with the Great Crime. At the same time, “not raping” isn’t good enough to avoid complicity: if you quietly acquiesce to the inevitability of bad male behavior, or cosign sexism by remaining silent when it presents itself, you are a passive passenger on the patriarchy express. Ya might need to hear a little righteous rage to rattle you out of that quietism.
Feminist men don’t believe all women are right all the time. There’s a caricature, largely spread by anti-feminist media, that men who embrace gender justice are timid, filled with self-loathing, and utterly unwilling to call out any woman on her misbehavior at any time. Feminist men, so the myth suggests, not-so-secretly believe in the superiority of the be-vulvaed, and thus never challenge the women in their lives. The recognition that oppression and sexism are real, and that women — more than any other group — are the ones who suffer the consequences doesn’t mean that individual women are invariably right in every one of their criticisms, while men are invariably wrong in their responses to women’s anger. Living in a system of oppression gives you a different perspective, particularly when yours is the class being oppressed. But mistreatment doesn’t automatically create wisdom; suffering doesn’t invariably lead to superior insight.
It’s okay to fight. Really. As any relationship counselor will tell you, healthy relationships are not characterized by the absence of conflict but by the tactics used within the relationship to resolve conflict. There is such a thing, after all, as “fighting fair”. You can find lists of fair fighting rules all over the place, here’s one such summary. We think of these rules as applicable primarily to couples, but they’re useful for classroom exchanges about hot-button topics as well.
One really important fair fighting rule: don’t clam up. Many men, confronted with women’s righteous rage, grow impassive, trying to imitate a stone wall or a diving submarine or the aforementioned sturdy oak. It’s an infuriating tactic because it refuses the other person the response which is their due. In a fight, the silent participant uses a refusal to engage verbally as a tactic with which to assert what they think is moral superiority: “You may get out of control and all, but look at me. I’m not saying anything, just waiting for your little tantrum to end.” It infantilizes and disrespects the person with whom you’re in conflict.
Many men who are reluctant, for any number of reasons, to embrace the label “feminist” for themselves, prefer the term “ally.” I often identify in groups as a “feminist ally”. An ally is in a very real sense a partner, and no partnership is worthy of the name if either member thereof feels as if he or she has no right to speak, to engage, to fight back. If men are to play a constructive role in the feminist movement, we must be authentic partners — and partners know how to engage in, rather than avoid or attempt to defuse, conflict with their allies and friends.
Lastly: do your own work. Most men have been raised to be far less verbally adept than their sisters. Because boys are shamed out of crying (or displaying any emotion other than rage or sexual excitement), many men grow up numb, with little vocabulary for their own inner terrain. For more on what “doing your own work” looks like, check out this trio of posts on the subject of male transformation. Yes, men can become as insightful and intuitive as the women in their lives. Toxic programming can be unlearned, though the process isn’t easy or quick. And we can learn — trust me on this if you trust me on nothing else — to engage with others using a whole palette of emotions, beyond the familar and limited ones like numbness, rage, fear, lust, exhaustion and despair.
That may well be a manipulative action. It’s also sometimes the action of someone realizing that the person they’re arguing with isn’t doing so in good faith – heaping on the snark and condescension and assumptions about that person’s personal thoughts and motives, etc. Some rage is not so righteous, frankly.
Hugo,
“But mistreatment doesn’t automatically create wisdom; suffering doesn’t invariably lead to superior insight.”
No it doesn’t. But that’s both an epistemological problem of the whole privilege/opression inverse hierarchy and its practical acceptance as indicator of credibility in deabtes.
Admit that you’re white male and your voice simply isn’t given equivalent weight in certain discussions because you have too much assumed privilege (*at least* implying your voice is given too much room elsewhere and need not be treated with the same respect as the opinion of someone with less “privilege” ).
Acceptance that someone else’s opinion is axiomatically more right than yours is not a way to hold a fruitful debate, and, of course, it’s a merely a convenient way of not applying the tools of critical thinking to one’s own position.
The whole group based standpoint and intersectionaliy stuff logically falls apart if you look at it a bit more closely and then we’re back to classic humanism, which is also what, I think, is one of Judith Butler’s main points.
Acceptance that someone else’s opinion is axiomatically more right than yours is not a way to hold a fruitful debate, and, of course, it’s a merely a convenient way of not applying the tools of critical thinking to one’s own position.
This likely occurs to most men, hence their silence. There is no point in arguing if you are not going to be listened to. The irony, of course, is that women’s intent is to prompt men to argue with and challenge them, which would inevitably further exacerbate the situation if any man did so. Being such, most men probably consider it better to stand there (i.e. shut up) and take it than to argue with women.
I didn’t have an opportunity to comment on the Schrödinger’s post, but what I have to say here is more or less the same point.
I might suggest another fair-fighting rule: don’t treat the person with whom you are fighting as presumptively suspect based on their membership in a class. Fairness implies that the parties are able to deal and interact on a reasonably equal footing, different collective and individual experiences notwithstanding. When class membership goes beyond influencing experience, and is used to question the motives of a member of that class or suggest complicity based purely on their membership in that class, essentially making them a scapegoat, that’s fighting unfair. As far as I’m concerned, such an approach is properly answered by a refusal to deal.
My reaction to the Schrödinger post was distinct from but perhaps related to clamming up. I take the Seinfeld approach: “Weeeellll, good luck with all that.” Just because a woman is angry or wants to presume that any man or men in general are “Schrödinger’s rapists” or Schrödinger’s anythings (1) doesn’t make them right and (2) doesn’t impose any particular burdens on the men who are the targets of their anger or suspicion if they choose not to spend any time or energy in dealing with them in the first place. If I knew that any particular person would regard me with such an ugly presumption without knowing me, I can reasonably assume that they’re eventually going to be similarly jaundiced towards me at one point or another even if they were to know me, and I’d prefer not waste my time or energy on them.
“One really important fair fighting rule: don’t clam up. Many men, confronted with women’s righteous rage, grow impassive, trying to imitate a stone wall or a diving submarine or the aforementioned sturdy oak. It’s an infuriating tactic because it refuses the other person the response which is their due. In a fight, the silent participant uses a refusal to engage verbally as a tactic with which to assert what they think is moral superiority: ‘You may get out of control and all, but look at me. I’m not saying anything, just waiting for your little tantrum to end.’ It infantilizes and disrespects the person with whom you’re in conflict.”
Have you ever thought that, just maybe, someone being quiet in the face of a blistering, aggressive tirade might not be “an infuriating tactic” at all, but rather a genuine response, either because one is truly intimidated or believes that responding with proportionate anger will only worsen the situation?
And aren’t women more famous than men at dishing out the “silent treatment”?
For that matter, I’ll repeat my point from when this post first ran: I really don’t know why you’re taking the defuse-with-humor response of “I know I’m gonna get killed for saying this, but…” and categorizing it as something that exclusively (or mostly) men do when discussing things in a roomful of women. Women make this “joke” just as often, and you could just as easily hear it when the topic is not gender but rather politics or the NFL. Is it only wrong and patronizing when a man says it to women?
Tom: “If I knew that any particular person would regard me with such an ugly presumption without knowing me, I can reasonably assume that they’re eventually going to be similarly jaundiced towards me at one point or another even if they were to know me, and I’d prefer not waste my time or energy on them.”
Then you don’t understand the Schrodinger’s Rapist post.
It’s not that she’s assuming you’re a rapist. It’s that she doesn’t know, and if she guesses wrong, she’s exposing herself to the threat of rape. The cost of making a mistake isn’t just having to deal with a boring troll. It’s being physically sexually attacked.
Have you been raped? If not, and if you’ve never feared it, then I suggest you stop judging people for whom it’s a real, everyday, disturbing threat from people who are not immediately distinguishable from others who are not a threat.
Plenty of rapists look like you, whatever it is you look like, however you act. They generally don’t wear “I like to rape” buttons, drool, or skulk in corners looking disreputable.
I would expect lots of women you know wondered that about you when they first laid eyes on you. Then they got to know you and discarded that notion. If you want to reject them now for being careful about their physical safety and sexual safety, go right ahead.
And aren’t women more famous than men at dishing out the “silent treatment�
Thanks, by the by. I was flabberghasted trying to understand Hugo’s assertion that In a fight, the silent participant uses a refusal to engage verbally as a tactic with which to assert what they think is moral superiority:, which doesn’t resemble how I usually experience men being silent in arguments with women. So far as my experience goes, it’s almost always submission or surrender. Either as a result of anger being genuinely earned (and if I’ve genuinely wronged someone, what else should I do with their anger/scorn/beratements other than just accept them?), or because even if one doesn’t feel they deserve it, the cost of fighting is far higher than the cost of just conceding anyhow. (And this can be criticised, though any criticism would be radically different.)
But yeah, the one Hugo’s describing does exist; though as far as I can figure it’s use requires the using party to believe they’re in the stronger position, so I can’t really do it in these kind of highly gendered contexts (in general, the most obvious fits are non-platonic relationships. Maybe I’m forgetting something?)
I think the so called “women’s famous silent treatment” is not in response to someone else’s anger, so it isn’t quite the same as Hugo’s example.
For me personally, a lot of times I clam up when I am angry/upset because I’m one of those with a long fuse temper, and once it gets to the point where I’m angry, I’m really, really angry, which is why I try to go this route. When I shut up and ignore the person who has angered me for awhile, it helps me to get back down to “can respond at least somewhat rationally as to why I am angry/hurt/upset.”
I think the so called “women’s famous silent treatment†is not in response to someone else’s anger, so it isn’t quite the same as Hugo’s example.
Sometimes women may feel that by ignoring men they are demonstrating their superior moral position. Usually the silent treatment is an act of contempt and conceit, which basically says to the person being brushed off “I’m so much better than you that you’ll stand there and wait until I’m good and ready to deal with you.” It is not typically used as a direct response to someone else’s anger, but as a preemptive response to it, with the message being that the recipient (usually male) has no right to be angry to begin with.
I have to agree with both Nav and Toysoldier; the stereotypical “silent treatment” from women to male partners doesn’t occur in quite the same context as Hugo’s discussion (as it’s not to ward of anger, but attempts to excuse a behaviour/avoid responsibility/punish), but as Toysoldier notes, it’s identical as a symptom of, and a mechanism for, claiming moral high ground.
Which I guess perplexes me again as to what Hugo’s referring to then. Maybe I’ve never seen it in the field; are their popular cultural examples?
Admit that you’re white male and your voice simply isn’t given equivalent weight in certain discussions because you have too much assumed privilege (*at least* implying your voice is given too much room elsewhere and need not be treated with the same respect as the opinion of someone with less “privilege†).
In a world where we believe a movie with 50% women is “too many” (or “chick flick”), and where even in a class when men get called on more, women are perceived to be called on more, I’m not sure in conversations, white/male voices aren’t given equivalent weight. They may just used to so totally dominating the discussion anything else may seem like that (and not just to them, to most of the people in the conversation).
I’m not saying that’s always the case, and it may not even be the case a lot of the time. But perceptions and norms do skew views of fairness.
There’s also the danger, like you said, of “oppression olympics” style pandering to try and win the argument. And I think that’s something people in these spaces should be wary of.
We have to prompt men to argue with and challenge us? Really?
“Women’s famous silent treatment” – wait, I thought we were supposed to be the sex that can’t shut up for a minute and always wants to Talk About The Relationship while the poor guy just wants a little peace and respite from our feminine yapping?
Tom – it’s OK, because frankly, I’d rather not waste my time and energy on somebody whose reaction to an article that presumes the male reader is a good, decent, non-rapist kind of guy is to hear “blah blah blah RAPIST blah blah”.
We have to prompt men to argue with and challenge us? Really?
The statement in context was about men being silent and avoiding arguing with women. If women want to have an argument with men who generally prefer not to argue with them, obviously women would have to do something to get men to engage them, yes?
As for your response to Tom, here is a lesson I learned from my efforts to protect myself from abusive women and men: People will get offended if you tell them they must earn your trust. To have someone not trust you based on other people’s actions is frustrating, especially when it comes with labels like “potential rapist.” They will judge your worthiness just as you are judging theirs. Being such, I learned fairly quickly that if I want people to respect my boundaries, I must accept that some people will want nothing to do with me as a result. It comes with the territory, and it would be hypocritical for me to complaint or get testy about it.
First of all on the Schrödinger’s post, I don’t find it unusual that people in any circumstance take precautions with their personal safety. I do, on a daily basis. If I see someone whom I don’t know approaching me purposefully in a public place, my first thoughts and reactions are to assess both them and the environment and physically position myself such that I can evade, escape, or subdue them should they demonstrate hostile intent. I see nothing wrong with a degree of due caution around strangers.
What I took the post to communicate was a sort of explanatory note and a demand for treating with earnest regard what I took to be an undue and unwarranted degree of suspicion towards men. If that article was directed at either predatory or cloddish men who can’t conduct themselves civilly around women, then I suppose it had a purpose (though as Mythago points out, it’s opening few paragraphs suggest otherwise). For my own part, I don’t generally present in public the “scary appearance” Ms. Starling is so concerned with, nor do I generally bother strangers much at all beyond the necessities (e.g.: “would you mind moving aside so I can get my bike through?”, etc.). I don’t generally appreciate being bothered in public, which is a daily occurrence for me, usually for money or cigarettes, sometimes menacingly. Whatever response anyone, including a woman, is going to have to reasonably civil and nonthreatening public communication is, I would say, no one else’s responsibility or problem.
Silence can communicate a number of different things. It can be hostile, the so-called silent treatment. It can be a result of having a lack of anything meaningful to respond with. Unreasonable anger usually does fall into the category of not meriting much of a response. It also can be defensive and protective, a way to avoid lashing out angrily oneself, which many men learn sooner or later to be afraid of being goaded into.
I think you need to re-read this portion of your post and realize how it sounds.
Toysoldier, it’s not about “earning trust”. Phaedra’s article was simply about the social cues that males who are predators display, how women are aware of those cues, and how a decent guy can avoid mistakenly making those social cues. As de Becker points out, a decent man does not have to, nor would he try to, “prove” that he is a safe guy. He just acts appropriately.
Yes, to have someone judge you based on other people’s actions is frustrating. That frustration ought to be directed at the other assholes who created the problem, not at the person who is doing the judging out of self-preservation. If a dog cringes when I try to pet him because his previous owner beat him, I don’t blame the dog.
Pingback: Revisiting Feminism & Ally Work Anew | Ernesto Aguilar
I too came of age politically in a scene where it was common to “call people out†for transgressions, usually whenever the work we had agreed to work on together had floundered. When the real world got tough, nothing like an internal show trial to keep the troops occupied and in line. It didn’t seem healthy, or productive, and both at the time and now in hindsight seemed very much about petty group dynamics and using various forms of identity to get over.
The whole method of calling people out over a matrix of privilege removed anything like due process from the discussion. Activist groups are ill-equipped for pseudo-trials where accusations of how the ostensible victim “feels†are more important than what anyone has actually done.
Person A is accused of privilege (more or less) and then any attempt to engage a discussion was a “tactic†for “reinforcing privilegeâ€. Whatever motivated the accusation, I’ve never seen it be actual abuse. Nope, that was usually tolerated and abided – and was certainly as likely to come from women as men.
Conveniently, these call out sessions were never directed against the people who were de facto in charge, thought they were deployed to reinforce political positions (using liberal and pro-system) that weren’t directly argued for.
So here was a situation where not wanting to use an organizations resources for the Democratic Party was called out as “white privilege†and an impassioned defense of radicalism was then, in turn, “called out†for its “male posturing and rationalismâ€. It got seriously tiresome in what calls itself the “activist community†where these guilt and manipulation rituals totally stand in for any reasoned political analysis, which is itself denounced as “authoritarian†or “normative discourse†depending on the education level of the scene. I have heard people with master’s degrees talking about how they were “silenced†when they got challenged on their manipulative techniques. In other words, they were “silenced†by mere disagreement. That’s how the bully culture of “calling people out†works.
Can’t we create a radical culture that doesn’t use mini-show trials to discipline itself? Can’t we have a struggle based on universal values?
I support women’s equality and I’m a political internationalist. I cook, clean and treat sisters as comrades, I don’t assume there is any single right way of doing anything. I take it all seriously, which doesn’t mean I will ever tolerate some “call out†session used to jack a political conference, collective or organization based on the alleged personal qualities of some man, or white person, or heterosexual, or born-male, or whatever the current lines of calling people out for how they were born not what they actually do.
—–
The reason I’m writing at such length was that I just read an article on how to respond to getting called out in “activist communities,†a term itself packed with danger. I picked it up at an SDS convention a couple of years back, it’s a reprint of an article printed in Clamor Magazine. It literally argues that any person can many any accusation – say of “abuse†or “rape†– and that the objective truth of the accusation does’t matter. The only thing to be taken into consideration is the self-perception of events by the person who identifies themselves as the victim.
This is passed around at national political conferences and published in activist magazines. That kind of “call out†culture where people use claims of abuse to attack people is itself abusive.
This kind of pseudo-feminism and identity politics that has allies instead of comrades and friends will never go anywhere. It makes us into enemies based on labels and it’s not helpful. Women en masse rejected that kind of feminism just like men did. Letting 1970s style “ally†feminism own the word just kills the movement. Sure, call people out in a little room and bully those who dissent from the room.
Let’s stop calling people out and start building a culture of mutual respect, that is task oriented and less about enforcing undergraduate identity politics than we are outward focused on the world at large. We don’t need more self-purification sects that use therapy rituals to manipulate and control people through guilt and shame.
I’m old enough now to know better than waste my time in some group more concerned with policing the vocabulary of its members than about any declared outward goal. My advice: if you are invited to a meeting for one reason and then find out its a mini show trial – REFUSE TO PARTICIPATE AND DEMAND IT END IMMEDIATELY. If not, move on. Because whoever is promoting the little show trial you are apart of is doing it to control the group, not achieve justice. Otherwise these activist cultures wouldn’t pretend they are rabbinical courts.
These are all really good points!
As a relationship expert (www.ChoiceRelationships.com), I would like to add that couples need to know that conflicts are bound to happen. But here’s the good news: there are skills they can learn so that they can handle them better. When they do, their partnerships fare much better. I offer a free teleseminar, “The 7 Tools to Manage Conflict Communication in Your Relationship.” To hear it, go to: http://choicerelationships.com/teleseminar_resources.
Pingback: Men make lousy feminists |