Girlzone

August 15, 2012 7:45 AM

Don't just get a lawyer, get a shark.

I remember when this place was accused of being a Boyzone. Now, it's simply become openly hostile to men. Woman asks for divorce advice, and, predictably, out come the masses, advising her about how it's not just her right, but that it's actually a 'good thing' to extract as much as possible from the husband.

Unfortunately, this imo has become the standard attitude around here, and not just about divorce cases. Women are poor victims, men are the bad guys. Aren't we supposed to a bit more enlightened that this?

/rant

posted by eas98 to Etiquette/Policy at 7:45 AM (1802 comments total)

You forgot the #mensrights tag.
posted by inigo2 at 7:47 AM on August 15, 2012 [98 favorites]

When men ask for advice about divorce, people on AskMe invariably tell them to get aggressive lawyers.
posted by Sidhedevil at 7:48 AM on August 15, 2012 [58 favorites]

That all seemed like pretty standard divorce advice to me, nothing sexist that I saw. I'm missing the need for outrage here.
posted by Forktine at 7:50 AM on August 15, 2012 [15 favorites]

In the case cited, the marriage seems to be a sham and the husband seems to be a cad.
posted by goethean at 7:50 AM on August 15, 2012 [2 favorites]

In this specific case, the husband let the wife support him at the start, and then withdrew his financial support to leave her in a debt hole while looking like he's about to split. IN THIS CASE hell yeah she deserves that money.
posted by L'Estrange Fruit at 7:51 AM on August 15, 2012 [15 favorites]

Men and women in AskMe both frequently get told to get lawyers that will protect and defend their legal rights to their home and property. This particular situation seems like one that could be well-served by having not just competent, but possibly aggressive counsel.

Your impression of this site is quite different from my own.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 7:51 AM on August 15, 2012 [89 favorites]

What, advising someone to get a lawyer during a divorce is "openly hostile to men"? Good god. Have you never actually been divorced?
posted by koeselitz at 7:51 AM on August 15, 2012 [10 favorites]

Mefites tend to respond to "my marriage appears to be imploding badly, how do I handle this" with "hire a lawyer to handle it correctly" pretty much regardless of who is married to who and who is posting. That's not a Girlzone thing, that's a Don't Get Fucked In Your Divorce thing.

I don't love the phrasing of the comment you're quoting in the post, for what it's worth, but that's one comment in the thread, not a summation of the whole of Metafilter. If you have other specific examples you're concerned about maybe link them here as well, but I basically agree with other jessamyn here: I am not seeing on the site what you are seeing.
posted by cortex (staff) at 7:55 AM on August 15, 2012 [7 favorites]

It's not up to you to judge AskMe suggestions. The only person's opinion that counts is OP's (unless we're talking illegalities and such).

Having said that, I'm not sure you understand what boyzone means. The term refers to behavior that's stereotypical of teen boys, such as sexist talk, ruminations on tits&ass, etc. So suggesting that someone gets a shark (lawyer) doesn't even compare. Sure it might be seen as unsound advice but sexist or hostile to men? Not really.
posted by Foci for Analysis at 7:56 AM on August 15, 2012 [1 favorite]

I have a good feeling about this thread.
posted by Justinian at 7:56 AM on August 15, 2012 [55 favorites]

There is a certain gleefulness to a that comment that is a little gross, but what should the advice to the OP be? Don't get a lawyer?

I haven't seen similar men's divorce threads, but if they are similar to this as others are saying, I don't think there's much to talk about.
posted by Bookhouse at 7:57 AM on August 15, 2012 [1 favorite]

To be clear, I do not object to advice about seeking legal advice. I am complaining about the zeal with which such advice is given. Divorce sucks, and relationships ending sucks. But this stick it to the man attitude is not appropriate here.

As far as this particular case, as usual, we don't know what their arrangement is/was, so the marriage being considered a 'sham' and the guy a 'cad' seems presumptive.

So tell the girl to get a lawyer, answer her question. But:

How would you like half of the retirement accounts? How about some spousal support until you're done with residency? How would you like that med school debt eliminated?

Jesus, is this a divorce, or winning the lotto?
posted by eas98 at 7:58 AM on August 15, 2012

Are you objecting only to a perceived "girlzone" in divorce/relationship threads, or in all threads?

"How would you like half of the retirement accounts? How about some spousal support until you're done with residency? How would you like that med school debt eliminated?" Jesus, is this a divorce, or winning the lotto?

Depends - do you think she had a marriage, or a parasite?
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 8:00 AM on August 15, 2012 [11 favorites]

Jesus, is this a divorce, or winning the lotto?

Again, it doesn't matter. The original AskMe poster has been given a lot of advice and it's up to her to decide on a course of action.
posted by Foci for Analysis at 8:02 AM on August 15, 2012

So tell the girl to get a lawyer, answer her question. But:

How would you like half of the retirement accounts? How about some spousal support until you're done with residency? How would you like that med school debt eliminated?

Jesus, is this a divorce, or winning the lotto?

Those are either partner's legal rights in community property states. Yeah, I don't love the tone of that comment, either, but I like the tone of your callout even less.

Remember, too, that her husband gained something important from his marriage to her--citizenship. Whether or not the marriage was a sham from his side, the facts as presented to us are clear that she brought something important to the marriage that he apparently wanted, and once he had obtained it he checked out of the relationship. Again, that's the questioner's perspective, but that's all we get in AskMe, the questioner's perspective.
posted by Sidhedevil at 8:03 AM on August 15, 2012 [26 favorites]

Jesus, is this a divorce, or winning the lotto?

If your complaint is only and specifically about that one comment, this may not really be something that merits a whole Metatalk thread. You framed this as a systemic issue on the site, so if you're not just hanging that on this one comment from this morning it'd be helpful if you could try and either put together some further examples of stuff you think is problematic or substantiate the complaint more descriptively.
posted by cortex (staff) at 8:03 AM on August 15, 2012 [23 favorites]

It was only 40 years ago that a women couldn't even initiate a divorce in some (many?) states. Suggesting that she make sure her rights are well represented in court is not only appropriate, it's utterly responsible.
posted by COD at 8:03 AM on August 15, 2012 [16 favorites]

Is it shark week already?

Messaging the mods didn't work?
posted by the man of twists and turns at 8:04 AM on August 15, 2012 [4 favorites]

Are you objecting only to a perceived "girlzone" in divorce/relationship threads, or in all threads?


Well, I do think there has been a shift over the years, not necessarily just on MeFi, but perhaps in society as a whole. I presented that thread as a starting point for such a discussion, but it appears that I am in the minority on this. And that's fine, if there is no such need for a discussion. We can close this case then, unless people are really looking for a popcorn event.

Thanks to all for the discussion.
posted by eas98 at 8:05 AM on August 15, 2012

Unfortunately, this imo has become the standard attitude around here, and not just about divorce cases. Women are poor victims, men are the bad guys. Aren't we supposed to a bit more enlightened that this?

/rant

If you really believe this, it's better to come up with several examples and to construct a non-ranty Metatalk post that articulates what the problem is, as you see it, and suggestions for how to make alleviate said problem.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 8:07 AM on August 15, 2012 [3 favorites]

> Now, it's simply become openly hostile to men.

There is nothing in your example that supports this assertion even a little bit. I think you're projecting.
posted by desuetude at 8:07 AM on August 15, 2012 [10 favorites]

Yeah, that particular poster seemed wholly unaware of the legal implications of divorce in their entirety, which would suggest an aggressive lawyer. An assertive, informed person might not need aggression as much, but it sounds like she'd be stood in good stead to have a strong advocate.
posted by Devils Rancher at 8:09 AM on August 15, 2012 [2 favorites]

Messaging the mods didn't work?

Should have tried massaging the mods.

SHARK WEEK.
posted by phunniemee at 8:09 AM on August 15, 2012 [2 favorites]

It's only that one particular comment that is at all greedy sounding. And don't forget... in this case it sounds like the husband used his wife to get citizenship. In which case, he owes her. And in any case a lot of divorces do end with both parties getting half the assets and half the debt. It's not like the answerer said, "Take everything he has!"

You're seeing things that aren't there.
posted by orange swan at 8:09 AM on August 15, 2012 [1 favorite]

I am complaining about the zeal with which such advice is given.

Have you read this thread? It's full of zeal. Did you see this comment? It's a lawyer zealously defending someone's right to be homeless. We're practically soaking in zeal around here and it isn't disproportionately directed toward the mens.

I did think that the advice, given by Ruthless Bunny, was, as the kids say, eponysterical.
posted by octobersurprise at 8:09 AM on August 15, 2012 [3 favorites]

Well, I do think there has been a shift over the years, not necessarily just on MeFi, but perhaps in society as a whole.

I hate to break it to you, but I think you just blew your chances of everyone dropping this after that last comment.....
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 8:10 AM on August 15, 2012 [12 favorites]

hello, I am a man who has been known to slap his wife on the butt when she passes by and I disagree with your thesis.
posted by boo_radley at 8:11 AM on August 15, 2012 [10 favorites]

but perhaps in society as a whole.

OH MY GOD THE DREAD SPECTRE OF EQUALITY

RUN FOR YOUR LIVES
posted by elizardbits at 8:11 AM on August 15, 2012 [179 favorites]

and she has also been know to literally punch me in the sternum like a carnie hammering a tent peg into asphalt. It all works out, I guess.
posted by boo_radley at 8:12 AM on August 15, 2012 [20 favorites]

octobersurprise: " It's a lawyer zealously defending someone's right to be homeless. "

is this a lawsuit or an episode of extreme makeover home edition
posted by boo_radley at 8:14 AM on August 15, 2012

Yes, that is what I mean when I say shark week. Although my most savage predations on land and at sea take place the week before, tbh.
posted by elizardbits at 8:15 AM on August 15, 2012 [20 favorites]

It's not winning the lotto to receive what you are legally entitled to in a divorce. Dividing the retirement accounts, resolving debts acquired during the marriage and setting spousal support isn't greed. It's what needs to be accomplished to dissolve a marriage. The people who help you do that are lawyers.

Not sure why this question created such angst for you eas98, but there's nothing there for a call out.
posted by 26.2 at 8:16 AM on August 15, 2012 [10 favorites]

We're gonna need a bigger boat.
posted by Devils Rancher at 8:17 AM on August 15, 2012 [27 favorites]

i think what you might be seeing is generalized sympathy bias and not anti-dude bias. if somebody of either gender writes in and says they're being done wrong, it's common for them to get sympathy or commiseration. i don't think you would have to search very hard to find plenty of examples of dudes being disrespected or messed around with and getting very sympathetic askme responses. i would find and link a few were i not so gosh-darn ass-lazy.
posted by facetious at 8:18 AM on August 15, 2012 [4 favorites]

Yes, that is what I mean when I say shark week.

What do you mean when you say "Candygram!"
posted by octobersurprise at 8:19 AM on August 15, 2012 [5 favorites]

Maybe it's just my perception, but it doesn't seem as if men ask nearly as many divorce related questions as women.
posted by ODiV at 8:19 AM on August 15, 2012

I presented that thread as a starting point for such a discussion,

We need links to comments, egregious threads, callouts by name, a re-hashing of old arguments with new people (and a sprinkling of helpful 'previously' links to MeTa), clueless newcomers making age-old mistakes and baseless assertions.

Then, and only then, can this be the MeTa I've been hoping and dreaming for - a 400+ comment barnburner.
posted by the man of twists and turns at 8:19 AM on August 15, 2012 [6 favorites]

One should live every week like it's Shark Week.
posted by Egg Shen at 8:23 AM on August 15, 2012 [5 favorites]

eas98: "Well, I do think there has been a shift over the years, not necessarily just on MeFi, but perhaps in society as a whole. I presented that thread as a starting point for such a discussion, but it appears that I am in the minority on this."

I can see how you'd prefer to retcon it that way.
posted by mkultra at 8:23 AM on August 15, 2012 [1 favorite]

It was odd that some people seemed to want the asker to get her hands on everything she possibly could without any evidence she was entitled to it.

But then Americans, it seems, love to sue people so maybe it was just that.
posted by Reggie Knoble at 8:23 AM on August 15, 2012 [1 favorite]

Reggie Knoble: "But then Americans, it seems, love to sue people so maybe it was just that."

hey I heard there was some weather in Bristol for you to complain about, you should probably see about that.
posted by boo_radley at 8:25 AM on August 15, 2012 [17 favorites]

But then Americans, it seems, love to sue people so maybe it was just that.

Now that's just libelous. I will see you in court, sir.
posted by griphus at 8:26 AM on August 15, 2012 [29 favorites]

It was odd that some people seemed to want the asker to get her hands on everything she possibly could without any evidence she was entitled to it.

Any evidence other than state laws about community property rights, you mean?
posted by Sidhedevil at 8:27 AM on August 15, 2012 [14 favorites]

It was odd that some people seemed to want the asker to get her hands on everything she possibly could

You mean everything to which she might be legally entitled?
posted by elizardbits at 8:29 AM on August 15, 2012 [37 favorites]

I'd really like to see some advice to men who are getting or considering divorce, just to compare, but am having trouble finding some. There was this recent question which came to mind as a possibility, but it did not specify gender. Interestingly some answers assume a male spouse (or just use the male pronoun as generic?).
posted by ODiV at 8:32 AM on August 15, 2012

Ah, here's one that I almost missed for some reason. Looks like his friend is getting told to get a lawyer who will look out for his financial interests (ie: not take on her recent debts).
posted by ODiV at 8:36 AM on August 15, 2012 [2 favorites]

Any evidence other than state laws about community property rights, you mean?

NJ & NY don't have community property laws as far as I know, division of assets is based on a lot of factors, very few of which anyone knew.
posted by Reggie Knoble at 8:38 AM on August 15, 2012 [1 favorite]

Some recent advice for divorcing gentlemen: here (includes suggestions that the gentleman get his own attorney rather than continuing with a collaborative divorce because the lady is being financially reckless), here, here (this gentleman is looking to represent himself), here (where the consensus is basically "If she has a shark, you get a shark"), here, and so on.
posted by Sidhedevil at 8:40 AM on August 15, 2012 [7 favorites]

I'm so sick of men getting shouted down here when we just want to have a little fun talking about buns and boobs.
posted by KokuRyu at 8:43 AM on August 15, 2012 [4 favorites]

NJ & NY don't have community property laws as far as I know

Yes, they are both extremely complicated about property division! I stopped reading the thread before the update from the OP, so didn't know she had revealed the states in question.

However, DarlingBri's comment--which I presume is the one to which the OP here is objecting--was also made before the OP had revealed which states were her and her husband's states of residence. So DarlingBri was playing the odds that they were community property states.
posted by Sidhedevil at 8:44 AM on August 15, 2012 [1 favorite]

Since it sounds like it's particularly that comment, did you flag the individual comment in question?
posted by rmd1023 at 8:44 AM on August 15, 2012

The general tone of response in this thread is a wider problem than anything else that's been raised herein, I'd say. It isn't actually necessary to adopt a jerkish tone in response to a MetaTalk complaint, no matter how silly, misguided, or ranting that complaint might be.

As for the complaint and the wider discussion it was intended to spark...I disagree. The linked comment isn't lovely, but I definitely haven't perceived a wider problem of hostility toward men on AskMe. I think it's not uncommon to find distasteful zeal on AskMe, particularly comments in relationship threads that seem a bit too quick and delighted to recommend "Dump that loser!!", and I think the linked comment may be just another instance of that.

Put differently, AskMe could sometimes be better about remembering that there is probably another side to every story and that even if the OP's version were 100% accurate, the person on the other side of the equation is a human being and not simply the sum total of his/her behaviors as characterized in-thread.
posted by cribcage at 8:44 AM on August 15, 2012 [15 favorites]

Wow, I don't know why I completely forgot about tags in my searching. Thanks, Sidhedevil.

But yeah, from what I can see, lawyers often (always?) get recommended to men to look after their interests. Determining the zeal with which it happens would be a touch difficult.
posted by ODiV at 8:46 AM on August 15, 2012

Boyzone, girlzone, whatever happened to the Nickelodeon Blast Zone?
posted by shakespeherian at 8:46 AM on August 15, 2012 [10 favorites]

The general tone of response in this thread is a wider problem than anything else that's been raised herein, I'd say. It isn't actually necessary to adopt a jerkish tone in response to a MetaTalk complaint, no matter how silly, misguided, or ranting that complaint might be.

I used to think it was just a Hollywood convention that if two guys start fighting in a bar than everyone in the bar will begin breaking bottles over each other's heads, but I've learned that it isn't.
posted by Egg Shen at 8:47 AM on August 15, 2012 [12 favorites]

Here's a Q from a guy who caught his wife cheating and wants to save his marriage: My heart is breaking

Sample comments:
"Divorce her skank ass. Call a good lawyer. And go find a new, better mom for your son. This one's broken."

"Either take the kid and leave or kick the bitch out and tell her to go live with the 22 year-old. Then get a good divorce lawyer."

"Find a good divorce lawyer."

"For the love of god, self, and country... leave her."

"I fifth the advice to get a good lawyer; a shark in fact. There's too much anger here (or will be a soon as the denial ends) for a mediated divorce to work."

And then there's:

"Dear Doormat:

Please take the following steps, in order:

1. Stop being a doormat.

2. Get a lawyer."

posted by zarq at 8:47 AM on August 15, 2012 [45 favorites]

shakespeherian: "Boyzone, girlzone, whatever happened to the Nickelodeon Blast Zone?"

Trick question. You just want us to say, "I don't know" so the....

*gets buried under green slime*
posted by zarq at 8:48 AM on August 15, 2012 [33 favorites]

Thank you, zarq! I was looking for that very AskMe, but I only got as far back as May of this year before I just got overwhelmed by all the divorces people are getting.
posted by Sidhedevil at 8:49 AM on August 15, 2012

I really hope we've come at least a little ways in four years and we wouldn't see those same answers now.
posted by ODiV at 8:49 AM on August 15, 2012

(Er, to be clear, the "skank" and "bitch" stuff. Not the "find a lawyer" stuff.)
posted by ODiV at 8:50 AM on August 15, 2012 [1 favorite]

Put differently, AskMe could sometimes be better about remembering that there is probably another side to every story and that even if the OP's version were 100% accurate, the person on the other side of the equation is a human being and not simply the sum total of his/her behaviors as characterized in-thread.

That's all we have to go on. Yes, it's inappropriate to say "Your spouse is the devil!" but it's also not appropriate to question every MeFi asker as if one were opposing counsel.
posted by Sidhedevil at 8:50 AM on August 15, 2012 [1 favorite]

Sidhedevil, GMTA! It's the first one that came to mind when I saw this meta. Mostly for Optimus', pastabagel and Taz's comments.

ODiV: "I really hope we've come at least a little ways in four years and we wouldn't see those same answers now."

Optimus Chyme definitely had a way with words.
posted by zarq at 8:53 AM on August 15, 2012

zarq: "GMTA"

?
posted by boo_radley at 8:54 AM on August 15, 2012 [1 favorite]

"Great Minds Think Alike"

Errr.... it sounds a lot less humble when you spell it out.
posted by zarq at 8:56 AM on August 15, 2012

Given that the U.S. Census has indicated that women's income, on average drops by 37%, and men's by just 10%, it seems reasonable to advise the OP to make sure she doesn't get taken advantage of in divorce as she had been in marriage, tone questions aside. You'll have to find better evidence for your GirlZone contentions.
posted by *s at 8:57 AM on August 15, 2012 [11 favorites]

This seems more like the current tone of most "I guess I should get a divorce" Asks these days. Again, "protect your financial assets" is a frequent refrain.
posted by Sidhedevil at 8:57 AM on August 15, 2012 [1 favorite]

What was the point of the question anyway?

The only possible answers seem to be:

1) Get a lawyer

or

2) Don't get a lawyer

And the asker specified in the question that she couldn't afford a lawyer so what was anybody supposed to add?

There is no real answer so it seems like chatfilter, IANAL/IANYL type stuff.

And a mod had to specifically approve the question as it was submitted anonymously.

as she had been in marriage

Cite?
posted by Reggie Knoble at 8:58 AM on August 15, 2012

This Ask elicits "talk to a lawyer" even though the asker hadn't mentioned considering divorce.
posted by Sidhedevil at 8:59 AM on August 15, 2012

> Well, I do think there has been a shift over the years, not necessarily just on MeFi, but perhaps in society as a whole.

Ah, a member of the Poor Oppressed Men Brigade! Sorry, you want room 12A, Just along the corridor.

> We can close this case then, unless people are really looking for a popcorn event.

An excellent idea.
posted by languagehat at 8:59 AM on August 15, 2012 [10 favorites]

There is no real answer so it seems like chatfilter, IANAL/IANYL type stuff.

Oh, you're just unhappy the question was even asked at all. I suggest you follow my lead; don't read Ask.
posted by octobersurprise at 9:01 AM on August 15, 2012 [1 favorite]

Yes, it's inappropriate to say "Your spouse is the devil!" but it's also not appropriate to question every MeFi asker as if one were opposing counsel.

That isn't the choice we are faced with, at least in any of the AskMe threads I have ever read. I don't understand Eas98 to be advocating that the OP should have been questioned before help was given, and that certainly wasn't my suggestion. It would also be infeasible in anonymous threads.
posted by cribcage at 9:04 AM on August 15, 2012

Reggie Knoble: "What was the point of the question anyway?

The only possible answers seem to be:

1) Get a lawyer

or

2) Don't get a lawyer

And the asker specified in the question that she couldn't afford a lawyer so what was anybody supposed to add?"

Here's what the question asked: "What do I do if he files for divorce? I cannot afford a lawyer, I have so much medical school and credit card (because he barely pays anything to support me and he hasn't for years) debt. How do I afford a lawyer? Is it common to get free consultations?"

Looks to me as if there's a very specific question being asked there. Not just "Should I get one or not" but "do I really need one, and if so, are there any affordable options open to me?"
posted by zarq at 9:05 AM on August 15, 2012 [3 favorites]

There are actually plenty of useful and highly specific answers that can be given to someone in that situation. They range from "James Jones of the Smith and Jones law firm in Parsippany is good and works on contingency" to "try Legal Services of New Jersey" to "contact the dean of students at your medical school and see if there is some kind of legal aid program that might also cover graduates who are currently doing residencies."

I don't see how it's "chatfilter" at all.
posted by Sidhedevil at 9:06 AM on August 15, 2012 [3 favorites]

There is no real answer so it seems like chatfilter, IANAL/IANYL type stuff.


It doesn't seem like you actually read the whole question.
posted by rtha at 9:06 AM on August 15, 2012 [3 favorites]

I hope she ends up getting useable advice. That's a really scary, crappy situation to be in.
posted by batmonkey at 9:08 AM on August 15, 2012 [4 favorites]

as she had been in marriage

Cite?

It's in the question. The husband got his citizenship and financial support and then, when it was time for her to pursue her education, quit supporting her and drifted away:

the husband let the wife support him at the start, and then withdrew his financial support to leave her in a debt hole while looking like he's about to split

Also, can I just say how much I dislike "Cite?"? It seems so unnecessarily sniffy.
posted by *s at 9:09 AM on August 15, 2012 [3 favorites]

Hmm.

Yes, because moving away from "I'd hit that!" and "Make me a sammich!" chatter and telling women to get decent divorce lawyers means that we're turning into a "girlzone."

As opposed to just....not being actively hostile and disrespectful to women?

:|
posted by Narrative Priorities at 9:11 AM on August 15, 2012 [48 favorites]

What do you mean when you say "Candygram!"

I leap out from behind a hedge with a giant novelty candy cane and whack my hapless victim on the knee.
posted by elizardbits at 9:12 AM on August 15, 2012 [13 favorites]

All I know is that every few days Keith Duffy, Stephen Gately, Mikey Graham, Ronan Keating, and Shane Lynch get a Google alert that leaves them terribly confused. Will nobody think of the Irish?
posted by Bunny Ultramod at 9:13 AM on August 15, 2012 [14 favorites]

*s: "Also, can I just say how much I dislike "Cite?"? It seems so unnecessarily sniffy."

Yes, agreed. Amazing how people took the conceited and unthinkingly testy "citation needed" and thought, "this needs to be optimized somehow."
posted by boo_radley at 9:14 AM on August 15, 2012 [6 favorites]

She didn't even specify a location in the original question so there weren't any specific answers that could have been given unless you just wanted to start listing law firms across the whole of America hoping to get lucky.

And local law firms are pretty easy to google.

Zarq: How do I afford a lawyer doesn't seem answerable by anyone who doesn't know her specific financial situation and the free consultation thing is going to come down to where she is and what local lawyers do, which wasn't included originally.
posted by Reggie Knoble at 9:19 AM on August 15, 2012

remember that guy who said on metatalk a few times something about "getting [one's] panties in a bunch?" I ask because I hate the word 'panties' so much it makes me grit my teeth, and also who says that
posted by angrycat at 9:20 AM on August 15, 2012 [8 favorites]

OH GOD A WOMAN HIRED A LAWYER
posted by Sticherbeast at 9:22 AM on August 15, 2012 [25 favorites]

angrycat: I have a similar teeth-gritting response to the phrase "pearl-clutching".
posted by rmd1023 at 9:22 AM on August 15, 2012 [8 favorites]

The shift to Girlzone has been nothing but positive for me. Thanks to my previous AskMe question about not making friends in a new city, I took up scody's advice to tattoo the Woman Power Emblem with inscription "KILL ALL MEN" on my forehead. Ever since then I've been getting way more attention and looks on the street. Thanks GirlzoneFi!
posted by naju at 9:24 AM on August 15, 2012 [9 favorites]

Here is some useful advice the OP received:

-Yes, no fooling, get a lawyer. No, really.
-There might be advantages to filing in one state over another
-You can get a free consultation (not everyone knows this)
-If you do not figure out a way to afford it, you may lose out on things to which you are legally entitled.

More useful than many AskMes! and I say this as someone who gets her panties in a bunch over awful, awful legal advice on AskMe on the regular!
posted by *s at 9:24 AM on August 15, 2012 [4 favorites]

The husband got his citizenship and financial support and then, when it was time for her to pursue her education, quit supporting her

I've heard similar stories often enough that I would be completely unsurprised if this was the case, but I didn't see the financial support mentioned until this MeTa.

Reggie Knoble: I don't see how she could afford to not have a lawyer, no matter which state she's in. Getting advice from people who have been in similar situations is a lot of what AskMe is about. When that advice is a unanimous chorus, it can be extremely helpful.
posted by ODiV at 9:25 AM on August 15, 2012

Reggie Knoble: " Zarq: How do I afford a lawyer doesn't seem answerable by anyone who doesn't know her specific financial situation and the free consultation thing is going to come down to where she is and what local lawyers do, which wasn't included originally."

I don't hang out on Ask much. But over time even through my own minimal participation, I've learned that part of the process of asking questions and soliciting answers is finding out that people may need more information to answer them effectively than you initially think. I know I've certainly asked questions where follow-up info was requested and needed.

So even though the relevant info may not be included in the original question, that's not necessarily going to be a reason why the mods refuse to approve an anonyQ. The things you're mentioning are things the OP didn't take into consideration but should have, and now she has the opportunity to fill in the blanks for us to ponder. Whether the question is answerable as given or not, that doesn't mean it's not worth asking, yes?
posted by zarq at 9:26 AM on August 15, 2012

*s: The asked never said she provided financial support. Just that she sponsored his becoming a citizen.

There is no inidaction that he split one he got citizenship. The citizenship was four years ago. In fact there is no indication that he "split" at all. We don't know how they came to live in different states.

There is also no evidence that he withdrew financial support as there is no evidence there ever was financial support or any agreement he would pay her debts.

Some couples do maintain some, or even total, financial independence.

You have made a leap on every point you made based on the assumption that he is a bad guy and even invented a couple of details to make him an even worse guy.
posted by Reggie Knoble at 9:30 AM on August 15, 2012 [1 favorite]

I didn't see the financial support mentioned until this MeTa

Sponsorship has a financial support component.
posted by *s at 9:31 AM on August 15, 2012 [9 favorites]

When I post an answer on Ask, I feel like I'm giving back to the site in a concrete way. I heartily recommend it.
posted by Egg Shen at 9:32 AM on August 15, 2012 [2 favorites]

In fact there is no indication that he "split" at all.

In what other way would you then interpret this statement?

he has chosen to drift from me and live his life separately
posted by elizardbits at 9:34 AM on August 15, 2012 [2 favorites]

Can someone explain what Shark Week means please? I feel so uncool and out-of-touch.
posted by Joh at 9:36 AM on August 15, 2012 [1 favorite]

Discovery Channel does a Shark Week every year and it is going on now.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 9:37 AM on August 15, 2012

also no evidence that he withdrew financial support

How do you read this?

because he barely pays anything to support me and he hasn't for years

It's hard to discuss this because it seems you're not reading the question.
posted by *s at 9:40 AM on August 15, 2012 [5 favorites]

Can someone explain what Shark Week means please?

This really belongs in AskMe.
posted by Bunny Ultramod at 9:41 AM on August 15, 2012 [3 favorites]

Some couples do maintain some, or even total, financial independence.

You seem weirdly invested in making up fictions to prove the innocence of someone you don't even know. Keep going, you sound like a creep.
posted by octobersurprise at 9:46 AM on August 15, 2012 [8 favorites]

ThePinkSuperhero: "Discovery Channel does a Shark Week every year and it is going on now."

A number of friends of mine on Facebook also use that phrase to talk about their periods.

Leading to much confusion in status message comments....
posted by zarq at 9:46 AM on August 15, 2012 [1 favorite]

There have been a few threads where, in my opinion, a pile-on ends up adding an unfair/unnecessary male-negative tone to the discussion.

Unless there are some very glaring comments that were deleted, this was not one of those threads, and I don't think that it's an overwhelming problem on Metafilter. I've only seen it happen once or twice here.
posted by schmod at 9:46 AM on August 15, 2012 [3 favorites]

("Shark Week" has also become a euphemism for "I have my period." I only figured this out recently, and suddenly my twitter feed made a LOT more sense.)
posted by Narrative Priorities at 9:48 AM on August 15, 2012 [1 favorite]

Well, I do think there has been a shift over the years, not necessarily just on MeFi, but perhaps in society as a whole.

Perhaps you should take it to SocietyTalk, then.
posted by xingcat at 9:50 AM on August 15, 2012 [6 favorites]

Sponsorship has a financial support component.

Ah, thanks. I know nothing of US immigration (obviously) and was wondering where the financial thing came from.
posted by ODiV at 9:50 AM on August 15, 2012

All I know is that every few days Keith Duffy, Stephen Gately, Mikey Graham, Ronan Keating, and Shane Lynch get a Google alert that leaves them terribly confused. Will nobody think of the Irish?

Not Stephen Gately. :(
posted by kmz at 9:51 AM on August 15, 2012

*s: It's ambiguous at best. Did he pay 50% of the bills when they lived in the same house and stopped when he had to get seperate accomodation which he pays for entirely? Did they agree to such an arrangement at the time. That would meet the requirements of "barely pays anything to support me and he hasn't for years" without making him out to be a shit. I have exactly as much evidence fir that stuff I just made up as you do for your claim of her being taken advantage of in marriage.
posted by Reggie Knoble at 9:52 AM on August 15, 2012

She didn't even specify a location in the original question

Now you want it both ways. You complained that answers were given based on the laws of community property states before the states were specified; now you're arguing that if answerers don't know what state she's in, they can't give any useful answers.

This is just casuistry. "Contact your medical school's dean of students to find out if there's any program that covers legal aid graduates through their internship and residency" is one answer that can be given without knowing what state she's in. "Many states have referral sites for low-income people needing lawyers; you can Google phrases like 'low-income lawyer referral' to find out if your state has such a service" is another. "When I got divorced, I had no money and represented myself. Here are some books I found helpful; there are probably more that offer state-law-specific advice" is another.
posted by Sidhedevil at 9:52 AM on August 15, 2012 [2 favorites]

Bunny Ultramod: "All I know is that every few days Keith Duffy, Stephen Gately, Mikey Graham, Ronan Keating, and Shane Lynch get a Google alert that leaves them terribly confused. Will nobody think of the Irish?"

I hate myself for getting this joke.
posted by MCMikeNamara at 9:54 AM on August 15, 2012 [4 favorites]

Oh wait wait I just saw a video relevant to this: hey white guys.

God forbid that metafilter skew girlzone (though it doesn't), as compared to, you know, all of society.
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 9:56 AM on August 15, 2012 [9 favorites]

OH GOD A WOMAN HIRED A LAWYER

OH GOD SOMEONE TAUGHT A WOMAN TO READ
posted by TheWhiteSkull at 9:57 AM on August 15, 2012 [33 favorites]

NEXT THEY'LL BE HAVING IDEAS
posted by elizardbits at 10:00 AM on August 15, 2012 [18 favorites]

So is this projecting digital or analog?

I fear it's so big it's 3D IMAX.
posted by inturnaround at 10:02 AM on August 15, 2012

Hans Zimmer soundtrack.
posted by elizardbits at 10:05 AM on August 15, 2012 [3 favorites]

Don't just get a lawyer, get a shark.

I remember when this place was accused of being a Boyzone. Now, it's simply become openly hostile to men. Woman asks for divorce advice, and, predictably, out come the masses, advising her about how it's not just her right, but that it's actually a 'good thing' to extract as much as possible from the husband.

Unfortunately, this imo has become the standard attitude around here, and not just about divorce cases. Women are poor victims, men are the bad guys. Aren't we supposed to a bit more enlightened that this?

A person divorcing should listen and do what a competent attorney tells them to do.

This is not about you.
posted by Ironmouth at 10:08 AM on August 15, 2012 [4 favorites]

Just to be clear, I don't think MetaFilter skews towards "girlzone". This place definitely can be a pretty unwelcoming place for women sometimes, but the worst thing about it is, when women bring it up they usually end up being drawn into vicious and unkind arguments about why MetaFilter isn't a boyzone.
posted by KokuRyu at 10:08 AM on August 15, 2012 [4 favorites]

Hans Zimmer soundtrack.

How the hell did that even happen? That user had a total contribution of 1 comment anywhere on the site before their post.
posted by kmz at 10:19 AM on August 15, 2012 [1 favorite]

Errr.... it sounds a lot less humble when you spell it out.

Easily fixed by completing it: "Great minds think alike. Or fools never differ."
posted by yerfatma at 10:20 AM on August 15, 2012 [4 favorites]

A few days ago I was at the pool when a man and two women walked in and set up their stuff a few yards away from me. The man then proceeded to spend the better part of two hours regaling his companions and anyone else within earshot with tales of his bitter divorce. The women made a few comments indicating they had their own tales of woe involving divorce, but their role seemed mainly to be to agree with him. He had tales of adultery, substance abuse, kiddie porn and every other sort of misbehavior short of homicide involving his ex and her new boyfriend. Yet somehow he didn't get custody of his kids or otherwise come out ahead because the system is corrupt and stacked against him specifically and men in general. He did admit to having dirty dishes in the sink at the home visit, but they totally made up the bit about mold in the shower. In fact, he even went as far as to tell the judge he was running a kangaroo court (from the witness stand, no less!) because the judge didn't charge his wife with perjury when he should have. Evidently he has now fired his second attorney (they are all in cahoots anyway) and plans to represent himself in his (certain to be successful) appeal.


Don't be that guy.
posted by TedW at 10:21 AM on August 15, 2012 [32 favorites]

KokuRyu: "but the worst thing about it is, when women bring it up they usually end up being drawn into vicious and unkind arguments about why MetaFilter isn't a boyzone."

...which is what happened here except in reverse. People are mocking the op pretty freely in this thread, to a greater extent than I think his post deserves.

This isn't directed at you KokuRyu, but rather the rest of the people here:

He said something which was proved to be wrong by evidence. It happens. Do we need to also to make him out to be a knuckle dragging caveman who thinks women belong barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen, silent yet not heard?
posted by zarq at 10:25 AM on August 15, 2012 [3 favorites]

All I know is that every few days Keith Duffy, Stephen Gately, Mikey Graham, Ronan Keating, and Shane Lynch get a Google alert that leaves them terribly confused.

Stephen Gately not so much.
posted by MuffinMan at 10:26 AM on August 15, 2012

elizardbits: "NEXT THEY'LL BE HAVING IDEAS"

IDEAS NOT ABOUT APPLE PIES AND DELICIOUS ROASTS
posted by boo_radley at 10:26 AM on August 15, 2012 [4 favorites]

Well, I do think there has been a shift over the years, not necessarily just on MeFi, but perhaps in society as a whole.

This was the comment that stuck in my craw and set my MRA-sense tingling.
posted by kmz at 10:30 AM on August 15, 2012 [10 favorites]

How the hell did that even happen? That user had a total contribution of 1 comment anywhere on the site before their post.

Now I'm wondering that myself.

I call for a full-scale investigation. Or more sand kitten videos.
posted by Egg Shen at 10:31 AM on August 15, 2012 [2 favorites]

How the hell did that even happen? That user had a total contribution of 1 comment anywhere on the site before their post.

We dropped the pre-post comment requirement to one comment a while back to see what would happen, mostly in response to the fact that we (a) were not seeing dumb spammers particularly stymied by the comment requirement and (b) were seeing good-faith users who were only active on Ask previously being confused by why they couldn't post on Metafilter.

Basically, one comment is less of an arbitrary obstacle for the actual users, and spammers don't seem to care how many random non-sequiturs they're required to post before barfing on the front page and will get banned just as quick for it in any case.
posted by cortex (staff) at 10:32 AM on August 15, 2012 [8 favorites]

I once knew an older woman (a lesbian if it matters) who was called for jury duty on a case for spousal abuse--a man battering a woman. She was asked some general question like could she decide the case fairly and honestly. Her reply was that she would vote for conviction no matter what. She said that because there had been so many men who had beaten their wives and never been convicted, never even been reported, that the scales of justice were skewed heavily against women, and it would take decades, maybe centuries, before any sort of real justice on the whole was achieved. And well, if a few men were falsely convicted along the way, just think of all the women who went to their graves without seeing a man charged for their crimes. (She did not get on the jury.)

I sort of feel the same way in divorce cases. Women, as a whole, have been historically screwed over by marriage and divorce laws. A few women using those same laws against men will take centuries to even out all the damage we've begot. We are not yet in some perfect state of equality or justice. I say have at 'em.
posted by mattbucher at 10:38 AM on August 15, 2012 [4 favorites]

I think having to be silent yet not heard is probably the hardest part of being a woman :/
posted by King, in the hall of the mountain at 10:39 AM on August 15, 2012 [3 favorites]

What do you mean when you say "Candygram!"

FOR MONGO.
posted by L'Estrange Fruit at 10:45 AM on August 15, 2012 [12 favorites]

Do we need to also to make him out to be a knuckle dragging caveman who thinks women belong barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen, silent yet not heard?

No.

But given some choice words the OP had to offer a little while back about booth babes and how angry feminists are ruining E3, I'm not exactly inclined to be generous, either.
posted by Narrative Priorities at 10:45 AM on August 15, 2012 [9 favorites]

(She did not get on the jury.)

I feel like that may have been her goal. Either that or you have met a woman who would have made the worst spy, ever.
posted by griphus at 10:46 AM on August 15, 2012 [7 favorites]

heyho: "we all promise to take your neutral, non-inflammatory words of guidance under advisement!"

This is all I'm asking. ;)

Seriously, we don't need to mock the guy into total oblivion or make it sound like he thinks women hiring lawyers or learning to read is some sort of existential horror for making a single, somewhat defensive-sounding meta post.
posted by zarq at 10:46 AM on August 15, 2012 [4 favorites]

I would be the best juror ever, I am sure. BY GOD do I love judging people.
posted by elizardbits at 10:47 AM on August 15, 2012 [10 favorites]

elizardbits: "NEXT THEY'LL BE HAVING IDEAS"

IDEAS NOT ABOUT APPLE PIES AND DELICIOUS ROASTS

Hey! Only some of my ideas are about pies.

The others are about prosciutto.
posted by phunniemee at 10:48 AM on August 15, 2012 [1 favorite]

It's true that the tone and content of AskMe answers could often be more thoughtful, and that everyone involved might be well solved if they were. That is not what this MeTa thread is about, though, and to pretend that it is glosses over the ridiculous contentions put forth by eas98, and by extension supports his claim that the site has become "openly hostile to men." When the truth seems to be that the questioner in this case was simply given advice that would also likely have been given to the husband had he asked his own question, we can conclude that eas98 is looking for men to be treated preferentially and "girls" to be dismissed with poor advice. I'm not sure anyone should want to hang their "AskMe could do better" argument on that hook if they want it to be taken seriously.
posted by OmieWise at 10:50 AM on August 15, 2012 [11 favorites]

Narrative Priorities: " But given some choice words the OP had to offer a little while back about booth babes and how angry feminists are ruining E3, I'm not exactly inclined to be generous, either."

Unless of course there's a history I'm unaware of... *sigh*
posted by zarq at 10:52 AM on August 15, 2012

PROSCIUTTO PIES
posted by shakespeherian at 10:55 AM on August 15, 2012 [2 favorites]

I answered that question with "lawyer up" and it has nothing to do with gender. It has to do with my experience of divorce.

It's amazing how civil, calm, and orderly the process can go when the biggest, baddest, meanest motherfucker in the room is sitting on your side of the table. My ex-wife and I parted amicably. One of the reasons we were able to do so is because we BOTH hired attack dogs of divorce attorneys and let them shred each other before we stepped in to shape a reasoned agreement.

Advising the OP to hire a shark is just sound advice. She can keep him on a leash if it doesn't get ugly. But if it does, she needs a shark on the end of that leash, not a blowfish.

This MeTa screams Man's Rights Fainting Couch and kinda creeps me out.
posted by BitterOldPunk at 10:58 AM on August 15, 2012 [50 favorites]

I tried warning you all back in '04 when we decided to let women join Metafilter that this would happen.
posted by perhapses at 11:00 AM on August 15, 2012 [12 favorites]

Hee hee, Man's Rights Fainting Couch is my new band.
posted by *s at 11:01 AM on August 15, 2012 [14 favorites]

HAY LADEEZ I BROUGHT PIE
posted by BitterOldPunk at 11:02 AM on August 15, 2012 [2 favorites]

Do we need to also to make him out to be a knuckle dragging caveman who thinks women belong barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen...

Then who would do the vacuuming?!
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 11:03 AM on August 15, 2012

heyho: "I guess I'm not okay with you telling us we can't respond, zarq, just because you disagree with what we're saying or how we're speaking.

I didn't tell you anything. I made a request. Which is why my comment: " Do we need to also to make him out to be a knuckle dragging caveman who thinks women belong barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen, silent yet not heard?" was phrased as a question.

There's a difference.

Yes, we understand that you got there first and cleared up all the confusion with your links,

This isn't about me or what I posted. I was obviously not the only person who posted links or disagreed with the OP. Quite a few people weighed in earlier in the thread and some of them posted links to more questions than me. Two mods weighed in, too.

What's come afterwards was a somewhat mild but imho unecessary pile on.

There is nothing wrong with taking a man to task for saying what he said. He said something inflammatory, but by your reasoning we should drop it because you think we're being impolite? This is rich."

I'm not trying to silence you, heyho. I'm not saying it needs to be dropped. I'm saying, I think it makes more sense to address what was actually said than what people assume his opinion on the subject.

Feel free to disagree.
posted by zarq at 11:04 AM on August 15, 2012 [2 favorites]

gilrain: " Yeah. I think twice before dragging up posting history, but this is egregiously sexist."

Ugh. Nevermind.
posted by zarq at 11:05 AM on August 15, 2012 [1 favorite]

I used to think it was just a Hollywood convention that if two guys start fighting in a bar than everyone in the bar will begin breaking bottles over each other's heads, but I've learned that it isn't.

Oh yeah, maybe someone gets hit by an errant punch, but it's more like: when someone walks into the saloon and starts a fight, suddenly some people are running over to pull a ping pong table out of the wall like a Murphy bed, while other people are going "it's ON!" and heading to the back room to fire up the PS3 and finally we'll find out who the fucking FIFA master is, and two or three people jump onto the bench of the piano and pull a cord and it turns into a clown-painted Wurlitzer and people are hopping on and off the bar doing improv skits inspired by the actions in the fight, and people have formed a ring around the fight itself, but they're laughing at the ineptitude and offering advice ranging from "Balls! Always go for the balls!" to demonstrating how to really punch someone FFS, or tsking and saying how this would be better solved with cheroots and quiet conversation, then someone punches that guy and says, "Cigarillos!", while the mods watch from behind the bar with sniper scopes and fire precise, polite bullets.

Well, I do think there has been a shift over the years, not necessarily just on MeFi, but perhaps in society as a whole.

In terms of where I think that is coming from, maybe you are right. But if so, it's because men need to be better than they have been. Man up, men.
posted by fleacircus at 11:06 AM on August 15, 2012 [8 favorites]

I hope it's not inappropriate to post this scene.
posted by neuromodulator at 11:06 AM on August 15, 2012

They don't let me in aquariums any more. There was an Incident.
posted by BitterOldPunk at 11:09 AM on August 15, 2012 [7 favorites]

Why not close this one up instead of it devolving into a pileon of the OP?

I don't particularly agree with the OP, but you've been here long enough to know the mob needs its pound of flesh.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 11:10 AM on August 15, 2012 [3 favorites]

the young rope-rider: " I didn't need the history, the post is full of Men's Right's Activist dog whistles. In case you don't know what that is, it's a profoundly disturbing and misogynist movement.

MRA bullshit is insidious and dangerous and should be countered whole-heartedly at every opportunity, whether or not you like the tone of the people doing the countering."

You get that I'm not an MRA propnent, yes? Or a defender? That I frequently have contributed a variety of clear and unambiguous feminist opinions here, in many, many boyzone threads? That I've spent a lot of time here attacking misogynistic and MRA-type bullshit tnhat has been voiced on Metafilter? You've spent enough time reading my comments and posts, and interacting with me to know my point of view on this and many other subjects related to women and women's rights.

I did not read this post as being full of MRA dog whistles. I read it as a mildly defensive comment made by someone whose history I was unfamiliar with and did not recognize as an anti-feminist.
posted by zarq at 11:11 AM on August 15, 2012

the mob needs its pound of flesh

Dibs on the tenderloin. I'm having a BBQ. Thx.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 11:12 AM on August 15, 2012

The tenderloin is a terrible cut for a BBQ, no matter what kind of BBQ you're thinking of. If it's low-and-slow kind of barbecue, the TL isn't fatty enough for that technique; and if it's the grill-it-over-direct heat kind, well, I guess it would work if you cut the tenderloin into steaks and grilled them, but for that, I'd rather have a porterhouse. For low-and-slow, shoulder or butt would probably work best.
posted by rtha at 11:22 AM on August 15, 2012 [11 favorites]

MRA bullshit is insidious and dangerous and should be countered whole-heartedly at every opportunity, whether or not you like the tone of the people doing the countering.

Oh, c'mon. Really? If I substitute MRA with WRA how would that be recieved?

I've stayed out of the thread since I last suggested it be closed, but in the end, the comments have more or less validated what I was suggesting.
posted by eas98 at 11:26 AM on August 15, 2012

We regularly had grilled pork tenderloin growing up. It tasted like Sunday nights. It was indirectly responsible for my brother ripping his knee apart. True story.
posted by phunniemee at 11:27 AM on August 15, 2012 [1 favorite]

eas98, people disagreeing with you =/= "society changing to become misandrist."
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 11:28 AM on August 15, 2012 [8 favorites]

If I substitute MRA with WRA

Never heard of a WRA. I have, however, heard of the ERA.
posted by *s at 11:29 AM on August 15, 2012 [18 favorites]

I've stayed out of the thread since I last suggested it be closed, but in the end, the comments have more or less validated what I was suggesting.

Now you're just trying to get your ass banned, aren't you?
posted by msali at 11:29 AM on August 15, 2012

I did not read this post as being full of MRA dog whistles.

FWIW, zarq, I absolutely did.

If I substitute MRA with WRA how would that be recieved?

Aaaaaand there's another one.
posted by KathrynT at 11:29 AM on August 15, 2012 [30 favorites]

If I substitute MRA with WRA how would that be recieved?

It would be kind of like if you asked why there isn't a white history month: Some people would sort of recoil in horror and some people would probably agree with you.
posted by FAMOUS MONSTER at 11:30 AM on August 15, 2012 [34 favorites]

Now you're just trying to get your ass banned, aren't you?

Why in the world would I be banned? Because I am not in agreement?
posted by eas98 at 11:31 AM on August 15, 2012 [3 favorites]

What if there were an... MRSA day? ~ tents fingers, looks wistful ~
posted by boo_radley at 11:32 AM on August 15, 2012 [9 favorites]

The tenderloin is a terrible cut for a BBQ, no matter what kind of BBQ you're thinking of. If it's low-and-slow kind of barbecue, the TL isn't fatty enough for that technique; and if it's the grill-it-over-direct heat kind, well, I guess it would work if you cut the tenderloin into steaks and grilled them...

True, I wouldn't BBQ a tenderloin in the literal low-and-slow definition of BBQ, but I actually have a very delicious direct heat grill recipe that involves a spicy lime & garlic marinade, then 15 to 20 minutes of grilling, turning the tenderloin every 2 minutes. Then, rest for ten minutes in foil with reserved marinade (not the same marinade that the raw meat sat in). You wind up with a yummy cut that has tasty char on the edges, yet is still tender and juicy on the inside. Slice for sliders, layer in Hawaiian rolls with a pineapple salsa.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 11:33 AM on August 15, 2012 [7 favorites]

Eddie. Dude.

Go have a swim or something. It's a nice day out. Give yourself a little break from here for an hour, it may do you good.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 11:33 AM on August 15, 2012

Assuming you're participating in good faith, what sort of comments were you hoping for?
posted by griphus at 11:33 AM on August 15, 2012

If you write your name in the snow with your pee, don't take it as a criticism of your man parts when people get upset that you ruined the snow.
posted by perhapses at 11:36 AM on August 15, 2012 [19 favorites]

imagine a clock exploding at this point.
posted by boo_radley at 11:36 AM on August 15, 2012

Unpopular or even incorrect opinions aren't grounds for a banning.
posted by cjorgensen at 11:38 AM on August 15, 2012 [3 favorites]

...there isn't a White History Month?
posted by shakespeherian at 11:39 AM on August 15, 2012 [2 favorites]

And when's white history month, anyway??
posted by inigo2 at 11:39 AM on August 15, 2012 [1 favorite]

damnit.
posted by inigo2 at 11:39 AM on August 15, 2012 [2 favorites]

If there's Women's Rights why can't there be Men's Rights? If there's a Black History Month why can't there be a White History Month? If people have Gay Pride Parades why can't I have a Straight Pride Parade? The world keeps oppressing the white straight males, we're the only people left that it's safe to discriminate against. Why can't anyone see except me :( thanks Obama
posted by naju at 11:40 AM on August 15, 2012 [22 favorites]

Well. That certainly clarified and defused things!
posted by batmonkey at 11:40 AM on August 15, 2012 [2 favorites]

The WRA is the Wisconsin Realtors Association.
posted by Bunny Ultramod at 11:40 AM on August 15, 2012 [8 favorites]

And when's white history month, anyway??

In July, when there's more daylight hours for our endless parades.
posted by Lentrohamsanin at 11:41 AM on August 15, 2012 [5 favorites]

I wish we had some sort of way to do sociological experiments in laboratory conditions because I would love to see what, if left to their own devices, people would come up with to bring to the Straight Pride Parade.
posted by griphus at 11:41 AM on August 15, 2012 [29 favorites]

I always had a suspicion that realtors in Wisconsin were keeping me from reaching my potential. Thanks for proving me right.
posted by perhapses at 11:42 AM on August 15, 2012 [9 favorites]

And a 12th that I call White Complaining Month!
posted by Bunny Ultramod at 11:42 AM on August 15, 2012 [53 favorites]

Go have a swim or something. It's a nice day out. Give yourself a little break from here for an hour, it may do you good.

In other words: Go and get out of our convesation, so we can all think alike and smile and nod our heads in agreement.

Look. A community is about diversity. People may not agree with me, I may not agree with them. But what do we want? A place where only 'approved' points of view are allowed to exist and be articulated?

I made a point with the OP, and a lot of people shouted me down. Fine. But as mentioned by others, it just keeps going. Don't agree, say so. But suggesting that I hate women, that I'm sexist, that I be banned.. Why? Am I not allowed to have an opinion?

I ask these questions seriously. If you want a community where everyone thinks the same, you can do it. In some ways, you are already doing it, by ostracizing all dissenters and thinking that you all alone are the enlightened ones.

In the end, though, I don't think this will be a better place because of it.
posted by eas98 at 11:43 AM on August 15, 2012 [3 favorites]

I'll be at your house in time for supper, Flo!
posted by rtha at 11:43 AM on August 15, 2012

thinking that you all alone are the enlightened ones

Well, we did unlock our badges.
posted by perhapses at 11:45 AM on August 15, 2012 [2 favorites]

But suggesting that I hate women, that I'm sexist, that I be banned.. Why? Am I not allowed to have an opinion?

You are allowed to have an opinion, but your right to an opinion does not preclude your capacity for sexist articulations.
posted by shakespeherian at 11:45 AM on August 15, 2012 [7 favorites]

Is hate speech grounds for banning? I bet it is, and so it becomes a matter of where you draw the line. I'd call this an edge case. In my book, it's close.

Man, no. Misogyny makes me want to barf but the dude hasn't said anything in this thread that even comes close to hate speech. "Well, what if you were saying these things about MEN'S rights?" isn't hate speech, it's just another guy on the internet being dumb about privilege. I'll freely admit that it makes my skin crawl a little when people say stuff like that (or "Well, I do think there has been a shift over the years, not necessarily just on MeFi, but perhaps in society as a whole," for example, when trying to argue that misandry is a big problem), but I don't think I'd stick around any site where expressing so mild an opinion (thickheaded as it may be) were a bannable offense, or even an edge case.
posted by FAMOUS MONSTER at 11:46 AM on August 15, 2012 [83 favorites]

Awesome, I love when conversations turn into bumper stickers on both sides of an argument.
posted by boo_radley at 11:46 AM on August 15, 2012 [3 favorites]

I made a point with the OP, and a lot of people shouted me down.

Because you were wrong. You were asked to provide other links to back up your initial assertion that this is some sort of sitewide phenomenon rather than just you being cranky about one particular answer. It's okay to be cranky at a particular answer. But it's dishonest to present your crankiness as if it's the result of This Big Thing Happening Everywhere! when it's not.
posted by rtha at 11:46 AM on August 15, 2012 [14 favorites]

EmpressCallipygos wasn't telling you to leave forever. She was suggesting your blood is getting het up and maybe a break would get you blood colded back down so that reasoned conversation can occur, instead of the hysterical shrieking we associate with the blood boils.
posted by Bunny Ultramod at 11:46 AM on August 15, 2012 [1 favorite]

A place where only 'approved' points of view are allowed to exist and be articulated?

A place without creepy sexism would be rad, thanks.
posted by elizardbits at 11:46 AM on August 15, 2012 [23 favorites]

oh but wait, FAMOUS MONSTER with a great save. GJ there.
posted by boo_radley at 11:46 AM on August 15, 2012

I think most people knew how this post was going to go from the outset and that's too bad.

Making the assumption that eas98 was making a good faith observation, and not stunt posting, or committing performance art, the first comment out of the gate was "Hey ignorant fuck, doncha know yer dumb? Amirite, everybody? Favorites represent!" Fine, it was actually, "You forgot the #mensrights tag." Which is just coded speech for "I'm on the correct side of this debate and part of the enlightened club."

What's wrong with this? Well, it pretty much eliminates any chance of any kind of engagement. It also puts someone in the position of going, "Shucks, I never thought of it that way," or doubling down. Most people are going to dig in, especially when many of the responses were of no substance.

If I didn't have an opinion on this issue already I don't think I'd be much swayed by the arguments posed by the less-than-rational crowd.
posted by cjorgensen at 11:47 AM on August 15, 2012 [5 favorites]

Who's suggesting that you be banned? Who's saying that you're not allowed to talk? The "Go take a walk in the big room" idea is hardly one that EC came up with on the spur of the moment that applies only to you, it's a common suggestion to people who appear to be digging into an argument and getting their blinders on. You are plenty allowed to have an opinion, but don't be surprised when people then tell you they think you are distasteful and full of it.

And yes, you are saying sexist things here. The idea that pointing that out is equivalent to suggesting that you be banned or SILENCING ALL YOUR LIFE is delusional.
posted by KathrynT at 11:47 AM on August 15, 2012 [5 favorites]

If I substitute MRA with WRA how would that be recieved?

Substitute MMA for MRA and suddenly this conversation becomes FULL CONTACT!!
posted by octobersurprise at 11:47 AM on August 15, 2012 [5 favorites]

In other words: Go and get out of our convesation, so we can all think alike and smile and nod our heads in agreement.

No, eas98, people were suggesting that you take a walk because you're saying things that are (likely inadvertently) offensive and seem upset and it's easier to have productive conversations when cooler heads prevail.

It's possible that either you realize these things are offensive and are saying them anyway, of course (in which case, ew, and how is that good for the community?), or that you are totally cool as a cuke right now but don't see what's so offensive about the stuff that you said ("Oh, c'mon. Really? If I substitute MRA with WRA how would that be recieved? "). It's possible that you're not aware of the larger cultural problems with men's right's activisim and the actual--not cultural bogeyman stereotype--goals of feminism. In which case, I feel kind of sad for you, because there's a lot of that information readily available, both on metafilter and elsewhere.
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 11:47 AM on August 15, 2012 [7 favorites]

I would love to see what, if left to their own devices, people would come up with to bring to the Straight Pride Parade

I am sitting here trying desperately to imagine what it would be like and failing.

Also my undergrad science building had a giant tank with a native east coast pufferfish in it. She was shy and lovely with remarkable eyes. A pufferfish on a leash would be adorable but not good as an offensive creature even disregarding the whole difficulty of walking with a fish. Maybe a little bowl with motorized wheels that had wifi sensors in the fish's brain to move the tank as it willed? You'd probably just irritate the fish with its inability to move in three dimensions though.
posted by winna at 11:48 AM on August 15, 2012 [4 favorites]

What Bunny ultramod and PhoBWanKenobi are saying is indeed what I intended.

And, for the record, I just told my own self to do it in another thread where I was getting het up. And, ironically, it was a thread about gender roles.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 11:49 AM on August 15, 2012 [1 favorite]

You'd probably just irritate the fish with its inability to move in three dimensions though.

This is the exact reason pufferfish have an edge over Khan Noonien Singh!
posted by Bunny Ultramod at 11:50 AM on August 15, 2012 [4 favorites]

I think the mainstream (if not exactly straight) equivalent to a gay pride parade might be a mardi gras parade.
posted by rmd1023 at 11:50 AM on August 15, 2012 [1 favorite]

I tentatively advance the proposition that women are people.
posted by shakespeherian at 11:50 AM on August 15, 2012 [12 favorites]

Who's suggesting that you be banned?

Now you're just trying to get your ass banned, aren't you?
posted by msali at 7:29 PM on August 15 [+] [!]

Fair enough, that is somewhat ambiguous but

However, the mods are more merciful than us, and you probably won't be banned. Unfortunately for the rest of us.
posted by gilrain at 7:34 PM on August 15 [1 favorite +] [!]

and

There has to be some limit. Is hate speech grounds for banning? I bet it is, and so it becomes a matter of where you draw the line. I'd call this an edge case. In my book, it's close.
posted by gilrain at 7:39 PM on August 15 [+] [!]

aren't.
posted by Reggie Knoble at 11:51 AM on August 15, 2012

Who's suggesting that you be banned?

gilrain came close, others implied it.

> hysterical

1610s, from L. hystericus "of the womb," from Gk. hysterikos "of the womb, suffering in the womb," from hystera "womb" (see uterus). Originally defined as a neurotic condition peculiar to women and thought to be caused by a dysfunction of the uterus. Meaning "very funny" (by 1939) is from the notion of uncontrollable fits of laughter. Related: Hysterically. cite

posted by cjorgensen at 11:52 AM on August 15, 2012

I would love to see what, if left to their own devices, people would come up with to bring to the Straight Pride Parade

We have the best float this year! It's two twin beds in a dark room!
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 11:52 AM on August 15, 2012 [28 favorites]

EVERYONE IN THE POOL
posted by shakespeherian at 11:53 AM on August 15, 2012 [2 favorites]

Yeah, just to be clear, while I don't think it's fair to ask us to pretend this guy doesn't have some eyebrow-raising stuff in his comment history, I also don't think he's some Terrible Asshole who should be banned.

I wish we were all a little better at operating in the place between THIS IS GREAT and YOU ARE A BAD PERSON AND SHOULD FEEL BAD. As others have pointed out, hyperbolic condemnation doesn't really help anything. And if my previous comments in this thread helped fuel that particular train, then I'm sorry I phrased them that way.
posted by Narrative Priorities at 11:53 AM on August 15, 2012 [7 favorites]

I'm just glad this site operates as a democracy and we, the users, sit down and vote on who gets banned.
posted by griphus at 11:54 AM on August 15, 2012 [3 favorites]

In other words: Go and get out of our convesation, so we can all think alike and smile and nod our heads in agreement.

No, it's because sometimes giving yourself a moment to cooldown and reflect changes how you phrase your thoughts.

No one is telling you to close your account and go away forever. It's a suggestion to give yourself a moment to reflect instead of react.
posted by 26.2 at 11:54 AM on August 15, 2012

ricky and lucy had twin beds. standards.
posted by clavdivs at 11:54 AM on August 15, 2012 [1 favorite]

You'd probably just irritate the fish with its inability to move in three dimensions though.

This is the exact reason pufferfish have an edge over Khan Noonien Singh!

Plainly some of the teachers of Kirk were Augment pufferfish!
posted by winna at 11:55 AM on August 15, 2012

Also, it's so hot here that EVERYONE needs to go swimming.
posted by 26.2 at 11:55 AM on August 15, 2012

Let's be super clear: no one gets banned because someone says in a thread they should be banned, and saying people should be banned in conversations usually doesn't really help anything at all. It's fine to talk about why you think some given kind of or example of behavior is problematic, etc, but let's leave it there.
posted by cortex (staff) at 11:55 AM on August 15, 2012 [20 favorites]

I tentatively advance the proposition that women are people.

Don't be silly sir we're malevolent parasites who co-opt the best gestures of mankind's brains in order to pursue our foul schemes for total gender domination.

oh no ive said too much.
posted by winna at 11:58 AM on August 15, 2012 [7 favorites]

Even if he's a terrible asshole, that doesn't mean he should be banned. Metafilter doesn't ban people just for being terrible assholes. (Fortunately for me!)
posted by KathrynT at 11:59 AM on August 15, 2012 [2 favorites]

the young rope-rider: "I'm going to ignore you telling me your feminist cred, because it's not relevant to this conversation we're having right now and I'm already familiar with your contribution to this site (and I also like you quite a bit in general).

I mentioned my history to explain that you were lecturing me about something I actually, honest-to-goodness, was familiar with. And I felt very strange having to defend myself on this topic to you and heyho, because I've had conversations with both of you in the past about similar issues and we've pretty much been in agreement!

I also felt you were accusing me of defending some men's rights bullshit, which bugged the hell out of me.

I've been in MeTa pile ons. They suck, and they've been the direct cause of my taking a break from mefi a couple of times. So now, when I see them happening to other people and I think it's happening unfairly, I try to say something. Here, I thought the thread was getting overly angry and accusatory didn't see why and spoke up.

Obviously, I missed some underlying context.

FWIW, I like you quite a bit too. And have a great deal of respect for your opinions and contributions here.

That goes for heyho, too.

That is my point. Just like I'm sure I would miss some anti-semitic dog whistles because I don't identify as Jewish, I'm sure you miss some anti-feminist/misogynist dog whistles because you're not a woman.

True. I missed some underlying context recently in another thread, about something Mayim Bialik said in an essay. Which also surprised me because I thought I was well-versed on the subject being discussed.

Or just because you're a fallible human being and sometimes people miss things (which, to be clear, is okay and doesn't make you a bad person or whatever).

My point is that maybe if a bunch of people in a thread are assuming someone is sexist, maybe it's not because they're rude jerkfaces but because they see something you don't. Next time it might be better to hold off on criticizing people for making those kinds of assumptions until you have a complete grasp of the situation.

Fair enough. In the past, when I felt I wasn't on solid ground, I've tried to ask questions rather than jump to conclusions. Will try to do that more often in the future.
posted by zarq at 12:00 PM on August 15, 2012 [14 favorites]

I don't think anyone here needs to be banned, but some people here should feel as if they have been banned.
posted by octobersurprise at 12:08 PM on August 15, 2012 [2 favorites]

It wouldn't be the end of the world if GirlZone was even remotely close to a real thing. Seeing as it's not a real thing -not even if you squint so hard your tear-ducts turn into tiny little diamonds- the point is moot.
posted by Doleful Creature at 12:08 PM on August 15, 2012 [1 favorite]

I am genuinely curious... is obvious-to-everyone-but-the-poster racism, and admitted involvement in white power groups, grounds for banning? If not, then I can accept that the same policy extends to sexism, and that the site is simply more open than I would prefer, and that that's fine.


In my opinion, being a racist should not be a banable offense. Making blatant racist screeds or linking to racist sites when you have been told not to do either, should be. I don't believe we should ban people for what they think, only for their behavior, if said behavior clearly, and repeatedly warrants it.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 12:10 PM on August 15, 2012 [6 favorites]

Like pretty much every other pile on, by the 100th person telling the OP that hurf durf they're a terrible human being it's less about the OP and more about a familiar roster of people coming into show how superior and smart they are and how they have a better set of opinions.
posted by MuffinMan at 12:11 PM on August 15, 2012 [10 favorites]

In my experience, actual racists and frothing sexists are usually so full of negativity that we can just wait them out and sooner or later they just explode and are gone.

On web forums. In the real world, they wind up getting elected to Congress.
posted by Bunny Ultramod at 12:12 PM on August 15, 2012 [3 favorites]

I want to more about tear-duct diamonds.
posted by clavdivs at 12:12 PM on August 15, 2012 [3 favorites]

Fine, it was actually, "You forgot the #mensrights tag." Which is just coded speech for "I'm on the correct side of this debate and part of the enlightened club."

Actually, it was pretty clear from the original post that some kind of point about "men's rights" was being made, so he may as well use the word. It's not my fault it's (rightfully) derided. But if recognizing that makes me part of the "enlightened club", so be it.
posted by inigo2 at 12:13 PM on August 15, 2012 [6 favorites]

s/Banned/Benned
posted by hellojed at 12:13 PM on August 15, 2012 [6 favorites]

Like pretty much every other pile on, by the 100th person telling the OP that hurf durf they're a terrible human being it's less about the OP and more about a familiar roster of people coming into show how superior and smart they are and how they have a better set of opinions.

And you manage to top them all with this particular cherry. The sundae is now complete!
posted by Bunny Ultramod at 12:13 PM on August 15, 2012 [4 favorites]

onto whom you think people are unfairly piling. I think.
posted by endless_forms at 12:14 PM on August 15, 2012 [5 favorites]

But there is obviously a shift happening in society and in this very thread. It's a highway to the dangerzone.
posted by perhapses at 12:15 PM on August 15, 2012 [6 favorites]

Well, at the very least, we can say this thread led to the discovery of one of the most awkward sentences in the English language.
posted by griphus at 12:16 PM on August 15, 2012 [4 favorites]

for you to stand up for people whom you think are being unfairly piled onto

" ... on to whom you think are being unfairly piled."
posted by octobersurprise at 12:18 PM on August 15, 2012 [6 favorites]

The infinitive is still split.
posted by Bunny Ultramod at 12:18 PM on August 15, 2012

Like pretty much every other pile on, by the 100th person telling the OP that hurf durf they're a terrible human being it's less about the OP and more about a familiar roster of people coming into show how superior and smart they are and how they have a better set of opinions.

You can't be above-the-mess and in-the-mess at the same time. You have to pick one. Welcome to the mess.

(I am spoiling my above-the-mess status to let you know this, you're welcome)
posted by Kwine at 12:19 PM on August 15, 2012

gilrain: "I am genuinely curious... is obvious-to-everyone-but-the-poster racism, and admitted involvement in white power groups, grounds for banning? If not, then I can accept that the same policy extends to sexism, and that the site is simply more open than I would prefer, and that that's fine."

Occasionally, people have been banned when the mods have thought they were engaging in hate speech. Overly racist, antisemitic and sexist comments (either individually or in some nasty combination) have all gotten people banned. And a couple comments have been made that I thought should have gotten people banned, but didn't. The mods take each case individually.
posted by zarq at 12:19 PM on August 15, 2012

Where's a grammar fairy when you need one?
posted by endless_forms at 12:21 PM on August 15, 2012

The infinitive is still split.

Yeah. What the hell is that "to" doing in there?
posted by octobersurprise at 12:22 PM on August 15, 2012

I'm your huckleberry.
posted by clavdivs at 12:22 PM on August 15, 2012 [6 favorites]

BLESSED EXCHEQUER SOMEONE GAVE CLOTHING TO A FEMALE
posted by TheWhiteSkull at 12:23 PM on August 15, 2012 [6 favorites]

The unfairly piled-upon.
posted by griphus at 12:23 PM on August 15, 2012 [25 favorites]

and
for you to stand up for people whom you think are being unfairly piled onto is a good thing?
posted by clavdivs at 12:24 PM on August 15, 2012

I just hope that all of you on Metafilter know, whether you are girlzones or boyzones, that you are all my friendzones.
posted by koeselitz at 12:24 PM on August 15, 2012 [8 favorites]

All this on-piling is something up with which I will not put!
posted by rmd1023 at 12:24 PM on August 15, 2012 [5 favorites]

"...on to piles comprised unfairly of people who stood you up"
posted by perhapses at 12:25 PM on August 15, 2012 [2 favorites]

Okay, now I'm just really, really glad I'm not the only one who immediately pictures Ferengi when someone brings out Men's Rights crap.
posted by griphus at 12:25 PM on August 15, 2012 [1 favorite]

pile-ee?
posted by *s at 12:25 PM on August 15, 2012

Those upon whom the piling has been unfair.

BOOYAH MOTHERFUCKERS
posted by elizardbits at 12:25 PM on August 15, 2012 [6 favorites]

I just hope that all of you on Metafilter know, whether you are girlzones or boyzones, that you are all my friendzones.

Damnit, not again!

*rips up loveletter*
posted by kmz at 12:25 PM on August 15, 2012 [3 favorites]

I can see for piles and piles.
posted by naju at 12:25 PM on August 15, 2012 [3 favorites]

Metafilter doesn't ban people just for being terrible assholes.

Yes, it can happen to you!

Or you're not as much of a jerk as you'd like to think.
posted by the man of twists and turns at 12:27 PM on August 15, 2012

I can see for piles and piles.

Yeah, that proctology residency isn't easy.
posted by griphus at 12:28 PM on August 15, 2012 [6 favorites]

"and not as demands, such as:

Come here.
Stop!
Go and make me a drink.
Politeness strategies (for instance, indirect speech acts) can seem more appropriate in order not to threaten a conversational partner in their needs of self-determination and territory: the partner's negative face should not appear threatened. As a result, the imperative mood does not require someone to be direct, confrontational, nor over-bearing."

some issues with the wiki but still.
posted by clavdivs at 12:30 PM on August 15, 2012

When I was in college, I gathered a group of friends, men and women, to go to the local mall. The mall had a center court with four branches extending out of it, each one leading to an anchor store. Once inside the mall, we split up and set a time to run into each other at the center. As we walked back toward each other in the center, I bent down to tie my shoe. Someone tripped over me, which caused a chain reaction. Within seconds, we had created a pile on in the middle of the mall. We slithered and crawled over each other for a couple minutes until security showed up. We apologized to each other and exited the mall.
posted by perhapses at 12:35 PM on August 15, 2012 [5 favorites]

Let me just say that I am glad that zarq and the young rope-rider made up because I was about to pull some hide-under-the-covers-until-it's-all-over shit.
posted by zizzle at 12:39 PM on August 15, 2012 [1 favorite]

the young rope-rider: "Assuming you didn't know about the MRA movement was actually me giving you the benefit of the doubt because I know you.

OK. I didn't read it that way, but okay, no problem.

I was not lecturing you, it was a couple of sentences at most.

It was the tone and content of your comment more than its quantity that I was reacting to. And admittedly, I was also feeling defensive because of what heyho had said.

That said, I do understand now why you were (rightfully) pissed off.

You being a feminist and having said feminist things does not give you a pass from me ever disagreeing with you about anything regarding feminism or sexism, nor does it mean you are permanently educated about all things feminism--none of us are.

If I seem terse it's because I am. While I see why you feel defensive and attacked, I also really don't like the feminist street cred thing. It reads to me as an attempt to make your defense of feminist ideas transactional instead of just the right thing to do. I'm sure that's not the reading that you intended, but it sticks in my craw anyway."

Of course! That's NOT what I was trying to say or imply. I certainly wasn't trying to imply I'm infallible or anything, or in any way beyond criticism.

I felt you were trying to call me out for being some sort of an idiot about feminism and defending a misogynist, without giving me any benefit of the doubt. My reaction was intended to say, "don't you think I can tell if someone's being misogynistic" (which.. well, um.... obviously no, I can't,) and "knowing what you know about me, do you think it likely that I'd be supporting misogynistic crap?"

.: "Also, zarq, I think it is kind and thoughtful for you to stand up for people whom you think are being unfairly piled onto...on-piled...can't really figure out the sentence construction. But I think it's a good impulse, and like I said, I don't have a general problem with you as a person or as a member of this community."

Thanks. Hugs all around. :)
posted by zarq at 12:40 PM on August 15, 2012 [1 favorite]

The infinitive is still split.

... that's not a real(look for MeFi's Own!) rule.
posted by the man of twists and turns at 12:40 PM on August 15, 2012 [1 favorite]

Oooh, are we going to talk about grammar now?
posted by someone is wrong on the internet at 12:41 PM on August 15, 2012

Ridiculous shit like that happens here ALL THE TIME.

I haven't seen the shit you're talking about, but I'll take your word for it that it does happen.

But you realize that this isn't what's going on here, right? Like, this is straight up MRA/misogynistic bullshit in unambiguous terms.
posted by kmz at 12:42 PM on August 15, 2012 [1 favorite]

If you're the OP and you're male, people here will expect the worst of you.

In all honestly I don't see this-- if anything, my impression is that you are seeing a general Internet Skepticism that is directed at persons regardless of sex. I could be wrong.
posted by shakespeherian at 12:45 PM on August 15, 2012 [3 favorites]

I hate having people like this around...

That's a bristling sentiment to read, almost irrespective of whatever the second half of that sentence might be. You're entitled to your opinions obviously, both on how people should behave and on what the community makeup should be, but I would suggest that this is pretty inflammatory language and it's the type of thing that I'd probably long remember someone having said.
posted by cribcage at 12:45 PM on August 15, 2012 [4 favorites]

If you're the OP and you're male, people here will expect the worst of you. They'll play armchair Freud pick apart your word choices to prove you're an evil sexist bastard. There's pretty much no limit to how people will twist your words to make you look like a terrible person. Like, I remember one time someone accused a guy of possibly being a wife-beater because he didn't get along with his wife's cat and wanted her to get rid of it. Ridiculous shit like that happens here ALL THE TIME.

Ridiculous shit like that happens in here all the time when it comes to women talking about being harrassed and assaulted. Or if you're the OP and you're theist.

I dont think it's any sort of free-form anti-anything orthodoxy, it's more a matter of "sometimes people disagree with you, and sometimes they agree wtih you."
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 12:46 PM on August 15, 2012 [5 favorites]

drink the pain away!
posted by elizardbits at 12:49 PM on August 15, 2012 [1 favorite]

like fuji apple juice is just stone cold awesome for example
posted by elizardbits at 12:49 PM on August 15, 2012 [2 favorites]

Ridiculous shit like that happens in here all the time when it comes to women talking about being harrassed and assaulted.

Oh God, yes. It's like clockwork. Just when you think it's safe someone pops in and says, "Wait a minute. Can it really be that bad, or is she exaggerating?" and then it's, "Why are you so mad, I was just asking a question!?"
posted by ODiV at 12:52 PM on August 15, 2012 [12 favorites]

i concur
posted by elizardbits at 12:52 PM on August 15, 2012

oh my god what horrendous timing
posted by elizardbits at 12:53 PM on August 15, 2012 [99 favorites]

hah, i do remember that 'wanting to get rid of the cat' example. it was pretty bad. though that was probably more to do with a whole bunch of nerds more comfortable dealing with computers and animals than they are with human relationships than it was to do with any systemic hatred of men.

(oddly, the 'animals over people' crowd also appear to be lots of the same people whose comments here frequently involve ONE LINE IN ALL CAPS BECAUSE THAT'S HOW IT'S DONE ON THE NET WHEN YOU'RE BEING WITTY.. i have no idea why.)
posted by modernnomad at 12:56 PM on August 15, 2012 [1 favorite]

FWIW I haven't come across an accusation of men's rights as ad hominem where there wasn't some shitty sexist stuff going on. Maybe this is a function of my lack of Ask participation, but the atmosphere you are describing isn't something's have noticed, at all.


And I gotta say it....at the end of the day, women have stuff a whole lot worse in this area. The occasional poorly aimed misogyny critique is a pretty easy problem to get over and deal with. Institutional iced abuse and oppression? Not so much.
posted by lazaruslong at 12:56 PM on August 15, 2012 [6 favorites]

Those upon whom the piling has been unfair.

Let's see, I can never get this straight, that one comes before "Those that, at a distance, resemble flies" but after "Those that are included in this classification," right?
posted by enn at 12:57 PM on August 15, 2012 [4 favorites]

Institutional iced = institutionalized. Gah.
posted by lazaruslong at 12:57 PM on August 15, 2012

If I had best friends, I'm fairly sure some of them would be men.
posted by perhapses at 12:58 PM on August 15, 2012 [1 favorite]

You know, every time my mom tells me about some woo thing she's into like homeopathy or Horse Rubbing Allergy Therapy or whatever-the-fuck, the moment, I mean the moment I express the slightest hint of skepticism she's all WHY DO YOU HAVE TO BE SO NEGATIVE ABOUT EVERYTHING DO YOU JUST HATE KNOWLEDGE UGH YOU'RE SUCH A CYNIC

And that's kind of how some of the complaints in this thread feel.


Of course, it's not okay to do that with feminism -- and I'm sorry, but like any other movement, it does have its share of bitter, ridiculous people -- but with men it's fair game.

Well as long as we're making claims without backing them I'll go ahead claim that I think that the feminist movement has done a much better job of policing itself than the MRA movement which seems to be pretty OK with promoting the most bitter, ridiculous, members of the group. Just my observation though.
posted by Doleful Creature at 12:58 PM on August 15, 2012 [10 favorites]

[NOT MENIST]
posted by shakespeherian at 12:58 PM on August 15, 2012

(For the record, I don't consider myself part of the "mens' rights" movement but I don't deny there are situations where men are treated unfairly.)

I think the big deal here is that the people who tend to align with MRA specifically, as opposed to just advocating fair treatment for everyone, tend to be noxious button pushers. Not everyone certainly but in the US (this is really different in the UK fwiw) the movement has a bad rep that makes it turn into a bit of a self-selection process. Reasonable people who are for fair treatment of men tend to not align themselves with the MRA movement in the US. And the publicface of MRA in the US tends to have lot of anti-woman rhetoric mixed in with other reasonable aims and requests.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 12:59 PM on August 15, 2012 [24 favorites]

Wow, I'm sort of surprised to find myself agreeing with sidhedevil on a sexism issue, but hey, here I am. "Get a hard, aggressive lawyer" is bog standard advice, given to everyone male and female. If there's anything prejudicial going on here, it's the (understandable, and also standard) assumption that the MeFi member's side of things is the accurate one.
posted by tyllwin at 1:00 PM on August 15, 2012

Of course, it's not okay to do that with feminism

Where do you get the idea that it ISN'T okay to do that with feminism? I've seen lots of threads where people have talked about the more aggregious examples of feminist. And I've been one of them.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 1:01 PM on August 15, 2012

I think the big deal here is that the people who tend to align with MRA specifically, as opposed to just advocating fair treatment for everyone, tend to be noxious button pushers.

And they seem to focus almost exclusively on the tearing down of support for women (women's shelters, legal prosecution for rape) instead of building up support for men.
posted by ODiV at 1:01 PM on August 15, 2012 [21 favorites]

it's actually a bit depressing that instructions to get an 'aggressive' lawyer are so common, regardless of gender. more jurisdictions with mandatory mediation prior to allowing things to progress to litigation would be a wonderful thing.
posted by modernnomad at 1:02 PM on August 15, 2012

I'm looking forward to the Homophobe Defense Brigade coming to the rescue the next time there's pushback against some homophobe spouting "different opinions".
posted by kmz at 1:03 PM on August 15, 2012 [1 favorite]

I don't think it's bannable by the rules of metafilter (and the mods haven't banned some of the more ridiculous and out-there obvious misogynists so I doubt this guy would get banned for a few hinting comments) but at the same I think you're experiencing it as much more benign than it actually is.

Maybe? I don't know - don't get me wrong, this sort of discourse isn't something I tend to just laugh off or whatever - it tends to raise some serious hackles for me and also just generally aggravates the shit out of me. And to be clear, I think it'd be really nice if the site (at a minimum) were a place where no one had weird-assed women issues. When I called it a mild opinion, I was comparing it to outright hate speech.
posted by FAMOUS MONSTER at 1:03 PM on August 15, 2012

(this is really different in the UK fwiw)"

Really? I did not know that. Very interesting! Some time when it feels like there's 2^32 channels on the internet but nothing on, I want to make a point of checking that out. I assume this is sort of how "libertarian" tends to mean something different as well.
posted by rmd1023 at 1:04 PM on August 15, 2012

modernnomad: A lot of legal advice is depressing to me. I've heard suggestions that a driver who hits and kills someone should not tell a grieving family that he's sorry for their loss. That you should avoid talking to the police without a lawyer in case they try to misrepresent what you say later in court.

Though I guess this is a bit offtopic.
posted by ODiV at 1:05 PM on August 15, 2012 [1 favorite]

Maybe it's just my perception, but it doesn't seem as if men ask nearly as many divorce related questions as women.

You should see us ask for directions.
posted by arcticseal at 1:05 PM on August 15, 2012 [2 favorites]

And they seem to focus almost exclusively on the tearing down of support for women (women's shelters, legal prosecution for rape) instead of building up support for men.

Right, yes, and, well, the vast majority of feminists are in it for equality, not reflexive female superiority. MRA principles are pretty much built on assuming that women are selfish witches who just want to unseat the patriarchy and steal that power for themselves. Rather than, you know, unseat the patriarchy and strive for equality instead.
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 1:06 PM on August 15, 2012 [15 favorites]

And I gotta say it....at the end of the day, women have stuff a whole lot worse in this area. The occasional poorly aimed misogyny critique is a pretty easy problem to get over and deal with. Institutional iced abuse and oppression? Not so much.
posted by lazaruslong at 8:56 PM on August 15 [+] [!]

On Metafilter?
posted by Reggie Knoble at 1:06 PM on August 15, 2012 [2 favorites]

I'm looking forward to the Homophobe Defense Brigade

Homophobophiles?
posted by TheWhiteSkull at 1:06 PM on August 15, 2012 [1 favorite]

it's actually a bit depressing that instructions to get an 'aggressive' lawyer are so common, regardless of gender

It's much easier to put the brakes on a hard lawyer and give on a point than it is to negotiate when your lawyer doesn't want to be hard-nosed.
posted by tyllwin at 1:06 PM on August 15, 2012 [3 favorites]

Imagine a world where men having tremendously weird and awful issues with women was never chalked up to a difference of opinion.

Now imagine that Teen Wofl is true and you get ice cream, as well.
posted by shakespeherian at 1:07 PM on August 15, 2012 [3 favorites]

Your impression of this site is quite different from my own.

Goddamn. Swap in ANY NOUN YOU WANT for "this site," and get your inflection right, and this easily surpasses "bless your heart" as a go-to ice-cold response to anything so inane that it doesn't warrant actual discussion.
posted by Mayor West at 1:07 PM on August 15, 2012 [14 favorites]

YAY WOFLS
posted by elizardbits at 1:09 PM on August 15, 2012 [7 favorites]

the 'animals over people' crowd also appear to be lots of the same people whose comments here frequently involve ONE LINE IN ALL CAPS BECAUSE THAT'S HOW IT'S DONE ON THE NET WHEN YOU'RE BEING WITTY.

FOUR LEGS GOOD TWO LEGS BAD.
posted by octobersurprise at 1:10 PM on August 15, 2012 [4 favorites]

The best expression of why I find this kind of shit particularly galling is probably found in scholarly work on microaggression. It's not exactly what I was talking about, but it's close.

oh word, point taken.
posted by FAMOUS MONSTER at 1:10 PM on August 15, 2012 [1 favorite]

A lot of legal advice is depressing to me. I've heard suggestions that . . . you should avoid talking to the police without a lawyer in case they try to misrepresent what you say later in court.

I wish it were otherwise, but I find it more depressing when people don't follow this advice.
posted by *s at 1:11 PM on August 15, 2012 [2 favorites]

Why in mathowie's name is this thread still open?
posted by Aizkolari at 1:11 PM on August 15, 2012 [5 favorites]

Take Me To The Pileon

If you feel that it's real we're on trial
And I'm here in your MeTa
Like a fish in your sea
I am hiding from sharks of my own invention

Through a jaded eye your throne
Is the one true girlzone
Take me to the pileon for inspection
Take me to the pileon for correction

Take me to the pileon
Lead me through the gray
Take me to the pileon
Of the MRA

Take me to the pileon
Lead me to the exit
Take me to the pileon
If I am a sexist

Well we know he's not feminist
And we're told he shouldn't make the list
It's not enough to say he's wrong
Won't feel clean until he's gone
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 1:14 PM on August 15, 2012 [7 favorites]

Why in mathowie's name is this thread still open?

This is the community, behaving as communities do. It isn't always a smooth ride or totally logical as discussion proceeds from point A to point B.

In the end, it's people talking, hashing stuff out.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 1:17 PM on August 15, 2012 [2 favorites]

scholarly work on microaggression

Is this the study of stabbing people with tiny forks?
posted by elizardbits at 1:17 PM on August 15, 2012 [10 favorites]

A lot of legal advice is depressing to me. I've heard suggestions that a driver who hits and kills someone should not tell a grieving family that he's sorry for their loss. That you should avoid talking to the police without a lawyer in case they try to misrepresent what you say later in court.

The first part is changing, in some jurisdictions — saying "I'm sorry" is not considered a confession of guilt (unless the person goes on to say something like "I totally didn't see you" or "it was all my fault"). As far as the latter, yes. That's advice from both lawyers and police.

I think I get what you're saying, but to me it's not the advice that's depressing, it's that the legal system is the way it is.

The best expression of why I find this kind of shit particularly galling is probably found in scholarly work on microaggression. It's not exactly what I was talking about, but it's close.

CITE PLEASE …because I would like to read some of the articles of which you speak.
posted by Lexica at 1:18 PM on August 15, 2012 [2 favorites]

WIT WIT WIT WIT
posted by shakespeherian at 1:19 PM on August 15, 2012 [2 favorites]

...it's that the legal system is the way it is.

And that the world is the way it is, yes.

I wasn't saying it was bad advice or anything.
posted by ODiV at 1:20 PM on August 15, 2012

Afroblanco: "There's a lot of free-floating anti-male energy on MeFi/AskMe. I've come to expect it. The worst part is that a lot of it comes from men."

It matches some persistent anti-female "energy" on Mefi, Askme and Meta. Much of which comes from men as well.

Honestly, I don't think MeFi is biased in one direction or another, nor is one form of hate speech being protected over another. There are a number of people who consistently stick up for men and the male perspective in MeFi threads about rape and harassment, for example.
posted by zarq at 1:21 PM on August 15, 2012 [1 favorite]

There are a number of people who consistently stick up for men and the male perspective in MeFi threads about rape and harassment, for example.

This is true, but I think it's more topical to say that there are people who consistently stick up for the patriarchal status quo in threads about rape and harassment. Those are not the same thing, and part of the static in this thread is people conflating them. (It's also kind of the problem with the men's rights movement as it exists in America vs. the idea of men's rights in general.)
posted by restless_nomad (staff) at 1:24 PM on August 15, 2012 [23 favorites]

shakespeherian: "WIT WIT WIT WIT"

Comedy is hard :(
posted by boo_radley at 1:24 PM on August 15, 2012

It really isn't, not after you learTIMINGn the secret.
posted by griphus at 1:25 PM on August 15, 2012 [7 favorites]

I learned that from elizardbits
posted by boo_radley at 1:26 PM on August 15, 2012 [2 favorites]

actually, I think I cracked on that years ago in some other MeTa. I think you owe me a nickel.

and another hat.
posted by boo_radley at 1:26 PM on August 15, 2012

Lexica:
"The first part is changing, in some jurisdictions — saying "I'm sorry" is not considered a confession of guilt (unless the person goes on to say something like "I totally didn't see you" or "it was all my fault")."

I made the mistake of telling a frightened sixteen year old "Sorry. You probably didn't see me coming," in order to let her know I wasn't mad at her for turning in front of me and causing a collision. Her mother arrived and tried to turn that into a confession of guilt - without telling us. I had assumed we were all on the same page - it was pretty much physically impossible for this to have been my fault - bet as soon as the police arrived an hour later her first words were, "It's his fault!" and then accused me of changing the story when I protested.

NEVER try to be nice. Especially if someone's mother shows up before the police.
posted by charred husk at 1:27 PM on August 15, 2012

JUST LEAVE ME HERE TO DIE
posted by elizardbits at 1:27 PM on August 15, 2012 [1 favorite]

If it were up to me, boo_radley, you would have all the hats in the world.

Mainly because I want to see the TF2 economy implode for my amusement.
posted by griphus at 1:28 PM on August 15, 2012

restless_nomad: "This is true, but I think it's more topical to say that there are people who consistently stick up for the patriarchal status quo in threads about rape and harassment.

Yes. Exactly.
posted by zarq at 1:29 PM on August 15, 2012

Comedy is hard :(

You who else was hard? That's right: Han Solo in the carbonitezone!
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 1:29 PM on August 15, 2012

I hate to interrupt but scientists at the LHC have just discovered free-floating anti-male energy. It's not just a theory anymore!
posted by perhapses at 1:29 PM on August 15, 2012 [1 favorite]

i can only assume elizardbits really likes cats.
posted by modernnomad at 1:30 PM on August 15, 2012

With stone cold apple cider?
posted by zarq at 1:31 PM on August 15, 2012

This is the community, behaving as communities do. It isn't always a smooth ride or totally logical as discussion proceeds from point A to point B.

In the end, it's people talking, hashing stuff out.

To me there seems to be very little talking stuff out and a great deal of piling on and joking about a community member who apparently supports an unpopular point of view
posted by Aizkolari at 1:31 PM on August 15, 2012 [2 favorites]

There's a lot of free-floating anti-male energy on MeFi/AskMe.

When was the last time metafilter had a good smudging?
posted by octobersurprise at 1:31 PM on August 15, 2012 [3 favorites]

elizardbits: "JUST LEAVE ME HERE TO DIE"

Well we sure ain't gonna drag you anywhere.
posted by boo_radley at 1:31 PM on August 15, 2012 [1 favorite]

I am a puppy person, actually.
posted by elizardbits at 1:32 PM on August 15, 2012

i give up
posted by elizardbits at 1:33 PM on August 15, 2012 [12 favorites]

You want to bring a gun to a knife fight, not the other way around.
posted by griphus at 1:33 PM on August 15, 2012 [2 favorites]

All trends toward mediation are temporarily suspended during shark week.
posted by perhapses at 1:34 PM on August 15, 2012 [2 favorites]

oh my goodness.
posted by boo_radley at 1:34 PM on August 15, 2012

i give up

That was glorious serendipity and you must persevere.
posted by winna at 1:35 PM on August 15, 2012

Actually, you know what, fuck that, if I was getting divorced I would totally want to be represented in court by an adorable puppy.
posted by elizardbits at 1:37 PM on August 15, 2012 [8 favorites]

I don't get it.
posted by shakespeherian at 1:37 PM on August 15, 2012

Scrambles, Rover, Fido & Rosenbaum, LLP
posted by griphus at 1:38 PM on August 15, 2012 [9 favorites]

The court will take a 15 minute recess for whuffles.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 1:40 PM on August 15, 2012 [11 favorites]

We can close this case then, unless people are really looking for a popcorn event.

Who wants beer?
posted by ericb at 1:40 PM on August 15, 2012

OBJECTION!
The witness is leading the attorney! With a leash!
posted by charred husk at 1:40 PM on August 15, 2012 [6 favorites]

Snow Buddies (2008)
Space Buddies (2009)
Spooky Buddies (2011)
Treasure Buddies (2012)
Uncontested Buddies (2013)
posted by perhapses at 1:43 PM on August 15, 2012 [2 favorites]

I was just in the police station in Hollywood. (I use their bank machine.) You know what they were watching.

Oh yeah. Shark week.
posted by Bunny Ultramod at 1:44 PM on August 15, 2012

2014 - special revival of Benji the Hunted
posted by elizardbits at 1:44 PM on August 15, 2012

Actually, that's not the attorney on a leash. It's a pufferfish planning to sue because it can only move in 2 dimensions.
posted by rmd1023 at 1:44 PM on August 15, 2012 [2 favorites]

A film at which I wept openly and without shame.
posted by elizardbits at 1:45 PM on August 15, 2012 [1 favorite]

"Hi, honey, it's me. Can you pick me up? No, I just use their bank machine."
posted by perhapses at 1:47 PM on August 15, 2012 [5 favorites]

Benji the Hunter is way better.

he eats mercenaries in the jungle
posted by shakespeherian at 1:48 PM on August 15, 2012

> You wind up with a yummy cut that has tasty char on the edges, yet is still tender and juicy on the inside. Slice for sliders, layer in Hawaiian rolls with a pineapple salsa

I'd just like to point out that I believe I live somewhere near you and I have been known to accept dinner invitations.
posted by The corpse in the library at 1:51 PM on August 15, 2012 [5 favorites]

What do you mean when you say "Candygram!"

Ah, memories of the Land Shark: "Candygram, my foot. You get out of here before I call the police. You're the shark, and you know it."

I miss Gilda.
posted by ericb at 1:56 PM on August 15, 2012 [5 favorites]

Now, it's simply become openly hostile to men.

No, it really hasn't. It's just a place where moronic sexist commentary isn't appreciated.
posted by MartinWisse at 1:56 PM on August 15, 2012 [12 favorites]

Benji: Surviving the Game was my favorite. The scene when Benji tricks Gary Busey and Rutger Hauer into shooting each other in the crossfire is a classic.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 1:58 PM on August 15, 2012 [6 favorites]

Benji: Heat was pretty decent even if he was only actually in the one scene with DeNiro.
posted by shakespeherian at 1:59 PM on August 15, 2012 [3 favorites]

if I was getting divorced I would totally want to be represented in court by an adorable puppy.

The Shaggy DA.
posted by octobersurprise at 2:00 PM on August 15, 2012 [2 favorites]

Benji: Heat was pretty decent even if he was only actually in the one scene with DeNiro.

Yeah, but the 15 minute scene of him pooping all over downtown LA was a bit too gratuitous for my tastes.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 2:01 PM on August 15, 2012

That was Pacino.
posted by shakespeherian at 2:02 PM on August 15, 2012 [3 favorites]

Back on-topic, it kind of surprised me to see the "get a shark!" advice. I thought there was a recent trend toward mediation?

Most courts require a period of mediation, which in my experience, is not at all helpful when the parties are deeply polarized. It helps only if you want it to, or if there is some kind of basis for an agreement between you two already and you just need help ironing out details. If there is some kind of power imbalance already working its way through the relationship, I don't believe that mediation the way that I experienced it is appropriate, sometimes the best way to navigate a high-conflict family/divorce issue is through an aggressive lawyer, whether you are a man or a woman.
posted by lakersfan1222 at 2:02 PM on August 15, 2012 [2 favorites]

Actually, you know what, fuck that, if I was getting divorced I would totally want to be represented in court by an adorable puppy.

Previously.
posted by Cocodrillo at 2:03 PM on August 15, 2012

Hollywood is bullshit because they won't film my Shaggy DA meets Klute fanfic.
posted by Sticherbeast at 2:04 PM on August 15, 2012 [2 favorites]

I feel like "mens' rights" is kind of a punching bag around here, to the point that all you have to do to discredit someone is accuse them of being part of that movement.

Largely because the whole men's rights movements is a bunch of pathetic losers who want to blame everybody but themselves for their failings, who feel they're oppressed when asked politely not to rape anymore.
posted by MartinWisse at 2:04 PM on August 15, 2012 [10 favorites]

imagine a clock exploding at this point.

Imagine a cock exploding at this point.
posted by ericb at 2:06 PM on August 15, 2012

The phenomenon is more the result of AskMe answerers' tendency to identify with the Asker and the Asker's POV (probably inevitable, given the context) than it is a result of Girlism or Boyism.
posted by notyou at 2:07 PM on August 15, 2012 [1 favorite]

That was Pacino.

He not only chews the scenery, he chews the rug, the sofa, and his co-star's shoes.
posted by octobersurprise at 2:07 PM on August 15, 2012 [5 favorites]

Hollywood is bullshit because they won't film my Shaggy DA meets Klute fanfic.

No, that sort of stuff is mostly filmed in the Valley.
posted by Bunny Ultramod at 2:08 PM on August 15, 2012 [4 favorites]

He not only chews the scenery, he chews the rug, the sofa, and his co-star's shoes.

Nicely done! Very nicely done!
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 2:09 PM on August 15, 2012

Maybe because WGN showed it so frequently on Sunday afternoon, Benji III: The Domination was my favorite. An evil Yorkie's spirit possesses a sexy '80s woman, conferring upon her the powers of a dog, then sets her to attacking all of the Yorkie's enemies, dog-style. Until Benji steps in for a truly epic battle that tests the limits of his Benjutsu, that is.
posted by ignignokt at 2:10 PM on August 15, 2012

Word to the wise, pass on Benji: The 120 Days of Sodom.
posted by prize bull octorok at 2:13 PM on August 15, 2012 [4 favorites]

Yeah - the ending was a Lot too salty for my taste.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 2:16 PM on August 15, 2012 [11 favorites]

Largely because the whole men's rights movements is a bunch of pathetic losers who want to blame everybody but themselves for their failings, who feel they're oppressed when asked politely not to rape anymore.

I don't think he's arguing otherwise; his point is that classifying a person's comments as MRA is a lazy/easy way to dismiss their point of view, and isn't always used correctly or fairly.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 2:24 PM on August 15, 2012 [5 favorites]

Did anyone else see Benji 2: Electric Scooby-Doo?
posted by shakespeherian at 2:29 PM on August 15, 2012 [2 favorites]

The Alan Smithee version?
posted by ODiV at 2:31 PM on August 15, 2012 [1 favorite]

You're all forgetting Benji: On Golden Kong, which is a moving work on aging, remembrance and the grace of coming to terms with the brevity of existence.
posted by winna at 2:35 PM on August 15, 2012 [2 favorites]

God, wouldn't it be great if we could just scream "HIGHWAY TO THE DANGERZONE" at odd moments?
posted by angrycat at 2:36 PM on August 15, 2012 [10 favorites]

No, no. The ultimate is Before Benji Knows You're Dead. That opening scene where Benji is humping Marisa Tomei

Aw, shit. Sorry everyone. I should have known that typing humping Marisa Tomei would set off the boyzone alarms. Can a mod shut those things off, please?
posted by perhapses at 2:40 PM on August 15, 2012

That was Pacino.

I read that as Palillo. How come no obituary on the blue? :(
posted by Melismata at 2:41 PM on August 15, 2012

God, wouldn't it be great if we could just scream "HIGHWAY TO THE DANGERZONE" at odd moments?

No one is stopping us.

For my part, I plan to adopt the practice. No one who knows me in the meat lands would bat an eye. They'd roll their eyes, but they do that anyway.
posted by winna at 2:42 PM on August 15, 2012

The meat lands sounds like where you go to get food after the apocalypse.
posted by ODiV at 2:44 PM on August 15, 2012 [6 favorites]

Also possibly the place to which you are exiled as foodstuffs when you betray your postapocalyptic community.
posted by elizardbits at 2:53 PM on August 15, 2012 [5 favorites]

I didn't betray them! I was just politely suggesting that an oligarchical system was perhaps not the best way to set up a society.

Stupid meat lands.
posted by ODiV at 2:54 PM on August 15, 2012 [2 favorites]

Guys. GUYS.

You're all missing the real scandal here:
cortex: but I basically agree with other jessamyn here

Other jessamyn? Are there shadow mods we don't know about? Now that cortex (or is it "other cortex"?) has let the secret slip, will their be retribution?
posted by katemonster at 2:57 PM on August 15, 2012 [3 favorites]

DAMMIT, there, not their.
posted by katemonster at 2:57 PM on August 15, 2012

DELICIOUS meat lands

see this is what i'm talking about, you apostate
posted by elizardbits at 2:57 PM on August 15, 2012 [1 favorite]

"Other Jessamyn" is the strange Jessamyn who lives on the other side of the magical portal behind the bricked-up door. She has button eyes, and if she wins the game with you, she gets to sew buttons on YOUR eyes, too. If you win, you save Metafilter's own John Hodgman.
posted by rmd1023 at 3:01 PM on August 15, 2012 [18 favorites]

Shadow Mods wander the Meat Lands hunting for strawmen and snarks. Always wandering. Always hunting. The Shadow Mods in the Meat Lands.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 3:03 PM on August 15, 2012 [5 favorites]

Melismata: " I read that as Palillo. How come no obituary on the blue? :( "

Wolfgang Amadeus Horshack
posted by zarq at 3:04 PM on August 15, 2012

The Shadow Mods in the Meat Lands. Sounds like Grillzone to me.
posted by perhapses at 3:04 PM on August 15, 2012 [3 favorites]

> Actually, it was pretty clear from the original post that some kind of point about "men's rights" was being made, so he may as well use the word.

Right. We're in agreement. But when the first thing anyone says is "You're a bad person and aught to feel bad about that," rather than addressing the actual concern, you managed to waste an opportunity to actually engage someone on an issue you obviously care about. If the goal was to alienate and score cheap points, then great, no harm. Sometimes that's exactly what I'll do if I think the person is engaging as a stunt poster or performance art.

Presuming eas98 was attempting to accurately present his observations of this site you did nothing to refute them.

I think his stance quickly fell apart when he failed to offer further evidence of man-wronging, but putting a label on something, even if an accurate label, just so it can be dismissed, leaves the situation either exactly as you found it or makes it worse.

I've seen what he complains about, but I've taken the exactly same data and came to different conclusions. A man might get shouted down in a discussion because he lacks a vagina and therefore somehow has no standing in feminist issues, but that's rare enough no one can argue it's systemic. Sometimes people say shitty things. I've read comments that could actually support the GrlZone argument, but I think that argument is too silly to try to defend.
posted by cjorgensen at 3:06 PM on August 15, 2012 [3 favorites]

It is said that travel to the meat lands is no longer safe, now that the enclaves of the neighboring fruit zone are at war again. Seek asylum in the realm of whole grains until this time of troubles has passed.
posted by prize bull octorok at 3:06 PM on August 15, 2012

"more jurisdictions with mandatory mediation prior to allowing things to progress to litigation would be a wonderful thing."

Crazies gonna crazy. My state has mandatory mediation, but in a relationship where one person is crazy, it's going to angry litigation anyway. And the thing is if we assume everyone has an equal chance of being crazy, you get four possible pairings: Crazy-Crazy, Crazy-Not, Not-Crazy, and Not-Not. 75% of those are going to litigation.

Which obviously the world doesn't work that way but people who get to a divorcing place are frequently pretty angry and it only takes one crazy-angry partner to turn a divorce into a nightmare.

I'm glad my state has mandatory mediation, even if all it does is help the Not-Nots have faster and more pleasant divorces, but I don't think it does much to reduce the level of intensely aggressive divorce litigation.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 3:08 PM on August 15, 2012 [1 favorite]

Is it me or have there been a lot of obit posts recently?
posted by the man of twists and turns at 3:12 PM on August 15, 2012 [1 favorite]

YES. We're all getting old, oh god, it sucks, I am having the same hip problems as my 76 year old boss, what is happen, dnw.
posted by elizardbits at 3:14 PM on August 15, 2012 [1 favorite]

Your impression of this site is quite different from my own.

Dayum. I'm remembering that one.
posted by immlass at 3:14 PM on August 15, 2012

Mostly men too, I think. Why does the world have it out for men!?

sorry
posted by ODiV at 3:15 PM on August 15, 2012

Do you feel like Metafilter is becoming a DeadZone?
posted by perhapses at 3:15 PM on August 15, 2012

perhapses: "Do you feel like Metafilter is becoming a DeadZone?"

KillMe
posted by zarq at 3:16 PM on August 15, 2012

Which obviously the world doesn't work that way but people who get to a divorcing place are frequently pretty angry and it only takes one crazy-angry partner to turn a divorce into a nightmare.

Amen to that. I have an uncle the depth of whose poor relationship judgment is only coming to light now, twenty-some years after the wedding.

I am having the same hip problems as my 76 year old boss, what is happen, dnw.

My arthritis is acting up, you damn kids better be good this weekend. *shakes cane*
posted by restless_nomad (staff) at 3:21 PM on August 15, 2012

AskZombie?

("Can I eat this?" questions would be awesome in AskZombie.)
posted by rtha at 3:22 PM on August 15, 2012 [6 favorites]

ETMFA
posted by The corpse in the library at 3:24 PM on August 15, 2012 [16 favorites]

rtha: " ("Can I eat this?" questions would be awesome in AskZombie.)"

Anybody know Rob's phone number?
posted by zarq at 3:25 PM on August 15, 2012 [1 favorite]

Hopeme hive mind: Brain is labelled Abie something. [More inside] Abie Normal. Can I eat this? Brainnnnssssssss!
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 3:25 PM on August 15, 2012 [1 favorite]

A restless nomad with a cane. Yes.
posted by Namlit at 3:26 PM on August 15, 2012 [1 favorite]

Based upon my understanding of the zombie population, they don't really worry about what they are going to eat.
posted by perhapses at 3:26 PM on August 15, 2012

A result of restless nomad leg syndrome, no doubt.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 3:27 PM on August 15, 2012

Settled nomads tend not to need canes.
posted by perhapses at 3:29 PM on August 15, 2012

Sorta good to hear it's arthritis. I have been reading a lot about sharks of late...
posted by Namlit at 3:33 PM on August 15, 2012

*shakes cane*

So that's what that little STAFF button means.
posted by perhapses at 3:36 PM on August 15, 2012 [9 favorites]

It's really not true that you have to be an asshole to win cases or get a good result for a client. It's usually the opposite, in fact. I've ground down opposing counsel with my politeness - they literally don't know what to do next because they only know how to handle confrontation.

The appropriate advice is to get a lawyer that's right for the client. The "get a shark" comments seem to be emotional reactions to bad behavior on the part of the misbehaving spouse, and while they may be well-intentioned they are often misguided.
posted by moammargaret at 3:36 PM on August 15, 2012 [5 favorites]

I know! I just found out I have to have a hip replacement~! A fucking hip replacement like I'm some kind of goddamn granny.

How can I be a secret cool sex goddess with a goddamn artificial hip!!!!
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 3:38 PM on August 15, 2012 [1 favorite]

("Can I eat this?" questions would be awesome in AskZombie.)

Dear AskMe, can I eat this? Special agonizing need for brains inside.

Follow-up question to you fine folks helping my horde get through the locks to the other wing of the office building. (Previously link.) We found a lot of food there! Even though our horde is even bigger now, there's still lots left over. I'm not sure how this happened, but there's a few mismatched detached eyeballs. Can we eat those?

No. That would be unreasonable.

posted by Drastic at 3:40 PM on August 15, 2012 [9 favorites]

How can I be a secret cool sex goddess with a goddamn artificial hip!!!!

Spring for the pneumatic actuator.
posted by LordSludge at 3:43 PM on August 15, 2012 [1 favorite]

Gravy: You're a SECRET COOL CYBERNETIC SEX GODDESS. More than human. Better. Hotter. Faster.

I had ankle surgery almost half a year ago to clean all the grit and bone chips out of my ankle, and now I'm still trying to figure out what's inflamation and what's a patch of really bad bone-on-bone arthritis. Cortisone shot last week hasn't done much, but tomorrow I go see about a brace. I sort of figured this would start happening a decade or three down the line. Not already. Dammit.
posted by rmd1023 at 3:45 PM on August 15, 2012

How can I be a secret cool sex goddess with a goddamn artificial hip!!!!

You can't. This is the Internet. You already let the secret out.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 3:47 PM on August 15, 2012

It is 2012, where the fuck are my roboknees.
posted by elizardbits at 3:47 PM on August 15, 2012 [1 favorite]

Yes, SLoG, you're so sexy you have cybernetic hips. To handle the sexiness that mere flesh and bone would crumble under, clearly.
posted by KathrynT at 3:48 PM on August 15, 2012 [1 favorite]

Give Shark Zombie Island a wide berth. Take the Highway to Danger to Pileon Valley and pass through the mountains of Girlzone along Prosciutto Pie Ridge to get to Meatland. If you reach Benjy World you took the wrong mini fork in the road.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 3:49 PM on August 15, 2012 [4 favorites]

It is 2012, where the fuck are my roboknees.

First, change your name to elizardwithrobobits.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 3:51 PM on August 15, 2012 [1 favorite]

I picture robits as being metallic hobbits-- R2D2 crossed with Frodo.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 3:53 PM on August 15, 2012

Hope me Robo Wan Gandolbi! You're my only hope!
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 3:57 PM on August 15, 2012

firing off hot lines with startling precision
like a sniper using humor for ammunition
posted by lazaruslong at 4:09 PM on August 15, 2012

Don't just get a shark, get a roboshark.

The circle is now complete.
/thread
posted by Doleful Creature at 4:13 PM on August 15, 2012

Reasonable people who are for fair treatment of men tend to not align themselves with the MRA movement in the US

Oh, so it's like PETA. For dudes.
posted by newpotato at 4:21 PM on August 15, 2012 [17 favorites]

Is it just me, or is it nearly impossible to read : "How can I be a secret cool sex goddess with a goddamn artificial hip!!!!, without changing "hip" to "vagina"....

I know, it's probably just me....
posted by HuronBob at 4:21 PM on August 15, 2012

Oh, so it's like PETA. For dudes.

Pretty much, yep.
posted by KathrynT at 4:31 PM on August 15, 2012 [3 favorites]

newpotato: Oh, so it's like PETA. For dudes.

I'd favourite that, but there's no way in hell I'm going to be the one to ruin your perfect favourite count.
posted by gman at 4:34 PM on August 15, 2012 [3 favorites]

I picture robits as being metallic hobbits-- R2D2 crossed with Frodo.

Hope me Robo Wan Gandolbi! You're my only hope!

Why can't I watch this movie RIGHT NOW?!?
posted by MCMikeNamara at 4:38 PM on August 15, 2012 [1 favorite]

For the record, I am against keeping dudes in cages and squirting hair care products into their eyes.
posted by perhapses at 4:38 PM on August 15, 2012 [5 favorites]

That was pretty well sorted out, rn. I'd rather a reasoned debate than just letting group dynamics take care of dissent. Its very counterproductive if, you know actually are on the left.
posted by sgt.serenity at 4:41 PM on August 15, 2012

For the record, I am against keeping dudes in cages and squirting hair care products into their eyes.

Unless you know, you're into that kinda thing.
posted by The Whelk at 4:52 PM on August 15, 2012 [2 favorites]

For the record, I am against keeping dudes in cages and squirting hair care products into their eyes.

Well, outside of marriage.
posted by L'Estrange Fruit at 4:52 PM on August 15, 2012 [2 favorites]

kink shaming!
posted by elizardbits at 4:53 PM on August 15, 2012

Kink shaming is the only thing that gets me going these days.
posted by The Whelk at 4:54 PM on August 15, 2012 [9 favorites]

Please don't misunderstand me. I'm okay with either keeping dudes in cages or just squirting hair care products into their eyes but not both at the same time. Geez, people!
posted by perhapses at 4:56 PM on August 15, 2012

It has to be a red plastic cage (NOT FOAM) not it just doesn't work
posted by The Whelk at 4:59 PM on August 15, 2012

"Don't just get a shark, get a roboshark."

"It is 2012, where the fuck are my roboknees."

I'm on it!
posted by roboton666 at 5:17 PM on August 15, 2012 [1 favorite]

I've stayed out of the thread since I last suggested it be closed, but in the end, the comments have more or less validated what I was suggesting.

No, not really. Still projecting.
posted by desuetude at 5:18 PM on August 15, 2012

"Right, yes, and, well, the vast majority of feminists are in it for equality, not reflexive female superiority. MRA principles are pretty much built on assuming that women are selfish witches who just want to unseat the patriarchy and steal that power for themselves. Rather than, you know, unseat the patriarchy and strive for equality instead."

Yeah, but in practice this is all much more confusing, I think. To everyone.

In the context of larger society, both civil rights and gay rights moved from an advocacy for the oppressed group from within the oppressed group to a sociopolitical position, in wider society, that opposes an institutionalized injustice. Originally, it made no sense to people to hear non-blacks be involved in civil rights or non-gays in gay rights. Now, it's what liberal-minded people expect in each other, regardless of their race or orientation.

But this isn't yet the case with women's rights and sexism. This tells us a great deal about what hasn't been accomplished yet, how much strong and organized resistance there truly is to feminism, why racially-motivated and homophobic killings are front-page news when misogynist killings are commonplace and mostly unremarked upon.

The removal of privilege truly does hurt those who are privileged — it was eye-opening for me in a recent thread to see many people who seemed very emotionally invested in asserting that opposing and removal of privilege wouldn't result in the formerly-privileged person being in a worse position than before. But the privileged will fight tooth-and-nail to protect their privilege, and more to the point, because they don't perceive their privilege as a privilege (that is, an unfair advantage) then they will perceive its loss, or its potential loss, as an injustice. This is why they'll fight tooth-and-nail and be pissed as hell about it. People are invested in the idea that opposing privilege won't result in the privileged being worse-off because this seems like it's the message framing of the privileged: "you just want to take what I have". But, yeah, to some degree that's exactly the case because what you have you don't have any right to possess.

The only effective long-term response to this is to truly reveal the existence of the privilege — that is, eventually get the majority in the society to agree that it exists and is unfair. At that point, the privileged will still fight to preserve it, but they will be forced to do so indirectly or behind facades. More to my point here, though, is that this transition means that it's understood within the majority that the absence of the privilege is the way things ought to be, that its presence is wrong and that because it's wrong everyone who is aware of this should oppose it. Because it's wrong. This is the moment when "identity politics" becomes "justice".

But before that happens, it's seen by the majority (and including many in the oppressed group) as mostly a zero-sum game of merely power.

As long as it doesn't make much sense, or feels "wrong", to most people, including feminists themselves, for a man to be a feminist, it will be the case that on some level it will make sense to people that this is really about one team fighting another team for dominance and that MRA makes sense as a balancing against women's rights.

There are white power groups and all that and there will long be such scum — but they are truly fringe. And, yeah, there's grievance among whites in our culture in general but it's now expressed in dog whistles. In contrast, the opinion that men are widely discriminated against on the basis of their sex is commonplace. It's not limited to MRA forums and fringe sites. It's found in this very thread, on MeFi, which is relative to American society, pretty left of center.

People in our culture still primarily see all this through the lens of "men versus women". The War Between the Sexes. It's an ancient comedic trope that is no less prevalent today than in the past. Only a minority take seriously the idea that this truly is a deep matter of justice and, among them, most of those don't fully grasp what that implies. We've internalized the idea that slavery is evil so deeply that it provokes such intense horror that practically no one in our culture doesn't instinctively feel a desire to oppose it, even if fictionalized. And yet...sex slavery provokes no such response. That women in many parts of the world are, in practical if not legal terms, at least as much enslaved as those whom the word "slavery" calls to mind...provokes no such response. Right now people don't take feminism and anti-sexism very seriously, except as power politics, except as it being about "us" versus "them" — and that includes people on both sides of the debate. As long as that's the case, opinions such as "there's a bias on MetaFilter against men" will seem reasonable to far more people than it should.

"Oh, so it's like PETA. For dudes."

Yes and no. But in the sense that they discredit everyone who happens to agree with them about anything, including some things which are important, then yes. There's still some bias against fathers in custody cases, for example, but MRA has totally co-opted that position as part of their "courts hate men and always side with those bitches of ex-wives" general misogyny. My "no" is, I suppose, in that I think that PETA is wrong about 65% of the time while MRA is wrong about 98% of the time. But more importantly, it's that PETA isn't fighting to protect the privilege of the animal overlords who enslave us while MRA...well, you see the problem.
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 5:21 PM on August 15, 2012 [60 favorites]

This thread has gone off so many rails I've lost count.

It's truly a wonderful specimen in the metatalk taxonomy.
posted by roboton666 at 5:22 PM on August 15, 2012

Some of those rails are decorated with triglyphs.
posted by flabdablet at 5:24 PM on August 15, 2012 [14 favorites]

flabdablet, that Wonderland Tea Party with Stephen Fry and the Acropolis was the perfect palate cleanser to all of this.
posted by cmyk at 5:52 PM on August 15, 2012 [1 favorite]

I think I've watched it probably 50 times over the years. It really is panacea.
posted by lazaruslong at 5:56 PM on August 15, 2012

I vote we form a senate, advisory panel, or steering committee or something and I nominate Ivan Fyodorovich to said panel.
posted by Ad hominem at 6:11 PM on August 15, 2012 [3 favorites]

Perhaps a blue ribbon commission and we send Ivan on a fact finding junket.
posted by Ad hominem at 6:12 PM on August 15, 2012

Ooh, how about Sweden?
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 6:15 PM on August 15, 2012 [3 favorites]

If Assange ever ends there we will need a person on the ground there. You will of course be compensated in favorites.
posted by Ad hominem at 6:19 PM on August 15, 2012

I volunteer to be the person you have to explain things really slowly to.

I wonder if there's a living in that. Hm.
posted by maxwelton at 6:22 PM on August 15, 2012 [5 favorites]

Speaking of Sweden...so, I've been watching Wallander and then the other day decided to look up an actor on the web (Angela Kovács as "Ann-Britt", because I have a crush on her and I suspected, rightly, that she's almost exactly my age) and discovered to my great distress that the actress who played "Linda Wallander", Johanna Sällström, killed herself not too long after those first 13 episodes aired. And the episode I was watching involved her character being upset and visiting a mental hospital. This all made me much more sad than I expected about someone half the world away who died five years ago. Sällström had only a couple years before barely survived, with her young daughter, the tsunami in Thailand.
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 6:23 PM on August 15, 2012

Maxwelton: that living is called management.
posted by roboton666 at 6:26 PM on August 15, 2012 [6 favorites]

schmod: There have been a few threads where, in my opinion, a pile-on ends up adding an unfair/unnecessary male-negative tone to the discussion.

Unless there are some very glaring comments that were deleted, this was not one of those threads, and I don't think that it's an overwhelming problem on Metafilter. I've only seen it happen once or twice here.

This. I completely agree with OP's premise that this place does seem to have a strong anti-male stance- or to put it another way, a fierce wind blowing against even hinting that somewhere, any man might actually suffer or not have a perfect "privileged" life because of his testicles. If you were foolish enough to suggest that, you'd be shouted down by a cadre of MeFites accusing you of "making it all about men", "mansplaining", etc, and whose script clearly states that all women suffer impossibly, and all men are triumphant and living high on the hog because patriarchy, oh and also, poverty, and income inequality, and also enforced gender roles in third world countries that none of us have ever even visited.

And then the dismissive comments come that suggest anyone who even mentions the possibility that the "pendulum has swung too far" on Metafilter, or that a commenting behavior of some posters is bullying and rude and hateful, is simply branded as some date raping ex-frat "bro" who's only worried about women "losing less". Or a mod emails you and tells you your opinions are "scary".

The term for this kind of behavior is "gaslighting", and it is the one thing Metafilter does really well when it comes to issues of #mensrights.



And yet... all that said, I also agree that the linked AskMe thread is about the worst hill to die on about this pattern of behavior, as it sure seemed like a pretty standard-issue divorce thread.
posted by hincandenza at 6:39 PM on August 15, 2012 [1 favorite]

Back in my 1L year I was acquaintances with a guy I'll call Jerry. Now Jerry was an interesting guy to be around, in that he was hyper-logically-minded, like his internal monologue was in lojban or something. This wasn't like Aspbergers' or anything, but he was a kid just out of a very prestigious economics program in undergrad and had a very, very ordered way of thinking that didn't like ambiguity.

He was also in a section chock-full of leftist public interest advocate types.

So one day we're discussing libel in class, and a case comes up where a latino worker in Texas was berated by his boss, within the boss's office but loudly enough for everyone outside to hear, including the boss repeatedly calling the worker a "spic."

So Jerry raises his hand on the obvious-to-him question of, "well, can that qualify as libel if it's true?" The real questions in the case were more along the lines of "publication" (and to be clear, it was actually a common-law "slander" case but that is a meaningless distinction in almost any case nowadays.) But to Jerry the question was: "'Spic' means 'Hispanic,' and the plaintiff in question was, indeed, Hispanic, so doesn't that just bring up an obvious truth defense?"

The room went livid, and the next hour was spent with Jerry trying to defend himself to a room of people telling him how racist he was.

That night he sent out an email to the whole section, trying to explain himself and apologize. He had apparently never heard or read the word "spic" before, and didn't understand the depths of its hatefulness. (And I believe this. I grew up for my first fifteen years in Houston and never heard it. I've only really ever come across it on a NOFX album title and in this case, maybe in a movie or two.) He then, a little while later, after apparently stewing a bit (or maybe getting some direct replies that weren't so open to his apology) angrily took it back, claiming victimhood in the whole matter.

It wasn't a half hour before the whole school had gotten these emails forwarded along.

The professor tried to use the next class period to cool things down, but to no avail. Jerry ended up transferring at the semester.

I guess my point is that it is a good and fine thing to be right. But it is not the only thing.
posted by Navelgazer at 6:40 PM on August 15, 2012 [9 favorites]

Don't ever inform anyone on an askmefi they do not need a lawyer after someone has previously stated to lawyer-up because lawyers exist for two reasons.
1. The ills of society require a savvy predator.
2. Predators require deep pockets.
posted by vozworth at 6:51 PM on August 15, 2012

I want to know where men are living that they see that "the pendulum has swung too far" because as a woman, I'd love to spend some time there.

The disadvantages men face in the west, which are real--having the burden of mandatory military service or registration for same where women do not; being biased against in child custody matters; being less likely to be hired in some traditionally "female" professions like child care and teaching young children; being apt to receive longer jail terms for property crime; having fewer facilities for domestic violence services (I am sure there are many others, but these are the ones that come to mind)--are not the result of feminism. They are legacies of the gender essentialism baked into our legal, economic, and social system, gender essentialism that says men are fighters and providers and women are caregivers. Most feminists would love to see that shit disappear, too.
posted by Sidhedevil at 7:03 PM on August 15, 2012 [164 favorites]

The term for this kind of behavior is "gaslighting", and it is the one thing Metafilter does really well when it comes to issues of #mensrights.

It's not gaslighting. People don't say those things to you (and I believe most of the incidences you mentioned happened to you, hincandenza) to make a person doubt their memory and perception. They say them because they believe them to be true of who they say them of. Honest disagreement is not gaslighting.
posted by Green With You at 7:07 PM on August 15, 2012 [21 favorites]

If I recall correctly, when men actually ask for custody they usually get it. That is not to say that there's no bias, but I think what primarily happens is that men are happy to let women have the kids, the responsibility, the lowered standard of living, and the higher risk of poverty.

No, in many cases there is an implicit assumption that "mother is best." Like Sidhedevil said, sexism can cut both ways.
posted by L'Estrange Fruit at 7:31 PM on August 15, 2012

I wish, instead of this thread becoming a sexism/mens' rights shitshow, entertaining as it is, everyone had just copied the OP with "citation needed" after every ridiculous and unsupported generalization. I would use it in the classroom in a logical fallacies / argument unit.
posted by nakedmolerats at 7:32 PM on August 15, 2012 [1 favorite]

I completely agree with OP's premise that this place does seem to have a strong anti-male stance- or to put it another way, a fierce wind blowing against even hinting that somewhere, any man might actually suffer or not have a perfect "privileged" life because of his testicles. If you were foolish enough to suggest that, you'd be shouted down by a cadre of MeFites accusing you of "making it all about men", "mansplaining", etc, and whose script clearly states that all women suffer impossibly, and all men are triumphant and living high on the hog because patriarchy, oh and also, poverty, and income inequality, and also enforced gender roles in third world countries that none of us have ever even visited.

The thing is, though, when you make these points (and I am saying "you" because you are most often the person who says these things), it comes across as if the subtext is "and therefore you women should shut up and listen to MY pain." In other words, the reason people are shouting YOU down is because you try to shout THEM down FIRST.

And if you hadn't done that, then perhaps maybe, JUST maybe, you'd notice that in none of the complaining women are doing in those threads, we aren't saying that it doesn't happen to a handful of men. We aren't saying it's a zero-sum game. It's not like if women demand respect, that that respect has to be taken away from you.

YOU'RE the one that's trying to make it a zero-sum game, and the reason you get the pushback is because you're pushing first.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 7:33 PM on August 15, 2012 [15 favorites]

Green with you: Honest disagreement is not gaslighting.

I completely agree. Not agreeing: most everyone who uses the term "gaslighting", as if any honest disagreement or attempt at nuancing is a conspiracy to silence women's voices.

the young rope-rider: To see you throw that back in their face like you're being persecuted is so classically you. Always the victim, no matter what. Shine on, dude. Shine on.

So you're saying I wear the mantle of victimhood? Teapot, kettle.

Sidhedevil: I want to know where men are living that they see that "the pendulum has swung too far" because as a woman, I'd love to spend some time there.

Honestly? Seattle, the Capitol Hill neighborhood (historically gay-friendly and youthful), and working at companies like Microsoft that take sexual harassment very seriously and are populated by people far less likely to engage in bro-ish behavior, and who avoided the testosterone-steeped upbringing that apparently affected these unnamed men perpetrating evils on the world.

That's not to say some people who work at places like this aren't total douchebags, but I think they're largely a scorned minority, they're behavior is looked down on (or they are fired if they are overt), and both in word and deed it seems to be pretty verboten. Many women are in authoritative positions or managers, not simply individual contributor roles, and I can't imagine a single co-worker not being loathed by his peers if he were to voice sexist opinions. The closest I saw was an older guy who worked there in the early part of the decade and wanted to talk about his strip club exploits at lunch "with the guys"- and to a person, everyone told him it was creepy and not okay.
posted by hincandenza at 7:33 PM on August 15, 2012

a fierce wind blowing against even hinting that somewhere, any man might actually suffer

the problem with this comic exaggeration is that it does not correspond to anyone's actual position

If you were foolish enough to suggest that, you'd be shouted down by a cadre of MeFites accusing you of "making it all about men"

kindly link to an example of this happening

"mansplaining"

see above re: link

and whose script clearly states that all women suffer impossibly

this is incorrect

and all men are triumphant and living high on the hog because patriarchy

this is also incorrect

posted by FAMOUS MONSTER at 7:36 PM on August 15, 2012 [5 favorites]

Wait, I worked at MS at one point. You're saying that was an environment which has swung too far in favor of women?
posted by maxwelton at 7:37 PM on August 15, 2012 [16 favorites]

"The disadvantages men face in the west, which are real--having the burden of mandatory military service or registration for same where women do not; being biased against in child custody matters; being less likely to be hired in some traditionally "female" professions like child care and teaching young children; being apt to receive longer jail terms for property crime; having fewer facilities for domestic violence services (I am sure there are many others, but these are the ones that come to mind)--are not the result of feminism. They are legacies of the gender essentialism baked into our legal, economic, and social system, gender essentialism that says men are fighters and providers and women are caregivers. Most feminists would love to see that shit disappear, too."

Amen.

That should be shouted to the heavens.

You have to look to contexts that are even more narrow and insignificant than MeFi to find anything that even remotely might satisfy the claimed "over-compensation" or whatever. None of the things that men have any real, widespread grievances about, those things you describe and a few others, are the product of over-compensation. They predate feminism, they are themselves expressions of the patriarchy.

But this is really frustrating for me because I believe that dismantling the patriarchy and much of the rest of the work of improving the lives of women (in advanced democracies) will require changing male gender roles and how men live as well as how women live, and those things which are explicitly oppressive to men are good places to start — but MRA and likeminded have co-opted the discussion about many of those things. It really pisses me off. I strongly believe that we are badly overdue for the transition I described previously and the existence of MRA is both a symptom and a cause of this.

I mean, it's just now almost thirty years since I became a feminist. And during those first ten, in the eighties, I'd thought that a good fit for me would be to work on the male side of things. And I have in my personal life, by example and such. But in the larger political context, what happened is that right about that time the misogynists co-opted all of these issues on the male side and poisoned them. I really don't have words for how angry this makes me. For this reason alone I have a personal grudge against any man who goes on and on about these injustices. They're making it impossible for feminists to oppose those injustices, to even talk about them because the men's rights folk use the few explicit examples of how men get the shitty end of the stick to...argue that women don't get the shitty end of the stick and women's grievances are all in their heads. So fuck the MRA and everyone like-minded.
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 7:37 PM on August 15, 2012 [56 favorites]

I wish I could find the study, L'Estrange Fruit, but I remember reading that while men do not receive sole custody nearly as often as women, they were more likely than women to reach the custody agreement they sought. Now maybe it's because they're advised to seeking realistic settlements by their lawyers based on the gender imbalance in family law or any number of reasons. I'll try to track down the study though, because it was interesting and it would be informative to see the sources.
posted by ODiV at 7:39 PM on August 15, 2012 [1 favorite]

"Really? I'm totally willing to believe that, but I just haven't seen the evidence for it. I will have to go look again tomorrow."

There has been a quite a bit of change in the last thirty years. But it's not quite as rosy now as you describe. Mostly, it's because both jurisdictions differ and sitting judges differ. Over time, most of both have come to embrace a more enlightened position. Far from all, however.

And there are some very strong essentialist beliefs about sex and parenting that a large majority (arguably something close to universal) in our culture still believe so that even when codified bias is eliminated, there will still be systematic institutional bias because the institutions reflect the culture.

That said, it should be mentioned that there are other respects in which family courts are biased against women and those, too, will probably endure until the culture is transformed.
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 7:45 PM on August 15, 2012

Honestly? Seattle, the Capitol Hill neighborhood (historically gay-friendly and youthful), and working at companies like Microsoft that take sexual harassment very seriously and are populated by people far less likely to engage in bro-ish behavior, and who avoided the testosterone-steeped upbringing that apparently affected these unnamed men perpetrating evils on the world.

That's not to say some people who work at places like this aren't total douchebags, but I think they're largely a scorned minority, they're behavior is looked down on (or they are fired if they are overt), and both in word and deed it seems to be pretty verboten. Many women are in authoritative positions or managers, not simply individual contributor roles, and I can't imagine a single co-worker not being loathed by his peers if he were to voice sexist opinions. The closest I saw was an older guy who worked there in the early part of the decade and wanted to talk about his strip club exploits at lunch "with the guys"- and to a person, everyone told him it was creepy and not okay.

The world is a large, large place and Seattle is one tiny, tiny part of it. I'm glad this is the culture you work in but this is one company, and over the past 6 years I've been:

-prepositioned for sex by my boss
-denied a promotion because another boss would only work with men
-had a guy trying to hire me staring down my cleavage during an interview
-had a boss request I show cleavage when clients come round
-found out a couple of my female colleagues were making several thousand less p.a. than men in the same jobs for no reason I could see

Rest assured there is still plenty of work to be done right here in the 'privilliged' west, and that it doesn't feel at all like things are swinging in my direction.
posted by everydayanewday at 7:48 PM on August 15, 2012 [17 favorites]

Wish I could upvote Ivan more.

Dudes! Feminists don't want to be "like men". We don't want to be better than men. We want everybody to be free to be whoever the hell they want, without gender roles hurting them for it. When MRA's complain that men get discriminated against for custody, feminists think that sucks too. The same system creates and traps us all in shitty gender roles. It would be so great if we could work together on it.

I really, truly would like to make a career out of building coalitions between groups that think gender essentialism hurts everyone - but much of what I have seen of the current men's rights movement does not seem to want to work for solidarity.
posted by nakedmolerats at 7:51 PM on August 15, 2012 [19 favorites]

"I wish I could find the study, L'Estrange Fruit, but I remember reading that while men do not receive sole custody nearly as often as women, they were more likely than women to reach the custody agreement they sought."

That's kind of the larger argument in a nutshell, though, isn't it?

A subtle thing about privilege as a social institution is that it's normative. In this, it's restrictive. Men are allowed to be and do and have more than women, but that doesn't mean that men can be anything, do anything, have anything. So there are limits and those limits represent injustices when those things shouldn't be decided on the basis of sex.

But privilege represents power and agency in general — where there's privilege, there's usually agency and power in some respect. If men are generally privileged in our society, then they are generally empowered and have agency. And so, where they find that their rights are limited, where they are the victims of injustice, they will find that their grievances are taken more seriously and more likely to be addressed. So, as a rule, in family courts father's interests carry more weight all other things being equal — which they aren't.

So this doesn't mean that men will be treated fairly when they demand to be treated fairly in a context where normally they are not. It does mean that when men and women both demand fairness, the man's claims will be taken more seriously. If the terrain is highly unfavorable for men, as it has been in custody cases, then the result will be that in aggregate men will see judgments that favor them relative to the built-in bias. Fathers will still get primary custody less often than mothers, but they will be in aggregate more successful at negotiated custody agreements.

This is an example where it's a mistake to take some simple and absolutist position — either fathers or mothers are favored in family courts — and assume that it can be proven or disproven as a simple and absolute claim. That is, assuming that if you prove your opponent wrong in some respect, that means you're right. In fact, both positions can in some essentially important respects be correct.
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 8:05 PM on August 15, 2012 [19 favorites]

That's kind of you to say, gilrain. I appreciate you doing so.
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 8:10 PM on August 15, 2012

Mefite goes into cage. Cage goes into comments. Shark's in the comments. Our shark. MetaShark.

We're going to need a bigger boat.
posted by Slap*Happy at 8:14 PM on August 15, 2012 [1 favorite]

Or a mod emails you and tells you your opinions are "scary".

Private emails are one of the ways we talk to people about things that we think might be better off not made public, to try to address things before we take public mod action. If you'd prefer we said that sort of thing to you in threads, we'll be happy to. Once you bring things like this up publicly (and feel free to reprint thatemailminn context if it's mine) it becomes sort of awkward to stay mum about stuff.

Also, I have a cane this month. We should somehow riff on that this month r_n.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 8:18 PM on August 15, 2012 [4 favorites]

I don't need a cane so much as a squad of husky litter bearers and possibly someone to bring me drinks with umbrellas in them, but we can definitely work up a crotchety-old-lady routine between us.

(Note to everyone else: be afraid.)
posted by restless_nomad (staff) at 8:21 PM on August 15, 2012 [4 favorites]

(A joke about the latin word cane goes here.)
posted by FAMOUS MONSTER at 8:24 PM on August 15, 2012 [4 favorites]

I want you to know, hincandenza, that I come to this conversation from the very opposite direction you do. I went on an extended break (read: quit, but found that I really didn't want to leave MetaFilter and returned) because I felt that things things I considered misogynistic and sexist beyond decency were getting ever more common. I concluded that whether the community was changing or I was getting less tolerant of bullshit was irrelevant, getting angry about what people on the internet say wasn't how I wanted to spend my days.

That said, I want you to think about something. It's the simplest trick in the book, but it opened my eyes way back in the day. The next few times you're in some sort of large meeting or other kind of situation where there are a number of people of both sexes, make a quick count of how many men are there and how many women there are. Once you've done that, pay attention to what the gender-split is when it comes to talking and what the percentages are. I've yet to come across a meeting where the split isn't depressing.

Last week, for instance, I went to a panel discussion on queer literature. In the audience there were twenty women and four men (myself included). During the Q&A section, three men asked questions, one woman.

Heck, I went to a big group discusion round-table at a feminist conference, where there were around fifty women and six men. About twenty of the women spoke, and five of the six men (no, I wasn't the sixth, I'm ashamed to say).

My point is that in groups like that it's glaringly obvious that individual women are less likely to have their say than individual men. It's an obvious societal disadvantage, and it's even present in very feminist environments. In less feminist environments it's a lot worse (I gave myself the rule a few years ago that I would never speak at a public meeting unless at least two women had already had their say... it's rare that I have to worry about whether I should speak or not).

This structural disadvantage for women is propagated all the way through society (more politicians are male, more writers are male, more university professors are male etc.) but you can observe it at work in very contained social settings.

The logical conclusion one draws from that simple observation is that women's voices are heard less often than those of men, and that when it comes to negotiating the social contract (apologies to Rousseau for mangling his metaphor) men's concerns and men's issues dominate the proceedings. And in any negotiation, when certain issues dominate, they are going to be the focus of the settlement. Men are doing just fine, there's no need to defend anything, really.

Now, the next step is where I think you and I will part ways, but that's alright, difference of opinion is fine once the facts are settled. For me, what follows from that conclusion is that women need to be louder so that they can be heard, so that their issues and concerns are listened to at the (metaphorical) negotiating table. For most men, used to talking easily and calmly about their issues and concerns, it is discombobulating to hear someone raise their voice or interrupt another person (incidentally, another depressing counting game is man-interrupts-woman vs. woman-interrupts-man). However, unless these issues and concerns are shouted, they are simply not going to be discussed. A lot of people (both men and women) experience that shouting as hostile, but it isn't hostile, it's desperate.

Anyway, that went on a lot longer than I intended, but you should at least try that counting game a few times, it's depressing to witness structural injustice at work, but society is pretty depressing sometimes.
posted by Kattullus at 8:27 PM on August 15, 2012 [66 favorites]

I just found out that the "backfires" I heard the other night from a car driving on the street outside my house were actually gunshots. From a .357. Based on where the casings were found, they must have been pointing the gun the opposite direction. I can say that with some certainty because otherwise I would be dead.

So I guess my point is: Ha ha, women! You missed me again!*

*Also: Holy fuck!
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 8:27 PM on August 15, 2012 [2 favorites]

That's not to say some people who work at places like this aren't total douchebags, but I think they're largely a scorned minority, they're behavior is looked down on (or they are fired if they are overt), and both in word and deed it seems to be pretty verboten. Many women are in authoritative positions or managers, not simply individual contributor roles, and I can't imagine a single co-worker not being loathed by his peers if he were to voice sexist opinions.

Wait, I don't understand. This is an example of how the pendulum has "swung too far?" Women have equal roles and leadership alongside men, and discrimination (social or employment-based) is not tolerated, but it's too far? That seems like what we should all be aiming for.
posted by c'mon sea legs at 8:27 PM on August 15, 2012 [37 favorites]

> That's not to say some people who work at places like this aren't total douchebags, but I think they're largely a scorned minority, they're behavior is looked down on (or they are fired if they are overt), and both in word and deed it seems to be pretty verboten. Many women are in authoritative positions or managers, not simply individual contributor roles, and I can't imagine a single co-worker not being loathed by his peers if he were to voice sexist opinions.

The thing is, I'm not seeing why this is a bad thing. What you're describing sounds like a pretty normal environment where men and women work together and generally respect each other. I'm not sure how how this represents 'the pendulum swinging too far the other way'.
posted by nangar at 8:30 PM on August 15, 2012 [7 favorites]

I completely agree with OP's premise that this place does seem to have a strong anti-male stance- or to put it another way, a fierce wind blowing against even hinting that somewhere, any man might actually suffer or not have a perfect "privileged" life because of his testicles. If you were foolish enough to suggest that, you'd be shouted down by a cadre of MeFites accusing you of "making it all about men", "mansplaining", etc, and whose script clearly states that all women suffer impossibly, and all men are triumphant and living high on the hog because patriarchy, oh and also, poverty, and income inequality, and also enforced gender roles in third world countries that none of us have ever even visited.

And yet, were I to actually ask you to demonstrate this with examples, you would not be able to do so without misrepresenting the points of view of others on this site in the same way you are misrepresenting them here.

In every thread where this is an issue, there is protracted -- protracted -- discussion that men may be disadvantaged in many ways, and that their privilege asserts itself collectively, rather than individually. That men, as a whole, tend to get a better end of things, even if, individually, some men may not.

But, good lord, don't let that get in the way of that giant fucking cross you're building yourself.
posted by Bunny Ultramod at 8:35 PM on August 15, 2012 [11 favorites]

Seriously, folks, do not tell people to fuck off. It's inflammatory, unproductive, and all of you have bigger vocabularies than that.
posted by restless_nomad (staff) at 8:39 PM on August 15, 2012 [3 favorites]

Canes.
posted by L'Estrange Fruit at 8:44 PM on August 15, 2012 [1 favorite]

"It's inflammatory, unproductive, and all of you have bigger vocabularies than that."

You really are channeling a grouchy grandmother, huh?

I have this swirly blue aluminum cane that I use that probably is tacky as hell but I sort of like it. What I really want is a sword cane, but apparently those are not mechanically reliable as canes and are only "decorative". Which is extremely disappointing to me.

All in all, though, I think it's for the best because, otherwise, some motherfucker would get stabbed sooner or later.
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 8:45 PM on August 15, 2012

SEE, THE JOKE IS YOU SAID "HUSKY" AND CANE MEANS DOG IN LATIN

OH, THE MONSTROUS CLEVERNESS OF ME
posted by FAMOUS MONSTER at 8:46 PM on August 15, 2012 [5 favorites]

Obligatory.
posted by oinopaponton at 8:50 PM on August 15, 2012

You really are channeling a grouchy grandmother, huh?

I actually wasn't kidding about my arthritis acting up. I am cranky as fuck tonight.
posted by restless_nomad (staff) at 8:50 PM on August 15, 2012

sea legs and nangar: I believe the subtext we are meant to get is "but I've seen this kind of fair-minded workplace in two places where I've worked, so clearly the complaints that it isn't happening in society as a whole are invalid."
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 8:51 PM on August 15, 2012

Someone just put up an FPP; as I am reading it I came upon a particularly apt paragraph:

Underscoring this point is the fact that there is something that calls itself a Men’s Rights Movement, but it consists of nothing but knee-jerk anti-feminism. It is made up primarily of angry, alienated men who have fully bought into the myths of hegemonic masculinity and gender roles, and not found the success and happiness that the myths implicitly promised. Since feminism is the only movement around that is attempting to dismantle those myths, they conclude that feminism is the cause of their unhappiness. If not for those meddling feminists, things would be okay. They would argue that this is a mischaracterization, but a thorough examination of their arguments reveals that this is, in fact, their sole intellectual basis. Any analysis of any issue that does not begin and end by blaming feminists, or preferably all women, is immediately discarded. Thus, lacking the social analysis tools feminists pioneered, they can accomplish nothing but surly misogyny and occasional outbreaks of violence. The authors of this book spent quite some time attempting to find MRAs who could be engaged in a constructive manner, but eventually gave up. If men’s rights are to be addressed on any kind of serious level, it will have to be by feminism.

posted by Forktine at 8:53 PM on August 15, 2012 [17 favorites]

restless_nomad: "I don't need a cane so much as a squad of husky litter bearers"

When I read this I pictured a litter being pulled by a team of these...
posted by the_artificer at 9:02 PM on August 15, 2012 [1 favorite]

C'mon guys, get some manners. Why tell people to fuck off when you can goad and bait them and misrepresent their comments?
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 9:02 PM on August 15, 2012 [3 favorites]

When I read this I pictured a litter being pulled by a team of these...

That would be totally fine, I'm not picky. Whoever's bringing me drinks better not be shedding in them, is all.
posted by restless_nomad (staff) at 9:05 PM on August 15, 2012

Wait, I don't understand. This is an example of how the pendulum has "swung too far?" Women have equal roles and leadership alongside men, and discrimination (social or employment-based) is not tolerated, but it's too far? That seems like what we should all be aiming for.

I wanted to say this so instead I'll just make it all italics-y and put it here again.
posted by shakespeherian at 9:09 PM on August 15, 2012 [7 favorites]

What about a squad of husky husky litter bearers, also bearing you?

Somehow.
posted by cmyk at 9:10 PM on August 15, 2012

Why tell people to fuck off when you can goad and bait them and misrepresent their comments?

Because treating hincandenza the same way he has treated some of us isn't going to solve anything.
posted by zarq at 9:11 PM on August 15, 2012

I wanted to say this so instead I'll just make it all italics-y and put it here again.

Me too, so I'll second-hand favorite it.
posted by Forktine at 9:12 PM on August 15, 2012 [1 favorite]

As someone mentioned earlier, this needs to be the month that the staff tags are literal. Two mods down...
posted by maryr at 9:12 PM on August 15, 2012

It's hilarious that hincandenza would list Microsoft as a place where "the pendulum has swung too far" in favor of women. This is a company where, out of 16 senior executives, only one is a woman. In 2006, 25 percent of the workforce was women and less than 15 percent of executives of rank corporate vice president or higher.

I have to wonder what the makeup of Microsoft would be like in a world hincandenza would think was fair? Maybe split the meager gains women have made there in half—drop from one-quarter to one-eighth female employees, and maybe make the sole female senior executive work part-time?

Scary indeed.
posted by grouse at 9:25 PM on August 15, 2012 [25 favorites]

On, piling, metatalk for the use of. I know, I know.

But I think those who are distressed by the "shouting down" of the OP here should have a look at his posting history, and the many previous (futile) attempts made to reasonably engage with him.

If anyone has contributed to making Mefi a "hostile environment", it's eas98.
Examples 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... and oh gods, on and on.

Sometimes, a troll is a troll is a troll.
posted by Catch at 9:34 PM on August 15, 2012 [36 favorites]

My husband and I, between us, have a combined twenty-plus years at Microsoft, and I have witnessed appallingly, appallingly sexist behavior there. From the interviewer who asked if I was getting married soon, because (as he told me straight up to my face) he didn't want to have someone who was going to leave to have children, to the GPM who kept (yes, more than once) hiring strippers for the ship parties, it just really is laughable to me that this is the example of the place where the pendulum has swung too far.
posted by KathrynT at 9:36 PM on August 15, 2012 [29 favorites]

but MRA and likeminded have co-opted the discussion about many of those things.

MetaFilter isn't the only place I submit links; I submit to reddit a whole bunch too. When I run across articles about improving mental health care (for men), homeless advocacy and solutions, and violence-reduction strategies, I'll flip them to r/MensRights.

They usually don't get any attention.
posted by the man of twists and turns at 9:50 PM on August 15, 2012 [2 favorites]

But this is really frustrating for me because I believe that dismantling the patriarchy and much of the rest of the work of improving the lives of women (in advanced democracies) will require changing male gender roles and how men live as well as how women live, and those things which are explicitly oppressive to men are good places to start — but MRA and likeminded have co-opted the discussion about many of those things. It really pisses me off. I strongly believe that we are badly overdue for the transition I described previously and the existence of MRA is both a symptom and a cause of this.

I so totally agree with this.

One of the areas where I have a lot of hope is in the growing "pink boy" movement, where parents and teachers - male and female - support boys who want to wear pretty things and bright colors, and play with dolls and the like. One of the aspects of European Feminism is focusing on increasing the value of feminine things, from the deep ones like nurturing to the ones which earn more ridicule, like fashion.

I've got to say, though; this thread is deeply ironic to me given I started my morning reading an MRA thread explaining that women really need to be beaten so we don't behave like chimps.


On a side note - someone above mentioned that men can't be feminists; I believe men can and most feminists of my ilk (anti-kyriarchial is the easiest way to describe us) agree. The gorup which tends to want to exclude men that I know of are the Radical Feminists and, well... we don't have much in common as far as I', concerned.
posted by Deoridhe at 9:53 PM on August 15, 2012 [1 favorite]

What I really want is a sword cane, but apparently those are not mechanically reliable as canes

My mother collected canes when we lived in England. She doesn't have a sword cane, but she has a working cane that has a removable handle with a flask inside, which is almost as cool IMO.

Also, do not mess with cranky arthritic ladies, we will fuck your shit up, yo. (and I'm not even a mod!)
posted by immlass at 10:02 PM on August 15, 2012 [1 favorite]

After I'd already booked a vacation for next month it transpired that I might need surgery before I go, and I'm secretly hoping that it gives me an excuse to swoosh around London with a fancy cane.
posted by L'Estrange Fruit at 10:11 PM on August 15, 2012

I am waiting to develop a few more outward signs of Age and Wisdom, and then I'm going to carry a shooting-stick about with me.

There's something so confident and hard-boiled about them - "You jerks can stand around and be all awkward and uncomfortable, I'm going to sit down right here and send my bearer for a Gin Fizz".
posted by Catch at 10:11 PM on August 15, 2012

The big deal with the cane was that I don't have one so when I got my "avulsion fracture" my choices were big wonky crutches or the cane that came with my Mr. Peanut costume. Monocle optional.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 10:18 PM on August 15, 2012 [10 favorites]

Sorry, restless_nomad.
posted by desuetude at 10:21 PM on August 15, 2012

or the cane that came with my Mr. Peanut costume

This is one of those explanations that requires more explanation.
posted by shakespeherian at 10:35 PM on August 15, 2012 [5 favorites]

And if not photos, at least fanart.
posted by elizardbits at 10:49 PM on August 15, 2012 [2 favorites]

Omigod, women are allowed to be in charge of things sometimes at Microsoft? and you're not allowed to insult them for no reason? Well, I'm convinced! This feminism thing has gone Too Far, I say. Let's stick to the bare minimum of not being allowed to beat or rape them in the streets, and letting them vote once in a while. A basic six-year education should suffice for that, it's not like they'll need to own property or sign contracts. As long as we emphasise the skills needed to bear children and bake pies, so their brains don't overheat from the reading and writing. Really, it's for their own good.
posted by harriet vane at 10:51 PM on August 15, 2012 [5 favorites]

jessamyn: "The big deal with the cane was that I don't have one so when I got my "avulsion fracture" my choices were big wonky crutches or the cane that came with my Mr. Peanut costume. Monocle optional."

Pictures, plz. With monocle.
posted by gingerbeer at 10:56 PM on August 15, 2012 [1 favorite]

This is not me wearing it. No photos of me with cane at this point.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 10:59 PM on August 15, 2012

That photo raises so many canon questions.
posted by shakespeherian at 11:01 PM on August 15, 2012 [10 favorites]

Somehow, this seems appropriate here: Straw Feminists.
posted by ocherdraco at 11:35 PM on August 15, 2012 [2 favorites]

Catch reminded me of why I have such a viscerally repulsed response to seeing eas98 saying anything at all about gendered dynamics. Ugh. Probably not going to forget this time.
posted by batmonkey at 11:50 PM on August 15, 2012 [1 favorite]

KathrynT: My husband and I, between us, have a combined twenty-plus years at Microsoft, and I have witnessed appallingly, appallingly sexist behavior there. From the interviewer who asked if I was getting married soon, because (as he told me straight up to my face) he didn't want to have someone who was going to leave to have children, to the GPM who kept (yes, more than once) hiring strippers for the ship parties, it just really is laughable to me that this is the example of the place where the pendulum has swung too far.

Huh, see I haven't seen that stuff there. At tech companies I've been at, they have "How to interview" training, where they explicitly tell you not to ask things about age, or family life, or children, etc which could be troublesome if you say "no hire". Keep it professional and focused on demonstrable skills and past work related to the job, etc. Isn't... that a good thing? Which divisions where you in that these things were being done- and what did you say or do to stop it or call it out? I have never seen a place at Microsoft where someone would hire strippers for a ship party- jesus, everyone knows that'd get you fucking fired. Honestly, you're basically telling me something that sounds like science fiction!

grouse: I have to wonder what the makeup of Microsoft would be like in a world hincandenza would think was fair? Maybe split the meager gains women have made there in half—drop from one-quarter to one-eighth female employees, and maybe make the sole female senior executive work part-time?

Scary indeed.

Yeah, really scary, because that's totally what I said! Jesus christ, why can't you be more like Kattullus and try to engage someone in good faith? I appreciated and liked that comment, because for starters it assumed I was a human being, who isn't a sociopath or a monster, and is probably not anti-woman. I know, crazy huh?

Although I do think MS has, in the middle-to-upper management ranks, some of the same "old boy network" problems (myself and molybdenum would joke how every damn VP had a perfectly appropriate VP name like "Dave" or "Steve"), the rank and file seemed pretty evolved in my experience. And really, the "executives are all white men who went to the same exclusive prep school" thing isn't just about sexism. This is an echo of grobstein's "It's not a Man's World, it's Some Men's World".

And I wasn't saying MS was a case of things going too far, although I can see where people would enjoy pretending that's what I said. I'm all for equality, yay, and do agree that in tech companies the male/female ratios aren't ideal (but that will take time to fix, as more women graduate with degrees, or pursue IT as a field)! At our last company meeting, one of the questions raised to the owner was "How can we hire more women?" Sounds like a plan- I do believe that if you have something other than a 50/50 split, that there's some force affecting hiring- although not always one you can control.


Rather, I was saying that on Metafilter that the pendulum seems to be overswung. If you read my first comment in this thread, that seems to be pretty clearly what I was talking about, since I was quoting the OP's claim that Metafilter has become a "girlzone".

By and large I think Microsoft and companies like it are pretty decent, that Seattle and my neighborhood wouldn't really like the catcalling bros showing up... and thus if you're like me and you live in that world you don't see these situations of rampant unbelievable sexism. It's not just me; the comment I was looking for earlier was the start of jacalata's contributions in this thread, where she answered a direct (sarcastic) question, just as I did, of basically 'What magical fairy land do you live in that these things aren't big problems?!'. Naturally, her response were not well received, and she became more and more defensive. It's funny to read even now because of how textbook the exchanges went.

Actually, hifiparasol wrote a good comment in that thread as well that captures a lot of what I'm trying to say here. If you live in that world, then come on to Metafilter and have the "The Sexist Dickheads versus The Righteous Feminists" war being waged, you can't help but think "Where the heck do you people live that it's this bad all the time?!" hifiparasol also captures well the fear that even when you try to be earnest, balanced, and careful in your wording, you still run the risk of blanket dismissals such as "Nice guy (tm)".

And while I've made this point multiple times before, it feels like Metafilter, largely populated by people who would agree almost uniformly about gender rights, seems to also allow a one-sided "airing of grievances" in gender related threads, or proxy battles on Metafilter substituting for actual confrontation with flesh-and-blood people in your real life. And the "girlzone" part I agree with is the notion that certain expressed viewpoints- which might be hateful or prejudiced- are not really policed around here.
posted by hincandenza at 12:50 AM on August 16, 2012

And I wasn't saying MS was a case of things going too far, although I can see where people would enjoy pretending that's what I said.


No. People are responding to this comment of yours.
You quoted Sidhedevil and made a direct response.
An "Oops, I screwed up and didn't read Sidhedevil's question clearly" might go down, but this big revisionist rant hasn't got any legs.
posted by Catch at 12:59 AM on August 16, 2012 [4 favorites]

No, I did mean what I said just a few minutes ago. I interpreted Sidhedevil's question similar to the jacalata response I'd linked, which is "Okay, if you're genuinely curious, there are places where in daily life and at work I think most gender and race issues are pretty muted to non-existent". And that if you live in that world, Metafilter can seem like it's coming from some parallel universe of agitated, angry people.

But you just want to believe the worst fucking thing you can about me, so go ahead. I can't stop you, and I don't even fucking care anymore that you people are so quick to judge.

I'm out of this thread, go make uncharitable assumptions about someone else. Or post comments selectively quoting me and calling me names, it's no skin off my teeth either way.
posted by hincandenza at 1:17 AM on August 16, 2012

Hoo roo.
posted by Catch at 1:22 AM on August 16, 2012

I don't even fucking care anymore that you people are so quick to judge.

Quick? No way, dude. My opinion of you has been formed from reading your comments for years. Nothing quick about it.
posted by grouse at 1:42 AM on August 16, 2012 [31 favorites]

get a shark

Look! I'm Woody! Howdy howdy howdy.
posted by obiwanwasabi at 2:13 AM on August 16, 2012 [19 favorites]

I just wanted to point out that even in the liberalist of places, cat-calling, misogyny, and rape still happen. I understand that you're contributing in good faith, Hincandenza. But you made a really salient point and I don't know that you caught it. Thus, if you're like me and live in this world you don't see these situations of rampant, unbelievable sexism. Part of that is almost certainly because you are male. But you're right - things are different in different places, and as Jacalata said, not all women experience sexism and whatnot to the same degree. That doesn't mean it is not a problem. You also point out that sexism isn't the only force keeping society unequal, and that men without the right background are discriminated against in a variety of ways, too. There is an important conversation to be had about intersectionality and stuff, but consider that a thread about cat-calling or rape or general misogyny might not be the place to do it, and when you (or others) try to change the conversation to something you care more about, there is probably going to be pushback.
posted by ChuraChura at 3:48 AM on August 16, 2012 [19 favorites]

I haven't worked at Microsoft since the end of 2001, but at the time, there was a whole lot of sexism, same as the rest of the high tech industry.

I haven't had to use my cane for a while, but I am about to go see about getting a brace for my arthritic ankle. Why don't we have, like, stem-cell cartilage replacement therapy available in the local drug store Minute Clinic yet?
posted by rmd1023 at 5:13 AM on August 16, 2012

Avulsion-fracture-veterans represent!

I'd actually found my cane last summer lying out on the curb a couple doors down from my building, and some instinct made me pick it up and take it inside - "maybe someone visiting me will hurt themselves and need it," I thought. Little thinking that I would be the person that would need it myself in six months' time.

Although, I was really tempted to get the 8-ball cane from this site. And someone else dared me to get the gold skull cane "just so I can see you using it."
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 5:45 AM on August 16, 2012

I have a stick I found in the woods I take on hikes. I sanded it, treated it with oil and now when I go stumping around outside I feel a tiny bit like gandalf.

'You shall not pass!' I say in my head to the bicyclists who don't shout when they whip from behind me on trails on the wrong side, and I picture them being eaten by balrogs.

I have a cane, too, but however dapper I feel when walking about accompanied by its cheerful tick-tick on the floor people give a healthy person funny looks when they are be-canèd so I desist.
posted by winna at 6:04 AM on August 16, 2012 [10 favorites]

La Trec's cane was full of bourbon.
posted by The Whelk at 6:04 AM on August 16, 2012

Hmm, somehow I'd have thought Lautrec's cane would have been full of absinthe.
posted by ocherdraco at 6:16 AM on August 16, 2012 [2 favorites]

Hincandenza, I hope you're still checking in on this thread, because I'm really going to try and be as fair and non-jerky in this response to your earlier comments as I can be.

So. A few things.

I want to suggest that, while I believe that you've written completely sincere, good-faith descriptions of your neighborhood and your workplace as you have experienced and perceived them, I would ask that you consider -- just consider, even if you think I'm wrong -- that your perception and experiences may be different than those of other people working and living alongside you, women and men alike. Consider that a strictly-enforced set of rules and guidelines in an office environment doesn't erase a life of experiences and opinions and biases that one has accumulated before starting that job, but only regulates how those biases and opinions can manifest themselves in the office. Consider that a lack of fratboy bro types may mean that sterotypical harassment of women in bars and on the street is much much rarer where you live, but that there are other, more insidious forms of bias and harassment than are harder to point a finger at and harder to draw boundaries against. Consider that, because these more subtle and insidious biases and behaviors aren't directed at you and/or aren't happening at your expense, they may be flying under your radar.

What I mean when I say that these milder, subtler forms of bias and behaviour can be more "insidious": when someone is overly harassing you or making awful comments, particularly in an environment with a strictly enforced set of social or professional rules, it's very clear what's going on and it's very simple to point it out and deal with it. If your boss propositions you for sex, it's obvious that you should report him; if a man in a bar tries to drunkenly grab you, no one will tell you you're overreacting if you get him kicked out of the bar. (NOTE: I mean no one in a relatively safe space like what you've described, as I'll get back to in a moment, that is still very much not true in lots of other places.)

But what do you do in that moment where, when sitting at lunch in the break room, you're listening to a very pleasant, very polite, very work-appropriate conversion about two coworkers, one of whom is on paternity leave and one of whom is on maternity leave. In discussing the man, they talk about how it's so nice that he stayed home to help out, how it's great that he's made the time to see his kids when they're still small; then they discuss his upcoming return to the office, and how so-and-so will have to get him up to speed. In discussing the woman, they mention how cute the photos she posted on Facebook were, try to remember how old the baby is, mention how she brought the baby in to visit a couple of weeks ago; someone asks when she'll be back, and the reply is a sort of knowing smile and a "well, we'll see, I mean her leave is over in a month..." and then the conversation shifts to how the wives and friends of the people at the table often said they wanted to go back to work after the baby, but then changed their mind and never came back, because really it's just a practical decision, childcare is so expensive, and if her whole salary is just going to go to childcare anyway it just seems silly for her to make such a big sacrifice and be away from the kids.

You are listening to this conversation, and you are thinking a lot of things: "Hey, if she says she's coming back to work, shouldn't we just take her word for it?" "Hey, what if the man doesn't come back to work, why aren't we having that conversation about him?" "Why are we talking about how great it is that he's taking time off, but for the woman it's just a matter of course and not really worth commenting on?" "Maybe if you paid her the same as you pay the other engineers at her level, you wouldn't be assuming that her salary isn't worth it when balanced against childcare." "And what if she just wants to keep her job even if it doesn't make a ton of money, why are you assuming that she would stay home with the baby if she can possibly manage to, maybe she just likes having a job!"

You don't say any of those things. The conversation is pleasant and low-key and light, and the last time you said these kinds of things in the lunch room, everyone got uncomfortable and made excuses to leave, or else said more explicitly sexist things while trying to explain themselves that made you even MORE uncomfortable, and it made you feel weird and like an outsider, or like a troublemaker, and you like this job and like being a well-regarded part of the team. So you don't say anything at all, and your coworkers continue with their lunch, probably not having noticed the storm of silent frustration that has clouded your afternoon.

Now, you, Hincandenza, may have read all of that and thought that the hypothetical "you" was being ridiculous, or overreacting. But I have been that person many, many times in many, many different situations. And coworkers or friends who think I'm being silly or difficult or overreacting are why I often sit there silently instead of saying anything. Because I have only so much energy, and sometimes I can't afford to spend it on a long, unpleasant conversation about how people I know are being subtly sexist. Or racist. Or classist. Or any number of other things.

And then I carry that frustration with me, and it informs how I participate in places like Metafilter, because the frustration has become such a huge part of my life over the years, and the same is true for many people, and I think it's useful to discuss the nature of the frustration and the things that cause it in relevant conversations here.

All of that said: Let's assume that your perception is completely accurate, and your workplace and your neighborhood aren't a source of small frustrations and humiliations for other people, and things really ARE much better for your neighbors and your coworkers than they are for other people.

That is not true of many - most - other places. Not just in other countries, I mean in the US, in lots of liberal and forward-thinking cities and towns. When users of this site come into a thread and talk about their experiences with sexism or misogyny, they are discussing real things that happened to them, and real, often hurtful experiences that they had. If your reaction is, "Jeez, where are YOU, because nothing like that happens around me" -- even if you're RIGHT, and nothing like that happens where you are, that doesn't make the experiences of other people irrelevant or invalid. Why argue with them about it? It isn't a difference of opinion; it's "This happened to me."

If you come in to that conversation and tell people that your experience doesn't match theirs, at worst they will say a less polite version of what I said above -- that you probably aren't aware of all the problems around you because you have the luxury of not noticing them. At best, they will say, "You're lucky not to experience these problems, but please don't argue against my descriptions of my own life."

Hincandenza, many of the men and women on Metafilter are sad and upset about the shitty and misogynistic things that happen to women in our culture. Most do not enjoy this frustration. Being angry is exhausting. Being sad is terrible. I know it can feel like people are just looking for something to be upset about, but from our perspective, there's NO END to things to be upset about, and it's just a matter of when we run out of patience and snap. Once you begin to notice just how bad things are, it feels like a black, bottomless pit has opened up beneath you. It's a terrible, hopeless feeling. And when people seem angry in conversations like this one, it's because they've been fighting against the pull of that bottomless pit of awfulness -- for years, for their whole lives. So when someone tells them they're making too big of a deal about it, or they're being unfair, or they just WANT to be angry and have made a choice to see things this way, it can be infuriating. They want to point at the pit and be like "JESUS ITS RIGHT THERE ARE YOU STUPID?"

But not everyone can see it. And not everyone can see how HUGE it is. And not everyone believes us that its even there.

And that's why we all need to be patient with each other.

It's just really, really hard sometimes.
posted by Narrative Priorities at 6:18 AM on August 16, 2012 [106 favorites]

We're not allowed to go trawling through people's comment histories, so I'll just say that before assuming good faith it might be instructive to search comment histories with the search term 'So. Much. Hate. For you people.'
posted by winna at 6:36 AM on August 16, 2012 [7 favorites]

Look! I'm Woody! Howdy howdy howdy.

This is my favorite line in the whole movie. I also like the part in the back of the pizza truck where Woody gets smashed up against the window. But that shark was just hilarious.
posted by phunniemee at 6:42 AM on August 16, 2012 [3 favorites]

Oh god, right before I clicked and checked in on this thread this morning, I literally wondered "hmm, hincandenza hadn't insert his jackass self yet".

So "glad" to see some things never change.
posted by kmz at 6:45 AM on August 16, 2012

Sometimes I just decide (arbitrarily?) to assume good faith because doing otherwise makes me sad and bitter and angry, and ends in my acting like more of a jerk than I had intended. :/
posted by Narrative Priorities at 6:49 AM on August 16, 2012 [8 favorites]

"At tech companies I've been at, they have "How to interview" training, where they explicitly tell you not to ask things about age, or family life, or children, etc which could be troublesome if you say "no hire". Keep it professional and focused on demonstrable skills and past work related to the job, etc. Isn't... that a good thing?"

They teach this everywhere. You know what? Men still get preference in hiring. In studies, given two equal resumes, one with a man's name and one with a woman's, most male executives (who are, of course, the overwhelming share of executives generally) choose the male candidate and find some justification in his resume that makes him a better candidate than the woman. When the resumes are swapped, so the woman now has the "better" resume, the male executives find justification to hire the man, something in "his" resume that makes him the clearly better candidate. It's not their resumes. It's their maleness.

Plus, a lot of this stuff is honored more in the breach. Among the worst "illegal questions" interviews I've ever been on have been at law firms that handle employment law. Knowing the law -- even knowing the serious consequences of breaking the law -- doesn't prevent people from breaking it. I would be SHOCKED if you were working somewhere with no male preference in hiring.

"I'm all for equality, yay, and do agree that in tech companies the male/female ratios aren't ideal (but that will take time to fix, as more women graduate with degrees, or pursue IT as a field)!"

This usually doesn't help. In fields that women have been entering in large numbers for 40 years, there's no change at the top. Women enter these fields in droves, and men who enter at the same time are promoted above them. Employers make assumptions that women don't want to be supervisors. Or they'll want to quit when they have kids (not if! when!) and don't promote them because it'll be a hassle. Or they just don't see women as as capable as men. Or they promote men because they have a problem with women being in authority positions over men. Whatever. But women entering, say, law in large numbers has barely moved the needle on partnerships and top corporate jobs.

Or we can look at education, a paradigmatic case of a highly-educated workforce becoming hugely feminized -- and therefore, lower and lower status than it used to be. (So's the pastorate; the more women who enter the pastorate, the lower-status a profession men perceive it to be and fewer men enter it. But it doesn't affect the percentages of men in leadership. Token female and we're done.) 75% of elementary school teachers in the U.S. are women. Only 10% of superintendents are women (and around 50% of elementary school principals and 20% of high school principals). Women have been the overwhelming majority in the teaching profession long enough for the entire profession to have turned over TWICE now, and women STILL aren't represented in the leadership ranks in anything like their representation in the workforce. So even in overwhelmingly female-dominated workforces, men are placed in positions of authority. Not because "we need more women entering the field." It's because there's a cultural preference for men in positions of authority, perpetuated by men already in positions of authority.

(Why so many more women principals of elementary schools than high schools? People will freely tell you that women can manage little kids just fine, that's a mom-like job, but for teenagers they'll only respect authority coming from a man. Especially the boys.)
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 6:55 AM on August 16, 2012 [78 favorites]

It is never being a jerk to assume the best of people. I figured you didn't know for the same reason I wouldn't know, because if you haven't seen the pattern there's no reason to assume bad faith.

Personally, I still think that people can change, no matter their history, but I figure that arguing on the Internet is not going to be the modality of that change at this point.
posted by winna at 6:55 AM on August 16, 2012

We're not allowed to go trawling through people's comment histories, so I'll just say that before assuming good faith it might be instructive to search comment histories with the search term 'So. Much. Hate. For you people.'
posted by winna at 2:36 PM on August 16 [1 favorite +] [!]

Why not just link to what you want to link to instead of this passive aggressive bullshit?
posted by Reggie Knoble at 7:05 AM on August 16, 2012 [11 favorites]

The only thing I am ever going to change into is an even bigger jerk, I think. Although I refuse to rule out "cyborg".
posted by elizardbits at 7:06 AM on August 16, 2012 [5 favorites]

Reggie Knoble: “Why not just link to what you want to link to instead of this passive aggressive bullshit?”

Reggie, that was a pretty massive event for a lot of people in this community. There was an easy enough reference to follow there, and I might not have brought it up the same way, but I don't think you can fault winna for remembering it or feeling it's particularly relevant or even for mentioning it that way. Given the fact that that conversation changed the way a lot of us felt about Metafilter and the community, it's probably going to be a point we talk about. And, yeah, it's part of hincandenza's past here, whether he wants it to be or not.
posted by koeselitz at 7:17 AM on August 16, 2012 [1 favorite]

(Actually that reference doesn't work at all. Meh.)
posted by koeselitz at 7:19 AM on August 16, 2012

While I'd never say that this place has become hostile to men, I've certainly seen Askmes that would have a very different set of answers if the roles were reversed. In this post, for example, anonymous's friend is unhappily married to a man with depression and has asked what she should be telling her friend to do. Most of the responses are along the lines of "get-a-lawyer" and/or discuss divorce options. But if anonymous' friend was a man who had had an affair because he was unhappy with his depressed wife, I suspect most of the responses would be that he should be getting the poor woman help, not fucking around on her. And I would also expect that any poster that recommended that said husband "scrub every piece of evidence of any affair from all email accounts and computers" before researching divorce lawyers would be called out as misogynistic.
posted by kisch mokusch at 7:20 AM on August 16, 2012

I think there's a pretty significant difference between "ON JANUARY 4TH, 2008 IN THREAD #14513 YOU POSTED THAT YOU DID NOT ENJOY CARROTS AND YET HERE YOU ARE SAYING YOU LOVE CARROTS" and pointing out that someone said some rather nasty things that reflect on any further assumptions of good-faith participation. Especially consider that we all have the ability to contact the mods and say "hey, I wrote this stuff in sort of a bad place and I'd rather not have it stay up there and continue to reflect poorly on me."
posted by griphus at 7:21 AM on August 16, 2012 [3 favorites]

Maybe so. But why say you aren't allowed to trawl comment history before telling people to do just that and providing a search term?

Its just an example of the mealy mouthed snideiness that goes on all the time where a straight "fuck you" gets deleted.

I'm not going to start arguing again because its pointless but some of the behaviour toward hincandenza was just mean bullying and that was part of it.
posted by Reggie Knoble at 7:24 AM on August 16, 2012 [3 favorites]

It is too bad you are apparently incapable of considering how many people on this site consider hincandenza's comments to be unpleasant, alarming, disturbing, and bullying too.
posted by elizardbits at 7:34 AM on August 16, 2012 [15 favorites]

> But if [IMAGINARY ALTERNATE SCENARIO], I suspect most of the responses would be [SOMETHING THAT SUPPORTS WHAT I BELIEVE]

You know, that sort of argumentation never goes well. Why not just stick to the world we all live in?

> some of the behaviour toward hincandenza was just mean bullying

I don't think anyone's heart is going to bleed for hincandenza. If he stops behaving in his annoyingly predictable knee-jerk way, maybe people won't be so mean to him.
posted by languagehat at 7:35 AM on August 16, 2012 [16 favorites]

So. Many. Hats. For you languagehat.
posted by shakespeherian at 7:36 AM on August 16, 2012 [6 favorites]

Its just an example of the mealy mouthed snideiness that goes on all the time where a straight "fuck you" gets deleted.

There's a parallel here. (It's a strained one, but I'm going to make it anyway.) To:

Consider that a lack of fratboy bro types may mean that sterotypical harassment of women in bars and on the street is much much rarer where you live, but that there are other, more insidious forms of bias and harassment than are harder to point a finger at and harder to draw boundaries against. Consider that, because these more subtle and insidious biases and behaviors aren't directed at you and/or aren't happening at your expense, they may be flying under your radar.

Which is very well said. The strained parallel is, that's a weakness of the mods coming down visibly (and justifiably for the type of site metafilter tries to be, though in practice it's cat-herding) on overt FUCK YOU NO FUCK YOU behavior is that it forces the driving energy behind that kind of thing into more passive-aggressive forms that are gotten away with. They're harder to police, because many people will deny that it's even there or that it's a problem; every individual example of it can be waved away and rationalized and justified and it's being unreasonable (even hysterical!) to point out.

Like I say, strained. Also, it made me glad to hear there are such things as working canes with flasks in them. I'm filing that away for whatever future day I have need of a cane. I'm wagering I'll get a lot more use out of a flask than a sword.
posted by Drastic at 7:37 AM on August 16, 2012

You know, that sort of argumentation never goes well. Why not just stick to the world we all live in?

Well it's just an opinion languagehat, and I worded it as such.
posted by kisch mokusch at 7:38 AM on August 16, 2012

Yes, but what if the sword is made of bacon?
posted by elizardbits at 7:39 AM on August 16, 2012 [2 favorites]

Why not just link to what you want to link to instead of this passive aggressive bullshit?

Because the mods will delete it and issue a warning to anyone who posts it, that's why. We are not allowed to go through and post other people's comment histories. Site policy.

Of course, there's no rule against linking to one's own comments. I responded to hincandenza in that thread and could link that without breaking the letter of the policy.

But the policy is in place to prevent witch-hunts. It's there to help people let go of the past, grow and move on from it. It is there because people do change and mature, and their minds and opinions may change. It's patently unfair to folks to harp on their pasts for years. So we're being asked by the mods to live in the moment. I'm not entirely convinced this is the best idea, as it is an attempt to divorce people from their pasts and remove accountability for the things they have said. But it's site policy, so we have to operate within it.

So even linking to one's own comments in the same thread in response is a bit of a violation of the spirit if not the letter of the law.

There's nothing stopping us from discussing what people have done, though.

FWIW, the last time I spoke up in a thread about similar issues about a month and a half ago, Hincandenza ranted at me in two different threads, accusing me of deliberately mischaracterizing him. All while accusing me of all sorts of things I wasn't in fact doing: arguing in bad faith, trolling for favorites, "racking up your brownie points of post-gender enlightment buxx" (whatever the hell that means,) etc. When I asked him to back up specific accusation he was making against me with cites and links, he didn't. The conclusion I drew was that he was trying to bully me into silence. Perhaps I was misinterpreting his intentions towards me, but I don't think so.

That incident will affect my current impression of him and his comments, as well as any response I may make to him -- and whether I can link to it or not it still happened. You are seeing folks attempting to work within the rules of the site while referring to an incident that similarly made an impression on them.
posted by zarq at 7:43 AM on August 16, 2012 [13 favorites]

Hincandenza once told me that I should stay out of feminist-issues-related threads because I bring a lot of baggage to them.
posted by shakespeherian at 7:47 AM on August 16, 2012 [45 favorites]

Actually, before we all start thinking that Capitol Hill in Seattle is some sort of uber-enlightened neighborhood -- I and a friend of mine were cat-called there two weeks ago.
posted by KathrynT at 7:50 AM on August 16, 2012 [9 favorites]

Zarq. The rule against trawling comment histories is violated just as well by linking and by telling anyone who cares to exactly what to search for. If one is wrong so is the other.
posted by Reggie Knoble at 7:51 AM on August 16, 2012

zarq: "Because the mods will delete it and issue a warning to anyone who posts it, that's why. We are not allowed to go through and post other people's comment histories. Site policy. "

Well, Catch's comment still stand with no mod warning.
posted by the_artificer at 7:55 AM on August 16, 2012 [1 favorite]

But the policy is in place to prevent witch-hunts. It's there to help people let go of the past, grow and move on from it. It is there because people do change and mature, and their minds and opinions may change. It's patently unfair to folks to harp on their pasts for years. So we're being asked by the mods to live in the moment. I'm not entirely convinced this is the best idea, as it is an attempt to divorce people from their pasts and remove accountability for the things they have said. But it's site policy, so we have to operate within it.


I had thought this was to prevent ad hominem snark/derails on the Blue. I'm very surprised to see that it applies in Metatalk. How else are people to back up claims that there's an ongoing problem? I'm very grateful for the posts further up which have laid out eas98s history of deeply misogynistic and sexist posting. You can see what happens when a poster's history like this is hidden - women who call them on their sexism face being told it isn't a problem and that they're overreacting and should give the sexist the benefit of the doubt. If the policy on the site is one that allows racist, sexist or homophobic comments, then surely the flipside should be that it should be ok to call it out in Metatalk when a poster develops a pattern of such comments - not in the least because it helps to stop the invalidation of people being told they are being over-sensitive or over-reacting when they are on the receiving end of racist, sexist or homophobic attacks. We have 'creepy dudes' in our friend circle here - what is to be gained by telling people they can't warn each other and support each other in the face of such people?
posted by Flitcraft at 7:55 AM on August 16, 2012 [25 favorites]

Its just an example of the mealy mouthed snideiness that goes on all the time where a straight "fuck you" gets deleted.

Absolutely I should have posted 'here is data that you should consider' with a link. I didn't want it to get deleted under some Brand New Day metric I don't completely understand.

However, it was not intended to be a fuck you to anyone, but it was certainly meant to be an example of WHY people react strongly to that type of 'poor me, the gender police are so mean' posturing.

I thought about just sending a pm to NA about it, but figured that other people should see it. In future I will link straight to things that are relevant and take my chances on it getting deleted.
posted by winna at 7:59 AM on August 16, 2012

Because the mods will delete it and issue a warning to anyone who posts it, that's why.

Well no, not always.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 8:01 AM on August 16, 2012

Reggie Knoble: "Zarq. The rule against trawling comment histories is violated just as well by linking and by telling anyone who cares to exactly what to search for. If one is wrong so is the other."

Personally, I'd say it violates the spirit of the rule, yes. Not the letter. Just my opinion, though. Obviously, I'm not a mod.

Then again, my description of hincandenza's interaction with me in my last comment could conceivably be considered a violation of the spirit of the rule. I guess it's a matter of perspective.
posted by zarq at 8:03 AM on August 16, 2012

Brandon Blatcher: " Well no, not always."

To repeat something I said to you when you raised this in that thread, that's your posting history, not your comment history.
posted by zarq at 8:04 AM on August 16, 2012 [2 favorites]

Yes, but what if the sword is made of bacon?

You make a good point. This will depend on when and why I need a cane. There's a good chance at that stage of my life, my doctor will be trying to limit my bacon intake. Probably because of pendulum too far misandry, and my copay will probably have to be in the form of post-gender enlightenment buxx.
posted by Drastic at 8:05 AM on August 16, 2012 [3 favorites]

the_artificer: " Well, Catch's comment still stand with no mod warning."

Out of curiosity, did you flag it? I didn't notice that comment until you pointed it out, but just flagged it.
posted by zarq at 8:05 AM on August 16, 2012

To repeat something I said to you when you raised this in that thread, that's your posting history, not your comment history.

Sure, but I don't see why trawling one would be ok, but not the other. My point here is that there doesn't seem to be a blanket ban on going through a user's history. It's the most aggressive and hostile trawling that receive mod attention.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 8:07 AM on August 16, 2012

Brandon Blatcher: " It's the most aggressive and hostile trawling that receive mod attention."

*nod* You're probably right.
posted by zarq at 8:08 AM on August 16, 2012

The funny thing is that I have a feeling that the real Redman has a better sense of the far-reaching consequences of casual misogyny than our Reggie Knoble does.
posted by elizardbits at 8:09 AM on August 16, 2012

elizardbits: "Although I refuse to rule out "cyborg"."

Cyjerk.

Jerkborg.
posted by boo_radley at 8:10 AM on August 16, 2012

Cyboorg?
posted by boo_radley at 8:10 AM on August 16, 2012 [3 favorites]

I think the comment trawling that the mods see as problematic is the type where the trawled comment(s) is unrelated to the current discussion or is used as a sort of J'ACCUSE! THERE'S NO WAY YOU COULD REALLY MEAN WHAT YOU'RE SAYING HERE ABOUT KITTENS, LOOK WHAT YOU PREVIOUSLY SAID ABOUT PUPPIES
posted by shakespeherian at 8:10 AM on August 16, 2012 [3 favorites]

> I was really tempted to get the 8-ball cane from this site. And someone else dared me to get the gold skull cane "just so I can see you using it."

My aunt-in-law uses a cane made from a bull's penis. She likes to wait until someone has expressed curiosity and is holding it before telling them what it is.
posted by The corpse in the library at 8:13 AM on August 16, 2012 [1 favorite]

Out of respect for my own ignorance and innocence I will assume that your aunt-in-law is extremely short?
posted by shakespeherian at 8:15 AM on August 16, 2012 [3 favorites]

Because the mods will delete it and issue a warning to anyone who posts it, that's why. We are not allowed to go through and post other people's comment histories. Site policy.

Of course, there's no rule against linking to one's own comments. I responded to hincandenza in that thread and could link that without breaking the letter of the policy.

This is sort of codifying it more than it really is. What we have is a general expectation that people will not drag old drama into new threads just for the drama or the gotcha and will not go around making it their mission to make someone else's time here shittier as some sort of grudge-match process, which is where the most problematic history trawling stuff has historically come in. Especially so on the blue and the green when it's more likely to be a total "I can't stop talking about my disagreement with / dislike of this person" derail just about every time.

We all have history here and to the extent that sometimes that ties in with what's being talked about it's gonna come up and if you're not being like a weirdo or a dickass about it then linking to something you think is relevant from prior discussions can make sense and is not some bright-line forbidden "we must pretend the past did not exist" thing in general.

But it's easy to do it in sort of a crappy or drama-escalating way, so we want people to think about the how and the why of it if they're going to go there and figure out if they're somehow necessarily aiding the conversation or just getting a shot in. It's a tricky balance which is why we at the very simplest formulation of this idea don't really encourage diving into someone's history, because that's the only guaranteed way not to end up doing something unnecessarily sort of grudge-y seeming or whatever.

I feel like if you are in a position where you are thinking of a specific past undeleted thing on the site you need to refer to to say what you're wanting to say, the question to ask yourself is not "do I link it or just refer to it", it's "do I feel like bringing this up either way is a legitimate thing to be doing here". That's step one. If you feel like it's not really so okay, declining to actually link doesn't really help anything.
posted by cortex (staff) at 8:17 AM on August 16, 2012 [3 favorites]

I'm not. I want the comment history of misogynists and racists to be preserved out in the open for reference purposes.
posted by elizardbits at 8:18 AM on August 16, 2012 [10 favorites]

trawl so hard metafilter wanna fine me.
posted by cashman at 8:18 AM on August 16, 2012 [5 favorites]

I'm still, today, a bit disappointed to learn the the mods take the "fair and balanced, tell both sides" approach to issues like racism and sexism.

That's an unfair characterization. Their approach seems to be more, "reasonable people can disagree about certain things", not "it's totally ok to say that women are bitches because that's a 'side' ".
posted by modernnomad at 8:18 AM on August 16, 2012

The Cal Academy of Science has a nightlife thing we go to sometimes. There's alcohol and so no kids. And that's when they bring out the penis bone cart. A cane made from an elephant seal penis bone would be a heck of a cane.

Also, if someone is going to accuse me of saying that all men are horrible sexist rapists, they better be ready to back that shit up with links.
posted by rtha at 8:20 AM on August 16, 2012 [2 favorites]

I feel like if you are in a position where you are thinking of a specific past undeleted thing on the site you need to refer to to say what you're wanting to say, the question to ask yourself is not "do I link it or just refer to it", it's "do I feel like bringing this up either way is a legitimate thing to be doing here". That's step one. If you feel like it's not really so okay, declining to actually link doesn't really help anything.

This actually clarifies things for me a lot, thank you. Honestly, I probably should have pinged one of you all with a question before posting that comment, because that would have been the best way to handle it. I will remember that for the future.
posted by winna at 8:21 AM on August 16, 2012

zarq: "Out of curiosity, did you flag it? "

Nope, because I don't agree that a someone's comment history should be totally out of bounds.
posted by the_artificer at 8:22 AM on August 16, 2012 [3 favorites]

...when sitting at lunch in the break room, you're listening to a very pleasant, very polite, very work-appropriate conversion about two coworkers, one of whom is on paternity leave and one of whom is on maternity leave.

You know, I was going to mention that the statement that most of us are unaffected by gender roles just isn't in line with MY experience, as a guy.

I'm the main caretaker of my children, and my wife is the main wage earner for the family. There is a crap load of ways society lets me know that I'm bucking the norms for the culture: dirty looks from Moms at story time at the library; friendly mockery; the praise for being so confident in my manliness (or something) that I'm willing to diminish it by doing work that women would normally do; etc. Heck, I even had to wrestle with the idea that somehow I wasn't pulling my weight just because I was only watching the kids, something I'd never think if my wife was staying at home. Recently I've noticed is that I always feel the need to justify our decision when it comes up. In fact, I just deleted my standard explanation from this comment.

Anyway, the point is that just because their not codified legally anymore doesn't mean that gender roles aren't enforced socially or even internalized individually. Don't even get me started on how frickin' gender specific baby toys are.
posted by Gygesringtone at 8:26 AM on August 16, 2012 [45 favorites]

some Brand New Day metric I don't completely understand

Brand New Day is a reference to the fact that sometimes people will decide (possibly entirely voluntarily, possibly as more of a rehabilitation agreement with the mods) to reboot their life on Metafilter with a new account unconnected publicly to their old one. When this works well it can be a good thing; someone who has a cloud over their activity on the site from some crappy old behavior but who has turned their shit around and is behaving well these days may just be, viola, some random new well-behaved person. Sometimes it doesn't go that well, but, you know, optimism.

Where comment history stuff interacts with BND stuff is mostly that it's extra problematic for someone who has figured out that New User is Old User to get confrontational with "HEY NEW USER WHAT ABOUT THIS THING YOU SAID AS OLD USER" stuff because that fucks pretty directly with the attempt to let people start over by tying things back together all over again and making the identity connection much more broadly known. So we discourage that specific type of thing in particular for that situation-specific reason.

It's worth saying that the spirit behind that—the idea that people can try and make a change and get into a better place with the interactions on the site—is not something that really needs to be treated as an "only if they get a new account" thing and I think it's generally pretty great when people can try and give people fair reassessments over time and react to what they're doing lately vs. what they've ever done. But there's not such a clear issue of an enforcement mechanic in the general case.

I'm still, today, a bit disappointed to learn the the mods take the "fair and balanced, tell both sides" approach to issues like racism and sexism.

I feel like you are being deeply unfair here and I do not know why.
posted by cortex (staff) at 8:27 AM on August 16, 2012 [4 favorites]

Yeah I'd also like to point out that all of this 'Hey it's possible you aren't noticing sexist behavior because it isn't targeted at you!' also is applicable to me, an ardent feminist, because I'm a dude. I'm a dude and I am a strong feminist and all the time terrible sexist shit happens that I don't notice because I'm as much a part and product of systematized patriarchy as anyone else. This is why it is so important to listen to women when they talk about their experiences.
posted by shakespeherian at 8:29 AM on August 16, 2012 [28 favorites]

gilrain: "I'm still, today, a bit disappointed to learn the the mods take the "fair and balanced, tell both sides" approach to issues like racism and sexism."

That's a pretty dishonest way to put it. A more apt phrasing, IMO, would be, "It's OK to hold unpopular/boorish views, it's not OK to throw those views in other members' faces." I don't pretend to speak for the mods, but I'm pretty sure the goal is to not allow threads to be continually derailed by a couple of loudmouth users.

If you are so bothered by the mere presence of people who think antithetically to the way you do, then I think MeFi isn't the best place for you. For me, it's in fact one the best things about this place.
posted by mkultra at 8:30 AM on August 16, 2012 [2 favorites]

The Cal Academy of Science has a nightlife thing we go to sometimes. There's alcohol and so no kids. And that's when they bring out the penis bone cart. A cane made from an elephant seal penis bone would be a heck of a cane.

One of the locations of Seattle seafood favorite Ivar's has named its bar area the Whalemaker Lounge because it contains two whalemakers, which are what daddy whales use to make new babby whales.

They are too large to be used as canes by ordinary humans.
posted by grouse at 8:31 AM on August 16, 2012 [1 favorite]

This is why it is so important to listen to women when they talk about their experiences.

But I wanna talk about my important experiences with teen wofl and you're all OH GOD WHY ARE YOU DOING THIS TO ME
posted by elizardbits at 8:33 AM on August 16, 2012 [2 favorites]

I did not comment on the original post, so I have no bias here. However, generally my attitude when I answer AskMe's is to divorce my own personal morality from the advice I give, unless advice on ethical issues appears to be implicitly solicited as part of the question. Occasionally, if my recommendation involves doing something I can't in good conscience advise, I may add a disclaimer saying something like "The advice I offer is likely to be effective, even though I think it's cruel and/or unfair."

Personally speaking, when I write an AskMe, I want solid pragmatic advice that gets results, not people telling me what I "should" or "shouldn't" do according to their individual moral codes (most of which are arbitrary). "Get a ruthless lawyer" is good advice that will bear fruit. If she needed ethical advice, the OP would have visited her spiritual councilor. For pragmatic advice, there's MetaFilter.
posted by wolfdreams01 at 8:34 AM on August 16, 2012 [2 favorites]

If you are so bothered by the mere presence of people who think antithetically to the way you do, then I think MeFi isn't the best place for you. For me, it's in fact one the best things about this place.

At the same time I think it is important that there be some community effort, aided by the mods, to keep women and minorities from feeling that this place is hostile to their existence.
posted by shakespeherian at 8:34 AM on August 16, 2012 [4 favorites]

teen wofl is not an experience it is a lifestyle choice
posted by shakespeherian at 8:35 AM on August 16, 2012 [7 favorites]

grouse, we have to go there for drinks the next time I'm in visiting your fine city!
posted by rtha at 8:36 AM on August 16, 2012

Would you agree that eas98's history on this site has been sexist?

He's said some stuff that I think is pretty problematic about gender relations stuff, yeah. Our policy is not "that's great, fair and balanced", it's "we aren't going to automatically ban someone for having ugly opinions". That doesn't mean they won't get pushback (here's a thread full of it in this case, for example). That doesn't mean that we won't take action if things escalate or someone just flips the fuck out.

But it's relatively hard to get banned here if it seems like the problem is more you just having an outsider opinion if you're not going nuclear with it. This is not exceptional to sexism, it's a general thing. Metafilter deals with a lot of stuff by talking about it, which can be hard and frustrating and a little ugly sometimes, and I know that people will never agree on what the right balance point is between "everything is permitted" (not our policy) and "say something gross and you're banned" (also not our policy).
posted by cortex (staff) at 8:38 AM on August 16, 2012 [5 favorites]

and you're all OH GOD WHY ARE YOU DOING THIS TO ME

There are other threads, elizardbits.
posted by cortex (staff) at 8:39 AM on August 16, 2012 [11 favorites]

At the same time I think it is important that there be some community effort, aided by the mods, to keep women and minorities from feeling that this place is hostile to their existence.

How many users expressing opinions that you feel are sexist are enough to make things hostile, keeping in mind that the mods already delete stuff that is way over the line.

Right now there seem to be a handful of users (and I am fully aware that I am probably now on that list) that get called out as sexist pretty regularly.

That seems like a pretty tiny ratio. But does it need to get lower?
posted by Reggie Knoble at 8:41 AM on August 16, 2012

You misunderstand. I am being descriptive rather than prescriptive.
posted by shakespeherian at 8:43 AM on August 16, 2012

Hincandenza once told me that I should stay out of feminist-issues-related threads because I bring a lot of baggage to them.

Hincandez said YOU bring baggage to feminist-issues threads? That's deeply ironic.

it's not unfair of me to be disappointed that the line between "everything is permitted" and "say something gross and you're banned" is drawn to the "everything" side of "consistent, repeated, clearly sexist attacks on mefite women and feminists". I would prefer that it be drawn on the "banned" side.

But this is for your own protection. And mine. And young rope-riders, and every individual person's in here. Because sure as shit, there's an idea you have that you are in the minority about, and other people would be offended by, and if the day comes when you express it and inadvertently cause a shitstorm, wouldn't it be a great thing that the mods are more inclined to ban your comment rather than banning you?
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 8:45 AM on August 16, 2012 [8 favorites]

Shut you down permanently?
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 8:50 AM on August 16, 2012

I never thought I'd feel this bit of sympathy for anyone on "the other side" (which "side" has extended essentially the opposite to me on many occasions) but I am so tired of seeing threads devolve into Righteousness That Does Not Allow For Nuance vs. Everyone Else.

It's still bullying and dismissiveness - an unwillingness to hear anything outside the party line - and I find it not only hypocritical but quite frankly boring because it squelches participation and does not allow for evolution in discussion. I absolutely agree it is maddening to hear the same kneejerk shit over and over, but the righteousness is its own form of kneejerk, and the repeated shoutiness is exhausting and rude.
posted by flex at 8:50 AM on August 16, 2012 [13 favorites]

It's richly ironic to me to have you defending hincandenza against this alleged bullying; he is pretty much a classic bully.

It can be as ironic as you want it to be, that doesn't change the fact that you've made 20+ comments here, many of which have the tone of someone who's speaking to an audience that has their back and knows it. Regardless of whether I side with hincandeza's views or yours, I feel like you and the other folks responding to him are the ones who're operating from a position of power here, and for many people, a bully situation is all about those dynamics, regardless of who is on the right or wrong end of things.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 8:50 AM on August 16, 2012 [11 favorites]

How many users expressing opinions that you feel are sexist are enough to make things hostile...

Honestly? A lot. Mainly because most of it isn't occurring in the overt GRAR GYNOCRACY! fashion but rather as "funny" comments about T&A in movie poster threads and assertions that women don't have it so bad, really in threads about street harassment. Loud idiocy about pendulums is the tip of the iceberg.

That seems like a pretty tiny ratio. But does it need to get lower?

Are you asking if the less people should be called sexist? I totally think less people should be called sexist on this site. And the single, best way to not be called sexist is to not be sexist.
posted by griphus at 8:51 AM on August 16, 2012 [6 favorites]

If I ever air in opinion on this site as clearly bad and outright hurtful to others as sexism or racism, then I absolutely hope a mod will shut me down before I cause any more damage to the other members of the site.

Okay, but many of the examples being cited are more of an insidious build towards an overall bad feeling than outright vicious, fucked up attacks like those for which other people have been rightfully banned. I mean, I agree that slowly creating an environment of shitty behavior is also A Bad Thing in general, I also (mostly, sometimes) feel like people should be given a chance to change their evil ways? Maybe?

ugh idk.
posted by elizardbits at 8:52 AM on August 16, 2012 [2 favorites]

Ctrl-f-"hincandenza".

*leaves satisfied*
posted by ominous_paws at 8:54 AM on August 16, 2012 [2 favorites]

The other day in the Captain Awkward thread I had a comment favorited by the young rope-rider and another one favorited by hincandenza. I felt like I should have gotten some sort of Achievement Unlocked message.
posted by burnmp3s at 8:55 AM on August 16, 2012 [30 favorites]

that doesn't change the fact that you've made 20+ comments here, many of which have the tone of someone who's speaking to an audience that has their back and knows it.

20 out of 600+ really isn't all that much....

Regardless of whether I side with hincandeza's views or yours, I feel like you and the other folks responding to him are the ones who're operating from a position of power here, and for many people, a bully situation is all about those dynamics, regardless of who is on the right or wrong end of things.

Quite frankly, the first few times I remember speaking to hincanadenza, I was making an honest attempt to reason with him in a sincere effort to be supportive. My efforts were repeatedly and aggressively smacked down.

I would posit that what you see as "bullying" is more like the frustrations of people who've tried reaching out to help and had that flung in our faces, and so we're done.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 8:55 AM on August 16, 2012

And I don't mean "the first few times I remember speaking to hincandenza" in this thread. I'm talking ever in life.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 8:57 AM on August 16, 2012

If I ever air in opinion on this site as clearly bad and outright hurtful to others as sexism or racism, then I absolutely hope a mod will shut me down before I cause any more damage to the other members of the site.

This is a very poorly thought-out comment in my opinion because it implies that racism and sexism are always clear. You strongly need to learn that most of the examples of such are in fact opinions that vary by culture and person.

For example, Turkey denies to this day that the Armenian Genocide was in fact a genocide. If I refer to it as such, am I being racist towards people of Turkish Ethicity?

Likewise, several passages of major religious text such as Islam are deeply disrespectful of woman's rights. If we criticize Islam for these passages, are we being Islamophobes? Or are we in fact being sexist by NOT criticizing Islam?

The idea that racism or sexism are largely clear-cut and "obvious" is completely laughable and implies a very simplistic view of such topics.
posted by wolfdreams01 at 8:57 AM on August 16, 2012 [7 favorites]

gilrain: "However, it's not unfair of me to be disappointed that the line between "everything is permitted" and "say something gross and you're banned" is drawn to the "everything" side of "consistent, repeated, clearly sexist attacks on mefite women and feminists". I would prefer that it be drawn on the "banned" side."

As a fan of democracy and free speech, I find your continued insistance on turning this discussion into a referendum on eas98's posting history, with the implication that he should be banned for it, rather fascistic and increasingly offensive to my sensibilities. And yet, it's allowed, long after the mods have addressed it, because that's how the site works. You don't have to like everyone here.
posted by mkultra at 8:58 AM on August 16, 2012 [9 favorites]

Regardless of whether I side with hincandeza's views or yours, I feel like you and the other folks responding to him are the ones who're operating from a position of power here, and for many people, a bully situation is all about those dynamics, regardless of who is on the right or wrong end of things.

I don't think I understand this. Every member here has the power to type things and then press "post", right? Nobody is physically stronger than anyone else, or able to stop other people from typing things and pressing "send", or able to delete posts.

Basically I don't understand what the equivalent of smushing someone against their locker is supposed to be...
posted by running order squabble fest at 8:59 AM on August 16, 2012

Yeah, gilrain, you're being terrible and obnoxious and at behaving at least as badly as the folks you're railing against.
posted by to sir with millipedes at 9:00 AM on August 16, 2012

I don't think I understand this. Every member here has the power to type things and then press "post", right? Nobody is physically stronger than anyone else, or able to stop other people from typing things and pressing "send", or able to delete posts.

Basically I don't understand what the equivalent of smushing someone against their locker is supposed to be...
posted by running order squabble fest at 4:59 PM on August 16 [+] [!]

A pile on.
posted by Reggie Knoble at 9:01 AM on August 16, 2012 [1 favorite]

First, this is a horrible meta. OP needs to look in the mirror and think about the path he has chosen.

That mans rights stuff is ridiculous. Posters like Pogo_Fuzzybutt are most representative of what I think is a great way to bring up shitty things that happen in a responsible way, at the complete other end of the spectrum (away from the mra nonsense).

I don't care about people saying "get a shark". Whoopie do.
This place isn't and never will be a girlzone. Never.
I'm also adding to the folks who have experienced Microsoft and know it has its sexism.
American society is, as has been said, structurally sexist. It isn't even a question.
(forgive me for responding to each thing, I just read through the whole thread)

I'm kind of in zarq's footsteps, not wanting to be lumped in with jackasses who assert ridiculous things such as these. This is a separate but related discussion, but I did run into issues in the creepy dude thread and it has happened before, where I thought some anti-metafilter things were happening. In that the discussion on this site rarely ends with people saying "Don't analyze what we're talking about. Don't think scientifically. That is a problem". I wanted to ask you all for help.

I resigned to just listen, so I have been. I'm just not sure how that "Don't look for causes or understanding" works with the site. Mefi will never be a girlzone but some of these threads go weird places where the accepted convention is to not analyze the problem. And the problem is universally agreed upon to be men's behavior. That shouldn't drown out women's experiences, which are more important - but in my opinion it shouldn't eliminate any real examination of men's behavior in an attempt to solve the problem.

Back to zarq's comments in this thread, I stopped posting in that thread because I would be crushed to be repeatedly lumped in with or even anywhere near men's rights people. I almost did the same thing as zarq, linking to places on metafilter where I literally called out creepy behavior, or to posts I've made about sexism and disparities in American society. Not because I want past on the back, but because I am not one of those mra dipshits, am the opposite of them, and actually trying to attack and solve the problems.

Unfortunately I hit a sticking point when trying to explain my personal thoughts, based on my experience, about what drives creepy men's behavior. And the explanation in my opinion is shitty choices men make and it is no fault of any woman, period. I get the "don't make it about you" problem. I get that. I am not a geek defender or a man defender. I also agree that it is important to just listen many times, and suggested as much in that thread, but was told that was not really the case there.

So I am looking for insight on how to proceed with what is usually metafilter-like behavior - analyzing behavior and providing links - but is causing problems and angering people in a few of those threads. And if the answer is "your thoughts and analysis are not wanted or needed", then I guess I have to take that for what it's worth. I hope that placing this here isn't a derail, but if it is, please memail me instead of responding here. In basketball when two teammates go for a rebound and start fighting for it, a teammate or one of the two will call out "same team!", so the teammates aren't fighting one another. So I'm basically calling "same team" here, so I'm not fighting with my teammates, and instead we're focused on beating sexism.

And lastly, this is a silly callout. Mefi is not and will never be a girlzone.
posted by cashman at 9:03 AM on August 16, 2012 [8 favorites]

I am not sure it is wise to redefine a pile-on as being bullying. Sometimes you are just going against the prevailing currents, and so you will get more than a single response. We have no mechanism for selecting one person as our representative. And so, if you say something that a lot of people are likely to disagree with, you are likely to get a lot of disagreement.

This is not the same thing as bullying. It may seem a little unfair if you're not on the side of the current, but, then, what's fair? A person has a nonmainstream opinion -- and one that is sometimes hurtful to other members. We can't go through and ask for parity in opinions, and we can't ask people not to be hurt, or not to express their hurt.
posted by Bunny Ultramod at 9:05 AM on August 16, 2012 [13 favorites]

My understanding of the current moderation regime is that tone matters a lot more than content, which I think is as it should be. This comment is my expression of support for that approach. I am not persuaded that people should be prevented from expressing minority opinions, even racist or sexist ones (for example), as long as they do so without what I believe is referred to as "grar."
posted by prefpara at 9:05 AM on August 16, 2012

Jesus, am I? I really hate to come across that way.

I actually think the criticism of you was meant ironically.
posted by Bunny Ultramod at 9:06 AM on August 16, 2012 [1 favorite]

I am not sure it is wise to redefine a pile-on as being bullying. Sometimes you are just going against the prevailing currents, and so you will get more than a single response. We have no mechanism for selecting one person as our representative. And so, if you say something that a lot of people are likely to disagree with, you are likely to get a lot of disagreement.

This is not the same thing as bullying. It may seem a little unfair if you're not on the side of the current, but, then, what's fair? A person has a nonmainstream opinion -- and one that is sometimes hurtful to other members. We can't go through and ask for parity in opinions, and we can't ask people not to be hurt, or not to express their hurt.
posted by Bunny Ultramod at 5:05 PM on August 16 [+] [!]

It depends on exactly what is said but if you want to see some examples a pile on is the place to look.
posted by Reggie Knoble at 9:07 AM on August 16, 2012

> I don't want to put words in anyone else's mouth, but this is basically the "fair and balanced, tell both sides" approach to issues like racism and sexism. Namely, that someone saying that when you get tired of bitchy, uppity American women you can just get a Latin one (racist and sexist, yay) is a minority opinion, just like thinking the US should go back to the gold standard, and not an inherently nasty and hurtful thing to say about other members of the site.

So your position is that anybody who says anything nasty and hurtful about other members of the site—and presumably you would take the word of those members that it was nasty and hurtful—should be banned?
posted by languagehat at 9:14 AM on August 16, 2012 [1 favorite]

(Also, am I the only person imagining the poster of the original AskMe getting an actual shark?)
posted by running order squabble fest at 9:15 AM on August 16, 2012 [3 favorites]

Accurately pointing out something shitty someone has said or done, or has a history of doing, does not equal bullying, or silencing, or oppression.
posted by elizardbits at 9:15 AM on August 16, 2012 [7 favorites]

> Jesus, am I? I really hate to come across that way.

Like Bunny Ultramod, I think that was meant ironically. I sure hope so, because if it was serious it was deeply stupid.
posted by languagehat at 9:15 AM on August 16, 2012

The idea that racism or sexism are largely clear-cut and "obvious" is completely laughable and implies a very simplistic view of such topics.

OK, but for real, this is not an issue with the kinds of comments eas98 has made in this thread and elsewhere. Just because there can be murky examples of racism or sexism doesn't mean that we need to pretend that bright-line examples are murky.

The mods have a difficult juggling act to do, here. On the one hand, it's not their job to enforce Good And Correct behavior, or to make choices about whose views about the kinds of murky issues you describe are Good And Correct. But on the other hand, the creeping microaggressive hostility bullshit does have a chilling effect on members of the site, and that's pretty clearly something that the moderators DO want to do something about. I haven't been a member here that long -- three years? -- but the sexism stuff has improved from my perspective even in that time, and when I go back and read threads from 2007 or 2004 or whatever, it's like a slap in the face how much chillingly awful sexism was slung around this joint.

It's hard. From my observations, what's been most successful is when people are willing to flag or push back on stuff in-thread. As more people are realizing that actually reading this stuff is NOT just the cost of being on the internet, they speak up and say "No, this isn't OK with me, you're being a jerk." And we have this conversation more and more, and the tenor of the place slowly changes; both because some people stop talking, AND because some people stop being awful. I know the latter exists because when I do go back and read old threads, some of the gutwrenching comments are said by really surprising people, people who would not only not say that today but would in fact call out other people who used language like that.

I don't know what the answer is. Overall, I think Metafilter does a pretty good job of trending in the right direction in an organic and crowd-supported way, but I definitely feel the frustration of having the choice be to either roll with the shitty microaggression, or call it out myself and brace myself for the inevitable fight. I'm kind of a loudmouth who enjoys a good dustup, so the second option isn't always a bad one for me, but I know that other people will feel differently.
posted by KathrynT at 9:15 AM on August 16, 2012 [13 favorites]

Privileged people interpret attempts at equalization as being anti-them. No matter what, it's always about them.
posted by El Sabor Asiatico at 9:21 AM on August 16, 2012 [13 favorites]

Yeah, I mean. Giving others the same rights you have doesn't take anything away from you. (the general you, not you personally ESA. obvsly but this is the internets so.)
posted by elizardbits at 9:23 AM on August 16, 2012 [1 favorite]

This is a separate but related discussion, but I did run into issues in the creepy dude thread and it has happened before, where I thought some anti-metafilter things were happening. In that the discussion on this site rarely ends with people saying "Don't analyze what we're talking about. Don't think scientifically. That is a problem". I wanted to ask you all for help.

I was in that thread and it was pissing me off royally, because some men in the thread were insisting that analyzing the behavior of creepers was the problem when the whole OP link was about how the men around creeper dudes enable them, and how not to be that enabling dude when your women friends are dealing with a creeper. Since my experience is that a lot of these creeper dudes are deliberate predators, to me moving that conversation to "what about the mindset of the creeper?" is a total fucking derail and is frequently (not suggesting in your case) a jackass move designed to get the man saying it off the hook for enabling predators and people who make my life miserable.

Also it verges on being mansplaining in the strict definition when the women in a thread are saying "x is the problem" and men in the thread are explaining to them that "y is the problem". No, the fact that creepers exist is a problem, but the problem we're talking about in that thread (or were) is enabling creepers and please don't tell me enabling creepers (and other misogynists) isn't the problem when I have so many examples of how it is a huge problem in my own life. /rant over
posted by immlass at 9:24 AM on August 16, 2012 [10 favorites]

Its still mansplaining even when the subject of the thread is men and male behaviour?
posted by Reggie Knoble at 9:26 AM on August 16, 2012 [1 favorite]

Its still mansplaining even when the subject of the thread is men and male behaviour?

It's mansplaining when you tell me (a woman) what my problem is, yeah. That's exactly mansplaining: using your privilege as a man to override my lived experience as a woman.
posted by immlass at 9:29 AM on August 16, 2012 [25 favorites]

It depends how it's done. If you're negating what women are saying about their personal experiences, then yes, it can be. If you're giving a male perspective while understanding that it's just that -- a perspective -- than no, that can be helpful, if it's appropriate and doesn't override what women are saying.
posted by The corpse in the library at 9:30 AM on August 16, 2012 [1 favorite]

The "lived experience" thing can be tricky, of course -- once everyone's subjective lived experience has to be given equal credit, then you're kind of stuck with also having to accept a lot of the shit that comes out of the men's rights folks mouths, because that too is how they see their own 'lived experience'.
posted by modernnomad at 9:32 AM on August 16, 2012 [3 favorites]

I would posit that what you see as "bullying" is more like the frustrations of people who've tried reaching out to help and had that flung in our faces and so we're done.

I can understand that. I've been in the same boat here on MeTa many times, and seen it play out here under many variations (My responses have usually ranged from fairish to the truly shitty). I agree with Bunny Ultramod that it's not a good idea to automatically define the subject of a pile-on as a victim of bullying, though similar dynamics are at work in both situations. But here in this MeTa, there are people participating with power and a social mandate. I don't think hincandeza has either of those things.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 9:39 AM on August 16, 2012 [4 favorites]

*shrug* I've been the target of what felt like a pile-on, and not once did I feel like the people who were locking horns with me should have stood down; if anything, I was wishing more that the people who emailed me messages of support had spoken up. I always had the option of walking away, and I finally used it, just like hincandenza also did.

Maybe the way to stop "pileons" isn't through discouraging talk, but through encouraging newer posters.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 9:43 AM on August 16, 2012 [1 favorite]

For example, Turkey denies to this day that the Armenian Genocide was in fact a genocide. If I refer to it as such, am I being racist towards people of Turkish Ethicity?

The government of Turkey are racist towards Armenians.

Likewise, several passages of major religious text such as Islam are deeply disrespectful of woman's rights. If we criticize Islam for these passages, are we being Islamophobes? Or are we in fact being sexist by NOT criticizing Islam?

If you only criticize Islam and not other religions which also have many sexist passages in their texts, then yes you are being Islamophobic. If you don't criticize all religions which have sexist religious texts, then yes you are being sexist.

Next?
posted by kmz at 9:44 AM on August 16, 2012 [2 favorites]

kmz, there is no one unified field theory of offensiveness or anything, no matter how hard you may try to make it be so.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 9:50 AM on August 16, 2012 [2 favorites]

I think there is an interesting distinction though if you look at eas98s comments. He's posted some vile stuff on the blue minimising sexual assault - but it's a debate board, nasty minority opinions are matters for debate. Where I think it gets highly questionable though, is him taking his sexism and misogyny into askmefi and attacking women who have had the courage to speak up about sexism and domestic violence - sometimes in very abusive terms. In this meta he attacks people trying to help a woman in a bad marital situation where she is at a disadvantage, and by extension attacks all of us for not being anti-woman enough in our askmefi answers for his taste. I think that is really deeply creepy and messed up and a problem for the mods to mull over and consider. I can't see how it is helpful or good for people asking questions about divorce or sexism to be attacked by someone with this kind of posting history.
posted by Flitcraft at 9:51 AM on August 16, 2012 [21 favorites]

A good point, Flitcraft, and that's precisely why we have the flagging system.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 9:52 AM on August 16, 2012

The "lived experience" thing can be tricky, of course -- once everyone's subjective lived experience has to be given equal credit, then you're kind of stuck with also having to accept a lot of the shit that comes out of the men's rights folks mouths, because that too is how they see their own 'lived experience'.

Yes, but: what the "lived experience" model helpfully does is confine a person's comments to their own actual experience, as one individual. Now, that experience could be extremely unusual, placing them out on an unlucky fringe of society; it could be a slightly less random and bizarre thing of which there might be a small minority of people who have that experience in common, or it could be the unhinged ravings of a self-deluder or paranoiac.

What happens then is that we can compare the personal, lived experience with the experiences of others and begin to see patterns and determine how widespread these experiences are. That's when we can start to see broad, powerful societal mechanisms that do this or do that to people.

The truth of lived experience is true for that person, but it isn't a powerful social force unless it's something that is also reported as true by many, many people, in strikingly similar ways. This was the entire principle behind the consciousness-raising groups of the early women's movement: turning the personal into the political, understanding that it wasn't just that "you are bad at math," or "you're a prude/slut" as an individual (to give a super simple example, I'm rushing), but that you were the target of much larger and widely held stereotypes that have been used across populations to coerce and control behavior.

So a guy is free to say his own lived experience is that of being persecuted by the raging, triumphant feminists of today's changed world. And he might really feel that. But unless we start to see him backed up by a large number of other men who say "You know, that happened to me too, and I'm going to join you in speaking out against it," it falls back into perspective as probably a rather unique issue which may be largely attributed to more individual-level causes.

This is also why it really is so helpful, when someone starts spouting shit like that, for other men to say "Huh, I really can't say that's been my experience." When other men remain silent, it appears to women, and also to the men claiming persecution, that they have the quiet support of the majority. Only when members of that seeming majority step out of the circle of complicity and say, in larger numbers, "that's not the way I see it" does it powerfully communicate that that perspective is more idiosyncratic.
posted by Miko at 9:55 AM on August 16, 2012 [45 favorites]

* nodding at Miko *

And to go back to what cashman was saying above -- listening to how many women are speaking it is indeed what we wish you'd do, rather than analyzing or trying to help, because that's exactly what we're trying to collectively do. Hearing our individual stories is only part of it -- hearing just how many of them there are is the rest of what we wish you'd do, because hearing how many of them there are is what helped a lot of us start getting past the "maybe it's just me" roadblock to realizing "wait, no, it's NOT just me and it's REALLY FUCKED UP."

That's how just sitting and listening will help. Because the more stories you hear, the more you'll be aware of it as a general overall situation. Others in here have said that men simply aren't tuned into that kind of gender inequity on a subtle level; and understandably so, because you haven't been subjected to it to the overwhelming extent we have. Listening to more and more accounts of women's experiences is how you can become more aware of it.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 10:01 AM on August 16, 2012 [4 favorites]

The "lived experience" thing can be tricky, of course

Oh, yeah, absolutely. But there were a bunch of women posting lived experience in that thread about social support for creepers and how difficult creepers made their lives particularly when they got no backup from people around them, and then we got a bunch of "be nice to poor socially maladjusted dudes". It was almost a textbook case of women being afraid of serious harm (in this case, sexual assault/molestation) vs men being afraid of being laughed at, multiplied by actual harms having happened to women and theoretical harms happening to men.

When other men remain silent, it appears to women, and also to the men claiming persecution, that they have the quiet support of the majority.

Yes, thank you. Which also ties back nicely into the topic of that thread, about how social support, particularly from men, enables creepers/predators to do their thing. I'm heartened by how many men speak up around here to support women and distance themselves from anti-feminists and outright misogynists. I'm glad and grateful that they have my back.
posted by immlass at 10:05 AM on August 16, 2012 [11 favorites]

People are perfectly capable of reading in one moment and then typing in the next.

You don't need to literally sit in silence without contributing in order to read what has been read.
posted by Reggie Knoble at 10:07 AM on August 16, 2012 [1 favorite]

When I first heard of a group for men's rights I thought "Hey, yah, there are a lot of problems everyone dismisses like how it used to be illegal for women to wear pants, but no one has ever fought for the right for men to wear dresses, and when I worked at Hallmark as a teenager they refused to hire a male manager because "what would a man want to work in a cards and gifts store, hahaha" and I got stuck with this awful (female) manager who never showed up on time."

But then it turned out that's not what they are about at all.
posted by Dynex at 10:08 AM on August 16, 2012 [5 favorites]

*said*
posted by Reggie Knoble at 10:08 AM on August 16, 2012

Where I think it gets highly questionable though, is him taking his sexism and misogyny into askmefi and attacking women who have had the courage to speak up about sexism and domestic violence - sometimes in very abusive terms.

Which, flag that shit when you see it, drop us a line if it's more complicated somehow. But take into account that the system seems to be more or less working on that front; there's a couple more recent deleted things, there's Catch's two askme examples from five and seven years ago.

I think people sometimes (a) have shitty opinions and (b) show poor judgement in how they engage on ask (and other parts of the site, obviously) but that's why we have a flagging system and the ability to delete stuff and why we talk to people about their behavior, in public and private. We'd rather make it work with someone than give up on them, and obviously that has to be a two way street but short of banning someone what we have is working with them, and banning is not done by popular vote.

In this meta he attacks people trying to help a woman in a bad marital situation where she is at a disadvantage, and by extension attacks all of us for not being anti-woman enough in our askmefi answers for his taste.

And gets a bunch of very clear pushback on that, from the userbase at large and from mods specifically. Again, it is not always exactly pretty but this is the system pretty much working as intended.
posted by cortex (staff) at 10:09 AM on August 16, 2012 [2 favorites]

I'm really glad you're aware of it, I did think about the two most egregious examples being a while back but the fact that this meta was being made indicated that the problem was still there, but if the mods are looking out for this sort of thing, that's a big relief. Perhaps the reason the worst comments are so far back is because people are more willing to flag and stuff like that is being caught.
posted by Flitcraft at 10:19 AM on August 16, 2012

Perhaps the reason the worst comments are so far back is because people are more willing to flag and stuff like that is being caught.

I think this is largely true. A quick skim through catch's list shows a bunch of stuff that would not only be flagged to hell but likely end up in Metatalk if we didn't delete it, which we would - the usual caveat about stuff getting responded to before being flagged likely doesn't apply, because people do flag egregious sexism like mad.

The more subtle stuff is harder - harder to recognize, and harder to fix by deletion. In many cases I think it's more productive for the site as a whole for stuff to be explicitly called out and refuted by multiple people, which is usually what happens. It does strike me that very often, the pile-on-ees in sexism or rape threads are new-ish users, not old hands - people who hang out here for a while learn that certain things, like minimizing rape, attacking the victim's credibility, or things of that nature are received very, very negatively. And that's progress, of a sort.

(And sometimes when I am feeling particularly vicious and the comment is on the exact right place on the spectrum I will think "I am going to let that stand as a record of how much of an ass you are being right now." Fortunately that particular confluence doesn't happen often.)
posted by restless_nomad (staff) at 10:27 AM on August 16, 2012

Also, this probably is just me, but I am now hearing eas98, with the voice of Robert Shaw, doing Quint's speech from Jaws:

Very first light, Chief, feminists come cruisin', so we formed ourselves into tight groups. You know, it was kinda like old squares in battles - like you see in the calendar, named "The Battle of Waterloo" - and the idea was: feminist comes to the nearest man, that man he starts poundin' and hollerin' and screamin' and sometimes the feminist will go away... but sometimes she wouldn't go away. Sometimes that feminist, she looks right into ya. Right into your eyes. And, you know, the thing about a feminist... she's got lifeless eyes. Black eyes. Like a doll's eyes. When she comes at ya, doesn't seem to be living... until she bites ya, and those black eyes roll over white and then... ah then you hear that terrible high-pitched screamin'. The ocean turns red, and despite all the poundin' and the hollerin', they all come in and they... rip you to pieces.
posted by running order squabble fest at 10:33 AM on August 16, 2012 [9 favorites]

People are perfectly capable of reading in one moment and then typing in the next. You don't need to literally sit in silence without contributing in order to read what has been read.

I think many of the complaints, Reggie, come from the fact that what the men in that thread WERE trying to say were actually not helpful, because they were not addressing the problem at hand. And, if the men had been indeed really and fully listening, they would have UNDERSTOOD that what they were saying was not helpful. Hence the "WE JUST WANT YOU TO LISTEN RATHER THAN FEELING LIKE YOU HAVE TO JUMP IN AND HELP" complaints.

If you want to chalk it up to a gender difference, then: sometimes women do complain because we DO want to simply be heard and acknowledged rather than helped, and if you jump in and try to help that means you're not giving us what we need. So if you're saying something like "but have you considered that maybe the guy is just [foo]" and not saying something like "wow, that must really suck, I'm sorry," you're gonna get pushback of the sort you're complaining about.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 10:38 AM on August 16, 2012 [2 favorites]

(And sometimes when I am feeling particularly vicious and the comment is on the exact right place on the spectrum I will think "I am going to let that stand as a record of how much of an ass you are being right now." Fortunately that particular confluence doesn't happen often.)

I didn't flag a comment today, for exactly that reason. It got deleted - I assume someone else flagged it. It is probably for the best.
posted by the man of twists and turns at 10:41 AM on August 16, 2012

y'all banned Faze

I assumed he just returned to his home dimension.
posted by Egg Shen at 10:58 AM on August 16, 2012 [15 favorites]

sometimes women do complain because we DO want to simply be heard and acknowledged rather than helped, and if you jump in and try to help that means you're not giving us what we need.

That's why keeping silent is the safest course of action. Might not be the best for everyone, and it might make the group I'm supposedly a member of seem uncaring, but you can't hear me nodding. I daresay you don't need my support or validation in any case.

There's a narrow path somewhere in there, and I've fallen off it by even addressing the verges.
posted by Ice Cream Socialist at 10:58 AM on August 16, 2012 [1 favorite]

That's why keeping silent is the safest course of action. Might not be the best for everyone, and it might make the group I'm supposedly a member of seem uncaring, but you can't hear me nodding.

...I respect your consideration, but monklike silence isn't exactly necessary. Especially when there's a guy who's Not Getting It. Particularly when the complaint on the floor is "man, so many guys just keep silent and let the jerks get away with it."
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 11:04 AM on August 16, 2012 [4 favorites]

*nods*
posted by Ice Cream Socialist at 11:05 AM on August 16, 2012 [1 favorite]

I'm still, today, a bit disappointed to learn the the mods take the "fair and balanced, tell both sides" approach to issues like racism and sexism

If we don't at least listen to the opinions of those who differ with us, then we will be arguing with straw men made up in our heads, much as we often accuse those on "the other side" of doing.
When we disagree with someone, often we say, "did you even READ what I wrote?" Be the change you wish to see, etc.
posted by L'Estrange Fruit at 11:07 AM on August 16, 2012 [6 favorites]

Faze was banned?
posted by griphus at 11:18 AM on August 16, 2012

kmz, there is no one unified field theory of offensiveness or anything, no matter how hard you may try to make it be so.

Well yes, obviously. I was being glib and somewhat flip. (Flib? Glip?)

But I do think there's often way too much equivocation in these kind of things. Witness all the people (not here for the most part, thankfully) saying that Dan Cathy merely has "different opinions" that we should "respectfully disagree" with instead of calling him the bigoted asshole that he is.
posted by kmz at 11:18 AM on August 16, 2012 [1 favorite]

Actually, before we all start thinking that Capitol Hill in Seattle is some sort of uber-enlightened neighborhood -- I and a friend of mine were cat-called there two weeks ago.

I grew up in Seattle, hung out on Capitol Hill since I was old enough to catch the bus by myself, and lived on the Hill for most of my adult life. It's not going too far out on a limb to say that it is one of the more tolerant, liberal neighborhoods in the entire country.

So it usually comes as a surprise to most that along with the University District, Capitol Hill has the highest instances of rape and sexual assault in the city. Or at least it did when I was working on community outreach programs with the SPD east precinct.
posted by billyfleetwood at 11:19 AM on August 16, 2012 [11 favorites]

It sounds like what you want is for men who agree with you to speak up and men who disagree or just don't agree entirely to pipe down.

No thread is the property of any one group and no thread is (or should be) anyones soapbox.

If discussion is to be defined so narrowly then perhaps a blog that deals with that subject specifically rather than a generalist site is the best option.
posted by Reggie Knoble at 11:21 AM on August 16, 2012 [1 favorite]

griphus: Faze was banned?

Yeah, that's a banning that I firmly disagree with.
posted by gman at 11:23 AM on August 16, 2012 [1 favorite]

Reggie, if I give you the last word in our specific interchange will that make you happy?

*chucks you under chin* Is that what you want, kiddo? Just let me know.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 11:24 AM on August 16, 2012 [1 favorite]

*chucks you under chin* Is that what you want, kiddo? Just let me know.

This doesn't help constructive dialogue within the community.
posted by modernnomad at 11:25 AM on August 16, 2012 [16 favorites]

Even if, like you, he doesn't know when to stop, he probably doesn't need to be condescended to in such a ridiculous manner.
posted by gman at 11:25 AM on August 16, 2012 [11 favorites]

This doesn't help constructive dialogue within the community.

Neither do testy little snarks that "it SOUNDS like what you want is for everyone to agree with you."
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 11:26 AM on August 16, 2012 [3 favorites]

Two wrongs etc....
posted by modernnomad at 11:27 AM on August 16, 2012 [2 favorites]

Okay, but I really can't see why Reggie is so insistent upon claiming the right to Speak The Male Perspective in threads that deal with female experience.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 11:29 AM on August 16, 2012 [1 favorite]

high roads are for suckers, amirite?
posted by boo_radley at 11:29 AM on August 16, 2012 [3 favorites]

oh dammit, I just got elizardbitsed.
posted by boo_radley at 11:30 AM on August 16, 2012 [5 favorites]

Hey, I'll be in Scotland afore ye.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 11:30 AM on August 16, 2012 [4 favorites]

Because as soon as the first comment in the entire thread was a crack about "mensrights", that was kind of inevitable.
posted by modernnomad at 11:31 AM on August 16, 2012 [1 favorite]

Except y'all banned Faze.

I was newly on board when this went down but I can say with confidence that Faze was not banned simply for having an outsider opinion.

Another thing that strikes me as weird is how the mods here will weigh in on topical/opinionated discussions

This is a tricky thing, especially here. Some communities, the mods are mods by fiat - they're hired from outside, they do their jobs by the numbers, and while they develop a connection to the community it's always one-way. That is not how Metafilter is run - all of the mods were community members first, and remain community members after being brought on as employees. Our status informs our participation, for sure - we're all really unlikely to get into a shouty fight on the blue or make deletable jokes on the green, just because we are more hyper-aware of conversational dynamics as well as the rules. But we're all members with our own interests and opinions, and of course that informs our participation too. I think the mod staff as it stands doesn't participate much in the most heated of threads, but we don't have a mandate to avoid them, either.

And I personally think it's useful to be visible on some topics - visible as gay, visible as female, visible as Jewish, adopted, whatever. Because of my mod status, I can help set the tone that these subgroups are open, accepted, and welcome here more than the average user can. I don't get into arguments much, but I am also not going to refrain from commenting, because my being invisible and unknowable is actually a net negative for the site in a couple of different ways.
posted by restless_nomad (staff) at 11:32 AM on August 16, 2012 [23 favorites]

This is a deeply disappointing thread that I wish had been closed up early on for being a useless post, but now it's the kind of thing the mods really can't close without a couple of ass-aches complaining that's a tacit endorsement of the other side. There are a lot of posters I really like being unnecessarily inflammatory because they can. Man/ women/ transgendered/ whatever, "Sing When You're Winning" is an even worse philosophy of life than it is an album.
posted by yerfatma at 11:38 AM on August 16, 2012 [3 favorites]

oh shit, you did not just diss Robbie Williams.
posted by jacalata at 11:41 AM on August 16, 2012 [3 favorites]

Just a thought for those who feel that allowing sexist/racist/nasty things to exist on the site makes it an unwelcoming place for those in the attacked groups: every time I've seen a hateful remark on Meta, I've seen a dozen people taking the poster to task. That doesn't make me feel threatened, rather it makes me feel safer, because so many people have my back.
posted by L'Estrange Fruit at 11:42 AM on August 16, 2012 [9 favorites]

Afroblanco: "Except y'all banned Faze."

My impression was that he was banned because he was disruptive. Not just for having an outsider opinion. He was basically a read-only, hit and run user who would make inflammatory comments that invariably started massive arguments and left threads in an uproar.

A bunch of people who have been banned (faze, joannemullen, lon mem, trurl, faze, optimus chyme) weren't just folks with dissenting opinions. They were considered a disruptive influence by the mods.
posted by zarq at 11:46 AM on August 16, 2012

Oh, and thanks for clarifying, cortex. Good to know.
posted by zarq at 11:46 AM on August 16, 2012

Point of order:

A bunch of people who have been banned (faze, joannemullen, lon mem, trurl, faze, optimus chyme) weren't just folks with dissenting opinions. They were considered a disruptive influence by the mods.

I'm not certain those posters were all banned as such. I know Optimus Chyme actually left of his own volition.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 11:47 AM on August 16, 2012

EC, then he came back and got banned.
posted by ocherdraco at 11:48 AM on August 16, 2012

"It sounds like what you want is for men who agree with you to speak up and men who disagree or just don't agree entirely to pipe down."

This wasn't directed at me, and I try to not let myself do this, but ... Honestly? I want men (or whomever) who are wrong to stop being wrong. I realize this is naive, and I realize is actively childish to think that arguing loudest and longest so everyone else gives up is not actually changing anybody's mind, but it's not that I want people to shut up about their dissent; it's that I want their minds to have been changed and the world to be better!

I think people who keep responding to an argument like this and telling the same people why they're wrong over and over aren't trying to silence others; they're trying desperately to convince them.

I just stopped myself from arguing like this a couple days ago when I had dinner with my most Republican friend who was all enthusiastic about Paul Ryan and was being Lord Wrongley of Wrongton Abbey about it, and saying all this crazy stuff about the budget that just isn't even in the same neighborhood as True. But I realized we'd just spend the next hour going, "WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG! WRONGY WRONG WRONG." at each other if I did, and I wouldn't have ever convinced him.

Anyway. Sometimes it's worth fighting the good fight, I think especially in a public forum like this. Other times it's worth dropping it. I think rope-rider and others in this thread are grown-ups who can decide that for themselves.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 11:48 AM on August 16, 2012 [14 favorites]

optimus chyme is "on the reserve", isn't he?
posted by boo_radley at 11:49 AM on August 16, 2012

EC, then he came back and got banned.

Really? Huh. 'kay, my bad.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 11:49 AM on August 16, 2012

Did furiousxgeorge hit the big red button himself?
posted by the_artificer at 11:50 AM on August 16, 2012

EmpressCallipygos: " I'm not certain those posters were all banned as such. I know Optimus Chyme actually left of his own volition.

*shrug* The rest then.

Faze was banned.
joannemullen "self closed" and is apparently not welcome back.
Trurl was banned.
Lon Mem was banned.
posted by zarq at 11:51 AM on August 16, 2012

He came back under a fairly obvious sockpuppet and subsequently got banned, iirc.
posted by elizardbits at 11:52 AM on August 16, 2012

And that one dude who hated Allie Brosh got banned.
posted by elizardbits at 11:53 AM on August 16, 2012

And that European dude with the expensive face creams.
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 11:53 AM on August 16, 2012 [6 favorites]

the_artificer: "Did furiousxgeorge hit the big red button himself?"

Aw shit. He said he was skirting the edge of a permaban a couple of weeks ago.
posted by zarq at 11:53 AM on August 16, 2012

Did furiousxgeorge hit the big red button himself?

Oh damn, he was just here. What happened there?
posted by cashman at 11:53 AM on August 16, 2012

Oh damn, he was just here. What happened there?

I don't want to go into a ton of detail but the short version is there was a bunch of stuff we had asked him to stop doing and he wasn't able to stop (both on the site and on the back end.)
posted by restless_nomad (staff) at 11:56 AM on August 16, 2012

the_artificer: Did furiousxgeorge hit the big red button himself?

Technically yes, but there was waterboarding involved, and as you can tell by the time stamps on his comments, sleep deprivation as well.
posted by gman at 11:58 AM on August 16, 2012

And that one dude who hated Allie Brosh got banned.

That was performance art.
posted by the man of twists and turns at 11:59 AM on August 16, 2012 [2 favorites]

Didn't he creepily threaten cortex in a MeTa as well though? Or something?
posted by elizardbits at 12:04 PM on August 16, 2012

Aw, man. I liked furiousxgeorge.
posted by Sticherbeast at 12:15 PM on August 16, 2012 [8 favorites]

Me too. :(
posted by zarq at 12:20 PM on August 16, 2012

Wow, that's a huge shame. I knew he'd been given a timeout, wasn't aware of the ban.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 12:25 PM on August 16, 2012

He made quite a few good posts but he seemed frequently cross over into disruptive when he'd decide he wanted to have an argument.
posted by the_artificer at 12:26 PM on August 16, 2012

And that European dude with the expensive face creams.

That sounds like Zambrano.
posted by triggerfinger at 12:30 PM on August 16, 2012 [4 favorites]

Or Zumpano.
posted by box at 12:32 PM on August 16, 2012 [1 favorite]

Tao Lin got banned and all he ever wanted was our love.
posted by shakespeherian at 12:43 PM on August 16, 2012 [2 favorites]

Didn't he creepily threaten cortex in a MeTa as well though? Or something?

Are you talking about this? (If nothing else I am deeply amused that it appears to be cortex's most-favorited comment.)
posted by restless_nomad (staff) at 12:44 PM on August 16, 2012

I liked furiousxgeorge.

I hope he'll be back.
posted by Egg Shen at 12:49 PM on August 16, 2012

restless_nomad: “Are you talking about this? (If nothing else I am deeply amused that it appears to be cortex's most-favorited comment.)”

As I recall, cortex was (maybe is?) more than a little unamused about that. Maybe he's gotten over it.
posted by koeselitz at 1:02 PM on August 16, 2012

oh dammit, I just got elizardbitsed.

The proper term is "elizardblitzed"
posted by Slap*Happy at 1:27 PM on August 16, 2012 [5 favorites]

Not elizardbitten? Verb conjugation, yo.
posted by phunniemee at 1:32 PM on August 16, 2012

phunniemee: "Not elizardbitten? Verb conjugation, yo."

And here I thought that only cake and fish tacos had anything to fear in her presence......
posted by zarq at 1:34 PM on August 16, 2012

Also sammiches, I do believe.
posted by phunniemee at 1:36 PM on August 16, 2012 [1 favorite]

And that blond vampire dude, if he is afraid of love.
posted by winna at 1:38 PM on August 16, 2012 [3 favorites]

Didn't he creepily threaten cortex in a MeTa as well though? Or something?

Not that I recall, no. He has killed me several times in Tribes: Ascend, but in all fairness I was trying to steal his team's flag.

As I recall, cortex was (maybe is?) more than a little unamused about that. Maybe he's gotten over it.

Yeah, a pile of favorites for banning someone is always a weird outcome. I understand the mechanics behind it but they're not what we think of as Crowning Moment of Awesome material. It sucks when shit gets to the point of being unfixable with someone who isn't just some shitfaucet spammer.

And it's kind of a no-win thing because a conspicuous YER OUTTA HERE thing always feels weirdly public in a way I don't really like but when it happens more quietly on the back end there's this "wait you secretly banned them, wtf" thing that can come with it. But so it goes.
posted by cortex (staff) at 1:42 PM on August 16, 2012 [3 favorites]

I understand the mechanics behind it but they're not what we think of as Crowning Moment of Awesome material.

He told you to get some balls. And in a clear demonstration of testicle-having, you immediately banned his ass. Personally, I thought that was just an awesome demonstration of Darwinism in action, which could only have been made funnier if you had said, "MY BALLS, LET ME SHOW YOU THEM. SCHMUCK."
posted by zarq at 1:47 PM on August 16, 2012 [1 favorite]

I mean, I know that's not why you banned him. But it was pretty damned funny.
posted by zarq at 1:48 PM on August 16, 2012

FWIW I favourited that as a sort of sign of solidarity with you for taking the abuse, not so much because I was celebrating the other guy being banned. I obviousy can't speak for everyone else.
posted by Infinite Jest at 1:49 PM on August 16, 2012 [8 favorites]

the best response to the "balls" remark would have been to grow a pair of balls in some agar

and then to give those balls a mod status all their own
posted by Sticherbeast at 1:53 PM on August 16, 2012 [2 favorites]

I have a sword cane, but I don't have a permit for a concealed weapon. A cane with a flask, now, that would be useful. Also, do not mess with cranky arthritic ladies, we will fuck your shit up, yo. (and I'm not even a mod!) Well, yeah, isn't that the reason for the cane?
posted by theora55 at 2:02 PM on August 16, 2012

Yeah, a pile of favorites for banning someone is always a weird outcome.

I favorited that mostly because I was grateful. It was like the time I had to bounce a drunk customer out of the T-shirt shop. It was an unpleasant scene, but everyone was just so relieved when the door hit him in the ass, because it was over.
posted by Devils Rancher at 2:03 PM on August 16, 2012

"Yeah, a pile of favorites for banning someone is always a weird outcome. I understand the mechanics behind it but they're not what we think of as Crowning Moment of Awesome material. It sucks when shit gets to the point of being unfixable with someone who isn't just some shitfaucet spammer."

I did not favorite it, but I do think that that was something very much worth being proud of. Not so much the banning, which I agree was only sad, as the amazing amount of opportunity given that led up to it, even if it turned out to indeed be inevitable. I think the amount of effort put into helping folks fit in here is truly awesome, and while it might seem normal to you guys, is really a inspiring and unique thing about this place.
posted by Blasdelb at 2:05 PM on August 16, 2012 [5 favorites]

and then to give those balls a mod status all their own

Next up on the list of "Strange Potential Sockpuppet names..."
posted by CrystalDave at 2:35 PM on August 16, 2012

This whole argument would make more sense to me if there were any women on metafilter.
posted by Potomac Avenue at 2:38 PM on August 16, 2012 [5 favorites]

To those with artificial joints, upcoming hip implants, injuries, and other unfortunate events requiring canes, may I present the Cane Masters!?

My husband has one due to his two hip implants (and newly diagnosed lower back arthritis, yay!). However, after all the bullshit he's heard me spout about my ex's and crappy man experiences in general throughout my entire life, he whips out his cane and proceeds to show me what I should do if anyone ever attacks me.

I also know the proper Jason Bourne technique for stabbing a man in the throat with a pen. And many other Cold Steel knife fighting techniques, as well as a few Filipino stick fighting techniques.

Because he never, ever wants to see me put down again, mentally or physically, by anyone. Not just some white dude who espouses crap on the internet. To give me the confidence that he has, in a threatening situation, to walk away, consider that it's their problem and nothing to do with you, and no, I really don't care what other people think about me.

I was in a bad relationship for many years. It culminated in me getting shoved around. I left.

Was later invited to speak about the topic of domestic violence. Lots of stories, from women from all walks of life.

I've also heard stories from men, about what they have had to suffer. Being shoved by his wife, into a doorjamb, and now he walks on crutches due to the back injury.

People hurt each other. They hurt each other with their fists, and they hurt each other with their words. The problem with the word-hurting is that you can't see the scars, it's internal bleeding that can't be staunched. I was treated like an object for 9 years. It took me a long time to get that this other person didn't love me when he said he loved me, he, in fact, hated all women and thought nothing more of them than a dirty dish rag. I don't hate the original OP for feeling angry and disenfranchised, but I do hate that particular man who was a jerk to me, and probably still is, to other women. And I feel sad and angry for the other human beings, male and female, who blamed me for this person's misbehavior.

So my knee jerk reaction is that guys who make these sorts of comments are, in fact, pretty similar in mindset to my ex's. I don't really care why anymore, as I can't take the time to personally psychoanalyze every disenfranchised white male in the States. I just know I don't like it. It's creepy, it's dumb, and it indicates a mind that is unwilling to see both sides of any coin, let alone that hotbed of infamy: sex.
posted by Marie Mon Dieu at 2:39 PM on August 16, 2012 [3 favorites]

Also: you can totally have hot sex after hip implants.
posted by Marie Mon Dieu at 2:56 PM on August 16, 2012 [4 favorites]

Also: you can totally have hot sex after hip implants.
posted by Marie Mon Dieu at 10:56 PM on August 16 [+] [!]

Only after hip implants?
posted by Reggie Knoble at 2:58 PM on August 16, 2012 [4 favorites]

That said, I want you to think about something. It's the simplest trick in the book, but it opened my eyes way back in the day. The next few times you're in some sort of large meeting or other kind of situation where there are a number of people of both sexes, make a quick count of how many men are there and how many women there are. Once you've done that, pay attention to what the gender-split is when it comes to talking and what the percentages are. I've yet to come across a meeting where the split isn't depressing.

Oh, Kattullus -- my assistant and I went to the mini- Tools of Change (O'Reilly) publishing conference in Austin just before SXSW this year, and the very moment the panel on gender in publishing started, EVERY SINGLE GUY IN THE ROOM (save perhaps one or two) got up and left, to the point of causing a giant spike on the live Twitter-stream that could best be summarized as "WTF was THAT?" (such as...).
posted by bitter-girl.com at 3:00 PM on August 16, 2012 [9 favorites]

A little something to lighten the mood: Kate Beaton's latest comic, ATTACK OF THE STRAW FEMINISTS
posted by Doleful Creature at 3:15 PM on August 16, 2012 [14 favorites]

Holy shit is that awesome.

The balloon break at:

"You should be glad"/"to see us"

is a special kind of genius.

(I'm sure comic folk have a fancy word for that.)
posted by MCMikeNamara at 3:27 PM on August 16, 2012

Only after hip implants?

posted by Reggie Knoble at 5:58 PM on August 16

Heh. No. I have a kid who got past b/c to prove it. 1982. When my husband was my assistant, the night they asked me to run lights for the Flamenco dancers.

I walked down the aisle of the darkened theater, and spotted a man, bending over to tie his shoe. His hair fell in front of his face, and then he looked up.

I thought he was 18, but he was really 29, newly returned to Maine due to a dance injury. But he could still dance, boyo, yes he could. And he had a dancer's body.

I remember sitting on the steps of my dorm, granite cold, under the lights, talking and talking. Him sneaking into my room, and wearing my girly bathrobe to the men's wing to use their bathroom at 3 a.m.

I'd say before implants is good, as well.
posted by Marie Mon Dieu at 3:29 PM on August 16, 2012 [2 favorites]

"Which, flag that shit when you see it, drop us a line if it's more complicated somehow. But take into account that the system seems to be more or less working on that front; there's a couple more recent deleted things, there's Catch's two askme examples from five and seven years ago."


I'm glad the system is working, but I feel like the emphasis on examples from five and seven years ago might imply to some that I had to go barrel-scraping, or digging real deep to find some "dirt".
I honestly couldn't stomach spending enough time in eas98 World to put together a comprehensive gotcha comment of Misogyny's Greatest Hits - and that really wasn't the point of the exercise. I closed a lot of tabs when the taste of ashes got too strong. Anyone who cares can cast an eye over his more recent work.

Even if only a few unlucky souls get to read, flag, and delete his most egregious comments nowadays, I think this post proves that in seven years, he hasn't changed a bit.


I'm not at all for banning members like this, I'm surprised the suggestion even came up. Flag him and move on, by all means, but what the flagging system may be masking is that this is a person who all your good faith, well reasoned arguments will be wasted on.

I'd like to apologise too, for the bit of kerfuffle my post called, I haven't been around very intensively for the last *mumble mumble*, and I obviously missed the Brand New Day policy discussion.
Last time I was here, in fact, this was all fields.

And if we are going to post Kate Beaton repeatedly in this thread - Mystery Juice!
posted by Catch at 3:49 PM on August 16, 2012 [3 favorites]

called=caused, goldurnit.
posted by Catch at 3:51 PM on August 16, 2012

A little something to lighten the mood: Kate Beaton's latest comic, ATTACK OF THE STRAW FEMINISTS

Fucking awesome!!!
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 4:04 PM on August 16, 2012 [2 favorites]

And if you are, indeed, a man, I can't see how that wouldn't sound like someone lumping you in with the men who do that sort of thing all the time, and attempting to shame the baby along with the bathwater, if you will.

I get that guys who want to be allies to women and feminists really object to "mansplaining" because they think it's too broad a descriptor. However, even the best allies can trip over their own toes and end up being on the ignorant side of an explanation. I try to be a good ally to people of color and trans gendered people, but I know of cases where I cisplained and I have caught myself about to whitesplain before I deleted a post. It is easy as the privileged person to explain to someone something they have a lot more experience with, especially if you're an inveterate know-it-all, and often the less privileged person is just going to roll with it and excuse themselves instead of pointing it out. If they point it out, you're getting a gift - they think you're worth it.

A certain amount of being an ally is coming up with a way to respond to generalized critique of an institution like sexism or racism through a description of the behavior of the privileged to the less privileged that isn't being defensive and threatening to take your toys and go home because they're so mean. I'm lucky in a way; I've experienced it from both sides because I'm female but white and cis gendered - I have been the fucked-up-at and the fuckee. I've learned to own my mistakes, to be open for critique that might be barbed, and to grieve for the times I figured out - far too late - how I provided a microaggression which broke someone else.
posted by Deoridhe at 5:18 PM on August 16, 2012 [9 favorites]

ATTACK OF THE STRAW FEMINISTS

This is great. And true. I'm scared, and it's too soon.
posted by OmieWise at 5:50 PM on August 16, 2012 [1 favorite]

Yes. As a scaaaaaaaary feminist I can tell you that comic is 100% accurate.

Some of us wear sandals and don't shave. Sometimes we wear sandals and don't shave SIMULTANEOUSLY.

It's a burden, bringing about the end of civilization through hairy legs and breezy footwear, but by god somebody's got to do it.
posted by cmyk at 6:32 PM on August 16, 2012 [4 favorites]

I don't shave my legs because I am morally opposed to causing widespread suffering by forcing other people to see my horrible lower limbs.

The other day I bought some mary jane shoes with hiking boot soles off the internet. I thought they were going to be MAGICAL AWESOME but instead they look like those pointy-toed courtier shoes and peter pan's slippers got together and had the world's ugliest baby shoes. They're so ugly they're adorable.

They're held together with bungee cord material, which baffles me as a shoe construction device.
posted by winna at 6:47 PM on August 16, 2012

"I get that guys who want to be allies to women and feminists really object to 'mansplaining' because they think it's too broad a descriptor. However, even the best allies can trip over their own toes and end up being on the ignorant side of an explanation."

I'll just point out in an aside that there's a huge assumption implicit in what you wrote (involved in your choice of the term "ally") that is not universally shared by everyone who considers themselves feminists and you ought not take it for granted. It's absolutely not something I want to discuss here and now, in fact this whole line of discussion I don't really want to touch even with a ten-foot pole, but, even so, I think it's worth pointing out.

Anyway, with regard to mansplaining, it really is a thing. Like the tone argument, it really exists and it really is a problem. It's both a practical problem and represents an underlying problem. In this it's just like the tone argument. We can't just say that it doesn't happen, it doesn't exist, it's not a problem, because it is all these things.

However, also just like the tone argument, there's ambiguity. If it were just the ambiguity about whether someone is truly deploying the tone argument as a bad-faith maneuver, then that would be manageable. Difficult and sometimes unpleasant, but manageable. We could come up with a rule-of-thumb and/or processes to deal with the ambiguous situations.

But it's not only ambiguous on that side, it's ambiguous on the other side, on the side that alleges that someone is using the tone-argument as a bad-faith tactic. Are they making this allegation in good faith? If we have a rule-of-thumb that is to take such allegations as true barring some convincing evidence otherwise, then the temptation to misuse such allegations as a tactic in itself increases.

Worse, in reality a large portion of people who use the tone-argument do so in some weird and hard-to-pin-down combination of complete sincerity and rhetorical convenience. It's very often neither purely in good-faith or purely in bad-faith. And even worse, just the same is true with regard to accusations against others of using the tone-argument in bad-faith.

Not to mention just being mistaken because one is touchy or having a bad day or whatever.

None of this is to argue that we shouldn't contest tone-arguments, or conversely that there's no defense to allegations of them.

It's that an absolutism coupled with a certainty of being in-the-right greatly increase the degree to which everything devolves into rhetorical tactics with which we bludgeon each other for dominance.

All of this is true with regard to mansplaining.

I keep finding myself in MetaTalk threads in the last few months arguing that a majority of bad outcomes in discursive situations such as these arise from people jumping to negative conclusions about someone's character on the basis of slim evidence. What happens with a lot of stuff is that we abstract certain behaviors into signifiers of larger personalities and then to moral characters and, at that point, we can make those all-important in-group or out-group determinations with comfort. We know who the enemy is. And while many of us might argue about what truly is the "right" way to treat our enemies, the problem is that this hasty process of determining who our enemies are is an error-prone process which wrongly identifies friends as foes. And sometimes makes foes of former friends.

The most amazing thing to me about how I think MetaFilter changed from when I was here from 2004-2008 and now is that there are, I feel certain (though I am aware but baffled that others disagree) far fewer "bad" people here and/or those who participate in bad-faith. There's still a few. This is true across the board, in ways that manifest across the different kids of discussions we have here. There was stuff regularly posted that was hatefully, explicitly misogynist here that wouldn't last one-minute now and would result in a banning.

No matter how often this is discussed, it's still as if people (including me) don't truly get the "whole racism/sexism isn't about a bad person, but about bad institutions" thing. We talk over and over again about how saying that statement X is racist doesn't mean that the person who said X is some member of a white power group, or whatever. That we're all at least a little racist in some of our thinking because we're products of a racist culture, though improving. That it's far more productive to talk about bad ideas and bad behaviors rather than implicitly or explicitly accusing someone of being an evil racist. Or that someone on the defensive about something they did or said isn't being necessarily accused of being an evil racist. We know these things, but we forget them. We forget them because racism and sexism themselves are evil in some sense, they hurt people and they badly hurt many individual people. It's the most natural thing in the world to respond viscerally and strongly to things we identify as racist and sexist. And, in doing so, to associate the people who say and do those things with being "bad people".

But I think the overwhelming majority of people here aren't bad people. (Or, to the degree to which many of us arguably are, we're probably "bad" in ways that aren't so easily marked and categorized.) A few people may demonstrate through their long histories that they are, indeed, hateful people who intend harm to many others on the basis of identity. But most are just people, right about some things and wrong about others, high-minded and petty, kind and cruel, who have good days and bad days. If we resist the impulse to diagnose bad character on the basis of a few traits (about which we're often idiosyncratically sensitive because of our individual personal histories) and give people the benefit of the doubt, occasionally we'll be letting an asshole off the hook. Often, though, we'll find that people surprise us positively.

There's a specific person in this thread with whom I had a personal conflict with of such an intensity that I abstracted that person into ... I don't know, a kind of caricature? But a comment in this thread has deeply surprised me and forced a re-evaluation and I'm reminded that people are complicated. We have conflicts for complicated reasons that are products of specific times and places and we are far too quick to rush to eternal judgments on their basis. A different person with whom I had a conflict with in the past memailed me with a nice, kind, and complimentary memail because of this thread.

It may seem like I've gone afield from talking about mansplaining, but I haven't. Because while I think that all these abstracted things are very useful and real, and I'm certainly not arguing that we should throw them out because they're difficult and complicated, I am arguing that we should be careful with these abstractions because it's so damn easy for us to allow these abstractions to stand in the place of actual, living individual human beings who are complicated like ourselves and usually no better and no worse than ourselves.
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 7:04 PM on August 16, 2012 [14 favorites]

Holy crap, giant thread.

While this is not really the discussion happening, and the linked post is not the best example (or even, necessarily an example)...uhhh, I do feel that MetaFilter conversations often tolerate or ignore misandry, and that some of the more visible flavors of feminism here do routinely include ideas or attitudes I personally find toxic.

I've gotten the sense that, as the site grows and discusses feminism more, those attitudes have been less well received, though. This post from May is a good recentish example of that, I think; the original article is kind of a by the numbers lazy theory feminism post, and enough people in the thread were apparently exhausted enough of that to have a pretty good discussion instead of drawing battle lines or shouting in the echo chamber. There kind of is still some of that there, but I remain hopeful.
posted by byanyothername at 7:31 PM on August 16, 2012 [1 favorite]

I think some good things are coming out of this thread. I am not completely settled on what to do in the next thread that appears, but I guess I'll feel my way through it keeping the comments here in mind, and hope for the best.

Like for the creepy dudes thread I saw a thread via popurls on Reddit (of all places) just now, where Joseph Gordon Levitt says of the character he plays in 500 days of summer:

The (500) Days of Summer attitude of “He wants you so bad” seems attractive to some women and men, especially younger ones, but I would encourage anyone who has a crush on my character to watch it again and examine how selfish he is. He develops a mildly delusional obsession over a girl onto whom he projects all these fantasies. He thinks she’ll give his life meaning because he doesn’t care about much else going on in his life. A lot of boys and girls think their lives will have meaning if they find a partner who wants nothing else in life but them. That’s not healthy. That’s falling in love with the idea of a person, not the actual person.

And in the thread, currently the top response is a guy reacting to that and saying he's been acting that way, and he now gets that he should stop. So normally, that would be a great thing to link to, right. The Problem is male behavior - here is a guy explaining male behavior in a way that clearly has had an effect on guys who are exhibiting what is basically a form of creepy behavior. And it is propelled by the media. I was alluding to things like that in the thread, linking videos and scripts, which is standard Metafilter behavior, but it was not well received at all. My thought process is the same thing - the problem is male behavior, I recognize some of the influences that lead people to have these warped and creepy conceptions of how to be, I can point that out and then I or anyone else who reads it can essentially see right through a creepy person's personality and call it what it is, hopefully reaching current creeps and creeps in the making/choosing. I never shouted down any women, I never said women's experiences were invalid or that it was their fault or anything like that at all. But in some of these threads this pretty typically fine metafilter behavior is causing a problem.

I admire the mods here and marvel at their ability to solve problems and work through things without trying to paint a big black and white line, so I know this is a complex thing that is going on. I like posting things about sexism and discrimination, especially since I come across a lot of research and helpful information. I'm just trying to get a better handle on navigating these waters. Perhaps it would work best to post things and make it explicit that it is directed at guys, who are perhaps more receptive to this sort of thing. I don't know. I know there is no consensus, and each thread will be different. I'm again posting in good faith. I'm just trying to come up with some workable ideas between typical metafilter posting and 'just listening' mode so that this doesn't continue to aggravate people in what is already typically a contentious thread.

I'd love to hear from moderators on this issue if you have feelings one way or another.
posted by cashman at 7:56 PM on August 16, 2012 [3 favorites]

Perhaps it would work best to post things and make it explicit that it is directed at guys, who are perhaps more receptive to this sort of thing.

This will not work out the way it might in an ideal world. Any attempt to say "this person should read this, that person shouldn't" not only doesn't do a damned thing, it irritates just about everyone and is edging rather close to editorializing besides.

I appreciate what you're trying to do here, cashman, but you're running afoul of the often-problematic goal-oriented post type. This doesn't lead to the best posts, and it very often leads to frustration on the part of the mods, the OP, and often everyone else. If someone is saying something interesting about an interesting topic, feel free to share it on that basis, but if someone is saying that you think people ought to read so that they can become better people, please step back and consider that you're not really approaching it in the most successful way.
posted by restless_nomad (staff) at 8:16 PM on August 16, 2012

Ok. Thanks!
posted by cashman at 8:20 PM on August 16, 2012

There's a specific person in this thread with whom I had a personal conflict with of such an intensity that I abstracted that person into ... I don't know, a kind of caricature? But a comment in this thread has deeply surprised me and forced a re-evaluation and I'm reminded that people are complicated.

I agree, cortex has come a long way.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 9:19 PM on August 16, 2012 [2 favorites]

cashman: if you had a blog where you tried to work these things out in your own head and inviting others to dialogue, I would read it (and maybe participate). I think proactive approaches are good for metabolising huge, emotion-driving topics like this and would love to see it in progress.
posted by batmonkey at 9:43 PM on August 16, 2012 [3 favorites]

I keep finding myself in MetaTalk threads in the last few months arguing that a majority of bad outcomes in discursive situations such as these arise from people jumping to negative conclusions about someone's character on the basis of slim evidence....the problem is that this hasty process of determining who our enemies are is an error-prone process which wrongly identifies friends as foes.

Well, your aim in saying this is honorable, but I do think you might need to allow for the fact that the evidence isn't always slim. I don't know if you lurked while you were away, but often folks in these threads are familiar characters to one another, more often than you may realize, and they may have engaged in lots of dialogue, even privately, which you may have missed in your absence. I don't think what you're seeing is really leaping to bad faith as often as it may seem, simply because you are approaching some of these more recent interactions with a blanker slate for either or both individuals. It's kind of like being a kid in the 80s and saying "US, Russia, we're all human, why can't we just get along?" Sometimes it may be pure leaping to assumptions, but I can think of at least one case where you seemed to think people were just being needlessly rude, but there was a lot of backstory you just may not have been privy to, and that may have made it seem like an utterly irrational scenario of personality nastiness, when there was more water under the bridge than that.

At meetups and over the years I've often found that people whose views I really disagree with and find odious can seem to be decent, quite likable people in many of their dimensions and can be friends, even, to a certain degree, or at least friendly. I think that's a fairly normal experience and has helped to humanize a lot of site relations; even though I haven't met everyone, generalizing from even a few of those experiences makes the strong case that not everyone who acts like an ass online is an ass all the time and to all people.

But I still can't say it's always "bad faith" to strenuously object to thinking which, to me, seems odious. Sometimes it's reasonable, but it doesn't mean, for all of us, that we hate people or turn them into "foes." But when you've been around the barn with a specific user a few times, and find that they continue to rebuff or smugly dismiss a certain number of earnest attempts to communicate or pursue dialogue, it's fair to be a little shorter with them next time around.
posted by Miko at 10:10 PM on August 16, 2012 [14 favorites]

"But I still can't say it's always 'bad faith' to strenuously object to thinking which, to me, seems odious. Sometimes it's reasonable, but it doesn't mean, for all of us, that we hate people or turn them into 'foes.' But when you've been around the barn with a specific user a few times, and find that they continue to rebuff or smugly dismiss a certain number of earnest attempts to communicate or pursue dialogue, it's fair to be a little shorter with them next time around."

I pretty much agree with you. Somewhere in this I'm trying to make a distinction between combating a specific bad behavior (even a history of bad behavior) and the tendency to step away from another person's complex humanity and decide that they're a bad person.

I'm not in the least arguing that we oughtn't contest and oppose bad behavior wherever and whenever. I am arguing, though, that even when there's a history of bad behavior it's simplistic and self-serving to feel very certain that someone is a bad person — because that negative judgment about their character has all sorts of practical consequences that go far beyond simply contesting and opposing their bad behavior. It has a very strong influence on how we, ourselves, behave — and almost never to the better, but usually to the worse.
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 10:42 PM on August 16, 2012

Behaving well and at least courteously towards people I disagree with online, even people whose behavior feels personally reprehensible, people toward whom I feel strong, deep, serious negative feelings, has the extraordinary benefit of making me feel better about myself, about my own capacity for generosity and self-control. Most often this exercise of self-control takes the form of refraining from comment, but sometimes it's an effect on my tone, my diction, my effort to avoid attack or defense and instead look for whatever common human stuff I might share with whoever it is who upsets me. There's usually something, usually more than I like to admit.

It's also much easier to practice this sort of fellow-feeling empathy in the low-stakes arena of an online community. The worst I can experience is hurt feelings; the worst damage I can do is to hurt other people's feelings. And my own choices about how I speak, what I say, who I say it to, all those sorts of choices can have practical consequences in terms of not hurting other people's feelings. I can practice being a better person in a practical way here. It's sort of wonderful.
posted by cgc373 at 11:05 PM on August 16, 2012 [11 favorites]

> Again, not telling you how to do your jobs. I've never ran a site like this, probably never will, and know nothing about the nuts-and-bolts of it.

If you don't know anything at all about how to run a site like this or how the moderators do their jobs, what was all that about where you gave all the examples of where you would have done things differently?
posted by desuetude at 12:20 AM on August 17, 2012

But I have seen moderators make decisions (mostly involving comment deletions) based on their own personal values and perceived values of the community. I dunno, maybe y'all need to make decisions like that to keep the piece. It's your job, not mine, I ain't gonna tell you how to do it.

How else is any mod, not just here, going to make decisions other than on "their own personal values and perceived values of the community"? Other than banning straight up spammers, there will always be a subjective element involved.

Another thing that strikes me as weird is how the mods here will weigh in on topical/opinionated discussions. I don't think it's weird or bad or unkosher or anything, but if I ran a site like this, I'd probably try to avoid it. Whether you like it or not, when a mod says something, it always carries extra weight. Especially when the mods are as visible as they are here.

It strikes me as one of the things that make this place great, that the mods in general behave just like other users and carry their modness lightly, so to speak. I never get the impression that a cortex or a taz or whoever speak as mods in any discussion, except when they're acting within their remit. For me, the difference between when they're speaking in their official capacity and when they're just shooting the breeze like the rest of us has always been clear.
posted by MartinWisse at 1:19 AM on August 17, 2012 [4 favorites]

...uhhh, I do feel that MetaFilter conversations often tolerate or ignore misandry

Gretchen, stop trying to make fetch happen! It's not going to happen.
posted by running order squabble fest at 2:04 AM on August 17, 2012 [17 favorites]

I would personally be very comfortable with people calling out misandry when they see it. Even though it rankles a little bit to have to set the example all the time or be called a hypocrite, and even though getting combatively legalistic about all following the same new rules is sort of a classic response to having to change behavior, it's fair to expect people committed to egalitarianism to join you in condemning misandry.

The only thing I've seen raised that seems to warrant examination as a complaint of misandry here is the word "mansplain." I admit that I personally find the term "mansplain" a funny coinage that resonates quite a bit with my own experiences in communication, and, as Ivan F said, does describe a real communications phenomenon which is well established in gender studies research, I can also see how it strikes people as offensive, and many feminists agree about that. IT may be one of the terms that's really not appropriate in well-meaning discourse. I'd be just as happy to describe that particular phenomenon using more specific words.

What I can't do is ignore the phenomenon of speech and communication patterns that arise from male privilege, and avoid calling that sort of thing out, though. oticing or discussing the phenomenon isn't misandry. But using a word like "mansplain" can conceivably be, because it assumes that this is a particularly male way of speaking that all men do habitually, a characteristic shared by all men which one can expect men to regularly do, and that's not true in my experience. Some men never do it.
posted by Miko at 5:53 AM on August 17, 2012 [13 favorites]

Yeah mansplain is one of those words that if we see people using it in AskMe we'll often axe it the way we'd try to axe other sexist non-contributive responses. I agree that while i can sometimes find it amusing or illustrative personally, it overgeneralizes in a way that doesn't work in a larger "you know we're not all friends here and share the same assumptions" context that it might otherwise.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 6:54 AM on August 17, 2012

I keep thinking we need some new portmanteau with "bloviate" and some other word that implies talking over people. "Filibuster" maybe?
posted by Karmakaze at 7:02 AM on August 17, 2012

Trigger warning: I was mansplaining the tone argument because of my privilege.
posted by gman at 7:09 AM on August 17, 2012 [6 favorites]

I still hope "mansplay" catches on. That's the term to describe the behavior of some guys on public transportation who sit with their legs thrown wide apart, taking up most of a bus or train seat.
posted by Drastic at 7:14 AM on August 17, 2012 [15 favorites]

I keep thinking we need some new portmanteau with "bloviate" and some other word that implies talking over people. "Filibuster" maybe?

If you liked mainsplain, you'll love broviate.
posted by Forktine at 7:25 AM on August 17, 2012 [37 favorites]

I still hope "mansplay" catches on. That's the term to describe the behavior of some guys on public transportation who sit with their legs thrown wide apart, taking up most of a bus or train seat.
posted by Drastic at 3:14 PM on August 17 [+] [!]

I thought the word for that was "Tall" (or even just average height, but thats two words).
posted by Reggie Knoble at 7:32 AM on August 17, 2012

I still hope "mansplay" catches on. That's the term to describe the behavior of some guys on public transportation who sit with their legs thrown wide apart, taking up most of a bus or train seat.

I always describe this as 'Holy jeez, my testicles are so large my legs don't work correctly, sorry everyone on the train!'

The same way whenever I hear some jackass revving his engine I say aloud 'I'll bet his penis is really big!'
posted by shakespeherian at 7:34 AM on August 17, 2012 [5 favorites]

When I was crossing 6th avenue the other day some douchebag in an SUV was rolling into the crosswalk trying to make his SUPER IMPORTANT RIGHT TURN TO GET TO THAT RED LIGHT OMG and was revving his engine over and over and over until I turned to him and screamed OH MY GOD YOUR PENIS MUST BE FUCKING IMMENSE. I am not sure he heard me over the revving of his penis but it certainly made me feel better.
posted by elizardbits at 7:42 AM on August 17, 2012 [7 favorites]

What would you have said if it was a woman?
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 7:43 AM on August 17, 2012 [2 favorites]

I thought the word for that was "Tall" (or even just average height, but thats two words).

Yeah I think it is a mix. I think some people do it intentionally, but for me and others, you do it because it hurts otherwise to sit in cramped spaces. My kingdom for aisles on a plane wide enough that I can leave my leg out there without a cart drive by. That shit hurts.
posted by cashman at 7:44 AM on August 17, 2012

I am not sure he heard me over the revving of his penis but it certainly made me feel better.

Twist ending: he was speeding to the hospital in order to treat a serious case of priapism.
posted by Sticherbeast at 7:44 AM on August 17, 2012 [8 favorites]

Oh, no, it's not that they're just tall. Men and women differ in their use of space and their expectations for how they are allowed to behave in space. It's well documented.

Men are more conservative in facial movement and body contact. However, they do tend to be unreserved in sitting styles: sprawling, stretching and spreading out. The intensity level for women drops for the sitting position -- they tend to draw in, keeping arms and legs close to their bodies....The goal for men, however, depends upon the task. Want to appear in charge? Use the body to control the discussion space.

Men take up space, lots of space. They’re taught to spread arms and legs all over the place, make wide gestures, power through crowds. They’re taught to expect everyone to get out of their way and be affronted when that doesn’t happen.

One way to indicate acceptance of one's place and deference to those of superior status is to follow the rules of "personal space." Sommer has observed that dominant animals and human beings have a larger envelope of inviolability surrounding them -- i.e., they are approached less closely -- than those of lower status.18 Various authors have subsequently shown that this rule applies between men and women, with women both having smaller personal space than men and tending to yield space to men when the two sexes come into proximity.19 And women's time, like their space, can be invaded readily.

I don't have time to search up more links, but gendered communication also takes in the use of the body in space and the messages it tends to send. There's also an underlying confidence, which might arise from the widely mutually supported sense of group dominance we call "privilege," that the person taking up excess space is entitled to take up that space.

My family is full of tall people - my father is 6'3", my brother 6'4", I have a cousin who's actually 6'7". I grew up around these folks. They are polite. They don't get on a subway or bus and extend their feet into the aisles and their arms along the seat backs, even though they are tall and even though they definitely feel crunched sometimes. They don't do that because they were raised with a basic level of respect for others and the need to share resources. So that theory just doesn't stand up to even anecdotal experience: just one tall person behaving respectfully disproves the necessity of "mansprawl."
posted by Miko at 7:48 AM on August 17, 2012 [50 favorites]

for me and others, you do it because it hurts otherwise to sit in cramped spaces

"Excuse me, do you mind if I stretch my legs out there?"
posted by Miko at 7:49 AM on August 17, 2012 [1 favorite]

whenever I hear some jackass revving his engine I say aloud 'I'll bet his penis is really big!'

I think I first heard this back in the 80s on an Ellen Degeneres standup bit: yelling at people like that "Sorry about your PEEENNNISS!"
posted by Miko at 7:51 AM on August 17, 2012 [2 favorites]

I hope people on the planes I'm on don't think I'm doing that. Because I am in pain. I just take it if someone has to sit next to me, or if I'm on a plane. But I'm saying that I'm sure plenty of people assume something horrible, when in actuality, it is pain.

Like I said before in my reply, I think it's a mix. And certainly for me I am not doing any of those things.
posted by cashman at 7:53 AM on August 17, 2012

Oh, no, it's not that they're just tall. Men and women differ in their use of space and their expectations for how they are allowed to behave in space. It's well documented.

That's awesome Miko.

I really think it's more than just people being in pain. Catch the Tube. You'll see fairly short guys doing it. You'll see guys leaning their arms over the armrests onto your side of the armrest, when they really don't need to (even on those sweet new trains on the Jubilee Line that are made for contemporary bodies and so the seats are much wider than on the old trains).
posted by Infinite Jest at 7:56 AM on August 17, 2012 [1 favorite]

Like I said before in my reply, I think it's a mix. And certainly for me I am not doing any of those things.

Right, possibly not, which is why I just implied that if you need to do that, and you might, it is good to just ask permission before you encroach on people's spaces. "Do you mind" is fine. I fly a lot and people do this all the time - when they want to use/share the seatrest, kick their seat back, put their legs out. Those people are really respectful and gracious and it would be nice for others to be equally considerate, not assume they all have the right to as much space as they can bully themselves into by fiat.

Flying is uncomfortable for everyone, and we all do what we can to endure it, but a little simple politeness goes a long way to indicating that you don't expect everyone else to make themselves even more uncomfortable so you can be a little less uncomfortable.
posted by Miko at 8:00 AM on August 17, 2012 [2 favorites]

Oh I "close up" as soon as anyone needs or is near the space I'm in. I never recline my chair on a flight, because I know how annoying and painful it is for the person (like me) behind you. It never even gets to the "be polite" point because I just withstand the pain and "close up" almost immediately.
posted by cashman at 8:05 AM on August 17, 2012 [1 favorite]

My favourite is when a foot magically appears halfway up my armrest when I'm in the window seat on a plane. And I'm not using "favourite" sarcastically, unless of course I don't happen to have any ice left in my drink that I can place between their toes.
posted by gman at 8:05 AM on August 17, 2012 [2 favorites]

Miko: "My family is full of tall people - my father is 6'3", my brother 6'4", I have a cousin who's actually 6'7". I grew up around these folks. They are polite. They don't get on a subway or bus and extend their feet into the aisles and their arms along the seat backs, even though they are tall and even though they definitely feel crunched sometimes. They don't do that because they were raised with a basic level of respect for others and the need to share resources. So that theory just doesn't stand up to even anecdotal experience: just one tall person behaving respectfully disproves the necessity of "mansprawl.""

Yeah, just as a data point, I'm 6'3" and generally try to compact myself into as small a space as possible when sitting on the subway or bus -- if I'm even sitting at all. I usually stand. But when sitting, I don't sprawl. That's in part because I try to be cognizant of my personal space and want to be polite, but also because I don't particularly like strangers touching or leaning against me.

Or in some cases, sleeping on me. :P
posted by zarq at 8:25 AM on August 17, 2012 [1 favorite]

Infinite Jest: " Catch the Tube. You'll see fairly short guys doing it."

I wonder if it's also a cultural thing.
posted by zarq at 8:34 AM on August 17, 2012

Funny, for me the mark of dominant asshole isn't sitting with legs stretched out, but sitting with them wide apart, as if they need the entire subway bench for their balls.

I've talked to my husband about this and he assures me that it doesn't actually hurt one's balls to sit with one's knees closer together. I mean, it's more comfortable to spread 'em, but it is for me, too (I've always had ample thighs, even when I was a kid). But little girls are taught that it's rude/crass to sit with one's legs spread apart.
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 8:36 AM on August 17, 2012 [1 favorite]

Yeah, I've always thought of that behaviour as Crystal Ball Syndrome.
posted by peppermind at 8:52 AM on August 17, 2012 [3 favorites]

Metafilter: I am not sure he heard me over the revving of his penis but it certainly made me feel better.
posted by gjc at 8:55 AM on August 17, 2012 [2 favorites]

I've ridden a lot of public transit and been on airplanes and whatnot, and I agree that the jerky guys are the ones who invade your space as if they're entitled to it. There's no "Oh, sorry," or "Do you mind if..". There's just "I'm going to press my thigh against yours because my balls are SO HUGE LOOK HOW MANLY I AM.

Once I, ah, accidentally whacked a guy in the head with my backpack as I was getting off the bus - he was sitting in the outer of the two seats, legs spread all over the place, and when I said "'scuse me" and stood up as my stop was approaching he just sighed and kind of turned sideways rather than standing up and getting out of the way. Oops, backpack.
posted by rtha at 8:55 AM on August 17, 2012 [1 favorite]

There's a load of reasons why small guys would try to make themselves look bigger & taller than they are. To categorise it as simple dickish behaviour is pretty unempathic. Unfortunately, explaining those reasons here will seem like a "white mans tears" derail. You can put my reticence down to a desire not to be shouted at again by the more right-on members of metafilter.
posted by zoo at 9:03 AM on August 17, 2012 [1 favorite]

Umm. It's not about balls, it's about the shape of the thighs and butt (at least in my case). Big dudes on little seats have a tough time "keeping it together" - feet together, we wind up brushing knees (skeeves me out), knees together, and I'm playing footsy as the feet spread out (likewise.)

I once considered buying a sleeping bag strap to bind my legs together at the knees on the train. Instead I got to the train station a half hour early to be the first one to snag one of the little "solo seats" at the end of the car. (I was the last stop each way, so it worked.) I was crammed in there pretty good, but it beat trying to avoid invading someone else's bench space.

Skinny little guys sitting all akimbo? Yeah, they're airing out the junk.
posted by Slap*Happy at 9:06 AM on August 17, 2012

There are lots of valid reasons for wanting to sit with wide-open thighs and take up more than one subway seat, but unfortunately none of them trump the social norm that it's one fucking seat per person.
posted by prefpara at 9:06 AM on August 17, 2012 [26 favorites]

Stupid patriarchy works to mess this up as well. I have been told (in the past week, no less) I'm not being manly enough if I'm being cognizant of the space needs of others. That I am cowering. Man our society sucks sometimes.

Gygesringtone's comment above, is right on: "There is a crap load of ways society lets me know that I'm bucking the norms for the culture: dirty looks from Moms at story time at the library; friendly mockery; the praise for being so confident in my manliness (or something) that I'm willing to diminish it by doing work that women would normally do; etc."
posted by cashman at 9:12 AM on August 17, 2012 [4 favorites]

There's a load of reasons why small guys would try to make themselves look bigger & taller than they are. To categorise it as simple dickish behaviour is pretty unempathic.

So what are those reasons, then, when the guy is sitting next to a woman smaller than him, or a kid? Because I've been on the receiving end of that kind of thing from guys of all sizes; if they're four years old, I give them a break, and likewise if they've said "Oh sorry" or "Do you mind if..." If you are a small guy sitting next to someone who you don't need or want to intimidate or otherwise warn off, there's really no excuse for it. Being someone who wants to appear bigger for whatever reason does not mean you have to be rude or impolite, either.

I am an ordinary-size female who is not terribly intimidating, physically, and who is also not terribly impressed by alpha-dog-type body language from anyone.
posted by rtha at 9:18 AM on August 17, 2012

I have been told (in the past week, no less) I'm not being manly enough if I'm being cognizant of the space needs of others. That I am cowering.

Yeah, it's a pain in the ass. The way to look at that (as someone who has spent some time thinking and talking about posture in public as a safety issue) is that it's critical to know what you are doing when you are doing it. If you are unconsciously stepping all over other people's space, or unconsciously pulling yourself in and flinching away, in both cases you may be causing reactions in the people around you that you did not intend and do not want. If you are conscious of the behaviors, you can decide moment-to-moment whether you need to be big and appear like a poor target or be small and respectful of other people's space.

This applies to men and women, although the outcomes in any individual situation might differ.
posted by restless_nomad (staff) at 9:19 AM on August 17, 2012 [10 favorites]

Well I don't have my arms spread all over the place but I do have to sit with my legs apart becasue the distance betwen the front of the seat I am sitting on and the back of the seat ahead is shorter than the length of my femurs (on most public transport and in the back of all the cars people in my socioeconomic bracket can afford).
posted by Reggie Knoble at 9:22 AM on August 17, 2012

Umm. It's not about balls, it's about the shape of the thighs and butt (at least in my case). Big dudes on little seats have a tough time "keeping it together" - feet together, we wind up brushing knees (skeeves me out), knees together, and I'm playing footsy as the feet spread out (likewise.)

Do you think the same isn't true for women? Because it is. We have thighs and butts too. We usually have more thighs and butts! But we're taught from the time we're like, four, that ladies don't sit with their legs spread apart . The key is to put your feet hip-width apart and your knees directly over them. It's not super comfy, but it keeps all feets and knees in the right place. And, apparently, it keeps us from liking like we're extending a sexual invitation. Which is really a big part of what it's all about, I suspect.

(I don't think it's literally about "showing off" one's balls. It's just how it looks.)

It might be more about "women are taught to sit in certain ways and to take up as little space as possible and men aren't." I think MoonOrb is right--men sit that way whether people are around them or not.

Which is precisely what makes it rude. It's rude not to think of the spatial needs of others on a crowded subway car, to use that space as if you're alone. Women are socialized from a really young age to take such things into account; from the sounds of it, men are socialized to flaunt that to assert one's claim/manliness.
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 9:30 AM on August 17, 2012 [21 favorites]

It's not about balls, it's about the shape of the thighs and butt (at least in my case). Big dudes on little seats have a tough time "keeping it together" - feet together, we wind up brushing knees (skeeves me out), knees together, and I'm playing footsy as the feet spread out (likewise.)

Nothing about this is different for women. I always had a hard time with the "keep legs and ankles together; don't prop an ankle on your knee; cross your ankles, not your knees" prescriptive behavior I was taught as a girl. It's not comfortable. Sitting with your legs spread to either side is more comfortable for everyone - unless it means you're taking up the space allotted for someone else. In those scenarios, you have to pull yourself in - knees, feet, and all - to be polite, no matter what's more comfortable for your own thighs and butt. There's no difference for men and women on that.

Basically I can't think of any physiological reason why men need to have more lax standards for respectful public behavior in use of space than women.
posted by Miko at 9:31 AM on August 17, 2012 [9 favorites]

There's a load of reasons why small guys would try to make themselves look bigger & taller than they are.

Most of the people however were talking about big guys using up all the space and then some, no?

Anyway, yeah, who cares about the why. It's rude, and men, because of the society we live in, are less socialized to be considerate of others in a public area.

Happily, many many men are aware of this and keep their bodies to themselves! Yay those guys!
posted by gaspode at 9:32 AM on August 17, 2012 [4 favorites]

> But I think the overwhelming majority of people here aren't bad people.

furiousxgeorge for instance, unless he was some kind of jeckyll/hyde personality who was completely different in memail, which I can't see, from what he was out in the public threads, which I can.


> That's why keeping silent is the safest course of action.

I do my very best to avoid man- and straight- and cis- and whitesplaining by just smiling to myself and keeping my 'splanations locked up in my little ole heart. I grant I have slipped up on that now and then but hope to have no slipups whatever in the future. It helps to remember that the range of attitudes seen here has shrunk to a minuscule--microscopic!-- subset of the range available on the site earlier, let alone in the wider world. Entertain the larger view!
posted by jfuller at 9:45 AM on August 17, 2012 [1 favorite]

If you are a normal sized person of any gender (and normal in this case is "not a pro basketball player") and you are sitting starfished in the centre seat on a three seat row on a crowded train, then you are a moron and a douchebag, especially when you act super put-upon when people ask you to sit like a human being and make room for others. See also: women who refuse to hold their huge hobo purses in their lap and use up an adjoining seat instead. But yes, I've noticed a disproportionate number of the starfishers are dudes.
posted by elizardbits at 9:49 AM on August 17, 2012 [1 favorite]

img
posted by infini at 9:53 AM on August 17, 2012 [1 favorite]

In the interests in fairness, the huge hobo purse thing, which pushing aside draws glares as if you are the very boot of the patriarchy stamping on women forever, is also problematic. And while both genders have examples of it, the Perfumed Stinking Cloud Aura does seem to be more of a woman thing in the public transport context. And there's no way to push that aside.

Basically, from an egalitarian sort of view, the problem is other people.
posted by Drastic at 9:54 AM on August 17, 2012 [2 favorites]

Trust me, lots of guys do the Perfumed Stinking Cloud Aura thing too. I used to have a neighbour who used so much cologne, I could smell it in the hallway ten minutes after he'd left the building. He was a great guy, but living there nearly killed my sense of smell.
posted by peppermind at 9:59 AM on August 17, 2012

Giant hobo purses ARGHHHH. And also people who don't take their backpacks or messenger bags off when getting on a crowded bus or train. I noticed this particularly when I moved to San Francisco; in DC, it seemed to be common for passengers to removed the bulky bag and let it dangle down by their knees or rest between their feet (minding the strap so no one trips on it). Here, people leave their bags on, which effectively makes them two-people thick and also accidentally hits lots of people in the head.

Then there was the time the guy was smoking crack on the bus - but he was polite and blew his smoke out the window! the day the skunk tried to get on the 49 at Market and Van Ness was another banner day in Muniland.
posted by rtha at 10:00 AM on August 17, 2012 [7 favorites]

There should be some kind of device required for those people that only disperses a small set amount of their chosen scent per 24h period. Maybe linked to their bank account so if they try to use it twice in one day they have to pay a $100 fine. Or some large surly thug comes to their house and punches them in the stomach.
posted by elizardbits at 10:02 AM on August 17, 2012

Our housemate is a big fan of some sort of scent - I don't know if it's a lotion or a perfume, or both. But our cat Yorvit, who spends a lot of time upstairs in our housemate's space, frequently smells like this perfume/lotion, as if he's just come from a spa or something.
posted by rtha at 10:09 AM on August 17, 2012 [4 favorites]

I observe the "men taking up more space" thing every day. I ride a parking shuttle that ferries students (and the rest of us) around a large university campus. Many of the rides on my line are in the Greek system - heading to their frat/sorority houses in the late afternoon.

The young women get on and sit two to a row, facing forward. The young men get on, sit one to a row, sprawled sideways, knees splayed, with their legs in the aisle. In the cases I see, it is obvious it has very little to do with seat size or height of the men, and has everything to do with the expected behaviors of their subculture.

And I really wouldn't give a shit, except they leave their legs in the aisle and expect the rest of us to step over them (I guess) which is real ass-wipe behavior.
posted by Squeak Attack at 10:13 AM on August 17, 2012

zoo: "There's a load of reasons why small guys would try to make themselves look bigger & taller than they are. To categorise it as simple dickish behaviour is pretty unempathic."

Insecurity is not a reasonable excuse for rudeness, no matter what body shape someone is.
posted by zarq at 10:18 AM on August 17, 2012 [5 favorites]

it is obvious it has very little to do with seat size or height of the men, and has everything to do with the expected behaviors of their subculture.

Well, you know, two guys could fit side by side in a two-seat row, but if you sit that close to another dude while there are still other open seats, people might think you're gay or something. #thehorror
posted by Miko at 10:23 AM on August 17, 2012 [1 favorite]

rtha: "Giant hobo purses ARGHHHH"

The worst is when someone carrying one traverses the length of the bus, blithely decapitating everyone sitting on the aisle. A few days ago, I watched someone's bag come towards me, smacking everyone in the head. As she passed, I raised my forearm, deflecting the big leather bag o' crap away, off her arm and onto the floor.

She was pissed off. Shit happens. She'll know better next time.
posted by zarq at 10:26 AM on August 17, 2012 [5 favorites]

Well, you know, two guys could fit side by side in a two-seat row, but if you sit that close to another dude while there are still other open seats, people might think you're gay or something. #thehorror

As a tall and broad shouldered guy, I literally can't get much smaller. City buses are awful. I usually can't sit in a single seat, they just aren't large enough. This why I prefer to sit next to a slim person, as I can hopefully use some of their space without being obnoxious about it. The best way to do this is to sit on the inside, near the window, so they don't feel closed in. When sitting next to a large person, be it man or woman, we usually just have to grimace through it.

Armrest wise, I thought it was just an unspoken rule to use half of it, unless the other person isn't using it all. If it's a long trip and you take the whole armrest, that's ok for a while, but then you swivel your arm in, so just your elbow is resting on it and let the other person have some armrest time if they need or want it. All of this is done silently, has anyone else noticed this?

The spread legs thing is annoying, but just one of those territorial things that happen when strangers are in close quarters.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 10:27 AM on August 17, 2012 [2 favorites]

Insecurity is not a reasonable excuse for rudeness, no matter what body shape someone is.
posted by zarq at 6:18 PM on August 17 [1 favorite +] [!]

What if it was closer to fear than insecurity?

Smaller humans taking steps with their body language and demeanor to avoid looking weak and victim like in the presence of larger humans comes up quite a bit here and usually in a positive light.
posted by Reggie Knoble at 10:29 AM on August 17, 2012

Maybe 10 years ago a friend of mine posted a long thing in her LJ about women being socialized to take up as little space as possible, figuratively and literally. Ever since then I've tried to be aware of when I'm doing that--scrunching up for no reason but a kneejerk socialized response, slinking away, giving people I'm walking past enormously wide berths for no real reason, etc. I did it all the time! It's been kind of gratifying to unlearn some of that. Obviously I don't shove people or invade space, I just don't give up mine before it's even necessary or whatever first, just out of some weird sense of feminized duty. This is especially great at packed shows where because I'm 5'2 I used to pretty much get squashed and never see anything. Now when people do that subtle gradual "encroach on your personal space little by little until they're in front of you somehow" thing I stand my ground, not combatively but just yeah, like hey, I'm here just like you (and hey, I was here 20 minutes earlier than anyone else because I'm a huge dork and oh god, I drove 9 hours to this city to see Codeine! so that's why I'm at the front of the stage anyway), and I don't have those problems anymore. Useful stuff.
posted by ifjuly at 10:31 AM on August 17, 2012 [10 favorites]

Reggie Knoble: " What if it was closer to fear than insecurity?

I'm unconvinced that fear is a reasonable excuse for rudeness when it comes to assuming a posture that deliberately infringes on someone else's space if they are not infringing on yours to begin with, and not being threatening or aggressive in any way towards you.

Smaller humans taking steps with their body language and demeanor to avoid looking weak and victim like in the presence of larger humans comes up quite a bit here and usually in a positive light."

Context matters. Being rude to someone because you feel cornered and threatened by someone else's aggressive or threatening speech or behavior is a hell of a different situation than sitting like a starfish on the subway simply because can.
posted by zarq at 10:40 AM on August 17, 2012 [3 favorites]

....because "you" can.
posted by zarq at 10:41 AM on August 17, 2012

Then there was the time the guy was smoking crack on the bus - but he was polite and blew his smoke out the window! the day the skunk tried to get on the 49 at Market and Van Ness was another banner day in Muniland.

You know it's too hot in Texas when this comment can make me actually yearn to be home in The City.
posted by Devils Rancher at 10:44 AM on August 17, 2012 [1 favorite]

That would be a perfectly reasonable point if we were discussing any situation remotely like that.
posted by MoonOrb at 6:39 PM on August 17 [1 favorite +] [!]

Zarq was responding to Zoo who said:

There's a load of reasons why small guys would try to make themselves look bigger & taller than they are.

It wasn't a narrowly defined situation at all.
posted by Reggie Knoble at 10:44 AM on August 17, 2012

"Giant hobo purses ARGHHHH"

Not having heard "hobo purse" before, that ARGHHHH made me look through the thread to see if had something to do with hobo SPIDERS. Hobo spiders carrying purses? In purses? Purses full of hobo spiders?
posted by small_ruminant at 10:51 AM on August 17, 2012 [1 favorite]

What if it was closer to fear than insecurity?

Smaller humans taking steps with their body language and demeanor to avoid looking weak and victim like in the presence of larger humans comes up quite a bit here and usually in a positive light.

Most women are, on average, smaller than most men. And yet the stories about the spread-legged-arm-sprawing public transit riders are mostly about men.
posted by rtha at 10:52 AM on August 17, 2012 [6 favorites]

Reggie Knoble: " It wasn't a narrowly defined situation at all."

Sure it is. We're specifically speaking of a situation where a guy (presumably short) is sitting with his arms and legs spread akimbo, so that they are either pressing up against the person sitting next to them or forcing said person to compress into a smaller space to avoid personal contact.

I hope you're not trying to apply my comment to all possible situations where a short person might try to increase perception of their size, since that's obviously not the context in which my reply was made.
posted by zarq at 10:54 AM on August 17, 2012

Sure it is. We're specifically speaking of a situation where a guy (presumably short) is sitting with his arms and legs spread akimbo, so that they are either pressing up against the person sitting next to them or forcing said person to compress into a smaller space to avoid personal contact.

That wasn't what Zoo said. He said:

There's a load of reasons why small guys would try to make themselves look bigger &
taller than they are.

He didn't say anything about pressing up against anyone or forcing anyone to compress.

The discussion of how men sit in general wasn't narrowly defined as the above either. It also included just taking up more than one seat on a row where the other seats were vacant.

If you were just talking about that situation then fine. But the person you were responding to didn't seem to be.
posted by Reggie Knoble at 11:03 AM on August 17, 2012

I'm unconvinced that fear is a reasonable excuse for rudeness when it comes to assuming a posture that deliberately infringes on someone else's space if they are not infringing on yours to begin with, and not being threatening or aggressive in any way towards you.

And trying to "look bigger" by taking up more space may actually encourage a more violent interaction than one you'd have if you were ust minding your own space. If it's territorial, should you be acting agrressively territorial around someone you think is threatening you?

Doesn't make sense. And yeah, I don't observe "I'm afraid" to be the reason guys do this. BEcause some do it even if there are no bigger people, or even no other men, on the bus/subway. It's a habit. It's an entitled habit. It's okay to be honest about it.

As a tall and broad shouldered guy, I literally can't get much smaller.

I'm quite certain that your general demeanor and mannerisms make it clear you aren't just being a self-involved, inconsiderate jerk trying to command an unreasonable amount of space or establish yourself as Alpha Bus Rider.
posted by Miko at 11:12 AM on August 17, 2012 [2 favorites]

Reggie Knoble: "If you were just talking about that situation then fine."

Yes, that's all I was referring to. That's why I mentioned assuming a posture that deliberately infringes on someone else's space in my reply to you.

I can't for the life of me remember what the scientific term for it is, but lots of animals try to make themselves look bigger / fiercer purely as a defense mechanism. Birds. Cats. People. Infringe on their territory and they'll puff themselves up and look menacing. I'm just saying that a guy spreading his legs wide so they press against other people on the bus or subway doesn't strike me as as a defense mechanism, but rudely aggressive.
posted by zarq at 11:18 AM on August 17, 2012

Insecurity is not a reasonable excuse for rudeness, no matter what body shape someone is.

Insecurity is not a reasonable excuse for rudeness (or other bad behavior), but it is often an correct explanation.
posted by LordSludge at 11:19 AM on August 17, 2012

I think the pushback was more like "Wait, I do that." And that kind of pushback, the "am I being implicated, NOW I MUST DEFEND MYSELF" mode that we see happen on here all the time, actually is pretty bad for conversation.
posted by Bunny Ultramod at 11:19 AM on August 17, 2012

Male and tallish here. Yep, jokes aside, PhoBWan's husband's right. Sitting this way has nothing to do with balls. (Sitting with your knees together, or cross-legged, does not hurt your balls at all. I'm male and I can attest to that. The male body is not as poorly constructed as all that.) For tall people in cramped spaces, it's a matter of whether there's room for your knees or not. On the the bus, I'll sit sideways if I'm not lucky enough to grab one of the seats that's not immediately behind another seat, but I'll scoot over into a less comfortable position if someone takes a seat next to me.

The other part of PhoBWan's comment, "little girls are taught that it's rude/crass to sit with one's legs spread apart", I think captures the rest of it. People will sit that way fairly often just because it's comfortable unless they're taught not to, and guys aren't taught not to.

What distinguishes assholes from non-assholes, I think, is their willingness to shift their position to accommodate other passengers or not.

It bugs me a little to find out that people are thinking "huh, airing out your balls, are you, you fucking jackass?" every time they see me on a bus, just because people with long legs sit funny in cramped seating if there's enough space available. But, you know, never pass up a chance to be judgmental.
posted by nangar at 11:22 AM on August 17, 2012 [7 favorites]

Bunny Ultramod: "I think the pushback was more like "Wait, I do that." And that kind of pushback, the "am I being implicated, NOW I MUST DEFEND MYSELF" mode that we see happen on here all the time, actually is pretty bad for conversation."

Speaking of defense mechanisms. :)
posted by zarq at 11:22 AM on August 17, 2012 [1 favorite]

And trying to "look bigger" by taking up more space may actually encourage a more violent interaction than one you'd have if you were ust minding your own space. If it's territorial, should you be acting agrressively territorial around someone you think is threatening you?

See, I've always heard the opposite. That looking like a victim is more likely to get you victimized.

I hate public transit and am always thankful to return to my small town after being in a large city. I definitely try to limit myself to my own space to give everyone around me room.
posted by ODiV at 11:23 AM on August 17, 2012

Not having heard "hobo purse" before, that ARGHHHH made me look through the thread to see if had something to do with hobo SPIDERS. Hobo spiders carrying purses? In purses? Purses full of hobo spiders?

Psst: We've gone from making fun of male anatomy to making fun of homeless people. Please do keep up.
posted by Big_B at 11:27 AM on August 17, 2012

But, you know, never pass up a chance to be judgmental.

There is a huge difference between being physically incapable of fitting into a small confined space due to the length of your legs and this.
posted by elizardbits at 11:29 AM on August 17, 2012 [2 favorites]

See, I've always heard the opposite. That looking like a victim is more likely to get you victimized.

Depends on the context, yeah? On a bus or train crowded with commuters, it's unlikely that you will need to aggressively take other peoples' space in order to avoid looking like a victim. On an empty bus or train, it's possible to take up space without invading anyone else's, and to project a "leave me alone" or "I am awake and aware of what's going on" in a way that probably isn't going to automatically challenge anyone else into a game of "You lookin' at me??!"
posted by rtha at 11:30 AM on August 17, 2012

Yeah, agreed. I think we've just got two conversation streams going on now based on some guy in an empty train taking up space and some other jackass taking up enough room for two on a crowded bus.
posted by ODiV at 11:34 AM on August 17, 2012

Basically I can't think of any physiological reason why men need to have more lax standards for respectful public behavior in use of space than women.

I think it's worth pointing out that this statement is different than "no men need to have more lax standards." In other words, yeah situations exist in which an individual man might be physically need to be excused from the standards, and that doesn't really effect if men as a group need the exemption.
posted by Gygesringtone at 11:34 AM on August 17, 2012

Also, you know what I hate? Loud talking. It doesn't take up physical space, but it feels like an intrusion nonetheless. I really don't care what you had for lunch or how wasted you were last night.
posted by ODiV at 11:37 AM on August 17, 2012

I'm quite certain that your general demeanor and mannerisms make it clear you aren't just being a self-involved, inconsiderate jerk trying to command an unreasonable amount of space or establish yourself as Alpha Bus Rider.

I DARE YOU TO SIT NEXT TO ME ON A BUS. ON A MONDAY MORNING.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 11:39 AM on August 17, 2012

Not having heard "hobo purse" before

First google image hit for me. I carry one of these and they don't mix well with public transit unless you pay a lot of attention to what you're doing. Like any large bag, they should be ahead or behind in the aisle, not alongside where they hit sitting people in the head.

Good news for people who hate them: apparently we're going back to tiny purses these fall according to the Fashion Gurus I Read.
posted by immlass at 11:40 AM on August 17, 2012

It doesn't take up physical space, but it feels like an intrusion nonetheless.

The closest I have ever come to actual vigilante justice was when some dude was loudly listening to the numerous tear-filled messages left on his voicemail by his recently dumped girlfriend, on speakerphone, in the middle of an LIRR train. Ugh, I hope his underwear is eternally infested with angry weasels.
posted by elizardbits at 11:41 AM on August 17, 2012 [7 favorites]

The other passengers would probably have helped you hide the body.
posted by ODiV at 11:42 AM on August 17, 2012 [7 favorites]

Psst: We've gone from making fun of male anatomy to making fun of homeless people. Please do keep up.

Yes this is exactly what happened.
posted by shakespeherian at 11:49 AM on August 17, 2012 [1 favorite]

Also, we're now making fun of that guy from The Simpsons who has extremely long legs but has a tiny, tiny car.
posted by Bunny Ultramod at 11:50 AM on August 17, 2012 [2 favorites]

I mean, it seems like there is a middle ground between shrinking violet and starfish bro body language -- the whole "assertive vs. aggressive" thing. Like ifjuly I noticed that I used to sort of crumple up in public situations and so I found it really helpful to unlearn that as well. But of course, what's "assertive" and what's "can you remove your junk from my thigh" varies according to the situation and the crowdedness of the shared space, as rtha and Miko were saying.
posted by en forme de poire at 11:51 AM on August 17, 2012

Why would you not take off your giant messenger back when sitting in a bus seat? As someone who regularly wears a giant messenger bag, it's freakin' uncomfortable to sit down with it on because it pushes you forward onto the edge of the seat. Also they're specifically designed to be easy to swing around to the front of your body. What you want to do if you're sitting for a short time is just swing it around and kind of hug it while it's on your lap. If you're sitting for a long time you just take it off and put it by your feet like a normal human being. Leaving it on your back makes no sense at all.
posted by Scientist at 11:52 AM on August 17, 2012

Whenever I see a guy with his legs all splayed out on the subway I got and sit on his lap and tell him what I want for Christmas.

which is usually a seat on the subway
posted by shakespeherian at 11:53 AM on August 17, 2012 [22 favorites]

I hate it when people take up too much space on the subway, but part of me hopes that the next time anyone calls anyone out for doing that, that the splayed-leg subway rider will then stand up to reveal that he cannot help but have the mantis-like gait of a thri-kreen. He will then berate the complainer for mocking his Permanent Mosey condition, and then proceed to use his innate psionic powers before finally finishing off the complainer with chatchka attacks.
posted by Sticherbeast at 11:53 AM on August 17, 2012 [5 favorites]

That looking like a victim is more likely to get you victimized.

This is highly context- and cultural-defendant. Also, some of the most physically competent (and lightning-fast, scary dangerous ) people I know don't engage in 'threat display' or other territorial behaviors at all.

They know they don't need to.
posted by the man of twists and turns at 11:54 AM on August 17, 2012 [1 favorite]

The closest I have ever come to actual vigilante justice was when some dude was loudly listening to the numerous tear-filled messages left on his voicemail by his recently dumped girlfriend, on speakerphone, in the middle of an LIRR train. Ugh, I hope his underwear is eternally infested with angry weasels.

It reminds me of an inexplicable experience I had on the last NJ transit train out of Penn Station, when an incredibly drunk dude was loudly having a protracted feelings talk with (presumably) his girlfriend that suddenly segued into ordering a large number of spicy tuna rolls, in the same tone of voice, such that I couldn't pinpoint when the transition happened. Or maybe his girlfriend worked at a sushi place.
posted by en forme de poire at 11:56 AM on August 17, 2012 [5 favorites]

*culture-dependant.

I REGRET NOTHING.
posted by the man of twists and turns at 11:58 AM on August 17, 2012 [4 favorites]

What has this thread become.
posted by cashman at 11:58 AM on August 17, 2012 [1 favorite]

I don't think shrinp knows what's up with the whole hobo purse thing either, fwiw.
posted by cortex (staff) at 12:00 PM on August 17, 2012

I encounter the legs-splayed dude on trains and buses around here all the time. I always say "pardon" or "excuse me" to remind these guys to get out of my way, but they almost never do. One day, I decided to just turn straight toward the offender (whose legs were so far apart I had less than half a seat to sit on) and say very firmly, "your balls are not that big, please move your leg." It was incredibly effective.

It is now my policy to do this every. single. time.
posted by phunniemee at 12:00 PM on August 17, 2012 [23 favorites]

I think the pushback was more like "Wait, I do that." And that kind of pushback, the "am I being implicated, NOW I MUST DEFEND MYSELF" mode that we see happen on here all the time, actually is pretty bad for conversation.

So you're talking about my response. I do do that. I didn't get all caps crazy with it, I mentioned that if you see me sitting that way, it isn't because I'm an alpha male jackass, it's because I'm uncomfortable in the seat. I feel like we're all on the same team here, but there is some weird thing where some of us are being lumped in with the other team. No matter what, it still isn't as bad as women have it in our society. It's just counterproductive to me, to argue with or yell at the people who are on your side.
posted by cashman at 12:03 PM on August 17, 2012 [2 favorites]

I used to sit on buses with young men who did this. Now, I am just as tall as them, and so my legs need just as much room. And yet there I was, with my legs being forced out into the aisle because they were in full-on splay leg peacock-slash-fight-or-flight display mode. But I learned pretty quickly that the only thing they found worse than not being able to spread their legs out was having their legs touched by another man. So I would just lean in a little, as though it was unconscious. And, bit by bit, their leg would move back to a reasonable level of closure, and they and I were able to share space equitably, although there is a possibility they thought I was sexually interested in them.

Alas, I am sure this would not work for a woman.

I feel like we're all on the same team here, but there is some weird thing where some of us are being lumped in with the other team.

There is a degree where it is useful to say, well, I'm not doing what is being talked about in the way that is being talked about, so they must not be talking about me. And there is another degree where it is useful to ask, might I actually be doing that thing, or is it possible that's how it is coming off?
posted by Bunny Ultramod at 12:07 PM on August 17, 2012 [4 favorites]

You know what I hate? Toddlers.
posted by LordSludge at 12:09 PM on August 17, 2012

You know what I hate? Toddlers.

How many could you take in a fight?
posted by cashman at 12:11 PM on August 17, 2012

How many could you take in a fight?

Fewer than you'd think. Toddlers are wily, and they fight dirty.
posted by KathrynT at 12:12 PM on August 17, 2012 [12 favorites]

City toddles all carry knives.
posted by Bunny Ultramod at 12:14 PM on August 17, 2012 [2 favorites]

"Fewer than you'd think. Toddlers are wily, and they fight dirty."

Like Ewoks, sans conscious.
posted by Tevin at 12:15 PM on August 17, 2012

*conscience.
posted by Tevin at 12:15 PM on August 17, 2012

I mentioned that if you see me sitting that way, it isn't because I'm an alpha male jackass, it's because I'm uncomfortable in the seat.

This is what I was talking about above. If you know that by sitting with your legs spread wide in the middle of the seat you are performing a territorial marking behavior that discourages other people from sitting near you, you can decide whether or not you actually want to be sending that message and modify your posture or not. Whether or not you mean it that way is entirely irrelevant.
posted by restless_nomad (staff) at 12:15 PM on August 17, 2012 [11 favorites]

en forme de poire: "an incredibly drunk dude was loudly having a protracted feelings talk with (presumably) his girlfriend that suddenly segued into ordering a large number of spicy tuna rolls, in the same tone of voice, such that I couldn't pinpoint when the transition happened."

Hey man, a good sushi chef is hard to find.
posted by mkultra at 12:16 PM on August 17, 2012 [1 favorite]

See, if you know how toddlers think, you can best know how to beat them in a fight.
posted by cashman at 12:16 PM on August 17, 2012

(And to be clear, "eh, the train's not that crowded and I don't give a fuck" is a perfectly reasonable decision to make. The point is that it should be a decision, not an unconscious behavior.)
posted by restless_nomad (staff) at 12:17 PM on August 17, 2012 [2 favorites]

Psst: We've gone from making fun of male anatomy to making fun of homeless people. Please do keep up.

What has this thread become.

Well, as someone who is just trying to catch back up with this thread, it appears to me as if we've gone from discussing whether MetaFilter has become a Girlzone to complaining about mansplaining and how rude men are on public transportation. Which, as much as I generally approve of freeform conversations, and may or may not agree with any particular point, I have to admit, it would make me a little uncomfortable if, having thoroughly lambasted someone for suggesting that MetaFilter might be on some level becoming unfriendly to men, we then turned this thread into yet another discussion of random things that suck about the patriarchy.

I mean, yeah: mansplaining sucks. Men taking up too much space and revving their engines and listening to voicemails from their brokenhearted exes in public sucks. But this seems like a really poor choice of threads to have that conversation. Or is it just me? If it's just me, I'll happily move along.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 12:22 PM on August 17, 2012 [8 favorites]

Alas, I am sure this would not work for a woman.

I (a very petite woman*) have found that it works quite well, at least in NYC. Mind you, I do it a little more aggressively than it sounds like you do, so it is obviously intentional. I have not yet had a man mistake this for me hitting on him. And yeah, I do it in (longish) skirts too. But then, I also will sit wide-stanced in a short skirt if there's no one across from me. It's comfortable! I also make sure to sit "normally" as soon as the train starts to fill.

*I think this is part of why it works. I obviously do not need to spread my legs that much for comfort, so it's quite clear that I'm reacting to the amount of space they are taking up.
posted by (Over) Thinking at 12:24 PM on August 17, 2012 [1 favorite]

I mean, yeah: mansplaining sucks. Men taking up too much space and revving their engines and listening to voicemails from their brokenhearted exes in public sucks. But this seems like a really poor choice of threads to have that conversation.

A thread complaining about GirlZone morphs into a thread about how men suck. Not sure if that's a self-fulfilling prophecy, or it means the feminists win this thread, or what... But damn if it's not hilarious.
posted by LordSludge at 12:29 PM on August 17, 2012 [1 favorite]

One day, I decided to just turn straight toward the offender (whose legs were so far apart I had less than half a seat to sit on) and say very firmly, "your balls are not that big, please move your leg." It was incredibly effective.

The Best Thing I ever witnessed on public transit was when I still lived in DC. I was on the bus home, and there was a young guy (late teens, early 20s) taking up a number of seats with his sprawliness. The bus wasn't jammed, but there were very few unoccupied seats.

Then a very dignified, matronly black woman gets on the bus (sprawly young guy was also black). She stands, steely-eyed, in front of the bank of seats where sprawly guy is sprawling; this was in the days before cell phones, so he's just pretending he doesn't see her. Finally she says, not shouting but loudly enough for the back half of the bus to overhear:

"Honey, have you been to the doctor?"

"Huh?"

"Because how you're sitting is just like how my uncle sits when his piles are acting up. Are you having trouble with piles? I can give you the name of a good doctor for that."

The *snap* of the young man closing his legs and sitting up straight was almost audible over the not-quite-muffled laughter of other passengers.
posted by rtha at 12:30 PM on August 17, 2012 [147 favorites]

Was that intended as a sampling of what you are criticizing?
posted by Bunny Ultramod at 12:30 PM on August 17, 2012

That comment was to Burhanistan.
posted by Bunny Ultramod at 12:30 PM on August 17, 2012

It is possible that this only applies to myself, but speaking as a man (as I tend to do), I don't think there's anything Girlzoney or unfriendly to men to this conversation. This isn't a conversation about how awful men are, at all. At least not as far as I can tell.
posted by shakespeherian at 12:32 PM on August 17, 2012 [2 favorites]

Hey, it's another opportunity to air random grievances, display just how special and quirky one is, talk past each other, and interpret other comments uncharitably.

No, human spaceflight is not a waste and has consistently provided material and scientific rewards to the world.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 12:32 PM on August 17, 2012 [8 favorites]

A thread complaining about GirlZone morphs into a thread about how men suck.

"Men"? I can't speak for everyone, of course, but I was never speaking of all men everywhere in the world in anything I've said, and never do. If I've given that impression, I for one apologize.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 12:32 PM on August 17, 2012

Like Ewoks, sans conscious.

Shaved Ewoks.
posted by LordSludge at 12:32 PM on August 17, 2012 [1 favorite]

Well, as someone who is just trying to catch back up with this thread, it appears to me as if we've gone from discussing whether MetaFilter has become a Girlzone to complaining about mansplaining and how rude men are on public transportation. Which, as much as I generally approve of freeform conversations, and may or may not agree with any particular point, I have to admit, it would make me a little uncomfortable if, having thoroughly lambasted someone for suggesting that MetaFilter might be on some level becoming unfriendly to men, we then turned this thread into yet another discussion of random things that suck about the patriarchy.

This seems odd to me because many many threads about women's rights and feelings turn into threads about men's feelings. It feels to me like most discussions of the patriarchy turn into discussions about men's feelings, actually.

Anyway, if the leg-splaying thing was really about appearing physically threatening, you'd think that little girls and small women, who are just as physically at risk for assault, would be taught to do this, too. But we're not. So.
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 12:33 PM on August 17, 2012 [7 favorites]

Ewoks are delicious with couscous.
posted by shakespeherian at 12:34 PM on August 17, 2012 [1 favorite]

Ewoks are delicious with couscous.

Ugh. Tastes like toddler.
posted by LordSludge at 12:36 PM on August 17, 2012 [3 favorites]

many many threads about women's rights and feelings turn into threads about men's feelings. It feels to me like most discussions of the patriarchy turn into discussions about men's feelings, actually

And when that happens it bothers people and gets called out, as it should.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 12:36 PM on August 17, 2012 [2 favorites]

Clearly you have never tried Jonathan Swift's Irish Cookbook!
posted by Bunny Ultramod at 12:37 PM on August 17, 2012

i am a tall woman. my legs go with someone who is about 6'1, 6'2 (i'm only 5'10, but i'm much longer from the waist down than the waist up). i have broad shoulders. i have long arms. i have big thighs and hips to go with them. i manage to sit (sometimes incredibly uncomfortably) in my own space. i was absolutely raised in a religion that has strict gender roles and encourages girls, and then women, to be smaller, subservient, and polite at all times - i hadn't really contemplated that connection before.
posted by nadawi at 12:37 PM on August 17, 2012 [4 favorites]

And then I was like, "That's a pretty dumb argument to make considering the context of the discussion we were having," and I used the word "pushback" to describe how a number of people, including me, jumped all over Reggie Knoble for defending his argument on "dudes could be trying to be easily victimized."

Three people responded to that comment.

One was you. One was Zarq and one was rtha.

Zarq and rtha were perfectly reasonable, you were kind of snarky.

I would hardly charecterise it as a number of people jumping all over me and it is a little bit wierd that you would.
posted by Reggie Knoble at 12:52 PM on August 17, 2012

stood up as my stop was approaching he just sighed and kind of turned sideways rather than standing up and getting out of the way.

I never understand why people do this. You would prefer having my crotch or ass in your face and probably getting hit by one of my bags over just standing up? Most dick move things at least come out better for the dick.
posted by Kwine at 12:56 PM on August 17, 2012

Anyway, if the leg-splaying thing was really about appearing physically threatening, you'd think that little girls and small women, who are just as physically at risk for assault, would be taught to do this, too. But we're not. So.

On the other side of the coin, though, I actually got some great lessons in body language from an older woman who, while quite petite, nevertheless always looked powerful and authoritative. As I remember part of this was not being afraid to take up enough space to be comfortable. Another was doing things like intentionally not getting out of the way when a man was walking towards her, which she mentioned was definitely a learned behavior on her part. So I think acculturation could certainly be leading women to preemptively cede their control of public space, and that it could be liberating and rewarding to throw off some of those cultural expectations.

(I'm not talking about going totally sprawly-balls, of course - just moving a bit in that direction from a more constrained type of body language.)
posted by en forme de poire at 12:57 PM on August 17, 2012 [2 favorites]

you'd think that little girls and small women, who are just as physically at risk for assault, would be taught to do this, too.

Not that I believe the original premise, necessarily, but wouldn't our patriarchal society have any interest in not teaching women how to assert themselves?
posted by ODiV at 12:58 PM on August 17, 2012 [1 favorite]

A thread complaining about GirlZone morphs into a thread about how men suck.

I'm a man and I think this thread has been about how jackasses suck.
posted by arcticseal at 12:59 PM on August 17, 2012 [15 favorites]

I don't think there's anything Girlzoney or unfriendly to men to this conversation. This isn't a conversation about how awful men are, at all. At least not as far as I can tell.

So if there were a thread about how shrill some women are on their cellphones, and how others sit it an annoying fashion, and still others are alpha-woman assholes who need to be put in their place... you wouldn't find that even a teeny bit BoyZone? I sure would.

I dunno... Maybe it's an appropriate counter-balance to all the bullshit that women have to deal with because of our screwed up culture. I do think Mefi swings GirlZone sometimes. But it swings BoyZone others, probably more often than GirlZone -- but I haven't been keeping score.

I just wish we could all come together AS PEOPLE and focus on this toddler problem.
posted by LordSludge at 1:00 PM on August 17, 2012 [3 favorites]

Not to make metafilter too GayZone, but ... Getting rid of heterosexuals would help to cut down on the toddler problem. (not completely, but still)
posted by rmd1023 at 1:04 PM on August 17, 2012 [1 favorite]

We have gone... past the MetaZone.
posted by CrystalDave at 1:09 PM on August 17, 2012

Aw, I wanted to go to the DangerZone.
posted by ODiV at 1:11 PM on August 17, 2012

So I think acculturation could certainly be leading women to preemptively cede their control of public space, and that it could be liberating and rewarding to throw off some of those cultural expectations.

Oh, I agree completely, and I'm very thankful for my sister giving me Riot Grrrl lit when I was a tween about how you should swing your arms when you walk and pick your nose on the train when men look at you and touch their balls (which has happened more times than I care to remember). But in my experience, those lessons come late, well after we get lots of stuff about how girls should sit and how they should make room for others and how they shouldn't cause a scene. The larger cultural message is still one of women minimizing themselves.
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 1:12 PM on August 17, 2012 [2 favorites]

The ToddlerZone is for immediate loading and unloading of diapers only. There is no changing in the MetaZone.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 1:15 PM on August 17, 2012 [2 favorites]

"Men are more conservative in facial movement and body contact. However, they do tend to be unreserved in sitting styles: sprawling, stretching and spreading out. The intensity level for women drops for the sitting position -- they tend to draw in, keeping arms and legs close to their bodies....The goal for men, however, depends upon the task. Want to appear in charge? Use the body to control the discussion space."

When I'm in a meeting where people are being jerks and talking down to me, I will sometimes consciously adjust my body language so that I take up an awful lot of the chair. I lean back and look relaxed and maybe a little bored, rather than politely attentive. I let my arms take up a lot of space and open up my chest instead of keep my arms low to the table and in front of my chest. As a Uterus-American, I find it AMAZING how people become more deferential when you start taking physical postures of power, especially physical postures of power more typical of men. Sometimes even when you don't SAY anything in the meeting, people will say afterwards, "She seemed really aggressive ..." Humans are weird. It's all very fascinating.

(But I have also discovered that some stereotypically feminine traits can "win" meetings, especially contentious ones; letting everyone have their say, restating what someone else has said (in terms that advance your opinion), speaking last after the main arguers have worn themselves out and you can summarize in a way that favors your point of view and makes you sound like a reasonable reconciler -- I've seen women "win" meetings all these ways. I don't think it's conscious -- I think they're applying feminine methods of communicating in ways that have had favorable outcomes for them in the past -- but it's fascinating.)

nangar: "It bugs me a little to find out that people are thinking "huh, airing out your balls, are you, you fucking jackass?" every time they see me on a bus, just because people with long legs sit funny in cramped seating if there's enough space available."

We're not, I promise. Awkwardly-large (in whatever dimension) people who are aware of others around them are obviously aware of others around them. There's an enormous difference between a dude who's taking up a seat and a half because he thinks he's entitled to it, and a dude who's taking up a seat and a half because his knees can't go forward-facing in the space between rows. Your body language makes it obvious. You may even find women preferentially sitting next to you, or sitting their children next to you so they don't take up much space, because it is obvious you are not a jerk and therefore a safe and non-threatening seatmate.

Guys who are just oblivious because they're absorbed in their book or looking out the window or whatever and have sprawled into a second seat will, when you say, "Excuse me," pull their knees back in and say, "Oh, so sorry!" and rearrange themselves to be comfortable and not-spawling. They are also not jerks.

When it's 8 million degrees out and there's no A/C on the train and you've got your legs spread all the way out, I'm pretty sure you're airing your balls. But I don't blame you. That must be uncomfortable.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 1:15 PM on August 17, 2012 [26 favorites]

Metafilter: Going totally sprawly-balls.
posted by Devils Rancher at 1:16 PM on August 17, 2012 [8 favorites]

too many baby diapers have already been changed on the dinner table of the metazone
posted by elizardbits at 1:21 PM on August 17, 2012 [4 favorites]

So you're talking about my response. I do do that.

cashman, the sense I've gotten reading your responses is that you actually don't do the thing that people are complaining about (spreading out and taking up more than one seat regardless of whether the car is crowded or whether there's somebody sitting next to you), and that instead what's happening is that you so strongly want not to seem rude, you're perceiving criticism where there likely isn't any.

From what you've described, you really aren't doing the rude thing. I mean, this part:

Oh I "close up" as soon as anyone needs or is near the space I'm in. I never recline my chair on a flight, because I know how annoying and painful it is for the person (like me) behind you. It never even gets to the "be polite" point because I just withstand the pain and "close up" almost immediately.

You are not the problem. Your behavior does not match the behavior that's being criticized. You are, if anything, being so considerate of the people around you that it's causing problems for you.

On preview, what Eyebrows McGee says here is dead on the money, IME:

Awkwardly-large (in whatever dimension) people who are aware of others around them are obviously aware of others around them. There's an enormous difference between a dude who's taking up a seat and a half because he thinks he's entitled to it, and a dude who's taking up a seat and a half because his knees can't go forward-facing in the space between rows. Your body language makes it obvious.

Similarly with people who have physical issues that affect how they sit. Somebody who's taking up two seats but who's holding a cane or looks like they're dealing with pain is pretty clearly not doing it to be a jerk.
posted by Lexica at 1:27 PM on August 17, 2012 [3 favorites]

When it's 8 million degrees out and there's no A/C on the train and you've got your legs spread all the way out, I'm pretty sure you're airing your balls. But I don't blame you. That must be uncomfortable.

For some reason, this comment has me wondering to what extent my laptop is currently irradiating my balls.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 1:29 PM on August 17, 2012

Probably because it's 8 million degrees out and there's no A/C in the house.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 1:32 PM on August 17, 2012

Guys, if we talk about our balls enough, I'm confident we can bring this thread back to BoyZone... WHO'S WITH ME???
posted by LordSludge at 1:33 PM on August 17, 2012 [1 favorite]

But I learned pretty quickly that the only thing they found worse than not being able to spread their legs out was having their legs touched by another man.

Elmer shivered in delight. The funny, bunny looking man had just gotten on the subway. Immediately Elmer spread his legs in the seat, taking up so much space.

The bunny man's eyes swept the car and then narrowed in Elmer's direction. His lips curled into a slight smile and began walking towards Elmer.

Tonight, he would share his carrot.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 1:38 PM on August 17, 2012 [7 favorites]

I don't mind toddlers, unless they're accompanied by a 3'x4'x3' stroller, and an adult who for some reason is surprised and angry that it won't fit down the croweded corridor they have decided to take it down.
posted by Quonab at 1:38 PM on August 17, 2012 [1 favorite]

It's a weird phenomenon, really. After reading so many comments about seating stance and balls, I just suddenly, found myself really uncomfortably aware of my current stance and anatomy. I imagine it would have happened if we'd been talking about ear canals or eyeballs, too. Just was funny. A comment about wide stance and hot balls (so to speak) just made me really conscious that, crap, it's really hot in here, and I could really use some airing out, as it were.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 1:40 PM on August 17, 2012

Also, I think it's time to baste the toddler.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 1:43 PM on August 17, 2012 [2 favorites]

My four month old has started sprawling out in bed. Lately, by morning she has half the bed to herself and then my wife and I are squished up in the other half.
posted by ODiV at 1:43 PM on August 17, 2012 [2 favorites]

put your manties in the freezer for about ten minutes, flo. REFRESCANTE!
posted by elizardbits at 1:44 PM on August 17, 2012 [5 favorites]

My four month old has started sprawling out in bed. Lately, by morning she has half the bed to herself and then my wife and I are squished up in the other half.

This is how it begins. May God give you strength.
posted by LordSludge at 1:46 PM on August 17, 2012 [3 favorites]

My four month old has started sprawling out in bed. Lately, by morning she has half the bed to herself and then my wife and I are squished up in the other half.
posted by ODiV at 3:43 PM on August 17 [+] [!]

My cat does this, but he takes his half from the middle.
posted by patheral at 1:51 PM on August 17, 2012 [13 favorites]

"This is how it begins. May God give you strength."

Then, before you know it, you're waking up with their finger inside your nose at 5:43am, directly pressing that part of your brain that's responsible for figuring out how to get away with murder.
posted by Tevin at 1:52 PM on August 17, 2012 [12 favorites]

complaining...how rude men are on public transportation

Hmph. I was simply noting the behavior of a very specific set of young men in a very specific circumstance. Not all men, not all public transportation. And I think the discussion of how men and women are socialized to hold their bodies differently in shared public spaces is very interesting.

I'm 44 and I've been working on stopping it for years, but I still always look down when I pass a strange man in the street. I tell myself I'm not going to do it and I do it anyway! What is that?!

when men look at you and touch their balls (which has happened more times than I care to remember)

Holy shit! This happens to other people?! See, I've learned something new. I wince now when young men in those polyester basketball shorts enter my office, because they seem like the most frequent ball / penis touchers. One guy managed to touch his groin three times while asking me where the bathroom was and getting an answer.
posted by Squeak Attack at 1:54 PM on August 17, 2012 [1 favorite]

Oh man. I remember this guy I knew online (don't judge me) from an IRC channel (really, please don't) was going to lend me some Dreamcast videogames. So I go over to his apartment, he gets the games for me and then "Hey, the Simpsons is on!" So I sit down on the couch to watch the Simpsons with him.

And then over the next five minutes his hand went lower and lower until it was wrist deep down the front of his pants, his fixed straight ahead. I suddenly remembered that I had somewhere to be.

Now I'm sure some guys find this relaxing. But I just met you!
posted by ODiV at 2:01 PM on August 17, 2012

his gaze fixed straight ahead.
posted by ODiV at 2:02 PM on August 17, 2012

All this ball touching is utterly baffling to me.

This thing, with the ball-touching and looking straight at someone, I don't want to believe it happens but I'm sure it does.

I just ... shiver
posted by Tevin at 2:07 PM on August 17, 2012

And then over the next five minutes his hand went lower and lower until it was wrist deep down the front of his pants, his fixed straight ahead.

Both of my wife's brothers do this. I have never done this my entire life. IT'S DISGUSTING. If I ever catch one of my own sons doing this there will be some very stern words. Very. Stern. Words.

And possibly enforced piano lessons (you need something to with your hands?! I'll show you what you can do with your hands young man!)
posted by Doleful Creature at 2:12 PM on August 17, 2012 [4 favorites]

Yeah, I always wonder what stimulates that response in some dudes. Is it a guarding thing when faced with even the slightest confrontation (which I guess eye contact can be for some people)? Or is it some form of ill-conceived gift, like your cat bringing you a dead mouse? Is it like a security blankie? In your pants?

I mean I guess it could just be that some dudes really like touching their balls. Little kids of any gender are always whackin it whenever they get a chance, maybe some people just don't grow out of it.
posted by elizardbits at 2:13 PM on August 17, 2012

ODiV: "And then over the next five minutes his hand went lower and lower until it was wrist deep down the front of his pants, his fixed straight ahead. I suddenly remembered that I had somewhere to be."

Marge isn't bad, she's just drawn that way.
posted by mkultra at 2:14 PM on August 17, 2012 [1 favorite]

It generally seems like they're checking to make sure everything is still there. It's not a sexual overture in the least. Except for bathroom guy. i had my doubts about him.

But yet, we are in a (semi) professional setting, they are an arm's length from me, and I can see them touching their bits.
posted by Squeak Attack at 2:16 PM on August 17, 2012

Wasn't that the Al Bundy move? Plop on the couch, hands down the pants. I always thought that was just a weird, made up quirk. Never witnessed it, myself.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 2:18 PM on August 17, 2012

And now I have just had a tragic moment of l'esprit d'escalier in which I remember wanting to accuse someone of being late to their NO MA'AM meeting earlier in the thread.

sigh.
posted by elizardbits at 2:20 PM on August 17, 2012

Wasn't that the Al Bundy move? Plop on the couch, hands down the pants. I always thought that was just a weird, made up quirk. Never witnessed it, myself.

I've seen it plenty of times. As long as you don't intermittently sniff your fingers, I'll keep pretending not to see anything and it's all cool.
posted by Forktine at 2:22 PM on August 17, 2012 [1 favorite]

His hand kept drifting lower and lower,
until his entire arm up to the shoulder
was deep inside of his pants,
until his hand emerged from his pant cuff,
until his entire forearm emerged from his pant cuff,
until he used that same hand
from that same forearm
to pull his own head into his own trouser waist;

and the process continued,
for this ouroboros of the couch,
for this infinitely regressive Mandelcrotch,
until he became as small
and dense
and as hard
as a diamond.

This diamond,
when placed into an appropriate ring setting,
allows you to marry anyone you please

anyone at all

even babes
posted by Sticherbeast at 2:23 PM on August 17, 2012 [15 favorites]

And it's kind of a no-win thing because a conspicuous YER OUTTA HERE thing always feels weirdly public in a way I don't really like but when it happens more quietly on the back end there's this "wait you secretly banned them, wtf" thing that can come with it. But so it goes.

Did a boatload of shit get deleted from that thread? 'Caus my recollection (or possibly my hallucination) was of (1) "Jez, when the hell will this clown stop throwing his shit tantrum in this thread"; (2) "Cortex is being unbelievably patient with this clown, I don't think I've *ever* seen an exchange like this (where one side is being a complete raving asshole, and the other is calmly responding) go so long."; (3) "Oh. Totally understandable. And a frank & succinct conclusion."

But looking at it now, the only evidence that there was a real shitstorm is the favorites count. I'd expect cortex's final response to be more along the lines of riffing off of Shel Silverstein's "It Does Not Pay to Be Hip":
"Football, baseball, volleyball, or basketball,
Handball, pinball, bowling ball?"
then flipping it back with, say, "What kind of balls do you need?", followed with something about timeout, playing by the rules, etc.

Which, if my recollection is correct, is also a kind of no-win thing, because looking at it now, there's not a lot of context available to see the build up. Otoh, keeping a useless shitstorm around, especially if it's going to be cited/remembered, isn't all that great either, for a number of subtle reasons.

On the other other hand, if this is all my hallucination, I'm not especially thrilled with that, but I figure "that'd be a personal problem", and not much of a Metafilter issue..
posted by Tuesday After Lunch at 2:23 PM on August 17, 2012

Wasn't that the Al Bundy move? Plop on the couch, hands down the pants. I always thought that was just a weird, made up quirk. Never witnessed it, myself.

I do that unconsciously at home sometimes, when i'm alone. The hand goes only like an inch down the pants, though, like belt height, so it shouldn't come anywhere near any incriminating parts. I caught myself doing this once or twice in the company of close friends and my mind let out a big "WTF!" to itself.

Anyway, it's a warm and comfortable position to hang your hand in, i don't think it should be lumped with any sort of sexual thing.

I watched a lot of married with children as a kid, i don't know if there was some brainwashing involved.
posted by palbo at 2:32 PM on August 17, 2012 [1 favorite]

Did a boatload of shit get deleted from that thread?

Nope, was genuinely a very short thread. As I recall, though, it was relatively soon after another Meta thread about or involving that person in which most of the memorable stuff actually happened.
posted by restless_nomad (staff) at 2:34 PM on August 17, 2012

>A thread complaining about GirlZone morphs into a thread about how men suck.

"Men"? I can't speak for everyone, of course, but I was never speaking of all men everywhere in the world in anything I've said, and never do. If I've given that impression, I for one apologize.

No, I didn't mean you -- or anybody in particular. Just calling out one of the twists the thread took that I found ironic. Not sure who initiated that whole lookit-this-douchebag things tbh.

But I did want some clarification on one of your earlier comments (if you're still around?):

Okay, but I really can't see why Reggie is so insistent upon claiming the right to Speak The Male Perspective in threads that deal with female experience.

I don't disagree with you here that some men want to stamp their opinions where they may not be welcome, but doesn't this strongly imply that there are some threads where the male perspective is not welcome. Should some threads, then, be explicitly GirlZone?
posted by LordSludge at 2:34 PM on August 17, 2012 [1 favorite]

Also I just wanted all of you know that as a result of a previous comment I made in this thread I have inspired myself (I know, I know) to launch an extensive prank on my mother involving the aforementioned throwaway joke known as Horse Rubbing Allergy Therapy.

Thanks MeTa, without you my life would be so normal. *hug*
posted by Doleful Creature at 2:39 PM on August 17, 2012 [3 favorites]

restless_nomad: Nope, was genuinely a very short thread.

Huh. Tuesday After Lunch strikes me as a bad time for dropping acid.
posted by gman at 2:40 PM on August 17, 2012

I know a guy who noticed that many guys tended to relax a bit and get more comfortable with him if he sort of touched his own crotch occasionally while they were talking to each other - his theory was that it was creating a "yeah, we're laid back guys being chill" kind of ambiance. (Not, like, groping himself. More like a precursor to checking if his fly was open sort of touching.)

On the other hand, i was once at a poker table down at Foxwoods, and this guy sat down at the table and proceeded to unbuckle and unzip his pants. After a few minutes of incredulously trying to not look at this, i realized he was just getting comfortable, apparently, and was not about to start waving his dick around, but I was all set to start yelling "PUT YOUR FUCKING PANTS ON, SIR" before things got uneventful again.
posted by rmd1023 at 2:41 PM on August 17, 2012

Should some threads, then, be explicitly GirlZone?

Glad you said it and not me. I think it could be useful as a tag or something. If it is useful for the majority of the thread's participants to be able to tell stories, share experiences and not have men speak, I'm all for it. Because in my opinion, pretty standard metafilter commenting (sharing links and offering information, analyzing behavior) causes problems in those threads. I'm sure that has a good chance of being taken completely uncharitably, but I think it is a valid suggestion if the problem keeps reoccurring. And for sure a wealth of people who frequent these threads say it keeps reoccurring.
posted by cashman at 2:42 PM on August 17, 2012 [1 favorite]

Wasn't that the Al Bundy move? Plop on the couch, hands down the pants. I always thought that was just a weird, made up quirk. Never witnessed it, myself.

I haven't seen it in years, but when I was a youngster, it wasn't uncommon to see an old man sitting in a public place (eg. bus station, Five & Dime store) with his hand inside his pants. It wasn't a sexual thing, it was a personal comfort thing. Some female comedian (Elayne Boosler?) had this neat joke of "Why do men do this?" (demonstrating putting hand partly down pants) "Well, I finally figured it out -- that's where the sleep button is." (demonstrating falling back and snoring)
posted by Tuesday After Lunch at 2:42 PM on August 17, 2012

ODiV: "My four month old has started sprawling out in bed. Lately, by morning she has half the bed to herself and then my wife and I are squished up in the other half."

My wife has just plain given up. A couple of nights a week, I wake up with 2 four year olds sprawled across our bed, using me as a pillow or foot rest... or mattress, while my wife is comfortably sleeping alone on the living room couch downstairs.

Soon we'll be ditching the toddler beds for twin beds. I'm seriously considering getting them ones comfortable enough for me to sleep on, since I'm pretty sure at some point there will be an uprising and we'll lose our bed to them forever.
posted by zarq at 2:43 PM on August 17, 2012 [2 favorites]

Al Bundy never went so far as the wrist though, usually stopping where the fingers met the hand, often leaving his thumb out. Whether this was because of the television censorship of the era or a personal comfort issue, we may never know.
posted by ODiV at 2:46 PM on August 17, 2012

cashman: "Glad you said it and not me. I think it could be useful as a tag or something. If it is useful for the majority of the thread's participants to be able to tell stories, share experiences and not have men speak, I'm all for it."

Participation is part of the Metafilter learning process. We ask questions and get answers. We voice assumptions and people give us additional information to work with, that either reinforce what we already know or change our minds. We learn through discussion, not one-way lectures.

I would hate to see Metafilter become a censorship-reinforced echo chamber.
posted by zarq at 3:00 PM on August 17, 2012 [2 favorites]

I'm pretty sure at some point there will be an uprising and we'll lose our bed to them forever.

My son pulled the switcheroo a few times -- "Daddy, will you lay down with me?" I'd squeeze myself into his little bed, & scrunch up uncomfortably until we both drifted off, to wake up 4 hours later, with a neck ache, all alone. Where do you think he was? Sprawled across my side of my bed, next to his mom.
posted by Devils Rancher at 3:07 PM on August 17, 2012 [13 favorites]

That is a frighteningly intelligent child. :D
posted by zarq at 3:09 PM on August 17, 2012 [3 favorites]

I don't disagree with you here that some men want to stamp their opinions where they may not be welcome, but doesn't this strongly imply that there are some threads where the male perspective is not welcome. Should some threads, then, be explicitly GirlZone?

I think that was poor phrasing on my part.

What I mean is: suppose the topic of the thread was something like (and I'm reaching back into the past for a topic here) women's experiences dealing with men who corner them on elevators and crowd them into the corner in an attempt to talk to them. There are many women commenting on how uncomfortable they personally feel when such a thing happens to them, and some are also speaking to why such a move can be perceived as aggression rather than "friendliness."

It just strikes me that, in a conversation like that, it is readily apparent that women are taking the opportunity to just say "hey, listen, this is what this kind of thing is like from our perspective. We know that YOU know what it feels like for YOU, but maybe you didn't know what it feels like for US, so....yeah, just something to think about." Maybe a few of the women even come in to say "and for the record, we KNOW that there are guys who just plain don't get that this is an appropriate thing to do to women. In fact, the fact that we know some guys don't get this is exactly WHY we are talking about this, so those guys WILL get it, in plain English."

And even so, in a thread like that, the "male perspective" wouldn't be entirely unwelcome (to me, at least, not speaking for others of course) depending on context. In a thread like that, a guy could come in and say, "huh, I think I did something like this and this is what my perspective was. Didn't mean anything harmful at all; but yeah, now that I think about it in this other light, maybe you've given me something to think about." Or a guy could say "hmm, this is what I was thinking when I did that, but it seemed to me like she was okay with it because [foo baz schmeh,] so maybe something like that's okay? If she hadn't been cool with it, I'd have stopped, though."

Where I think the problem comes in is with the guys who say "he was just TALKING to her, I don't see WHAT the problem could be" or "hey some guys don't get socialized so women should cut us some slack" or "men are socialized to be aggressive so women should just take that into account when this kind of thing happens" or"I talked to a woman in an elevator and she was cool with it so clearly y'all are making it up or you're oversensitive or something." Or even, "see, you women aren't afraid because of [foo], you're really afraid because of [baz]."

It just feels like if women express themselves about something, or express a preference that they say a lot of women, in their experience, have about something, a number of men will react with shock and suspicion and try to nitpick it to death: "Why would you possibly not like that? I don't see what the problem is with that. What are your reasons? And what about this one woman I met this one time who was okay with it?" These same men, I wager, would -- if a male friend of theirs happened to say "y'know, I really don't like it when people do [schmeh]," would say, "really? Huh. Okay, thanks, good to know." Or even "really? Huh. Well, this is what my intent was, for the record, but yeah, sorry it didn't read that way."

I just wish I knew why women didn't get the same kind of "that's how you react to that? Huh. I never knew that. Thanks for letting me know."
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 3:11 PM on August 17, 2012 [18 favorites]

These same men, I wager, would -- if a male friend of theirs happened to say "y'know, I really don't like it when people do [schmeh]," would say, "really? Huh. Okay, thanks, good to know." Or even "really? Huh. Well, this is what my intent was, for the record, but yeah, sorry it didn't read that way."

I'd actually take that wager. My experience is that guys who are douchily dismissive to women are also generally all-around douches, at least when it comes to taking crit.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 3:19 PM on August 17, 2012 [3 favorites]

I just wish I knew why women didn't get the same kind of "that's how you react to that? Huh. I never knew that. Thanks for letting me know."
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 11:11 PM on August 17 [+] [!]

This is no different to any other subject.

I'm sure we can all discuss Isreal/Palestine, circumcision or cat declawing in person with our friends who we know well in calm measured tones (mostly).

But here? The knives come out every time.

For all kinds of reasons. Text communication is trickier than face to face, often we are speaking to people we don't actually know, people are douchily dismissive on both sides and before you know it you have a clusterfuck.
posted by Reggie Knoble at 3:26 PM on August 17, 2012 [2 favorites]

For all kinds of reasons. Text communication is trickier than face to face, often we are speaking to people we don't actually know, people are douchily dismissive on both sides and before you know it you have a clusterfuck.

brohammed, if (just picking an example out of the air here) i were having a face to face conversation about rape with someone and they kept trying to make the conversation be about false accusations of rape, calm measured tones would not be on the menu
posted by FAMOUS MONSTER at 3:30 PM on August 17, 2012 [11 favorites]

brohammed

What the fuck is that about?
posted by Reggie Knoble at 3:36 PM on August 17, 2012 [3 favorites]

So if there were a thread about how shrill some women are on their cellphones, and how others sit it an annoying fashion, and still others are alpha-woman assholes who need to be put in their place... you wouldn't find that even a teeny bit BoyZone? I sure would.


I would, but only because of the coded language you're using here-- 'shrill' and 'put in their place.' A thread about some annoying habits of some annoying women in American or UK culture does not strike as BoyZone.
posted by shakespeherian at 3:37 PM on August 17, 2012 [4 favorites]

Whoa there Bro Diddley, it's just another way of saying BROSEPH.
posted by elizardbits at 3:37 PM on August 17, 2012 [10 favorites]

alt: brosquito
posted by FAMOUS MONSTER at 3:38 PM on August 17, 2012 [2 favorites]

"Broham is actually pronounced brohym, its an irish slang turm for brother or friend, made popular by the irish mob.
Hey, whats up broham wanna knock-over a 7/11?"
posted by clavdivs at 3:40 PM on August 17, 2012 [3 favorites]

Bromo sapien
posted by twist my arm at 3:41 PM on August 17, 2012 [1 favorite]

bro hamma
bro hamma-ramma dim don....
bro hamma
posted by clavdivs at 3:41 PM on August 17, 2012 [1 favorite]

basically whichever portmanbreau you like
posted by FAMOUS MONSTER at 3:43 PM on August 17, 2012 [13 favorites]

"Rectal brolapse": When a dude just has to prove that he's an asshole. Example: See this comment.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 3:47 PM on August 17, 2012 [9 favorites]

But here? The knives come out every time

on older merchant vessels perhaps.
posted by clavdivs at 3:50 PM on August 17, 2012 [1 favorite]

The Pit of Despair. It is the Pit of Despair in here. Don't even think about trying to escape, the chains are far too thick.
posted by cashman at 3:51 PM on August 17, 2012

Actually, I was just leaving.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 3:54 PM on August 17, 2012

Leaving the GirlBrone?
posted by Bunny Ultramod at 3:58 PM on August 17, 2012

brohammed

That was not at all helpful to this discourse.
posted by mimo at 4:02 PM on August 17, 2012 [2 favorites]

brosferatu
posted by twist my arm at 4:09 PM on August 17, 2012 [2 favorites]

Napoleon Bronaparte and Empress Brosephine.
posted by elizardbits at 4:11 PM on August 17, 2012 [7 favorites]

That was not at all helpful to this discourse.

But it did serve to belittle the subject so.... there is that.
posted by LordSludge at 4:14 PM on August 17, 2012 [1 favorite]

I'll help you, bro.

ugh god i don't care how clean that bathroom might be. don't touch the urinal and don't squat under it while someone stands precariously on top of you to pee in it. urinals always make my brain go squicksquicksquick.

(i hope the picture-taker took some time to turn that into a Teaching Moment. after capturing for posterity, obvs.)

and-- brotus the barber beefcake
posted by twist my arm at 4:19 PM on August 17, 2012

Because in most of the instances where that kind of reaction is common, like for instance talking about sexual discrimination or harassment, the questioner gets very aggressive and Perry Mason about it and they go on and on with their questions like you were trying to get away with something by being honest about something that happened to you. Oh, and they also frequently take a tone as if they are the rational person from planet Logicon and you are some feeble creature from a mysterious star where the normal laws of understanding don't apply.

Frequently it is more like hostile cross-examination by someone who is making it clear that they think the only reason you experience the world as you do is because you're just not thinking about it in the obviously correct way that they do than an actual conversation with another person who regards you as their equal. It is maddening.
posted by winna at 4:40 PM on August 17, 2012 [34 favorites]

someone who is making it clear that they think the only reason you experience the world as you do is because you're just not thinking about it in the obviously correct way that they do than an actual conversation with another person who regards you as their equal. It is maddening.
posted by winna at 12:40 AM on August 18 [+] [!]

Yes, yes it is.
posted by Reggie Knoble at 4:42 PM on August 17, 2012 [4 favorites]

> "I have been told (in the past week, no less) I'm not being manly enough if I'm being cognizant of the space needs of others. That I am cowering."

I don't disbelieve this, but I am baffled and curious ... who SAYS this? To like, another person? How does that happen?
posted by kyrademon at 4:51 PM on August 17, 2012 [2 favorites]

Aw, I wanted to go to the DangerZone.

Would you describe that as a zone... of danger?

6'5" here, as a data point, and I am very aware that anyone sitting on the aisle seat when I am in the window seat in a cramped area is going to suffer, if I physically cannot fit my legs solely into the seatwell.

On planes, this is actually not a huge problem - nobody objects to you getting out of your seat and standing in the aisle, because everyone assumes you are trying to avoid DVT. On buses and trains, if the seatwell is not usable, I'll try to move to the aise. If that's not possible, the person on the aisle seat will probably need to spill into the aisle somewhat. It's mathematically awkward, but I'll winch myself in (briefly uncomfortably) and rest my knees on the seat in front of me if a trolley is going past.

None of that is related to standard NY or Boston subway seating, where people face each other in benched seats (without dividers), and which I suspect is what people are talking about here. I have no problem, in New York, in keeping my shoulders as the widest part of my body, and in bending my knees so I am not resting my feet in the lap of the person opposite. Those who cannot do this, for whatever reason, have my sympathy - I'm big enough to know how awkward being an obstacle for other people feels.

BART and LA Metro seating is arranged differently, and poses different challenges - more like airplane seating, in fact.
posted by running order squabble fest at 4:55 PM on August 17, 2012

That's what kills me. Especially with gender issues, we so often talk past each other, assume false motivations, and otherwise dismiss each others' opinions as somehow invalid. Men do it to women here, and women do it to men. It sucks all around, and generates more heat than light. Seems like we're making progress, but goddamn it's slow going.
posted by LordSludge at 4:55 PM on August 17, 2012 [4 favorites]

My experience is that guys who are douchily dismissive to women are also generally all-around douches, at least when it comes to taking crit.

Good point.

Answer them. They're not dogs, they're not brick walls; they're people who are asking you for more detail.

What I see in here, though, is that quite a few are asking for more detail and receiving those explanations, and continuing to ask the same questions.

And, I do answer. And often in the same threads you do. I'm not sure why you're thinking I'm saying I don't.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 4:57 PM on August 17, 2012 [3 favorites]

My experience is that guys who are douchily dismissive to women are also generally all-around douches, at least when it comes to taking crit.

or in some cases they might only respect other men as perceived equals and therefore be more inclined to respond as an equal.

Should some threads, then, be explicitly GirlZone?

no. because boyzone isn't a place where mens' opinions are respected and men are given a safe space. boyzone is (in my understanding) a place or atmosphere where women are explicitly not welcome and made to feel unsafe by all the stuff that has been discussed previously on MeFi re: the patriarchy etc.

i think what folks have been asking for is not a place where men aren't allowed to talk or are made to feel disrespected, which would be girlzone, but rather a place where we are all equals who still understand that there's a lot of baggage in these types of discussions and we would--all of us--therefore walk a little more softly than usual.

but some of that baggage includes women not being taken seriously when discussing serious shit (rape/murder) and less-serious shit (catcalling), so when it comes up on metafilter, you know, keep that in mind and act accordingly.

Because in my opinion, pretty standard metafilter commenting (sharing links and offering information, analyzing behavior) causes problems in those threads.

i think this may be an issue of "letter of" vs "spirit of," eg. a guy "analyzing behavior" when he doesn't believe any woman has a good reason to be suspicious of men randomly approaching her in inappropriate times/places/ways-- the assumptions that person is making is going to be pretty obvious to many women and is one of those things that will set off the oh-no-you-di'n't in these threads, especially those posters who've partaken in these discussions for years with, in some cases, no progress.

on preview, this:

Frequently it is more like hostile cross-examination

and this

And, I do answer. And often in the same threads you do. I'm not sure why you're thinking I'm saying I don't.
posted by twist my arm at 5:13 PM on August 17, 2012 [9 favorites]

It gets exceedingly tiresome to be accused of believing all men are rapists when not only do I not believe that, but I have said repeatedly and unambiguously that I dot believe that.
posted by rtha at 5:18 PM on August 17, 2012 [7 favorites]

Don't not dot. I don't know what dot is.
posted by rtha at 5:28 PM on August 17, 2012

Has that happened here, rtha? Genuinely curious, because I don't remember ever seeing that actually trotted out around here, except as an obviously stupid extreme (in the linked comic, for example). Not saying it didn't happen, just that these threads are long and I might have blocked something that dumb out.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 5:29 PM on August 17, 2012

"This is the part I just don't get: how is asking you questions about something you just said nit-picking? I feel like if you really want to get a point across, you can't be coming from a defensive position. Just state your case. When they ask for clarifications, clarify. I don't understand how a single one of those questions was out of line in any way. I mean, really... "What are your reasons?" is nit-picking?"

Because a lot of times it's more like a woman says, "He walked up to me, shouted 'Nice hooters!' and grabbed my boobs," and she's challenged, "What POSSIBLE evidence do you have that he wasn't admiring owls outside the bar -- it WAS night, after all -- and tripped and just HAPPENED to grab your boobs while trying to catch his balance? Jesus, give the guy the benefit of the doubt!"

Yes, I'm sure that for many situations we could come up with a totally absurd situation in which aggressively unwanted and inappropriate behaviors were totally unintended and the perpetrator is a perfectly nice schlemiel. But it's like being in torts class, seriously: yes, I suppose you could shoot the duck that falls on the other duck that falls on the second guy which makes him shoot the third guy, but IT SEEMS LIKE A REALLY STRAINED EXPLANATION.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 5:31 PM on August 17, 2012 [30 favorites]

Has that happened here, rtha?

(think she's probably talking about stuff like the hey-whatcha-readin' thread with subsequent, yeah... don't know if it happened in this thread. not going to look.)
posted by twist my arm at 5:33 PM on August 17, 2012

I'd be sad to hear that anyone pulled that particular sad cliche out of their ass anywhere on MetaFilter.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 5:36 PM on August 17, 2012

Oh, yeah, to clarify: not in this thread, at all. Other threads though - elevator thread and related meTa spring most immediately to mind - yeah. Apologies for the confusion.
posted by rtha at 5:37 PM on August 17, 2012

I think I was away during the elevator thread incident. Sorry to hear it was such a turdfest.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 6:00 PM on August 17, 2012

I think the elevator thread was kind of a kick in the gut to many female community members. I know it was for me.
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 6:04 PM on August 17, 2012 [27 favorites]

I've been taking the stairs ever since.
posted by Devils Rancher at 6:06 PM on August 17, 2012 [3 favorites]

Well, shit. I'm really sorry to hear about that.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 6:18 PM on August 17, 2012

I don't disbelieve this, but I am baffled and curious ... who SAYS this? To like, another person? How does that happen?

Those societal messages are strong. They're the same ones that say "the man is supposed to pay for the meal" and "the man should be taller than the woman". It's the same ones that tell women their worth is based on having children and supporting their husband, and then to top it off, gets older women to shame their daughters with it. A lot of us know these are bad messages, but when the entire weight of society is forcing socialization on you, it is hard for many people to resist these messages for extended periods of time. It is a fight. To help keep women in their place, patriarchy keeps men in their place. And women, of course, get the worst of this. After meetings at work if I'm cleaning up I'm asked why I'm doing it, and told not to worry about it. Meanwhile women are expected to clean up. I could go on and on, but I'm sure women are quite familiar with these situations.

i think this may be an issue of "letter of" vs "spirit of," eg. a guy "analyzing behavior" when he doesn't believe any woman has a good reason to be suspicious of men randomly approaching her in inappropriate times/places/ways-- the assumptions that person is making is going to be pretty obvious to many women and is one of those things that will set off the oh-no-you-di'n't in these threads

Maybe people thought I was doing that, after seeing it happen so many times. But if you look at my replies in the creepy dude thread, I was solely referencing men's behavior, and blaming it solely on men. No second-guessing or even mention of women was done on my part. Men's behavior is the problem, I was specifically, again, talking about the societal messages that exist that lead men to make bad choices that are entirely their fault, and they choose to behave in creepy ways. I didn't reply to the earlier comment that said I was making "goal oriented" posts, but that isn't at all what I was doing. It's just standard metafilter behavior - adding insights and links. I didn't tell any women anything about their behavior at all. And I made sure to make it clear that nothing excused the behavior of the men.

But I get if people are so used to that happening, they assumed I was doing that. I'll just try to navigate better and hopefully things improve. At the end of the day, I believe we're fighting for the same thing. Equality, and the end of a ridiculously sexist society.
posted by cashman at 6:20 PM on August 17, 2012 [2 favorites]

It gets exceedingly tiresome to be accused of believing all men are rapists...

One of the the take-aways** from the Schroedinger's Rapist thread was that women should treat all unknown men as potential rapists because "We. Can't. Tell." It's a nuanced difference, to be sure, but still hurtful and Othering to hear that I, as a man, should be treated as a rapist -- even if you don't believe that all men are actual rapists.

** Not trying to put words in your mouth; totally possible you weren't even around for that thread. One of the challenges of discussion here is that it's hard to keep individuals' opinions strictly separate. But that was one of the main themes of the thread - and, get this, I can totally see the validity from a woman's perspective.
posted by LordSludge at 6:35 PM on August 17, 2012 [2 favorites]

Frequently it is more like hostile cross-examination by someone who is making it clear that they think the only reason you experience the world as you do is because you're just not thinking about it in the obviously correct way that they do than an actual conversation with another person who regards you as their equal. It is maddening.

Yes, it totally is. It's more than maddening - it's hurtful, it's dismissive, and many times it's bullying.

So what I don't understand is the disconnect when those who make this complaint will all too often turn around and do the same damn thing to others.

You don't get a pass on rude behavior just because you think you're obviously in the right.
posted by flex at 6:37 PM on August 17, 2012 [2 favorites]

It's not that women SHOULD, it's that from repeated experience women LEARN to do so. And that hurt feelings do not trump people's personal safety.
posted by elizardbits at 6:38 PM on August 17, 2012 [18 favorites]

(My comment above is not specifically directed at winna, it is just my thoughts bouncing off her quote.)
posted by flex at 6:38 PM on August 17, 2012

Men's behavior is the problem, I was specifically, again, talking about the societal messages that exist that lead men to make bad choices that are entirely their fault, and they choose to behave in creepy ways.

Cashman, I get where you're coming from, and I don't think you're doing anything wrong per se, but when you focus on the creepers (who many women think are operating on bad faith or at least with giant privilege chips on their shoulder), you seem to me like you're missing the point. What I'm interested in in that thread isn't the insights into the behavior of the creepers, because men "explaining" the reasoning creepers use has, historically, been about men excusing their behavior ("he's just not a socially adept guy, what do you expect?"). Where you could offer some awesome insights about what men are thinking is "why do men give creepers a free pass?" and "what things can women say or do to get men to stop ignoring creepers/harassers in their circle and the complaints of the women around them and do something supportive/helpful?".

For me that discussion wasn't about creepers at all, it was about the rest of the men in those circles and the "bros before hos" backup that men give other men even when other men are creepers who make the women in their circles miserable, up to and including molestation/assault.
posted by immlass at 6:42 PM on August 17, 2012 [8 favorites]

Well; one factor is the trend for feminist posts on MetaFilter to be outragefilter. That gives the same bunch of folks an opportunity to go grind their axes, and it's not really surprising that the thread turns into a pit of vipers if the original post is hurtful to somebody. Once someone is hurt, good faith discussion pretty much dies in the water.

There also seems to be a lot of long term butthurt, deliberate misrepresentations of others' feelings after the thread is done, overly rigid worldviews... It's sucky. I don't like it. For the record, I don't have any grudges against people I've gotten into heated debates with here; and I've gotten too heated more often than I'd like to admit. Some of you are some of my favorite people on the site, in fact.

I don't know. I think MetaFilter discussions of feminism and gender issues have gotten much better in some ways, but they're still often uncomfortable for me for multiple reasons, and a lot of the most well regarded threads on the site look to me more like a triggering mess of verbal vomit built on a mountain of trauma.
posted by byanyothername at 7:06 PM on August 17, 2012 [1 favorite]

But it's true LordSludge and sadly it's necessary. Because like elizardbits said, men are worrying about being misunderstood and having their feelings hurt, while we are worrying about being raped and murdered. And no, that's not hyperbole.

And that's the fault of the creepers and harrassers and rapists and murderers. It's not the fault of the rest of the men, and it sucks for everyone and so it goes.
posted by gaspode at 7:06 PM on August 17, 2012 [10 favorites]

One of the the take-aways** from the Schroedinger's Rapist thread was that women should treat all unknown men as potential rapists because "We. Can't. Tell."

I dunno, I felt like the more prevailing message was "no matter how awesome and decent a guy you know yourself to be, you cannot get pre-approved as an Obviously Awesome And Decent Guy and avoid being an unknown quantity by every woman you encounter". Which is a further distinction from the above.

Which, still, yes, it sucks for all involved that there's this systemic nature of the world where women and men both having to occupy that less than groovy dynamic sometimes, but it felt like most of the "oh so we're all potential rapists then I guess" stuff was more coming from guys having trouble with the lack of a pre-approval process than with women actually exhorting other women to actively consider all men potential rapists until proven otherwise.
posted by cortex (staff) at 7:11 PM on August 17, 2012 [25 favorites]

It's a nuanced difference, to be sure, but still hurtful and Othering to hear that I, as a man, should be treated as a [sc. possible] rapist -- even if you don't believe that all men are actual rapists.

Speaking as a dude, I'm going to suggest that being raped is probably a worse experience than being hurt and othered on the Internet.

With that in mind, it feels like hitting the fainting couch with the force of a thousand exploding suns is an odd response to people saying "I am nervous about the possible risk of being assaulted by men I have recently met".
posted by running order squabble fest at 7:17 PM on August 17, 2012 [29 favorites]

One of the the take-aways** from the Schroedinger's Rapist thread was that women should treat all unknown men as potential rapists because "We. Can't. Tell." It's a nuanced difference, to be sure, but still hurtful and Othering to hear that I, as a man, should be treated as a rapist -- even if you don't believe that all men are actual rapists.

So I'm not the most fluent in gender studies language, but what on earth are you trying to do with the verb "othering" here?

If you are a heterosexual guy, you are absolutely "other" in that framing, in that you are not in the group that is likely to be date raped, for example. You are not likely to be sexually harassed in a threatening manner on the bus, etc etc etc through all the examples in that thread.

How could a woman who doesn't know me possibly look at me and tell if I am a rapist or not? If we are drawing venn diagrams, I'm in the "potential rapist" circle, not the "at high risk of being raped" one. So yeah, in that discussion I'm "othered" and rightly so. In a discussion of what it's like to be a man in those situations, things are reversed and I'm the "us" instead.
posted by Forktine at 7:36 PM on August 17, 2012 [10 favorites]

Thanks for the discussion all.
posted by cashman at 7:36 PM on August 17, 2012 [1 favorite]

Sorry all, gotta run. Flight just landed and I have a few hours yet to drive. Thanks for the conversation.
posted by LordSludge at 7:40 PM on August 17, 2012

LordSludge - this is kind of exactly what I mean. I don't think the guy sitting at the table in the resto where I'm waiting for my food is a rapist. Frankly, I'm not thinking about him at all.

Most of y'all don't even appear as more than blips on my (urban kid, YMMV) radar. You only ping if you do something that I might need to watch out for. Like, if you and I are alone in an elevator together and we just ride in it and get out at our floors, I've assumed pretty much nothing about you.

But if you stand too close, act too familiar - I'm still not going to assume you're a rapist. I am going to assume you're someone I should be wary of.

I said the in a different thread, but it's still true: it wasn't women, mostly, who taught me to be wary of men. Men have taught me to be wary of men. I'm aware that this might not be fun to hear, but it isn't personal: you, LordSludge, have not taught me this, as far as I know. But pretty much the only people who have taught me that lesson are men.
posted by rtha at 7:48 PM on August 17, 2012 [17 favorites]

Doh. Memail me if you want, LordSludge.
posted by rtha at 7:49 PM on August 17, 2012

I liked furiousxgeorge.

I hope he'll be back.

Trurl came back; so I guess anything is possible.
posted by banshee at 8:06 PM on August 17, 2012

Well, yes, but hopefully no one is worried about being raped and murdered in the thread, while men in the thread are worrying about being misunderstood and having their feelings hurt.

i really don't mean to be a dick here, but people are worried that their concerns about being raped and murdered are being treated on par with men worrying about being misunderstood and having their feelings hurt. and every now and then, concerns about being raped and murdered are discounted and dismissed entirely.

and the hurt feelings on both sides are necessarily informed by this environment of sexism that we were all born into and are all continually affected by. and any man (or woman) who doesn't understand that is going to come onto a site like metafilter and wonder "how come i say this stuff all the time and people are only flipping out about it here? clearly mefites are crazy and wrong." in some cases that's an exaggeration and in other cases it's not at all.

So what I don't understand is the disconnect when those who make this complaint will all too often turn around and do the same damn thing to others

You don't get a pass on rude behavior just because you think you're obviously in the right.

you don't mention specifics so i'll only reply generally here--not in every case, but in some cases it's because what men consider "rude" behavior from women is not considered "rude" coming from a man (like themselves, natch). and, as in the above example, it's not fair to compare feeling apples to rape and murder oranges.

or, one man's same damn thing is another woman's are you fucking kidding me, not this straw feminist. again. (genders can be totally reversed there as well)

anyway, i wouldn't consider many of the women here rude. admittedly, potential confirmation bias. even if i'm wrong, i don't understand why people can't FIAMO and just engage with the many many reasonable posters who are arguing in good (if tired) faith.
posted by twist my arm at 8:56 PM on August 17, 2012 [7 favorites]

I think I am just missing some context then, because I'm confused.

The context is generally a woman saying "when men do this, women are afraid of being raped and/or murdered" and a man saying "I might do that sometimes and it's embarrassing to be lumped in with those other bad men" and the women all saying together "dude, you have missed the point in a pretty spectacular way."
posted by restless_nomad (staff) at 9:22 PM on August 17, 2012 [29 favorites]

"But it's true LordSludge and sadly it's necessary. Because like elizardbits said, men are worrying about being misunderstood and having their feelings hurt, while we are worrying about being raped and murdered. And no, that's not hyperbole."

Earlier in the thread there was discussion about how men aren't as likely to see the ways in which women are treated differently. At the time, I sort of thought about writing how it is possible for a man to be very aware of this for a limited time, and that it's...eye-opening. Or, more to the point, extremely disturbing.

And the quote above gets to the heart of it.

I'm not really interested in discussing the experience of being a man who is aware of sexism and misogyny. I'd like to have that discussion with someone — so far the only productive and, well, gratifying and soul-easing discussions about this I've ever had have been with one or two women who've been my romantic partners and feminists, where there's a lot of trust and shared understanding between us. Otherwise, though, it's not really a discussion a man can have for the obvious reasons. It makes it about the man, which is wrong and feels wrong on many levels.

I mention it, though, not at all in a "share our feelings" or "feel the pain", but in a "this is a huge barrier to communication and minefield" sense that is involved in many of the reasons these discussions between men and women about sexism and misogyny and sexual violence against women go wrong.

Because while it's certainly true that what's at stake is very unequal, as described above, I think that women don't quite understand how profoundly disturbing — sickening — it is for men to feel like they're guilty of rape-by-association. It's profoundly psychologically challenging.

I can't speak for other men. But from when I first really and truly opened my eyes thirty years ago and watched and saw on an hour-to-hour basis all the ways that women were treated differently than I was, to ten years later when I worked in rape crisis, the degree to which I am totally open and aware to this is the degree to which I feel covered in filth and that cannot live in this world. It makes me despair and want to be dead, literally to kill myself. If I were female, I'd at least be able to have some righteous sense of being wronged. As it is, I feel unclean, at the very least an unwilling collaborator. People are reading this thinking that I'm writing hyperbole. But when I worked in rape crisis, literally two-thirds of the women closest to me in my life disclosed to me their experiences of surviving sexual violence. Two-thirds. That includes my mother, my grandmother, my sister. But not only them, women I knew as acquaintances and college friends would disclose to me, too, after we'd talked about the subject a few times. It's all around us, most women are very aware of this, and most men are totally oblivious.

There is so much implicit in this. Thirty years ago, in that first six months or so of suddenly seeing the world as it was, there were many times when I felt like I wanted to go back to being ignorant. I've never felt this way about anything else, before or since. But with sexism and the actual gulf that separates every women in our society from how I live as a man — I still feel that yearning for a blissful ignorance all the time. That's just the part of seeing the world as being far more unjust and ugly than you thought it was and finding it so much worse that you realize you can't do almost anything about it. Help at the tiniest of margins, at the most. But the other part is that the group you're a part of are the bad guys. That in ways you can't control, you are benefiting from this injustice, too. And, yes, that people you like and love see you sometimes, consciously and unconsciously, as one of those bad guys and dangerous to them.

Who would want to "wake up" into that world? Women have lived in it all their lives. But for the most part, ordinary men have to actually see something they've lived with but never recognized. They have to completely rearrange their understanding of reality and, in doing so, they have to rearrange their own place in it and how they think about themselves. And not in positive ways. Many people, men and women both, naively think that being a male feminist and being aware of this stuff provides me or people like me with some sense of moral superiority, that that's what we get from it. I don't have words to describe how totally backwards that is. This doesn't put me on the side of the angels!

I've gone more in that direction I very much didn't want to go. But I guess I couldn't avoid it because this is all why it's so difficult to talk with men about this stuff. For your average man, engaging on it offers absolutely no pleasant alternatives. That's not the best language — what I mean, is that it offers no alternatives that aren't deeply upsetting. For the minority who are actually misogynist and hateful or willfully participating in sexism, it's a challenge because they're not engaging on their own terms where they have the advantage. For the rest of the men, the possibilities range from accepting the reality of a world that is very ugly that we really can't change, through a natural defensiveness because of guilt-by-association. I can't think of any single example that crystallizes this more than "women look at any given man and worry about being raped". Men aren't freaked out when hearing that because they worry that this means that they can't hit on women (okay, a small minority probably reacts badly for that reason). They freak out because the implications of this about the world and our lives — our lives, both men's and women's lives — are very dark and ugly and sad. The implications are challenging on every level — sense of other people, how society works, justice, relationships, and our sense of ourselves.

The thing that drives me nuts is that I feel intuitively that in the midst of all the crappiness that is being confronted by this, there exists the chief opportunity for changing things. There's almost nothing more disturbing than waking up to the reality that the world is shit, but once you've awakened to it, you have the eyes to see how to make it less shitty. It's like all these awful threads we have here that hurt so many feelings are perhaps in some sense inevitable — not that we couldn't do better, or that all the hurt feelings were individually necessary. But some pain is unavoidable because these are painful truths. I don't wish on any person, man or woman, the sudden realization that the person with whom you share an elevator is afraid that you might attack them and sexually violate them just because you fit a profile. But somehow people have to understand that this is the world we actually live in and that it's wrong and we have a responsibility to change it to the better world we imagine it could be.

Unfortunately, I just don't know how to ease the pain of that awakening, that new awareness. In general, the resistance to this awareness and the pain it causes is universal; women have as many reasons to not see things as they are as men do. The big difference is identity and complicity, but those things have parallels across the sexes, too. I don't know how to make it less threatening. I don't know remotely how to make it attractive. Because the world as it is, is painful and threatening and ugly and so the awareness of its truth is all these things.

I guess the only thing I can say is that we could perhaps be more empathic and understanding that these things are threatening and difficult, for both women and men, and build-in to our engagements on these topics some forgiveness for how it's basically impossible for all of us to work through this stuff discursively without sometimes feeling poked in the eye, or reacting badly, or being angry, or whatever. Because this stuff elicits shitty feelings that we mostly don't want to have. And we're all imperfect.
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 9:55 PM on August 17, 2012 [33 favorites]

Can someone link the elevator thread please?
posted by Kwine at 9:56 PM on August 17, 2012

Elevator thread: MetaFilter. MetaTalk.
posted by zarq at 9:59 PM on August 17, 2012 [7 favorites]

Thanks zarq.
posted by Kwine at 9:59 PM on August 17, 2012

You're welcome. It actually also spawned another MeTa thread, and a new site policy.

I know at least one member flamed out as a result of the first MeTa: Orthogonality. Others might have as well.
posted by zarq at 10:03 PM on August 17, 2012 [2 favorites]

totally what r_n said.

i would add that the inappropriateness is not like, can we please have a moment of silence. nor is it the oppression olympics (my pain is worse than your pain, you can't say nuthin').

it's more like-- if you're hearing about something in-depth, perhaps for the first time, (creepers, rape culture, domestic violence, workplace sexism, what have you), why is it there is always a reliable pushback taking a completely predictable turn and being driven by the usual suspects. if it were me, if it seemed plausible, my reaction would hopefully be, wow that's f-ing horrible. how can this be going on around me all the time? what can i do?

also, i don't think that men shouldn't feel hurt when they're lumped in (initially) with potential rapists (as a completely ingrained self-defense mechanism, so nothing personal), nobody's saying it's not allowed or even that it shouldn't be expressed. but expressing it does unfortunately fall into a by-now standard trope of the discussion of women's issues being turned into men's issues (me too-ism), men not taking women's concerns seriously (so you're saying i'm a rapist?!), ultimately men putting their own needs before those of women (how am i supposed to get laid if i can't talk to ladies?).

i think it's possible to express that hurt but it takes a lot of sensitivity. and again, to me the reasonable reaction would be, ok-- tell me what not to do so i can look like not a rapist because that would be sending the WRONG SIGNAL.

to be clear, i think metafilter has changed for the better-- but then again, i didn't read the elevator threads in their entirety. i'm glad that those so affected have decided to stay.
posted by twist my arm at 10:12 PM on August 17, 2012 [2 favorites]

Oh Christ, that thread. I still have nightmares.
posted by Bunny Ultramod at 10:24 PM on August 17, 2012 [3 favorites]

I know at least one member flamed out

Orthogonality might have been abrasive a lot of the time, but that was not the outcome I had hoped for. I kinda miss him.
posted by Devils Rancher at 10:25 PM on August 17, 2012 [1 favorite]

As PhoBWan said, that elevator thread really was a gutpunch. Some of the things said there, both to me and to the other women trying to explain what the hell it's like to be us in this world, really hurt. Deep down gut level hurt.

I remember memailing Loquacious about this stuff, either in that discussion or one of the subsequent ones, to thank him for throwing his hat in - because, all gender identity and expression aside (and I really hope I am not handling this incorrectly; if I am I will apologise) - because we refer to Loq as he and, even discussing those things, that gives his words more weight. He was mad as hell about that. Not at me, but at the situation where he wound up damn near speaking on behalf of other posters who couldn't keep going in that thread.

One of the friends I've known longest is a guy who has about a full inch on me, if he's wearing heavy shoes. He is as intimidating as a sleeping kitten. He can't handle bugs. And yet, when I am out places with him, I know for a fact that I am safer than when I am in those same places alone, because the creepers who scan the crowds see him, assume that I am somehow 'his,' and elect to find a woman on her own. Easier targets.

It's exhausting to live all of this and know that it's sort of a secret life, an unseen life, because the predatory fuckers don't do this around the guys who get freaked when they have no idea why they're being lumped in with rapists on the Schroedinger scale of potentially hazardous strangers. It's exhausting explaining it again and again, trying not to lose my temper, trying to remember that the same questions -- but it was daylight! but you knew him! but other people trusted him! -- are being asked because people don't know, rather than because people deliberately are trying to turn the knife. It still hurts, either way.

I have so many stories I could tell here. So many. The friend who can pick me up with one arm, who shadows me when we're out in public because she has Survived Things, and does not feel safe even in crowded places without some kind of backup. We sit side by side at the coffee section in bookshops, both of us with our backs to the wall. We don't talk about it. We don't need to.

Even with all of that, even with all of those things rattling around in my head -- it is worse to stay quiet, to pretend that this doesn't go on, to play along with the fiction that everything is fine. It is worse to think that there is nothing that can ever be done to change this.
posted by cmyk at 10:37 PM on August 17, 2012 [17 favorites]

Oh yeah, the elevator thread, aka the thread that ruined my fucking birthday, thanks metafilter, that was rad. next year i'd like to just be maybe stabbed with a salad fork if that's okay.
posted by elizardbits at 10:53 PM on August 17, 2012 [8 favorites]

*scribbles in notebook*
" July 4" "salad fork"
posted by Catch at 11:12 PM on August 17, 2012 [11 favorites]

maybe add "stab" so you don't forget and do something stupid like wrap it up in a box with a bow?
posted by twist my arm at 11:18 PM on August 17, 2012 [7 favorites]

It actually also spawned another MeTa thread, and a new site policy.

I'm confused and forgetful. What was the new policy? Was that when we started doing pre-approval MeTas over some holidays?
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 11:23 PM on August 17, 2012

That was when we started putting corks on the salad forks.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 11:29 PM on August 17, 2012 [9 favorites]

Was that when we started doing pre-approval MeTas over some holidays?

Wasn't that the Thanksgiving weekend right after where that first went down? A 24 hour hold on new MeTas until more mods were hired to cover nights and weekends?
posted by infini at 11:56 PM on August 17, 2012

I somehow missed the whole elevator thread and had to have elizardbits show it to me earlier this evening and now I am so. fucking. angry. that it happened.
posted by shakespeherian at 12:08 AM on August 18, 2012

One of the the take-aways** from the Schroedinger's Rapist thread was that women should treat all unknown men as potential rapists because "We. Can't. Tell."

I'm sorry to hear that was your impression from that thread, because I tried repeatedly to express something more nuanced in that thread: that any stranger who attempts to impose himself upon my attention despite my clear social cues that I don't want to engage with him is someone to be wary of.

For example:

I don't think it's even necessary to introduce the question "Is he a rapist" into the dynamic. If I am on the bus reading a book (and I am always reading a book. I take the bus because I can read on it, which buys me an extra hour of study time every class day over other transit methods), then it would be courteous of a stranger not to assume that his or her desire to chat with me, or flirt with me, or pick me up supercedes my desire to read my book.

And here:

To a great many people, an unsolicited and blatantly sexual sexual message is threatening. Let me break down some reasons why: the person issuing the "invitation" is loudly breaking several boundaries of widespread social interaction, e.g., we don't usually yell at strangers, we don't usually trumpet sexual interest, we don't usually try to jump from strangerhood into sexual relationships. A person who disregards these pretty basic social boundaries may not respect other social contracts, including the prohibitions against touching strangers, beating up strangers, and raping strangers.

And here:

It's the cheerful willingness of intrusive strangers to disregard these cues and clues that puts me on my guard. If a stranger disregards or misses a whole series of socially accepted clues, I start wondering what other clues and social boundaries they will disregard or miss. I get wary --- not so much of their intent as of their ability to gauge another person's boundaries.

And here:

[this Kate Harding thread on the subject] points out that the male-privilege of expecting female attention in public is not solely expressed in lurid catcalling or other sexual attention, but also in the more innocuous guise of, for example, the little old man who thinks you should chat with him and let him pat your hand rather than reading your book or listening to your iPod.

And here:

As I pointed out above, my perception of risk goes up sharply when the person trying to get my attention has already ignored my strong social cues indicating that I don't want to engage with him. (These cues are the focus of the linked article, too.) If a stranger is willing to ignore widely respected social guidelines simply because he desires the pleasure of my attention, I am very wary of him. If he is oblivious to or disrespectful of these socially agreed upon boundaries, I wonder what other boundaries he will ignore.

It seemed to me that that was the overwhelming sentiment women expressed in that thread: A) that strangers --- mostly men --- frequently ignore the common social or conversational cues that we wish to avoid engaging with them and insist upon receiving some attention; B) it's reasonable to wonder if someone who so insistently or unknowingly blows past those socially agreed-upon boundaries will also ignore other, more crucial boundaries and cause us harm.
posted by Elsa at 12:12 AM on August 18, 2012 [62 favorites]

There is something maddening about the fact that this is a fairly straightforward, common sense understanding of the thread and the views expressed in it, and yet when it comes up up on the blue, as it does now and then, it is inevitably characterized as "all men are rapists."

It's like people genuinely don't want to listen to the points being made, but instead desperately need to characterize it as something else that allows them to play victim.
posted by Bunny Ultramod at 12:24 AM on August 18, 2012 [14 favorites]

The corks on the forks was the right thing to do, though. Ruprecht could take his eye out.
posted by Bunny Ultramod at 12:25 AM on August 18, 2012 [4 favorites]

Great. Now I desperately want someone to do a Corks On The Forks variation of this tune.
posted by cmyk at 12:30 AM on August 18, 2012 [2 favorites]

I've got culture coming out of my ass.
posted by shakespeherian at 12:31 AM on August 18, 2012

Did you listen when I said "don't eat the agar?"
posted by maxwelton at 12:33 AM on August 18, 2012 [6 favorites]

"It's like people genuinely don't want to listen to the points being made, but instead desperately need to characterize it as something else that allows them to play victim."

I wasn't here for that elevator thread (for which I'm thankful and I have no intention of reading it now) and while I think that what you describe certainly does happen (because there are people — like the MRA folk we've been talking about — who want the mantle of victimhood so as to justify their own hatefulness) I also think that it's really oversimplifying things to make it that a) only certain men are suspected of being potential rapists and b) only certain men of suspect motives would ever feel defensive about being suspected of being a rapist.

It's not as if every woman, and every survivor of sexual assault, is given a handbook with which they consult a list of things to be suspicious about. Different people have different sensitivities and react differently in different situations. There are survivors who hardly ever feel unsafe and hardly ever suspect others of being predators, and then there are survivors who almost always feel unsafe and who suspect most people of being predators.

A big thing that I found doing rape crisis work and listening to people's stories and everything is that everyone is different — and while there are some generalizations you can correctly make about stuff, they're still generalizations and with something as sensitive and painful as sexual assault, it's especially important not to impose your generalization on any individual survivor. This isn't just a problem with non-survivors and/or men, it's very often a problem with survivors vis a vis other survivors, as they generalize from their own experience onto others and often without realizing they're implicitly invalidating experiences that differ from their own.

And there's something deeper involved with trying to limit the scope that I think is very problematic. I think that the impulse to say that only a small minority of men doing certain things cause women to be frightened, and that therefore only that small minority of men should be defensive, is psychsocially akin to the very strong impulse to make sexual violence against women almost exclusively about stranger rape. Which, in fact, accounts for only a minority of sexual violence committed against women. Because, in fact, the majority of rapes are committed by men known to the victims. Usually by people who are trusted in some sense by the victims. Making this about scary, aggressive men is turning what is actually a deep, endemic, widespread social problem into something more remote, exotic, and supposedly controllable. But it's not remote or exotic, and it's not controllable by thinking it's exotic.

No, most men do not frighten most women most of the time. But most women find themselves frequently frightened by the possibility of sexual violence. This represents a huge chasm of experience between men and women. It's something we should all be aware of. Women should be generally angry about it and men should be put on the defensive about it. All women and all men.
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 1:47 AM on August 18, 2012 [12 favorites]

It's a nuanced difference, to be sure, but still hurtful and Othering to hear that I, as a man, should be treated as a rapist -- even if you don't believe that all men are actual rapists.

I had a male classmate who didn't have much money. My school was a fly-in one, so we would all gather once a month, and then people would leave again. I was part of a small population who lived locally, and several months in, after he and I had talked a few times, he asked if he could sleep over at my place so he didn't have to pay for a hotel the night before his flight out. I told him I'd think about it.

This was a week after the rape trial where a woman let a drunk friend sleep on her couch and he raped her. He was acquitted because she let him into her apartment. The overall attitude of the people prosecuting the case was that she had consented for sex by letting him sleep on her couch. That argument won.

So I spent an afternoon thinking about what I would do if he raped me. I wanted to believe he wasn't a rapist, but I knew that if he was I wouldn't be able to legally prosecute him, and I would struggled to even report him to our school. I decided if he did rape me, I'd move to a different schedule so I wouldn't be in the same classes as any of the people in case he was kicked out of the school, because chances are several of the women would be openly hostile toward me if he was; he was a very popular person. I decided it was worth the risk despite the significant social and safety cost I could be taking on.

At dinner I told him he could stay at my place.

Getting ready for bed the night he stayed over (he was sleeping on an air mattress in my bedroom), I put on several layers on my lower body. My thought was that if he did rape me, it would be harder, so I might get away without actually being raped. We had a long, fun conversation; I liked talking to him.

He didn't rape me. I was hugely relieved, and he continued to sleep over at my place until classes ended.

One of the last times he stayed over, we were talking about trust and consent. He responded to something I said defensively, asking if I really thought he wouldn't be sensitive to consent, and I responded without thinking, "Of course not. I let you sleep at my house." It took some explaining for him to realize I had to do a rape threat assessment before agreeing, and when he realized this he was really surprised. He was also gratified that I trusted him enough to let him potentially fail, instead of simply refusing him access because of the significant personal and social cost.

I didn't want to do the rape threat assessment.

It is hard for me to have the fact I do this assessment thrown in my face as some sort of attack on men when it's the best defense I have over handling rape when it happens to me.

It is also hard for me to see the language "Othering" used in such a way. Othering is language used to describe a systematically discriminatory system and how the not-standard is treated within it, and frankly women defending themselves against rapists are not the standard in this system, rapists are.
posted by Deoridhe at 1:54 AM on August 18, 2012 [80 favorites]

TL;dr - Schrodinger's Rapist is rational planning for women; you plan for the worst and hope for the best.
posted by Deoridhe at 1:58 AM on August 18, 2012 [10 favorites]

Jessamyn, yes.. Metas require approval on holiday weekends. Originally raised iirc, as 'we're revisiting the idea of shutting down mefi during holidays.'
posted by zarq at 4:25 AM on August 18, 2012

Ivan: the thread Bunny is referring to is not the elevator thread, it's the "Hi, Whatcha Reading" thread. The two are different.

It's like people genuinely don't want to listen to the points being made, but instead desperately need to characterize it as something else that allows them to play victim.

This is exactly the phenomenon I was complaining about here, and why I get so frustrated to be told "so if guys are genuinely trying to understand, just answer their questions". There is a difference between someone asking questions because they truly don't understand and are confused, and someone asking questions because they don't believe what you're saying and are trying to pick your statement apart.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 6:01 AM on August 18, 2012 [12 favorites]

> Elevator thread: MetaFilter. MetaTalk.

Man. Thank god I was on a self-imposed MeFi break that summer. Holy crap.
posted by languagehat at 7:08 AM on August 18, 2012 [6 favorites]

I just want to thank Ivan Fyodorovich for his two thoughtful and, for me, thought-provoking posts.
posted by L'Estrange Fruit at 7:56 AM on August 18, 2012 [6 favorites]

I posted the "elevator thread", as in, that's my FPP. The only reason it happened on a holiday is because that's not a holiday here in Canada (we'd already had our holiday July 1) and I didn't clue in to "oh yeah, it's Fourth of July" before I posted.

I did not expect it to bring on what it brought on, if I haven't made that clear enough already (I think I did at the time); I had seen a big change in how MetaFilter denizens handled feminist issues over the past few years and basically thought "we've evolved" enough that discussing them would not blow the fuck up like that.

I am feminist. I make feminist-issue posts if I think they have particular angles the MetaFilter community would be interested in, that could spark a nuanced discussion. I do not make feminist-issue posts out of outrage or with the intent to spawn outrage. I do not enjoy when feminist-issue threads become an "us vs. them" on things that I accept as basic - for instance, that women have the right to share their experiences and men listening to them should not be kneejerk-defensive about it.

twist my arm: I think you are thinking I'm responding to the line of discussion re: women sharing their experiences and men dismissing them. I am not. I agree wholeheartedly that in this society when women share their experiences, men tend to dismiss or minimize them. When that happens, that is wrong. It should not happen. It makes me angry to see.

What my earlier comments in this very long thread address are those on MeFi who feel that because they're obviously right, they can belittle or out-shout or out-argue any other person's participation that is not hewing to the accepted party line. I find this hypocritical. I have been on the receiving end of this myself here on MeFi more than once. I can't stand dismissive hostility from a sexist POV towards a feminist POV. Yet too often the same people who complain about that happening, will do it right back - to both those that have what they see as a sexist POV, and to those they see as having a too-radfem POV.

I don't like that kind of behavior, it is rude no matter who it comes from - even if I agree with your point (and many times I do).
posted by flex at 8:03 AM on August 18, 2012 [16 favorites]

There are issues that come up on metafilter that relate to disabilities. I have, unfortunately, flipped out in such threads (sorry, everyone). What in retrospect I noticed happening was: Me: "Supercharged statement of extreme emotion related to the post as it relates to persons with disabilities" Some other person: Maybe "yes but that it not so important because blah blah blah" or even worse "entitlement". THAT is when I flip out to the extent I make posts that are not cool. Again, sorry about that. I'm trying a new approach where I only respond to something if I can make a joke out of it, which is necessarily limiting.

This is not an excuse but an explanation: The X described in the post relates to a past experience I've had that was acutely physically painful/inconvenient/humiliating. So I'm hurting when I comment X. Then some person who does not use a wheelchair and somehow does not possess magical ESP to understand where I'm coming from says something that is ignorant, but understandably so. Then I feel like my favorite playground, metafilter, is a manifestation of the blah blah related to the post that has hurt me and hurts other people to. Then RAGE PARADE. Then the person who meant no harm is like, "Dude!"

That isn't an explanation for all my bad posts, but definitely some of the worst of them.

W/r/t the gender thing, unless it comes to straight-up-rape (the frequent metafilter claims that Assange was set up and my responses to those claims comes to mind), I feel like very articulate people have done my work for me, so I don't speak up so much.

So I think that's one way to parse the bullying/opinion line. The person who has been mocked and derided for his views is like "Dude!" and the folks responding are responding from positions that relate to pain they've experienced and others have experienced and will experience. Then you get a hurricane of posts that are sort of unconsciously feeding off of the bad feelings people have.

So, other words: Sinners should accept criticism gracefully. But if they don't, tearing them apart in a thread accomplishes not a whole lot. Hate the sin but love the sinner, that kind of thing.

But if somebody is shitting up a thread with arguable misandry, I think that's an argument for mod intervention. Not ban hammer, but get out of the thread command. Because otherwise it's people yelling "CITIZEN'S ARREST!" and that's not so good (yeah I know stolen bicycle exception whatever)
posted by angrycat at 9:34 AM on August 18, 2012 [7 favorites]

Because while it's certainly true that what's at stake is very unequal, as described above, I think that women don't quite understand how profoundly disturbing — sickening — it is for men to feel like they're guilty of rape-by-association. It's profoundly psychologically challenging.

This is obviously something you have thought a lot about, and feel intensely about. I hope my respect for that comes through here.

But "guilty of rape-by-association"? That makes no sense to me. As a tall heterosexual white dude with a middle class job and a good education, I benefit from most aspects of our sexist system, while a few other aspects hurt me in limited ways. That sexual violence is so pervasive is sad and distressing, but is not something for which I carry guilt at a personal level.

It's absolutely something that impacts my life at an intimate level -- my female friends, sexual partners, and family members experience this violence and harassment daily. The fear of and the aftereffects from violence structure my relationships with women, and prevent freer and more trusting connections.

But privilege is a sticky thing -- I can't get rid of it just because it comes from things I disagree with. I have to own who I am and live in the place where I am. I am not guilty of rape-by-association, but I am a beneficiary of the ways in which the risks of sexual violence is concentrated, I can be be conscious of that, and I can ensure that I am acting in ways that make the situation better rather than worse.
posted by Forktine at 9:44 AM on August 18, 2012 [23 favorites]

well shit flex, that's too reasonable for me to disagree with so i won't.

that being said, you're still speaking very generally here so it's hard for me to comment on any specific instances that may cross the line that we both may agree on. i kinda don't want to name names this far down the thread b/c everyone seems to be getting along at the moment, but are you talking about (for example) EC's chuck-under-the-chin comment?

b/c i would agree that it's not helpful and it's easier to make the case for yourself when you avoid that type of rhetoric. but she did back off almost immediately, and keep in mind the response was to Reggie Knoble who spent his first comments defending the green card marriage husband, defended eas98 and then hincandenza as well. not to mention some comments that also came off to me as a guy needing to get in his 2¢.

doesn't excuse her comment, but there was an escalation there that is pretty typical. point being she didn't start off out-shouting or belittling and dialed it back, which many of the guys on the other side never do.

if you're talking about the first comment of the thread, i'm sorry but i don't think posters like eas98 and hincandenza deserve the initial benefit of the doubt that you would extend to someone whose posting history is less blatantly one way or the other. (doesn't mean you get to be a dick or otherwise break the guidelines! but i feel like the mods are pretty good at discouraging over-the-line comments and the userbase tries to self-police in this way.)

do you think at least some of the time, the angry comments you're referring to are in response to the out-shouting and belittling that women suffer on a daily basis in little and small ways? because it is hard to keep cool all the time, fighting honorably when your opponent has no problem throwing sand in your eyes.

not to pull a fox news, but for example there are those who would read Deoridhe's awesome, calm, reasoned comment and called her paranoid. or instead of the positive interaction she had with the house guest, if he had instead stayed skeptical and turned dismissive, think about what that grind does to you after a decade or 3.
posted by twist my arm at 9:49 AM on August 18, 2012 [2 favorites]

if you insult a bunch of people and then expect them to continue being pleasant to you--you're dreaming

word. fucking WORD.

you know the funny thing is it took me like an hour to write my previous comment b/c i was concerned about coming off biased and not wanting to call out people from 3 days ago when they were probably no longer reading and couldn't defend themselves. i didn't want to quote anyone out of context so i gathered EVIDENCE like i needed to defend my ass in court. used all manner of hedge words just in case.

a lot of times those sexist comments the young rope-rider mentions come off like, hey whatever, it's just my opinion and it's just the internet. i imagine those people closing their browsers and going on about their day like nothing happened. the women that push back hard-- even if nobody says it, i know they get up from the computer, hearts heavier and outlooks grimmer than before the shitfest. they're fighting to be heard and fighting to change minds. there's no acceptable compromise position to discrimination. how do you shake hands and "good game" someone who thinks there's a secret recipe to not getting raped that women just need to follow and they'll be fine...
posted by twist my arm at 11:10 AM on August 18, 2012 [25 favorites]

Man, do I wish I hadn't gone back and reread the elevator thread and the related MeTa.

I really, really appreciate having people like the young rope-rider and EmpressCallipygos here, that they continue to post despite the fact that members have been hostile and hateful toward them, that they continue to fight the good fight.
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 11:37 AM on August 18, 2012 [30 favorites]

not to mention some comments that also came off to me as a guy needing to get in his 2¢.

Pence, thank you very much. We use real money where I am.

(Have I done it again? Hopefully someone will be along in a minute to act like a dick toward me seeing as that is what I clearly deserve).
posted by Reggie Knoble at 1:29 PM on August 18, 2012

Hopefully someone will be along in a minute to act like a dick toward me

i hope no one does.

and yeah, that's how your tone struck me. i only brought it up as a tiny example of how these arguments get escalated. but you're entitled to your opinion and you haven't said anything that i need rehashed. others wayyyyyyyyy upthread responded to your comments that i disagreed with and that was enough for me.
posted by twist my arm at 1:46 PM on August 18, 2012 [1 favorite]

Reggie, I'm curious—what was the point of your parenthetical? I mean, I can see why you typed it out—I type out snarky responses all the damn time—but why did you go ahead and post it?
posted by dogrose at 1:51 PM on August 18, 2012 [4 favorites]

twist my arm, I sent you MeMail in response. I speak in generalities partially because to be specific is read as an attack and treated as such. I also speak in generalities because I don't want to deal with another "Righteousness That Does Not Allow For Nuance vs. Everyone Else" shoutfest. (For transparency's sake, I typed a few snarky things into this parenthetical and then I kept deleting them.)
posted by flex at 6:01 PM on August 18, 2012 [1 favorite]

"But 'guilty of rape-by-association'? That makes no sense to me. As a tall heterosexual white dude with a middle class job and a good education, I benefit from most aspects of our sexist system, while a few other aspects hurt me in limited ways. That sexual violence is so pervasive is sad and distressing, but is not something for which I carry guilt at a personal level."

I am not entirely unsympathetic to your argument, but I think you're being psychologically unrealistic. Do you or have you never felt guilt-by-association about anything? The thing is, we're not absolute individuals and within the context of society we exist as part of classes of people and parts of our own selves arise from and exist within that context of shared identity. If this weren't so, all these class oppressions couldn't exist in the first place.

Furthermore, the more that I think about it, the more I feel that this "clean conscience" principle is morally suspect in principle, too. I guess it's very American in its implicit notion of the supremacy of the individual. But I don't think that you really can or should separate out the privilege from the guilt for the injustice that results from that privilege, and in a more brutal sense to the degree to which one's social identity is as part of a group, is the degree to which one must share moral responsibility for that actions of that group, in aggregate, including its crimes.

In the context of sexual violence against women, it's not as if the individual rapist represents the entirety of the moral responsibility for that assault. There is a vast and diffuse enabling complicity, conditioning, and willful blindness that hides behind every individual assault. Sexual violence against women is simply the most explicit manifestation of patriarchal misogyny and the impetus behind each act is not limited to the individual criminal. If group Y systematically and institutionally oppresses group X it is absolutely wrong to limit the responsibility for each act of oppression to the one individual most proximate in volition to that act. It's wrong and it's convenient to everyone else who is complicit.

We do have to draw lines and of course it's true that some people are more guilty than others. But there's something that bothers me about this denial of shared guilt because it has the practical effect of diffusing the benefits of the crime across the entire class while only holding one or a few proximate individuals responsible for its harm. When a government pursues an official policy of invasion and torture, who is held responsible for the crimes? And who benefits? When Europeans or Canadians generalize about Americans because of US policy, leftist Americans get defensive and say, hey, those aren't my policies. Christians say those aren't my beliefs and practices. It's almost as if all the bad things that happen and continue to happen and continue to happen the same ways via the same institutions are all the sole responsibility of a few people who make a few decisions at some moment in time. Does that sound like the truth? It doesn't sound like the truth to me, it sounds like a fantasy of avoiding responsibility.

I do strongly agree that bad things come from collective prosecutions of guilt. But I think that people mistakenly (and self-servingly) equate collective prosecutions with collective acceptance of guilt. They think that if it's wrong for someone else to prosecute guilt against some class, then that means that it's wrong for that class to accept guilt. But the two are very, very different. They're different in principle and they're extremely different in practice. The world would be a better, not worse, place if people were more inclined to accept collective guilt.
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 6:50 PM on August 18, 2012 [6 favorites]

flex, sent you one back. and i sincerely hope whatever you were typing in the parentheses was not directed at or because of me.

and i said generalities because that's how i would describe those specific comments, not because there is anything wrong with generalities, uh, in general. peace.
posted by twist my arm at 7:07 PM on August 18, 2012

Forktine: But privilege is a sticky thing -- I can't get rid of it just because it comes from things I disagree with. I have to own who I am and live in the place where I am. I am not guilty of rape-by-association, but I am a beneficiary of the ways in which the risks of sexual violence is concentrated, I can be be conscious of that, and I can ensure that I am acting in ways that make the situation better rather than worse.

Ivan: There is a vast and diffuse enabling complicity, conditioning, and willful blindness that hides behind every individual assault.

twist my arm: a lot of times those sexist comments the young rope-rider mentions come off like, hey whatever, it's just my opinion and it's just the internet. i imagine those people closing their browsers and going on about their day like nothing happened. the women that push back hard-- even if nobody says it, i know they get up from the computer, hearts heavier and outlooks grimmer than before the shitfest. they're fighting to be heard and fighting to change minds. there's no acceptable compromise position to discrimination. how do you shake hands and "good game" someone who thinks there's a secret recipe to not getting raped that women just need to follow and they'll be fine...

I think some men truly and honestly feel they are being unfairly judged as potential rapists by women and not only do not understand why, but also feel tremendously insulted by the assumption. They therefore aren't necessarily going to feel compelled to listen when they feel attacked or misjudged.

Whether they realize it or not, most men are beneficiaries of our patriarchal society, even if they are not conscious of those benefits or perhaps their own assumptions. Learning this requires moving past emotionally defensive reactions towards empathy.

And that means listening. To the women who are giving voice to their own fears. Rather than dismissing them, because whether we men recognize it or not, those fears come from a very real place: from a very specific reality that those women live every single day.

During the Schroedinger's Rapist thread, I watched tzikeh speak repeatedly about this, far more calmly than I think I could have managed in her place. I remember reading her comments and deliberately refraining as much as I possibly could from addressing what she was saying, so it might be heard and valued. This comment in particular has stuck with me:

Durn Bronzefist: How about we listen to each other? No? No good? Alright then. Laters.

No. No good. Not about this. I'm deadly serious. This is a one of the main problems of the conversation we're having here, and of any conversation between (some) men and (most) women about rape and rape culture.

We don't have to listen to you; you have to listen to us. Nothing you have to say has any bearing on how we have no choice but to live our lives in a world you don't live in. You might be the best guy ever--a saint of a human being--but nothing you say to us on this topic makes any kind of difference in our experiences in a culture in which misogyny is so unbelievably ingrained that men (and some women) don't know or see about 90% of it until they bother to look really, really closely. Again, I recommend this discussion.

Men don't get a pass on feeling uncomfortable in this conversation. You should feel uncomfortable. When confronted with an involved and complex discussion of racism, I learned very quickly that I did not have the right to counter what POCs were saying with "but but but" and "I'm not like that" and "well, but you should also listen to me--shouldn't we listen to each other, after all?" That's the classic derail in which I try to make their discussion about their lives into a discussion about me, which is what you and several others here are trying to do. What I had the right to do was shut up and listen to them, and ask questions about what I didn't understand, so that I could learn about their world--a world that I don't live in. You can bet your ass that I was uncomfortable. But I also became so much more aware of the pervasiveness of racism in our society--so much more than I could possibly have imagined. Beyond anything I might have thought I'd known. So yeah, I don't have to listen to you about your thoughts about where I live, because You Don't Live Here.

You don't want to face the fact that you quite probably don't understand what we're talking about, and would rather be glib or smug? Nothing we can do about that, but that makes you a great big part of the problem. You clearly have no desire to do the work required to gain serious understanding, because then you'd have to admit that you're wrong.

But it is obvious that you would rather not entertain the notion that you might learn things that will make you uncomfortable--that, or you truly believe that women should have to listen to what men have to say about women's lives in a discussion of something only women can, and do, experience. If that's the case, as you say, laters.
posted by tzikeh at 3:05 PM on October 8, 2009 [66 favorites -] [!]

I watch men on MeFi defend themselves all the time in these threads with the same arguments: "I'm not like that." "People I know don't have anything to fear." "My job isn't like that." "I've never seen that happen, so it can't ever happen." "They're not listening, perhaps because they don't have a frame of reference. Perhaps because they don't want to have one. Perhaps because they bristle at being lumped in with the dregs of humanity. But we need to listen more to women on this topic, and spend a hell of a lot less time defending our honor.
posted by zarq at 7:53 PM on August 18, 2012 [43 favorites]

I don't like having strange women worry that I might be a rapist. I don't blame them, though. As far as I can tell, it's the rapists I should be angry at.
posted by Bunny Ultramod at 8:21 PM on August 18, 2012 [26 favorites]

those are powerful words from tzikeh. thanks for digging them up from the rubble.

unfortunately i can imagine being in Durn Bronzefist's position of, after a long contentious thread, being true to my word and bouncing the fuck out of there. when things get that heated it's really hard to read what tzikeh said and not kneejerk latch on to "If that's the case, as you say, laters" and letting it eat at me instead of giving her the benefit of the doubt and just listening.

i feel like making that u-turn requires this humility and willingness to stand still that most of us are not capable of, especially not in the heat of the moment. and that humility that precedes an understanding of the other side is something that can only be given freely, not demanded, not coerced after being exposed to a perfectly eloquent speech.

also i still remember, in the elevator thread, being so unbelievably irritated at richard dawkins. the idea of agreeing with (or giving a pass to) strident voices when they're on your side and hating them when they come from the opposing side is not new, it comes up on metafilter a lot. but i was really struck-- as an atheist i felt like dawkins was not as obnoxious as some people say, but seeing him being this tone-deaf professorial jerk about women's issues-- i felt a moment of kinship with religious people who have been saying that about him for awhile.

anyways. it's strange how far across the chasm can be. i just want results damnit. if a perfectly eloquent speech won't do it, then just give me the personal mad-lib instruction manual to your brain that will unlock your agreement and support!
posted by twist my arm at 9:09 PM on August 18, 2012 [3 favorites]

will unlock your agreement and support!

This is what might be getting under their skin though. You don't want a discussion, you will give no quarter. The only options he has is either to capitulate or depart, he has no options of being able to convince you of his points, so why continue to engage in discussion.
posted by zabuni at 9:54 PM on August 18, 2012 [1 favorite]

Zarq, I favourited that comment so hard I think I bruised my finger. A second and well earned favourite for tzikeh's comment.
posted by arcticseal at 9:55 PM on August 18, 2012

This is what might be getting under their skin though.

no, i know, and i was self-parodying what i know gets under my skin after awhile. there was a dropped hamburger tag somewhere.
posted by twist my arm at 10:00 PM on August 18, 2012 [1 favorite]

no, i know, and i was self-parodying what i know gets under my skin after awhile.

I could see that, especially after the 5 millionith person who flounces out of a conversation. It's kinda like being the mods. Given some of the conversations I've seen about race and gender, I don't think I would have the fortitude to not start typing out insults in all caps while yelling at the monitor.
posted by zabuni at 10:52 PM on August 18, 2012

This is a one of the main problems of the conversation we're having here, and of any conversation between (some) men and (most) women about rape and rape culture.

We don't have to listen to you; you have to listen to us.

Yea, that does sound like it would be a big problem for any conversation about rape and rape culture, if some people aren't trying to engage in two-way communication but just trying to talk at the other side who doesn't get to say anything. Perhaps 'conversation' is not the right word for it, and calling it that is contributing to false expectations.
posted by jacalata at 2:05 AM on August 19, 2012 [1 favorite]

whoa, unexpected: I thought commenting in the thread would override my previous Remove From Recent Activity, but apparently not.
posted by jacalata at 2:10 AM on August 19, 2012

But if some people in the conversation have vastly less experience and knowledge of the topic, why should they expect equal time with the dozens (hundreds?) of people who are very experienced yet always get their knowledge dismissed? I don't demand equal time in conversations about molecular biology and nitpick the statements of experts in the subject, because I don't know shit about it unless I'm willing to shut up and listen. It's like climate change deniers complaining because people listen to climatologists and peer-reviewed reports instead of the email their uncle sent them.
posted by harriet vane at 3:47 AM on August 19, 2012 [28 favorites]

And a conversation that is mostly between experts and takes respectful questions and comments from noobs (not cross-examination & accusations of lying) is definitely still a conversation.
posted by harriet vane at 3:50 AM on August 19, 2012 [1 favorite]

I both love and hate tzikeh's comment — I'm having a strange ambivalence about this in general. My comments above on this specific subtopic could be seen as arguing both sides.

I think that tzikeh's comment is the first word on it, but not the last word. That is to say, until men first truly listen to women and accept the reality of rape culture, there's no point for them to be present in any sort of "conversation". Later, maybe, once the reality of rape culture is assimilated, we can productively discuss how men in general fit in with all this, what men can do to change things, what it means to be complicit, all of that. But that conversation can only happen within a context where the existence of rape culture isn't being disputed and women's attested experiences aren't being contested. And the thing is, that's almost never the case (outside of a small, tightly controlled environment). It's certainly not the case in these discussions on MeFi.

What happens instead is that the existence of rape culture is disputed and women's attested experiences are contested. Women are put on the defensive and it becomes all about how some men feel unfairly compared to or suspected of being rapists. It's not as if how well-intended men feel and think about this don't matter — of course it matters in many different respects, including in the practical sense of how to solve these problems collectively. But privilege in general functionally denies its very existence — if you want to give it some mysterious meme-esque angency, you can imagine that it works very hard to convince people that it doesn't exist. The well-intentioned man protesting that it's unfair to suspect him of being a rapist is functioning as a privilege-denier, though unintentionally.

This is the underlying rationale for my previous argument — people who are members of an oppressor class should accept collective guilt, rather than resist it, because they're protected by a status quo as members of the oppressor class whereby, as individuals, they're very resistant to accepting responsibility for the oppression with which they are complicit. They're teflon, it's hard to get anything to stick. Because they're institutionally and culturally shielded. They're psychosocially shielded. ("It's a few bad apples and I really hate those guys.")

"I think some men truly and honestly feel they are being unfairly judged as potential rapists by women and not only do not understand why, but also feel tremendously insulted by the assumption. They therefore aren't necessarily going to feel compelled to listen when they feel attacked or misjudged."

Yours, tzikeh's, and my two comments deal with why and how men should behave differently, but I'd like to return to my earlier comment where I attempted to get across just what it really means for men to listen. When you write:

"They're not listening, perhaps because they don't have a frame of reference. Perhaps because they don't want to have one. Perhaps because they bristle at being lumped in with the dregs of humanity. But we need to listen more to women on this topic, and spend a hell of a lot less time defending our honor."

I think you're greatly underestimating just how challenging it really is for men to listen to and accept the worldview that is implicit in this "listening". This is why I'm pushing back so hard on the point that Forktine and others made — the one that basically says that it's only the rapists who should be defensive.

When I've been writing these comments, it's been one of those experiences where I feel myself sort of circling around some previously unconnected ideas, collecting them together, and finding an important unifying theme that suddenly makes a bunch of things more comprehensible to me than they were before.

The most constrained and well-understood example illustrating the general principle is, for me, the whole acquaintance versus stranger rape thing. I've had strong opinions about this for over twenty years. I feel and believe very strongly that the emphasis on stranger rape — in terms of fear, law-enforcement, and education — is counter-productive, a sort of unthinking and culturally instinctive means to avoid addressing the larger problem. There's this confluence of motivations for looking there, for problem solving there ... as opposed to, say, here, among friends and coworkers and where we're comfortable. It's not as if stranger rape isn't horrifying and something we should fight with all our strength — it's that characterizing rape as stranger rate leads us to misunderstand its nature, to ignore the underlying cultural impetus, and to largely ignore all the varieties of rape which don't conform to that narrow comprehension of it. All of which conspire to accept most of the status quo while contesting only a small portion of it.

So in terms of men feeling defensive, I think that there's a relationship to the stranger rape thing. That is to say, men don't want to be compared to the stereotypical monster attacking women in parking lots or climbing through windows, because they don't want to be seen as monsters, and they also defend themselves by strongly asserting, hey, I'm not someone who attacks women in parking lots of climbs through windows. Which, you know, is probably true but only accounts for a small portion of sexual violence committed against women. More to the point, though, is that as we look at all the things that sexual violence can be and is, all the ways in which women feel unsafe, are made unsafe, are threatened and constrained, and all the ways in which people participate in making those things possible, then the web of responsibility and guilt becomes wider and wider and all those men who feel so sure of their innocence stop to seem so innocent. At which point ... what? What happens then?

Either we evade the responsibility and guilt — the reality — or we accept it and find ourselves in a universe that is extremely ugly, unjust, and is so in ways that make us feel badly about ourselves as human beings. That's expecting a lot from people. From men.

On the other hand, it's absolutely fucking necessary.

I don't think it's helpful to talk about this listening thing as if it doesn't implicitly mean turning peoples' worlds upside-down and making them feel like shit about everything. Well, okay, maybe it is helpful if our strategy is to lead people unknowingly to things that they otherwise wouldn't approach themselves. I dunno — some of that is probably necessary, just as a practical matter. But at some point cushioning the blow (and by that I mean both by the people dealing the blow and the people who think they are accepting the blow) becomes a way of avoiding it, or avoiding the larger truth of it.

Oh, hell, here's another way of saying part of what I'm trying to say. Years ago, when I was at St. John's College, where we all read the same books and discuss what we read in earnest-but-disciplined seminars, I found that I became very frustrated sophomore year when we began reading all the religious texts. Suddenly these fellow students who'd been amazingly mature and rational (I was older) about difficult material were letting all the typical cultural baggage into the classroom, when they hadn't before. (They weren't letting the texts speak for themselves, taking them on their own terms, but were recapitulating all the stuff they'd earlier learned about these texts and what they supposedly mean, for example.) I was miserable, becoming disillusioned with my fellow students and the school. Until one memorable evening with one of my professors. We talked about all this for a couple of hours but one thing in particular he said to me stays with me to this day, that made it all make more sense to me. He said that given that we live in a judeo-christian culture, he'd not be pleased if the classes weren't filled with a lot of difficulty and people bringing in "baggage" but, rather, he'd be both disappointed and disturbed. It would signify that the students weren't truly engaging with the material and the ideas. Or that they were the vanguard of a secret invasion of robots or aliens.

I don't think that there's any way to avoid the difficulty and hurt-feelings and defensiveness and all sorts of other extremely unpleasant crap when we discuss these issues. Because the fact of the matter is that sexism and misogyny and sexual violence against women is both all around us, forms the fabric of our social lives, and also hurts individual people very badly, in different ways, even including men. That men are defensive is in some sense a good sign because, partly, it indicates that they feel both the correct moral repugnance and some sense of shared responsibility. That we're defensive and threatened by the reality of it, by women fearing us, is a good sign because it means that on some level we're being made aware of the implications of the reality of what sexual violence is. There's no way for women to tell their stories without it being painful for them, because their stories are about pain; and there's no way for men to hear these stories without sharing some of that pain, in one form or another. There's just not a painless way to do this. There's an empowering and productive way to do this, but that's not the same thing as being painless.
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 4:44 AM on August 19, 2012 [15 favorites]

As of right now this thread has approximately 86,000 words (with attributions and some others excluded). The top of the word frequency list, excluding many words I (arguably) arbitrarily elided as uninteresting, in order, is:

people, men, women, think, thread, know, them, see, say, why, time, make, person, man, point, good, bad, need, she, our, him, site, right, her, behavior, threads, problem, sexist, having, trying, banned, guy, everyone, talking, sexism, guys, work, woman, discussion, mods, male, world, experience, years, wrong, rape, agree, try, divorce, conversation, read, tell, shit, opinion, lawyer, rights, thought, opinions, mra, history, gender, example, question, advice, feminist.
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 5:23 AM on August 19, 2012 [2 favorites]

I think you're greatly underestimating just how challenging it really is for men to listen to and accept the worldview that is implicit in this "listening". This is why I'm pushing back so hard on the point that Forktine and others made — the one that basically says that it's only the rapists who should be defensive.

Others might have said that, but I certainly didn't. My point was fairly limited: that it is possible to not connect with the idea of "guilty of rape by association" while also acknowledging and owning all of the ways in which one is benefited by a system of pervasive sexual violence, and taking conscious steps to play a positive rather than negative role.

I am unclear why you think it's a good approach to try and make all men defensive, but I'd suggest that it isn't going to be particularly productive politically or personally. Violence reduction is not where I have experience, but the evidence-based harm reduction programs I know about are extremely careful to not use that approach.
posted by Forktine at 5:46 AM on August 19, 2012 [4 favorites]

I'd just like to say that the last, I dunno, forty or so comments have had a lot of heavy thinking and clear, respectful communication, and strike as an example of what these conversations look like when we're able to do them right.
posted by longtime_lurker at 6:33 AM on August 19, 2012 [1 favorite]

Oh god. I have to participate in this thread. The entitlement and victimization are nauseating. Why does the crazy fringe always prevail these threads? I should participate in this thread. Bring some perspective into the discussion. It's unthinkable that this thread should continue without considering basic facts X and Y. I must participate in this thread. I will spend hours arguing on the internet, frittering my time away arguing with increasingly hostile strangers. I will be the crazy fringe. I will not participate in this thread.
posted by deo rei at 7:28 AM on August 19, 2012 [1 favorite]

Is that supposed to be helpful, deo rei? Or funny?
posted by cgc373 at 7:31 AM on August 19, 2012

It's too early on this coast for performance art.
posted by rtha at 7:42 AM on August 19, 2012 [5 favorites]

I am unclear why you think it's a good approach to try and make all men defensive

i'm thinking Ivan doesn't want to make men defensive. I think he's correlating defensiveness with "turning peoples' worlds upside-down." Perhaps defensiveness is neither sufficient nor necessary, and Forktine is an example of that?
posted by twist my arm at 7:43 AM on August 19, 2012

I have no problem whatsoever with Ivan's position. I am, however, pretty fed up with his using the issue to talk about himself at colossal length.
posted by Wolof at 7:50 AM on August 19, 2012 [5 favorites]

I am unclear why you think it's a good approach to try and make all men defensive.

It strikes me that it isn't exclusively the women's fault if men become defensive listening to the impact of sexism on women.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 7:51 AM on August 19, 2012 [9 favorites]

So in terms of men feeling defensive, I think that there's a relationship to the stranger rape thing. That is to say, men don't want to be compared to the stereotypical monster attacking women in parking lots or climbing through windows, because they don't want to be seen as monsters, and they also defend themselves by strongly asserting, hey, I'm not someone who attacks women in parking lots of climbs through windows.

I've been circling around something with your comments, Ivan, and this touches on it but isn't quite there. The thing about sexual assault--and the "why do men support creepers?" thread gets right at it--is that while what women are generally told is to fear stranger rape, the ugly truth is that most women are sexually assaulted by men they know. That's something that a lot of people (men and women) have a lot of trouble internalizing, even for women who have been sexually assaulted by men they know. See: every AskMe where the "was this rape? this was rape" discussion comes up.

Because we're told rape is so awful, so terrible, "the fate worse than death", nobody wants to admit they're complicit. And yet our (American, specifically, but others too) culture entitles men to take actions that amount to rape, even sometimes legally amount to rape. That's got to be a mindfuck for men just as it is for women. It's got to be a lot easier to be a denier than it is to really confront that you (generically), a man, could be doing something that terrible.

I don't like the idea of collective guilt for that or any of our other collective social sins (like, say, the racial issues in this country). What I do like is the idea of collective responsibility for helping against injustices that we benefit from. A guy who's done a turn at rape crisis has certainly been on the barricades, and that's probably a really hard way to internalize all the things one can learn about rape. But I don't think every man has to learn it that hard--and the "not supporting creepers" thing is a comparatively easy way for men to step up, although admitting your bros are behaving in a rapey way, which is what I suspect is the underlying issue, may also be a bigger mindfuck than I think it is because as a woman, I've learned not to be surprised when I figure out some guys are creepers/harassers/misogynists/etc.
posted by immlass at 7:51 AM on August 19, 2012 [20 favorites]

i'm thinking Ivan doesn't want to make men defensive. I think he's correlating defensiveness with "turning peoples' worlds upside-down." Perhaps defensiveness is neither sufficient nor necessary, and Forktine is an example of that?

I don't know. It's hard to tell. Ivan, I appreciate that you're generally being thoughtful but your rhetorical approach also obscures your point and creates a situation in which a dialogue is nearly impossible.

(I, for one, missed where you said this in response to me way upthread--"As long as it doesn't make much sense, or feels 'wrong', to most people, including feminists themselves, for a man to be a feminist, it will be the case that on some level it will make sense to people that this is really about one team fighting another team for dominance and that MRA makes sense as a balancing against women's rights."--an assertion that doesn't match my experiences as a feminist at all. Men are feminists. It is not wrong, nor does it feel wrong, for men to be feminists, and most feminist women I know feel the same way. But the style of discourse both made that point frustratingly easy to miss and nearly pointless to address.)

And that's the thing, or part of the thing. Many of the women here have already been chased out of the conversation or generally feel worn down about it and some of the women participating are not being addressed at all so that the men can talk about the finer philosophical points and so it's a conversation about listening that's essentially entirely left to the men--to argue about collective guilt, or what-not, a topic which is perhaps interesting in an abstract philosophical sense but doesn't really get very close to the point of it at all.

Which is part of what makes metafilter seem to me at times to still be frustratingly boyzone.
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 7:53 AM on August 19, 2012 [24 favorites]

I'd just like to say that the last, I dunno, forty or so comments have had a lot of heavy thinking and clear, respectful communication, and strike as an example of what these conversations look like when we're able to do them right.

I'm not sure I agree either. There's part of me that appreciates some good points made, and the other part of me that observes that here we are again, talking about the feelings and psychology of men.
posted by Miko at 8:04 AM on August 19, 2012 [26 favorites]

Miko, I feel like it's in the interest of the minority to talk about the psychology of the majority, IF that creates a strategic advantage for the minority.

I've been exhausted and frustrated by trying to explain to a guy some of the issues touched upon in this thread, and I get the frustration that it's like we have to fucking explain AGAIN thing.

Howevs. if it's a question of how to win the conversation -- and mostly I don't try so kudos to those who do so in a respectful manner, it's more than I want to try to do -- I think male psychology is very important.
posted by angrycat at 8:51 AM on August 19, 2012

I see all the arguments for it, believe me, and have been at it for years of course; and yet it's funny - even in a thread beginning with "has MeFi gone girlzone?" we end up delving into the inner conflicts of maleness.

What does "win the conversation?" mean?
posted by Miko at 8:54 AM on August 19, 2012 [3 favorites]

on preview:

fuck it, just deleted everything i was going to write because i see i was about to contribute to the problem in question.

Miko (and PhoB), it's been a long-ass thread, and i think the original question "is this place a girlzone" has been answered with an overwhelming FUCK NO-- from mods, women, and men. respectfully* what do you think the thread should be about at this point? i understand you're describing something that has already happened (and happens in these threads all the time) and may be too late to turn around. in the interest of not letting that continue to happen after it's been pointed out, is there something specifically, or any woman's post that you feel was given short shrift and could stand some elaborating?

i understand if you're just sad that it happened yet again and you are perhaps merely making visible note of it. for those still reading. to learn to do better next time and pay attention when it's happening, or whatever.

*you (Miko) can't know how much i reallyreallyreallyreally mean that. there's lots of intelligent posters here, but in terms of posting style you're the one that always stood out to me in terms of being able to lay the gentle educational smackdown. i've always preferred it to the grandstanding grar that can permeate at times. and yes, i mean "stood out" in a world with lhats, cortexes, jessamyns, LobsterMittenses, IRFHs, etc.
posted by twist my arm at 8:56 AM on August 19, 2012 [1 favorite]

i understand if you're just sad that it happened yet again and you are perhaps merely making visible note of it. for those still reading. to learn to do better next time and pay attention when it's happening, or whatever.

Pretty much. It's just worth observing. It's in itself an example of why this isn't a girlzone. I suppose those conversations have to happen somewhere and that people should carry on, but it's a reminder of the embedded notion that important conversations are about men.
posted by Miko at 9:03 AM on August 19, 2012 [15 favorites]

Pretty much. It's just worth observing. It's in itself an example of why this isn't a girlzone. I suppose those conversations have to happen somewhere and that people should carry on, but it's a reminder of the embedded notion that important conversations are about men.

Also that they're couched in a rhetorical style enjoyed by a privileged class--emotionally removed, calm, and logical. Because, really, the stakes are fairly low for those engaged in it.

I know that, as a woman, I get really, really angry when I think about all the ways in which my liberties are still encroached upon by the patriarchy--angrier still when people suggest that my attempts to work toward equitable wages, rights over my body, heck, even a right to take up physical space--is a threat to their majority control of the world. I do my best not to be rude about these things, but it's at times difficult. These are emotionally charged issues! I mean, I cried--a lot--back last summer when that elevator thread was happening. It was the only time I ever seriously considered closing my account.

I was told then that I shouldn't consider metafilter a safe space for women and women's stories. This is the biggest fundamental way that it seems to me that metafilter is not a girlzone and is, rather, fundamentally a boyzone. I hate that it boils down to an either/or dichotomy, but it certainly feels that way. I suspect those like OP and others who are angry about the presence of feminist discussions here would see any indication that metafilter be a space space for women as marking it as fundamentally "girlzone." I wish that wasn't the case. I wish I felt like this was a space where women could share their stories and experiences without being asked, over and over again, to consider how our anger and our pain over legitimate threats to our rights, liberties, and physical safety make men feel bad. Because this is clearly a safe space for men's pain and anger, to be discussed and examined again and again. It's not nearly equitable, much less girlzone. Even as I find metafilter to be loads better than many other diverse communities on the internet.

Essentially, I want to favorite the young rope-rider's comment a thousand times:

My issue with the concept of "rudeness" as it relates to conversations like these is that I find many, many sexist* statments, no matter how "politely" expressed, to be inherently insulting and hurtful. There's no polite way to say that women aren't good at taking care of children**, for example. It's just never going to be polite. I find it understandable to respond to statements like those with rudeness. That's life in a social setting--insult a bunch of people, and they're going to be pissed off and act like they're pissed off, and that includes the occasional snarky comment.

And I wish we, as a community, could start thinking about what tolerating sexist microaggression from certain community members does for whole other populations of community members, no matter how "politely" those microaggressions are phrased. Particularly when addressing those microaggressions leads to the justifiably hurt members of those sub-populations to be labeled as "bullies," as happened in this thread and has happened in the past.
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 9:29 AM on August 19, 2012 [52 favorites]

I just woke up from a dream where there was an art prize sponsored by MeFi, the MeFi Art Prize. There were 18 semi-finalists, about 50/50 gender split. But to advance to the finals, all of the women artists had to undergo a GYN exam in a public arena. And despite the fact that I firmly believe that I have a right to style or ignore my bush however I like, my biggest anxiety in this dream was to make mine more palatable for casual public viewing by the membership of MetaFilter.

I could spend 2 years in analysis breaking down this dream, because in all its nuanced facets, it reflects pretty much exactly how I feel about this place and the price I feel I pay by choosing to be here.

So no, I don't think MeFi is a Girlzone. Even my subconscious isn't that fanciful.
posted by DarlingBri at 10:02 AM on August 19, 2012 [7 favorites]

I'm not sure I agree either. There's part of me that appreciates some good points made, and the other part of me that observes that here we are again, talking about the feelings and psychology of men.

But isn't that because – forgive me if I'm wrong – the issue of "understand what women go through" is largely a male-centric issue? The instigator of this thread, the people who've posted the grariest comments, and pretty much the only people having an issue with this concept are men. Not entirely, but close to.

Women buy into this hurtful worldview, too, and when you're dealing with them the same situation comes up: the topic turns to be specifically about the women who "don't get it" and their psychologies. If a discussion about "Hey, can you understand this?" fails, the follow-up discussion will inevitably be "Why do you find this difficult to understand?" That discussion centers around the people who fail to get it – in this case, largely men.

This thread has not been entirely that discussion. There've been a lot of personal stories from women, attempts to explain what it's like to deal with these things which men don't notice, and those are all enormously valuable. I'd bet big monies that somebody's been reading this thread without saying a thing, possibly even a non-user, and that those stories have changed his perspective on this whole feminism thing. That happened to me sophomore year in college with the long-ass Discussion Point thread. Hearing women eloquently speak about their experiences in a context that doesn't often exist offline should not be undervalued. That's the key good thing about threads like these.

But it is important when you're discussing these things with an audience that you understand enough of that audience's headspace to make a meaningful connection. Communication and rhetoric and "marketing" are especially vital in forum threads where your audience is hundreds-strong and any one of those people can instigate a lengthy and frustrating derail. Knowing what sorts of arguments spring up in these threads doesn't make you any better at defusing them or working around them. Which is why there are commenters here who've been criticizing some of the totally-in-the-right posters here for rudeness and vitriol and suchlike: it's understandable to be frustrated by this shit but alienating the people who cause it just guarantee it's going to happen again and again and again and the misunderstanding is on both sides. On one side the misunderstanding goes a level deeper than it does on the other, but the point of arguments isn't to be right, it's to convince the other side, and that higher-level misunderstanding still serves to prevent discussion.

Now, I'd totally understand if people on MetaTalk are convinced that progress is impossible and it's better to vent emotionally than to argue rationally. Flamewars are one of my favorite things in the whole world and I think they're healthy to the community as a whole. But if the intent here is to have a discussion in which people-who-are-wrong are gradually persuaded to be less wrong, and those wrong people are largely male, then, yeah, male psychology is going to play a part.

The irony is that the reason these guys are so defensive, I'm pretty sure, is because of sexism and objectification of women and the bullshit internalizations those result in. It's not being brought up levelheadedly here, but you can see it in arguments like hincandenza's: when you're told, starting when you're 9 or 10, that liking a girl means kissing and fucking her, and that girls only like boys who are good at kissing/fucking them, then it's hard to see through that and just goddamn talk to a girl like she's a normal person. It's even harder if there's another guy around, because then there's a competition by default, and if the girls like another guy more than they like you it suggests you're bad at kissing/fucking and therefore you're not a good man and therefore you must live in agony at the thought of liking these girls who you're starting to be hormonally yanked towards.

Multiple layers of weird beliefs start piling up here: the idea of women as purely sexual creatures (that is, lacking mind-pieces that aren't sexual); the idea that they're judging your sexual capacity in every interaction with you, and that there's such a thing as "sexual capacity" period; the idea that other men are competing with you for these resources, and that it's possible to be better or worse at this competition than other men. And this is all before puberty has even properly kicked in. Add how terrible schools are at teaching healthy sexual education, and as a middle school lad it's easy to think that this is entirely the correct way to look at the world, since nobody's contradicting it.

From this you can derive the PUA movement, or the party-and-drunken-sex frat mindset, or a lot of the conventional sexism, pretty easily. But it's also easier to understand where that weird defensiveness comes from in guys: they still often view themselves as sexual "candidates" whose behaviors are being assigned points. For them, rape is a breach of a woman's right to choose her partner, mixed with some force and violence that's scary but not, like, the worst thing ever; for them "rape culture" is a stupid phrase because they don't get that rape culture is that very assumption about women, that they're these sex objects who pretend to be people, that what makes rape horrifying is ultimately the way it reduces a human being to somebody's possession which they brutally, utterly control. Rape is about power, not about sex, and the power lies in how the woman is reduced to something inhuman.

If you're still living with this messed-up perspective, it's easy to conclude that rape culture is women trying to eat their cake and have it, that feminists are trying to abuse the power they already have over men (the power to sexually judge) in order to grasp more power, and that a lot of the conversation about sexism, the patriarchy, what-have-you, is grossly unfair to men. Not to mention it's reinforced by how wounded you feel because they're telling you that you're acting the wrong way – and in your mind, it's not "acting the wrong way towards another human being." It's "acting the wrong way to get laid."

My former college flatmate got pissed off when I tried explaining to him why his girlfriend hated when he called other girls cunts. "I get that I'm just reducing them to their vaginas," he said. "I get why that's so offensive. But that's all that some girls are." Later, when he was using Facebook to "scout" freshmen girls before going to parties to know which ones were single, he grew violently, scarily angry when I told him I thought his approach was nasty and made me feel uncomfortable. He wasn't getting these girls drunk, he wasn't raping them. Yeah, he was going out of his way to line up girls, multiple girls, for potential hook-ups. How dare I feel bad about his acting honestly? (Where by "honestly" he meant he was seeing three girls simultaneously without telling any of them, but never using the word "girlfriend" to describe them.)

There's a deeper, fundamental disconnect between guys who think this way and people who're trying to convince them otherwise. It's not just stubbornness or idiocy on their part, or even intentional rudeness. I was totally that guy until a few years ago, which is part of why I don't like how harsh some of the response to them can get: it's possible to turn them around, relatively easily even, if you start in the right place. I don't totally know what that right place is, but it involves something even lower-level than what's sexist and what's not. Something about how much it sucks for people to ignore all the interesting human things about you because they've been tricked into thinking they "have to" do that shit. And I'm reasonably certain that's a very very common experience that boys have starting at a young age. For me it started in the 6th grade, and by 8th the locker room talk was all tits and fucking. (Also whether or not you were gay. Come to think of it, that kind of sexual mindset would help explain certain facets of homophobia as well.)

Now, ALL THAT SAID:

That kind of abstracted, theoretical parlor-room discussion isn't necessarily the way these threads ought to go. Because as PhoBWanKenobi and other users here are pointing out, there are plenty of people here who already do not feel like welcome contributors. The shit that comes out of the assorted sexists' mouths is highly-offputting to a lot of people, the "let's start all over again with the basics" discussions are exhausting and never-ending, the frustration that the commenters who're trying to explain this over and over again feel is wholly justified, and the digressions as to whether or not said frustrated commenters are too aggressive or too mean or what-have-you serve to ignore the real problem, which are these behaviors that are hugely, hugely destructive for participatory conversation.

Tone arguments may or may not be warranted in some cases, but either way they turn the discussion into one about tone, not about issues. So when the tone of the discussion isn't the one you want to see here, then instead of complaining about that, perhaps support the people whose tone you dislike while yourself setting the kind of tone that you think would be useful.

This thread's helped me understand something I've been uncomfortable with but also wrong about: it is not always the job of people affronted, people wronged, people upset to fix the people making them feel that way. They have a right to express the way they feel, and if somebody's making them feel nasty, it's okay to say that openly and with an edge to it.

Do you feel like they're not speaking their mind "usefully" enough? Great! That means you're detached enough from this cause to see both who you agree with and how you think they might reach common ground with the other side. Do that, instead of blaming people for being right in the wrong way.

(I have been guilty of that on this site dozens upon dozens of times over, and realizing that, I am truly sorry for making things here worse on many occasions. I am young, and stupid, and often an ass, and I will try to get better from here.)
posted by Rory Marinich at 10:03 AM on August 19, 2012 [18 favorites]

But isn't that because – forgive me if I'm wrong – the issue of "understand what women go through" is largely a male-centric issue?

No, it's not a male-centric issue. The first people who need to understand what women go through are women themselves. In fact, they are experts on this. And the more threads we have with this sort of focus, the harder and harder it is to understand.

it is not always the job of people affronted, people wronged, people upset to fix the people making them feel that way

Yes. That's right. And just at this particularl point in time, which will probably pass but is my reality at this moment, I'm not all that willing to help people reform their fucked up worldviews by opening up my own life experience, rhetorical efforts, personal pain and vulnerabilities. And maybe that means I'm "right in the wrong way," but that's all right.

It may be that a bunch of men want to carry on a conversation about why they're not more sympathetic to women, and that is probably a good conversation to have, but I'm somewhere between feeling my contributions are not welcome, and that I just don't want to make any more contributions to this effort which is really only quite indirectly about me, or MetaFilter, or women in general.
posted by Miko at 10:11 AM on August 19, 2012 [8 favorites]

Essentially, I want to favorite the young rope-rider's comment a thousand times: ...

And I wish we, as a community, could start thinking about what tolerating sexist microaggression from certain community members does for whole other populations of community members, no matter how "politely" those microaggressions are phrased.

So if you're "justifiably" hurt and are not one of the "certain community members" we should favor you owning your rudeness 1000 times over. We should question, however, a policy that tolerates polite microagressions from said certain members (who invariably are straight white males)?

Stay the course, MetaFilter.
posted by Dano St at 10:18 AM on August 19, 2012

it's better to vent emotionally than to argue rationally.
Forgive me for being uncharitable. But it is a good thing that we have men to argue rationally while women vent emotionally.
posted by ChuraChura at 10:20 AM on August 19, 2012

... is how that seems to read.
posted by ChuraChura at 10:22 AM on August 19, 2012

So if you're "justifiably" hurt and are not one of the "certain community members" we should favor you owning your rudeness 1000 times over. We should question, however, a policy that tolerates polite microagressions from said certain members (who invariably are straight white males)?

I don't believe I've ever been rude to those community members, but I think it's important to note that sexist community members are often vitriolic toward female members not because of what those members have done but because of perceived injustices in the wider world whereas the community members who have been called out as bullies (here, the young rope-rider) are responding to language and behavior director toward them on the actual site.
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 10:23 AM on August 19, 2012 [11 favorites]

Yeah, and the stupidly obvious thing I realized as I puzzled over this thread was how craptastic it is to insist that the only conversations which exist are the idealistic ones in which people try to show infinite compassion and understanding for shallow idiocy.

When somebody asks whether MetaFilter's a girlzone, I think the conversation about why somebody would be deluded enough to think that's a reasonable question is a useful one to have. But it's also useful to have a place for people to express how frustrating it is that this still keeps popping up on MetaFilter, and the tones of the two separate discussions are quite different from (and possibly preclude) each other.

Somebody above drew a connection between this and MeFi's frequent theist shitstorms, and I think that's a neat connection to make. In both cases I think there needs to be a potential way for a thread to not be derailed into lowest-common-denominator arguments. Pockets where certain stances are NOT okay to take, because they'll derail a much more interesting thread that allows for a wider range of voices.

Forgive me for being uncharitable. But it is a good thing that we have men to argue rationally while women vent emotionally.

My bad; that was totally unintentional. This is a hugely crappy, stressful, emotional issue. I was trying to say that maybe it is a good thing for people to have a place here to speak their minds without the restrictions of a tidy, courteous, formal discussion.
posted by Rory Marinich at 10:27 AM on August 19, 2012 [2 favorites]

polite microagressions

I can't parse this. Can you explain further?
posted by the man of twists and turns at 10:27 AM on August 19, 2012

Well 1,000 comments in, and the discussion has turned into the usual conversation about how depressing it is to have to explain rape culture again. Intercut that with people begrudgingly explaining rape culture *again* for no discernable reason.

Metafilter isn't anywhere near being a girlzone, but it does have an aspect of well meaning political correctness that tends to overwhelm otherwise normal conversation by driving straight into zealous explanations and expectations about privilege.

Sometimes I can see the point of that, but other times it's damned frustrating. It's not so much that I hate being called a rapist from time to time, it's that it happens with such boring regularity.

I'm of a general belief that for a small but strident portion of metafilter, the framing of conversations towards an overwrought and over-studied version of inclusivity is done for political and self-aggrandising purposes. There's no proving that of course, but the ease with which some people can pick up on unfairness and then start overwhelming the conversation with social justice language is frightening.

These conversations are usually anything but inclusive.

So no. It's not a girlzone. But if the last 1/3 of this thread is anything to go by, metafilter does sometimes drift towards an almost competitive right-onness.
posted by zoo at 10:36 AM on August 19, 2012 [3 favorites]

I can't parse this. Can you explain further?

Small comments that reveal disdain toward women generally but are phrased in a way that doesn't outright violate the standards of polite communication. It can be as small as repeatedly referring to women as "girls" and can also include repeatedly interrogating women on their expertise on a subject or questioning their experiences/perceptions of experiences. All of these behaviors can individually look perfectly polite but as an overall pattern of behavior contributes to an atmosphere of hostility.
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 10:36 AM on August 19, 2012 [25 favorites]

Rory, I am sorry. I know that's not what you were saying and I took the most aggressive and least helpful approach.
posted by ChuraChura at 10:43 AM on August 19, 2012

Either we evade the responsibility and guilt — the reality — or we accept it and find ourselves in a universe that is extremely ugly, unjust, and is so in ways that make us feel badly about ourselves as human beings.

But the universe you describe --- the ugly, unjust universe of sexism and rape culture --- isn't some new and exotic landscape. It's our native landscape; if someone is seeing it for the first time, that doesn't mean that it didn't exist before; it means they weren't looking at it. More than that, it means that when someone else's different experience suggested that they had an obscured view, they covered their eyes.

If I take someone on a guided tour of my neighborhood and point out landmarks they never noticed before, they'll learn something about the history and culture of the town. But I'm not interested in hearing them tell me at great length and repeatedly, "Hey, I never even knew that landmark was there, let me tell you what I thought was here."

And if they start looking only in one direction or telling me that I'm imagining or exaggerating aspects of the landscape that they refuse to examine closely, I'm giving up on the tour.

That's expecting a lot from people. From men.

I don't think it is asking a lot. As other have mentioned above, when I (a white person) get to hear African-American friends talk about racism, I feel sick and angry at the injustice. I feel guilt, both diffuse (for the cultural system which privileges me) and specific (for my own unthinking acceptance of some aspects of that privilege).

What I don't do is tell those speakers at length about my own experience in that culture, because I recognize that they already know plenty about my experience as a white person. The dominant cultural viewpoint is a big chunk of the cultural and experiential language: everyone speaks it to some extent. I know that my friends of color already have the vocabulary to speak that language; they don't need my input.
posted by Elsa at 10:52 AM on August 19, 2012 [29 favorites]

> It's not so much that I hate being called a rapist from time to time, it's that it happens with such boring regularity.

I must have missed something. Where were you called a rapist?
posted by languagehat at 11:04 AM on August 19, 2012 [20 favorites]

I'm not sure I agree either. There's part of me that appreciates some good points made, and the other part of me that observes that here we are again, talking about the feelings and psychology of men.

In fairness, though, this entire thread began as a discussion of male feelings (nutty though they were).
posted by Forktine at 11:10 AM on August 19, 2012

> It's not so much that I hate being called a rapist from time to time, it's that it happens with such boring regularity.

I must have missed something. Where were you called a rapist?

I second that question, especially since I repeatedly stated, both explicitly and implicitly, here and elsewhere, that "I don't think it's [always] necessary to introduce the question 'Is he a rapist' into the dynamic."
posted by Elsa at 11:13 AM on August 19, 2012

Hyperbole languagehat. Would you have preferred *potential* rapist? And should I assume that your comment was an actual request for links or was that just snark?
posted by zoo at 11:13 AM on August 19, 2012

tends to overwhelm otherwise normal conversation

I'm not sure what sort of "normal conversation" you were expecting to have in a MeTa post titled "Girlzone" that contains the sentences, "Women are poor victims, men are the bad guys. Aren't we supposed to a bit more enlightened that this?"
posted by soundguy99 at 11:15 AM on August 19, 2012

That kind of hyperbole is really damaging to the conversation since it specifically steps all over the nuance many people are going to great lengths to provide.
posted by restless_nomad (staff) at 11:15 AM on August 19, 2012 [32 favorites]

Hyperbole with rape is tricky to pull off well.

To a woman you've never met before, you are a potential rapist. Because you're a stranger, and they don't know if they can trust you, and rape is a frighteningly common occurrence.

This is seriously not hard.
posted by Rory Marinich at 11:16 AM on August 19, 2012 [6 favorites]

And I'm not particularly making any comment about you or your motivations Elsa. FWIW, I agree with you.

My wider point was not about being called a rapist, it was about a tendency towards a certain style of Social Justice conversation.
posted by zoo at 11:17 AM on August 19, 2012

Would you have preferred *potential* rapist?

well it would've been closer to accurate without causing the headscratching and motive-questioning that comes with hyperbole on a topic that you already know puts people on edge leading to an inevitable rehashing of the points that you're already bored with.

a certain style of Social Justice conversation.

do you think retroactively using smaller words or "nicer" language would've made eas98 not post this thread?
posted by twist my arm at 11:22 AM on August 19, 2012

My wider point was not about being called a rapist, it was about a tendency towards a certain style of Social Justice conversation.

Then that is the point you should have made to begin with.
posted by rtha at 11:24 AM on August 19, 2012 [5 favorites]

To a woman you've never met before, you are a potential rapist
And I don't have a problem with this.

Rory Marinich, The fact is that you assume that I don't get this point, and I do get it. I'd hazard that most people *get* it. There is an insistence though and a desire to prove that people who disagree with you on any minor point don't get it.

restless_nomad mentioned nuance, and she's right. I could have been more more careful in what is a reasonably nuanced conversation. But this goes for you too. I'm making a point about using the language of social justice for political gain, and you're jumping in and misinterpreting my comment to imply that I don't get that women need to treat men as potential rapists.

I hate to say it, but you're kind of proving my point.
posted by zoo at 11:26 AM on August 19, 2012

Hyperbole and exaggeration are counterproductive in serious conversation, and reasonable people are very likely to ignore remarks like that.

If you want engage in a conversation, converse. Don't exaggerate for shock effect. When someone contributes zingers and potshots to a conversation, I (and I'd wager many other people) start to view all of that person's contributions skeptically, if we register them at all.
posted by Elsa at 11:30 AM on August 19, 2012 [4 favorites]

rtha: That was the point I made to start with. It's maybe not the point you assumed I made, or you want me to have made, but it's the point I made.

twist my arm: I don't thing anything would have stopped the post being made, and as I've said, I disagree with the implication that metafilter is a girlzone. Seriously, what are you asking me?
posted by zoo at 11:30 AM on August 19, 2012

[I hasten to add: of course, you can and may continue in any tone you want. It seems counter-productive, but that's your call.]
posted by Elsa at 11:31 AM on August 19, 2012

Miko: There's part of me that appreciates some good points made, and the other part of me that observes that here we are again, talking about the feelings and psychology of men.

A part of me wishes that general site etiquette here was that men would shut up in threads about feminism and related issues. The other part of me realizes that it's never going to happen and that seriously proposing that would trigger the kind of flamewar that would have people quitting in droves.

That said, it's tiresome to the point of biting-through-the-desk irritation to see most every feminism thread focus on straight men, and being dominated in terms of participation by men. And it especially drives me up the wall that discussions about feminism and related issues invariably get taken over by male voices.

One way that women are suppressed is by drowning out what they say. Whether a man is saying feminist or feminism-critical things is almost (but not quite) irrelevant, just by adding to the volume of male voices they serve to limit the amount of attention women receive.

Of course this wouldn't really be an issue if discussion-participation was even remotely near gender-parity, but it isn't.

And now I'll stop being a raging hypocrite and just shut up.
posted by Kattullus at 11:33 AM on August 19, 2012 [6 favorites]

That was the point I made to start with. It's maybe not the point you assumed I made, or you want me to have made, but it's the point I made

Well, no. It may have been the point you were trying to make, but it's pretty clear that it's not the point that came across.

This is a big part of the larger topic, really. Scalzi put it well the other day - you don't get to decide what people think of you, how they react to you, or how they understand what you say. The essence of communication is trying to match up what you intend with what the other person interprets, but it's imperfect at best, and insisting that all failures are by the other person is pointless and counterproductive. This is true whether it's a point you were trying to make in online conversation or the way you choose to sit on the bus.
posted by restless_nomad (staff) at 11:35 AM on August 19, 2012 [25 favorites]

Elsa. I wasn't trying to exaggerate for shock value. It wasn't a potshot, I wasn't trying to say that people say "all men are rapists" on metafilter. It was (for me) a convenient and hyperbolic shorthand for the conversation that's being had about rape culture. I honestly didn't think people would read it as me saying that they like to call people rapists on metafilter, I meant it more in the sense that I don't mind being called a rapist on metafilter. It's the lie of me not minding it which is meant to be hyperbolic. I probably wouldn't like it at all.

I don't however mind being seen as a potential rapist. It's up to me to prove my trustworthiness in this arena, and I completely understand any women who decide that I can't be trusted.

Anyway - I've managed to derail the conversation *again*, so it's probably a good point to bow out.

Carry on with your conversation about how you're increasingly frustrated at having to explain to men on metafilter about privilege and rape culture.
posted by zoo at 11:38 AM on August 19, 2012

Elevator thread: MetaFilter. MetaTalk.

My memory is that I read the first few comments in the original thread and then just bailed, and didn't show up for the Meta, either. I couldn't bear to participate, and I wonder how many other women in the site felt the same way.
posted by jokeefe at 11:40 AM on August 19, 2012 [5 favorites]

the language of social justice for political gain

People talk about this a lot. Perhaps its because I didn't go to college, but I have never seen this in action. Could someone provide an example, perhaps from Metafilter? (that is not snark).

That was the point I made to start with

Many times, when we send signals (language, visual, body, etc.) we interpret them ourselves, and expect others to interpret them in exactly the same manner. Since people have different knowledge and experiences, and because there are many steps for misinterpretation or message breakdown between creating a message and the audience understanding it, if we don't want to be misunderstood, we must make an effort to be as clear as possible.

I agree with r_n, that may have been the message you wanted to send, but it was not the message that was received.
posted by the man of twists and turns at 11:41 AM on August 19, 2012 [1 favorite]

well meaning political correctness that tends to overwhelm otherwise normal conversation

I don't agree.

But then, I probably don't agree with your definition of "normal conversation," either.

In the conversations that I normally participate in, "well meaning political correctness" is called "not being a jerk," and no one seems to have much of a problem with it.
posted by Narrative Priorities at 11:44 AM on August 19, 2012 [8 favorites]

There's no proving that of course

Ah, please excuse me. I did not realize you had already disavowed any responsibility of proof on your part.

/that was snark.
posted by the man of twists and turns at 11:45 AM on August 19, 2012

/that was snark.

That kind of hyperbole is damaging to the conversation since it steps all over the nuance many people are going to great lengths to provide.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 11:47 AM on August 19, 2012 [5 favorites]

There's no need to be condescending. Frankly, I don't know what level of clarity I'd need to accomplish to break down such staggering levels of cognitive dissonance.

And this "You need to write it in a way people can understand" meta-argument is rubbish. Especially in the midst of a conversation where those self same people are expressing frustration that they just can't make people understand certain things.

It's up to us to both comprehend what we're reading and to write with clarity. Lack of communication is a failure with two failing parties, not just one. I clarified after being made aware that what I said was not understood. What else is there except for the recieving party to make the same effort to understand.
posted by zoo at 11:53 AM on August 19, 2012

I'm of a general belief that for a small but strident portion of metafilter, the framing of conversations towards an overwrought and over-studied version of inclusivity is done for political and self-aggrandising purposes. There's no proving that of course, but the ease with which some people can pick up on unfairness and then start overwhelming the conversation with social justice language is frightening.

Since I'm a person who speaks in the vernacular of social justice, I want to tell you that you're mistaken. This is how I talk. It's normal for me--how I see things and interact with the world.

I'm making a point about using the language of social justice for political gain

I'm disturbed that you think people talk this way for "political gain"--more over, what do you think the "political" goals are for those of us who talk this way? Do you think we're trying to take over metafilter or something? Because frankly, in the years that I've been on metafilter, there's always been some degree of conversation that's been made in the vocabulary of social justice (my favorite was the gleeful, but quickly nixed by mods, "Fat bitches stand up!" MeTa about members who were into fat acceptance). If anything, it sometimes feels like those of us who are still talking this way and are having these conversations are holding on to an era in which it was more okay to talk in the SJ vocabulary in which we're accustomed. It's not a new thing; we're not trying to make metafilter something that it's never been.
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 11:57 AM on August 19, 2012 [16 favorites]

And this "You need to write it in a way people can understand" meta-argument is rubbish.

It isn't. You made a hyperbolic comment in a thread that's already got a lot of heat to it; a number of people responded in ways that showed they didn't understand your point. You restated your point without the hyperbole.

Sometimes, especially in a text-only medium like this one, miscommunication is going to happen no matter what, even if all participants are trying to be as clear an non-snarky as possible.

My point is that your hyperbole undermined the point you were trying to make. If it hadn't, you wouldn't have needed to respond and restate.
posted by rtha at 11:59 AM on August 19, 2012 [5 favorites]

and then start overwhelming the conversation with social justice language is frightening.

Conversations about sexism are conversations about social justice. "Social justice language" is appropriate for those conversations, just as economic language is appropriate to inflation conversations, medical jargon is appropriate to surgical conversations, and mathematical terms are appropriate to conversations about algebra.

To have some participants using the complex, nuanced language of academic or political disciplines doesn't prevent others from using informal or colloquial language --- and some of us do both at the same time. Complex discourse is not the enemy of understanding.
posted by Elsa at 12:01 PM on August 19, 2012 [34 favorites]

Frankly, I don't know what level of clarity I'd need to accomplish to break down such staggering levels of cognitive dissonance.

Maybe you could start off by not using jerky, dismissive language like this?
posted by Bunny Ultramod at 12:14 PM on August 19, 2012 [7 favorites]

My memory is that I read the first few comments in the original [elevator] thread and then just bailed, and didn't show up for the Meta, either. I couldn't bear to participate, and I wonder how many other women in the site felt the same way.

I participated in both threads, regretted it, and have taken a much more wary approach to Metafilter since. I really love this site, and that thread was a kick in the gut. I now keep a closer eye on who I'm engaging with, because after that thread I realised that I could be joking around with someone who thinks that they have a god-given right to casual misogyny.
posted by ukdanae at 12:21 PM on August 19, 2012 [15 favorites]

"Social justice language" (which I am not totally convinced is a monolithic thing) is generally concerned with facilitating difficult conversations by creating neutral terms that don't trigger emotional reactions in the way that casual terms can. I am a fan of that goal, and of making people more conscious of the effects certain terms and rhetorical devices often have.

It does have a bit of a backlash effect, because people who learn about the underpinnings of language are much more aware of its effect, and it's hard not to challenge problematic language. In a mixed environment like this, that can cause some static. But personally, I think it's generally static that's worth the hassle, because the more people are aware of what they're saying and doing, the less inadvertent assholery we get. (Deliberate assholery is a much easier phenomenon to cope with as a mod, for sure.)
posted by restless_nomad (staff) at 12:30 PM on August 19, 2012 [8 favorites]

Rory, can I ask. If you imagined switching the context for a moment, can you imagine saying the racial parallel of the first two-thirds of your long comment to a group of people who have to, say, watch when and where they can go out in their own neighbourhood, because many of them have had the shit beaten out of them, some of them more than once, for their race, and many of them are still coping with the traumas and their aftereffects? Let's say they then come on Metafilter, and faced the same shit in conversations here as women do, translated to a racial context. Victim-blaming, It's really [racial majority] that's suffering, It's all gone too far, You haven't considered how the [racial majority] people who aren't racist feel when you find yourself wary and sometimes scared of them, it hurts their feelings so, Maybe you are really the racist ones. etc.

Would you say to these people facing racism all their lives that it's understandable to be frustrated by this shit but alienating the people who cause it just guarantee it's going to happen again and again and again and the misunderstanding is on both sides? Would you tell them, But it is important when you're discussing these things with an audience that you understand enough of that audience's headspace to make a meaningful connection. Or go into graphic detail about what's really going on in the minds of people who don't really see them as fully human, that they're these sex objects who pretend to be people etc.. What does it feel like to read all that as a woman?

(I am not at all getting at you, your comment was just the most recent one. I know you care and want things to be better for women. If I didn't think you cared, I wouldn't bother.)

These threads and what women say in them, described as telling stories. Sharing experiences. Venting.

Seems to me it's often self-defence. It's reaching out for community, getting some reassurance that it wasn't your fault, that it wasn't something you did or didn't do that caused it (oh but it's so hilarious to throw gaslighting in women and feminists' faces!), that you weren't making too big a deal out of it like people told you, that there wasn't something wrong with you, you didn't have to keep it all inside, you could talk about it without feeling shame, you're not alone.

Earlier it was asked why it was not okay for analysis.

You analyse when you feel more secure and safe. You analyse with emotional distance.

These is no fear behind any of these long (and short) comments calling for analysis and understanding and dialogue. No urgency, no anger, no fear, no loss, no sense of something deeply personal at stake, nothing that would make you say, instead of Let's analyse this and look into that and really understand their motivations and cultural upbringings and appeal to them and maybe it'll change -- if you felt any of that, really, maybe you would just say FUCK THEM, THIS STOPS. Because if you were on the receiving end, you would too. And you would not appreciate or value people saying to you afterwards, Maybe the people who intruded on your space and sense of safety and treated you as less than human have their reasons, and if we understood them surely it would be better. You would not say that after your mother or your sister or your girlfriend or wife or female friend has been harassed or assaulted, can I offer some analysis?, can I offer some reasons they might have been that way, would that comfort you, would it make things better for you?

I mean, do you hear the emotional distance behind Hearing women eloquently speak about their experiences in a context that doesn't often exist offline should not be undervalued. That's the key good thing about threads like these. I can't remember if one or more than one women have said in this thread that they cried because of some of these threads. I know they have said so in others. But to hear some of you speak of it, it's as if it's a bunch of girlfriends getting together for a venting session or something.

Earlier, cashman kept asking why analysis was not okay in these threads, why when he might have some understanding and insight into the 'creeper' guys and he thought he might be able to reach them, why it was not okay and helpful even. Some possibilities:

1) Woman after woman talking about how they have been hurt, their lives constrained, some of them traumatised and having to live in fear -- what does it say about a man that that is not enough? Such that it needs to be twisted around to appeal to their self-interest, oh I understand how you're feeling, the pressures of dating and sex on men are so hard, I feel you brother? Why are they not expected to care about other people (women being people) like we do with everything else?

2) Yes, as mentioned it echoes and is often near indistinguishable from the men who take over these conversations with their self-absorption and "what about how men feel?" Sorry they ruined it, but it is what it is. It has become one of those social context things, where the pricks have ruined it for everyone, and now we have to step extra carefully. Blame them.

3) Are you sure that understanding men's feelings and appealing to them would actually stop it from happening to women? Is it actually helping? Because that's the thing that matters above all else, right? And if it is obvious to you, why is it not obvious to all the women who are objecting and explicitly telling you that it doesn't help? Wouldn't they be very interested in exploring that option, if they thought it would help at all? Why are they telling you that it's not helping?

Even then, I can imagine if a woman asked in one of these threads, "Why are so many men this way?" You can come in with your analysis and insider insight and personal experience, and it'd be fine and welcomed and appreciated, as long as it's about protecting women rather than protecting men's feelings and image. Women would know when it's helpful, wouldn't they? It's about them after all. They're the ones who have to live it.

Feel free to reach out to men when you're with men by themselves. Like the parallel I tried to use earlier, you wouldn't be all sympathetic and appeal to a racist person's feelings in front of someone who gets racist abuse all the time. Right?

There are still people saying, oh why won't you try to reach out and engage, with patience and even-tone? When even in this thread, there were still people trying to respectfully reach out to and connect with hincandenza. It's been years. But it's never enough.
posted by catchingsignals at 1:30 PM on August 19, 2012 [21 favorites]

There are still people saying, oh why won't you try to reach out and engage, with patience and even-tone? When even in this thread, there were still people trying to respectfully reach out to and connect with hincandenza. It's been years. But it's never enough.

Only 2% of the site uses MetaTalk. Even those of us who participate heavily may not be familiar with comments a user has made in the past, or prior controversies they have become embroiled in.

Even though I agree with your point, perhaps it's not the whole story.
posted by zarq at 2:06 PM on August 19, 2012

Since I'm a person who speaks in the vernacular of social justice, I want to tell you that you're mistaken. This is how I talk. It's normal for me--how I see things and interact with the world.

Same for me. I'm glad I don't run in circles where disrespectful terms are common. I know they exist. But like others, I take reasonable offense at the suggestion that I'm getting something awesome out of being a feminist, or even out of being a woman, because of all the embiggening it apparently gives my sense of self or public stature. I don't know if you've ever spoken out against anything that a large and entrenched system of oppression would rather not stop doing, but it's actually not all that fun and power-giving.

It is probably a lot easier to stay contemptuous and dismissive of your opponents, though, if you belittle their motivations in a way that lets you claim superior and more authentic and dispassionate motivations, though. So I can see how that might be working out for you.
posted by Miko at 2:07 PM on August 19, 2012 [13 favorites]

Only 2% of the site uses MetaTalk. Even those of us who participate heavily may not be familiar with comments a user has made in the past, or prior controversies they have become embroiled in.

I know zarq, wasn't thinking of your comment earlier in the thread at all, and actually thought people were being unnecessarily harsh to you, but you guys worked it out and I thought I might've missed something, so didn't say anything. And I think I favourited one of Ivan Fyodorovich's let's not judge people's whole person too quickly comments, because of course, sure. But there's a limit. And, in the case I was talking about, it's not at all been just in MetaTalk, as I'm sure you know. Plus I was just thinking of the people in this thread, who by definition use MetaTalk. I don't remember seeing any new names, but if that's the case feel free to let me know here or by MeMail -- of course it's understandable if people are not familiar with someone's past, that's unavoidable and not a problem at all.
posted by catchingsignals at 2:36 PM on August 19, 2012

My memory is that I read the first few comments in the original [elevator] thread and then just bailed, and didn't show up for the Meta, either. I couldn't bear to participate, and I wonder how many other women in the site felt the same way.

Awhile back I posted this FPP on the heels of a big gender discussion thread after which things were supposedly better. I really couldn't get over the fact that folks had to sit there and calmly and rationally deal with the posters saying that we had to be careful not to malign cops, that she could have consented while drunk, that the conviction failure was her fault for showering, and that without video of the actual rape we'll never really know.

I resented it like fuck that folks had to calmly and rationally deal with these people so as to not be dismissed as emotonal, illogical and hysterical and because that's how we're supposed to do things here when really the appropriate response was WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOU YOU SCARY MOTHERFUCKERS?

It's actually supposed to be better here than it is in the wider world. MeFi is often accused of being a progressive echo chamber. And that fact coupled with that thread literally tore away a piece of my faith in humanity.

That was my experience and I don't really care if people think I overreacted or it wasn't that bad or it was really very polite in there or whatever; I pretty much stopped engaging in gender issues on MeFi after that. It is painful how repetitive and pointless it is.
posted by DarlingBri at 3:04 PM on August 19, 2012 [19 favorites]

Answer them. They're not dogs, they're not brick walls; they're people who are asking you for more detail.

No they're not. They're arguing in bad faith: you tell your story, they nitpick it to death. If you reject their questioning you're obviously afraid to be caught out in a lie, if you go into them, they'll sooner or later find a reason to doubt you or rewrite the incident, if you get angry or frustrated about it, than clearly you're hysterical.

It's a fairly common, incredibly obnoxious "debating" tactic, used in all sort of situations but especially effective if you're a straight white male using it to dismiss the experiences of, well, anybody, who isn't. This is because in most online situations the former will outnumber the latter, won't have experienced the harassement themselves, not even secondhand, would (giving the benefit of the doubt) never do this sort of thing themselves, so find it hard to believe the original poster in the first place, while the doubter does sound superficially reasonable.

I first noticed this pattern myself more than a decade ago on a science fiction newsgroup where a Black fan described her experiences just walking around New York when some mr Logic had said that racism was dead. The person who tried to do his trial lawyer on her was slightly too direct and blatant and suddenly a lot of things fell into place.

Which is why, if you want to argue in good faith about this things, you need to be very careful about denying people their own experiences, especially if you don't share their background. There are some things you can understand intellectually, but never grok. You can ask questions, but you have to be careful in how to frame them so as not to dismiss other people's lived experiences.
posted by MartinWisse at 3:07 PM on August 19, 2012 [41 favorites]

In a discussion about sexism sometime back, someone told a story about something that happened to a female relative. Someone else came along and said that unless the thing the relative experienced happened 50 years ago, then it didn't happen.

There are lots of people walking around who assume that if they didn't see something, it didn't happen. If they don't experience something, it doesn't happen. That if they can't imagine how it would feel, or they imagine feeling differently from someone else, that that other person's experience is invalid. If it didn't happen to them, it doesn't exist, and anyone claiming to have experienced it is lying.

It's difficult to remain calm and rational in the face of "arguments" like that.
posted by rtha at 3:21 PM on August 19, 2012 [29 favorites]

I've stayed out of this thread, and have been staying out of them lately in general, because I just can't do it anymore. Above, we were accused of "using social justice language for political purposes". Personally, I am tired of my body and my health being used for political purposes, and I really can't waste any more energy on men who still insist that my right to my sanity, my health, and my body is secondary to their right to sex and to not ever even for a moment feel slightly uncomfortable or to ever even for a moment examine their privilege.

Kudos and much love to all of you who can do it. I just can't anymore. I'll stick to answering Ask questions about grad school and cats.
posted by hydropsyche at 3:38 PM on August 19, 2012 [35 favorites]

rtha, I remember that! It was in the "My Fault, I'm Female" thread.

The Story

The denial

Since I am finally commenting in this thread, I will point out that a search of AskMe gives 26 examples of questions and 96 examples of comments using the word "wifey" to refer to one's spouse. I cringe inwardly every time I see that. "Wifey" is one-word microagression.

Finally, I am really tired of these threads leading to the departure of female voices from MetaFilter.
posted by ambrosia at 3:43 PM on August 19, 2012 [6 favorites]

Only 2% of the site uses MetaTalk.

Far more than that, actually. About a quarter of the total number of logged in users who drop by the site as a whole in any given week drop by Metatalk. It's still a minority, certainly, but it's not a vanishingly small slice like that.
posted by cortex (staff) at 3:43 PM on August 19, 2012 [3 favorites]

"Wifey" is one-word microagression.

Wow, I did not know that. Not that I've ever used it (I really can't stand adding the "ee" sound on the end of stuff. The English often drive me crazy with it). I just assumed it was like "hubby".
posted by ODiV at 3:50 PM on August 19, 2012 [1 favorite]

when you're told, starting when you're 9 or 10, that liking a girl means kissing and fucking her, and that girls only like boys who are good at kissing/fucking them, then it's hard to see through that and just goddamn talk to a girl like she's a normal person. It's even harder if there's another guy around, because then there's a competition by default, and if the girls like another guy more than they like you it suggests you're bad at kissing/fucking and therefore you're not a good man and therefore you must live in agony at the thought of liking these girls who you're starting to be hormonally yanked towards.

Multiple layers of weird beliefs start piling up here

Thank you for saying it better than I did. The problem is clearly male behavior, so I'm not sure why it would be baffling that the subject turns there. I get why people don't like that, however. I wrote much, much more, but I'll just save it for the next time this thread appears, since we're not going to move to solve any problems, and we'll just repeat a Thousand Comment zone thread again in 10 or 12 months.

I will say I think we should not talk about race and try to compare it to sexism. I obviously can't speak for all black people, but I'll tell you if there was a thread about racism and a bunch of white people jumped in and started problematizing racist white people's behavior and trying to figure out why they thought the way they did and what was the best way to combat that and end racism, well I'd turn a darn cartwheel. So if that isn't how women feel in these threads, I don't believe the comparison isn't apt.
posted by cashman at 3:52 PM on August 19, 2012 [3 favorites]

Man, this is really difficult. It seems like this is a problem with no solution.

I believe very, very, very strongly that the only way for anything to change is for women to keep saying what they think, for men to keep replying to it even if it is ridiculous/sucks/is discouraging/is hurtful, and for women to keep replying again.

I think we can have our safe spaces and we can feel safe in those spaces, and they will be like a little bubble and the minute we exit them we will be blasted with the politicians and frat boys and street harrassers and "nice guys" who feel owed our attention, and all the normal men who just can't understand what the big deal is.

They can't understand what the big deal is if we don't keep telling them because nobody else is going to.

But I understand completely why women feel discouraged, beaten down, and hopeless like none of this has a point or matters or it is just not how they want to spend their short time on this earth.

I just don't know what the solution is. I feel like it is easy for me to say that I want them to keep posting so that I can keep talking to them, because for me personally that is not an emotionally devastating thing. Coming from my fundie church background I usually feel like internet arguments are gentle as a feather compared to what was yelled in my face by large angry men when I was a child. But I know not everyone feels that way at all. What is the solution??
posted by cairdeas at 4:00 PM on August 19, 2012 [3 favorites]

So if that isn't how women feel in these threads, I don't believe the comparison isn't apt.

I think the comparison works when we're talking about pay disparities, social expectations, advertising (to an extent) and similar "softer" issues. I think it really falls down when we talk about rape, assault, abuse, etc. If you reimagine your example using lynching instead of the generic "racism", you might see the problem with examining lynchers' motives being the conversational priority over, you know, making them not lynch people.
posted by restless_nomad (staff) at 4:07 PM on August 19, 2012 [1 favorite]

Thanks for the reply. I don't agree. I think those people (lynchers) took in societal messages that told them that black people weren't human. I think the people around them who would smile in pictures did the same thing. But no, that would be great if people did that. Assuming we had the internet at the time, figuring out what was going through these people's minds and what made them be that way. I would absolutely not want to only tell the story of people who'd gotten lynched, I'd want to figure out who did it, why, and how they got that way. Else you just wait for it to happen again and again.

So I disagree, it isn't a good comparison. I'd elaborate further, but it would derail further.
posted by cashman at 4:13 PM on August 19, 2012 [1 favorite]

catchingsignals, everything you said was dead on. It's difficult for me to imagine that level of oppression period, let alone to women – but I'm trying.

Woman after woman talking about how they have been hurt, their lives constrained, some of them traumatised and having to live in fear -- what does it say about a man that that is not enough? Such that it needs to be twisted around to appeal to their self-interest, oh I understand how you're feeling, the pressures of dating and sex on men are so hard, I feel you brother?

That was enough for me; I read through all the long MeTas I could find before joining in part because I didn't want to be the asshole college kid who forced the rediscussions. Which is why I think these long, frustrating threads ultimately do some people some good. But clearly some people can read those stories and still not be moved by them – and I don't know how the hell they do that. It fascinates me; it makes me realize that even among men I'm privileged in ways I don't understand, and I want to understand, because those are the people I'd personally want to reach.

But you're right – I approach this as an "issue I want to know more about", and I read these threads trying to understand, and I've commented way too often as somebody trying to express ideas amidst something far less clinical. Which is selfish and makes things worse for others.

I mean, do you hear the emotional distance behind "Hearing women eloquently speak about their experiences in a context that doesn't often exist offline should not be undervalued. That's the key good thing about threads like these." I can't remember if one or more than one women have said in this thread that they cried because of some of these threads. I know they have said so in others. But to hear some of you speak of it, it's as if it's a bunch of girlfriends getting together for a venting session or something.

Hearing it put that way is kind of shocking, and appalling. Thank you. I'm going to duck out now and have a long think before jabbering again about things like this.
posted by Rory Marinich at 4:14 PM on August 19, 2012 [14 favorites]

I really appreciate your reply Rory, thanks, and I don't and didn't think you were being selfish at all, just that maybe you weren't quite in touch with what many people carry into these conversations. Really appreciate you caring and understanding.
posted by catchingsignals at 4:19 PM on August 19, 2012

So I disagree, it isn't a good comparison. I'd elaborate further, but it would derail further.

Yeah, I think if you are going to insist that there's a right way to have this conversation and it's not the way the majority of invested people want to have it, there's kind of nowhere to go from there.
posted by restless_nomad (staff) at 4:22 PM on August 19, 2012 [2 favorites]

Just from chance, I went from reading through this thread to this one. First, it's an interesting (and heartbreaking topic. I got a lot out of reading it, since I really know very little about autism.

But, given the juxtaposition between this thread and that one, I was also struck by the tone of the thread. (Or, at least, most of it.) That thread is largely about testifying -- about people who have struggled with eloping autistic relatives expressing what they have experienced and what it feels like to live their lives. It's powerful. It was valuable for me, as an outsider with only extremely limited contact with any autistic persons, to get that insight into their lives. It also appears to be valuable for those who contributed, as they got to share, to inform, and to gain validation.

And, for the vast majority of that thread, that is it. Those who have experienced shared their experiences. No doubting of those experiences, no belittling, no undermining. Just sharing, for the most part. I think it's worthwhile to consider how that thread differs from threads where women try to share their experiences with sexism/harrassment/etc.
posted by meese at 4:22 PM on August 19, 2012 [18 favorites]

Yeah, I think if you are going to insist that there's a right way to have this conversation and it's not the way the majority of invested people want to have it, there's kind of nowhere to go from there.

I'm saying if people think that black folk want to talk about the problems but would react adversely to a bunch of white people coming into a thread and talking about how racist white people think, in an attempt to attack and end racism, I believe those people would be wrong. It doesn't happen to work the same way.
posted by cashman at 4:27 PM on August 19, 2012

But I understand completely why women feel discouraged, beaten down, and hopeless like none of this has a point or matters or it is just not how they want to spend their short time on this earth.

Repeated for truth. Slightly longer life expectancies aside, women are only alive for a limited time, just like men. And, just like men, women want to spend that time enjoying life rather than having the same tedious and upsetting discussion over and over. The problem is that the alternative to having this discussion -- at least for women who believe that they are fully realized human beings who deserve respect -- doesn't allow for very much enjoyment of life.
posted by oinopaponton at 4:32 PM on August 19, 2012 [4 favorites]

I'm saying if people think that black folk want to talk about the problems but would react adversely to a bunch of white people coming into a thread and talking about how racist white people think, in an attempt to attack and end racism, I believe those people would be wrong.

First of all, I want to say comparing everything to racism is unhelpful and tends not to end well, and I'd like to move away from it. I regret continuing the metaphor at all.

But it's worth pointing out that you are again describing a scenario where a bunch of disadvantaged people are talking about issues that affect them and coming in and saying they're doing it wrong. Maybe you're a person of color and have intimate understanding of those issues - you haven't mentioned it so far, so I'm assuming you're not, but please correct me if I'm wrong. But regardless, whether or not you are correct, you are not likely to get a positive reception using that strategy.
posted by restless_nomad (staff) at 4:39 PM on August 19, 2012 [2 favorites]

but please correct me if I'm wrong

You happen to be wrong. I was not trying to use a strategy, I just noticed it was happening and talked about it. I don't always bell hooks it, but comparing oppressions here doesn't work in my opinion. Anyway, I thank you again for replying to me.
posted by cashman at 4:45 PM on August 19, 2012 [1 favorite]

Assuming we had the internet at the time, figuring out what was going through these people's minds and what made them be that way. I would absolutely not want to only tell the story of people who'd gotten lynched, I'd want to figure out who did it, why, and how they got that way. Else you just wait for it to happen again and again.

We actually do have the internet now, and there are places you could go to see how people like that think, and try to engage them about how they got that way. The thing is, I don't want to go to those places. There are certainly some activists that do - if I were anti-hate-crime lawyer or worked for the SPLC or something I might need to spend time doing that - but I doubt I would do it recreationally, in my off hours. And I doubt I would come on MeFi to ask whether we thought it was a non-lynching zone yet, or respond positively to that inquiry.

It's a tough hypothetical, as you say. There are limits to the applicability of any analogy .There's a certain degree to which civil rights/oppression arguments have a lot in common, and can be usefully compared, and another degree to which they're each unique in their particulars.

I'm not a MeFite of color, so I don't really know how firsthand how welcoming it would be to have white supremacists on our site to argue with and dissect. I can say for certain that if that kind of thing were anywhere near as common as hassling women is, it would be an easy dealbreaker for me.

I can think of times we have had some Asks and things that touched on how to improve cross-cultural relations, and they've sometimes been contentious and sometimes been helpful, often both in one thread.
posted by Miko at 5:10 PM on August 19, 2012 [1 favorite]

I was not trying to use a strategy

You may not have been attempting a strategy, but you were definitely, and I believe unconsciously, engaging in what others in this thread have called "trail lawyering" -- nitpicking the terms of the conversation, and the specific, in such detail that it makes conversation all but impossible, because even if the conversation uses the exact metaphors that you are comfortable with, and is phrased in exactly the way you think is most useful and helpful, it sets a precedent than women must have conversations according to conversational standard set to maximize the comfort of men. And there is always another man who can raise another objection, and we end up endlessly discussing the objections and the terms of the conversation, rather than having the conversation itself.

This is especially problematic because this is a conversation that is likely to be uncomfortable to a percentage of men by its very nature, and therefore no degree of managing the terms of the conversation is ever going to resolve that. But it ends up being a really good way to not have the conversation, even if it is not intended that way, And it happens so often -- every single time, in fact -- that even if it is unintentional, it's an incredibly effective silencing tactic.

By the way, people have made the case in the past that I participate in threads like this just to "white knight" or earn "brownie points." I don't. I would rather not have these discussions, but do because I have seen how enormously alienating they can be, and feel it especially my responsibility as a man who potentially benefits from this messed up circumstance to speak up when I see it happening. I suspect it has had exactly the opposite effect of making me popular on the site. I suspect people far prefer the jokey Bunny. I think I do as well. And it has alienated me, and i have thought about leaving as well, but men, in particular, don't improve a community by walking away from problems that men are making.
posted by Bunny Ultramod at 5:16 PM on August 19, 2012 [14 favorites]

You be you Bunny, that's all Elmer wants.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 5:43 PM on August 19, 2012 [3 favorites]

I was just at Mel Blanc's grave a few days ago. It actually says "That's all folks" on it.
posted by Bunny Ultramod at 5:45 PM on August 19, 2012 [2 favorites]

Great, thanks for $!%# spoiler alert.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 5:51 PM on August 19, 2012 [1 favorite]

There's a grave in Westwood that has an actual unspoiled surprise ending on it. Richard Conte. His grave says: 1910 - 1975 - ?

WHAT WILL HAPPEN WHEN WE REACH THE QUESTION MARK?
posted by Bunny Ultramod at 5:58 PM on August 19, 2012 [1 favorite]

Elmer!
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 6:15 PM on August 19, 2012 [1 favorite]

but you were definitely, and I believe unconsciously, engaging in what others in this thread have called "trail lawyering....it sets a precedent than women must have conversations according to conversational standard set to maximize the comfort of men.

Okay, we've reached the "take the comments uncharitably" phase, because no, I am not trying to shut anybody down. That whole comparing oppressions thing is from bell hooks. The first person I saw do the race comparison was in the creepy dude thread, and it was a guy who said it. It was one comment, so I didn't say anything then. I saw another comment that said it, so I made the comment I made. I do not think that amounts to shutting anybody down.

Anyway, No matter what, nothing is worse than what women go through. No matter what, this place isn't a girlzone and won't be. No matter what, guys should stop being creeps, and should work to end sexism and strive for equality.

I do hope that you can tell your friend apart from your enemy, and see the difference between a guy on the right side, trying to decipher, expose bring down patriarchy, making FPP's and trying to help, and the jackasses that make these MRA threads, are PUAs, and those who mock feminism and make sexist or microagressive jokes and brush off rape culture.
posted by cashman at 6:22 PM on August 19, 2012

That whole comparing oppressions thing is from bell hooks.

I'm not familiar with "bell hooks" - what do you mean by that?
posted by restless_nomad (staff) at 6:29 PM on August 19, 2012

Okay, we've reached the "take the comments uncharitably" phase, because no, I am not trying to shut anybody down.

I said precisely the opposite of this -- that I don't think you are trying to do this. But this sort of behavior actually effectively does shut down conversation. I think you are engaging in good faith discussion, but the effect of nitpicking about every conversational detail is that people don't want to have the conversation, and so it doesn't happen.

I would hope that my friends are capable of taking criticism.
posted by Bunny Ultramod at 6:30 PM on August 19, 2012 [1 favorite]

Thanks Bunny Ultramod. restless_nomad bell hooks is a scholar who speaks about feminism and race. I'm sure someone else can encapsulate her position in these spheres better than I can, but essentially she made the point that it isn't about comparing racism and sexism, that comparing oppressions was not a thing to be done. I don't necessarily agree with that but in this case I did. But I think I've shot my mouth off here long enough. I will try to participate in acceptable ways in the future threads about these issues so that my participation is viewed as constructive. I've learned a lot here. Thank you all.
posted by cashman at 6:37 PM on August 19, 2012 [2 favorites]

Wikipedia on bell hooks.
posted by Lexica at 6:46 PM on August 19, 2012

And I didn't mean to make it sounds as though I thought you, specifically, were nitpicking. It's like that scene in Summer School when one kid is making a buzzing noise in order to bother his teacher, and the moment he stops another kid starts.

But without any preplanning. It's just like, a conversation starts about something that men do that effects women, and one man protests about one thing, and, the moment that protest is addressed, somebody else jumps in with a different objection. And I really think it rarely is deliberate, and is rooted in people actually trying to make sure a fair conversation is being had. The trouble is this is the sort of conversation that is likely to feel inherently unfair to men, and so they are super ready to object, and so the conversation doesn't end up happening.

And a few men deliberately work the ref and police the conversation, I am sure of that. There are a few people out there who really do want to shut up any criticism they feel implicates them. But I suspect they are an extreme minority, and most of this is unconscious and unintended. And that's actually how a lot of privilege works.
posted by Bunny Ultramod at 6:46 PM on August 19, 2012 [5 favorites]

er, exclusively, not specifically.
posted by Bunny Ultramod at 6:47 PM on August 19, 2012

That whole comparing oppressions thing is from bell hooks.

I really thought I had the gist of bell hooks' work but I really can't recall specifics of the point you're working on here - comparing gender and race oppression. She's interesting, actually, because she does work on lots of kinds of liberation and on peace studies, too; one of her contributions has been to consider the complex interactions of oppression and to critique feminism for leaving out issues of race and economic class. I don't doubt that there is somewhere where she puts forth the idea that comparing race and gender is illegitimate, but I would love it if you can provide a citation. That's not meant as a challenge, just curious.

Thank you for your efforts at communicating here; it's clear you are well intentioned.
posted by Miko at 6:49 PM on August 19, 2012

Yeah, I reference the move Summer School. What of it?
posted by Bunny Ultramod at 6:51 PM on August 19, 2012 [1 favorite]

I didn't believe the rumors, until now.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 7:00 PM on August 19, 2012

restless_nomad bell hooks is a scholar who speaks about feminism and race.

Ah, thank you. I was off searching old threads looking for the user with that handle.
posted by restless_nomad (staff) at 7:26 PM on August 19, 2012

I agree with cashman. I think it's important for men to recognize the impact sexism and sexual harassment has on women, listen to women and take it seriously when they complain about it, and to let other guys know that sexist, harassing and creepy behavior they engage in is not OK, and that we won't ignore or tolerate it. I think this has to happen if things are going to change. And I think it's worthwhile to talk about how to do this.

It seems to be close to unanimous here that men absolutely should not talk about this issue on MetaFilter. (I don't think anyone is saying men should not take up the issue with other men in real life.) This doesn't make any sense to me at all. (Maybe I've misunderstood something. I hope so.) Can anyone explain in a straightforward way why men should not talk about combating sexism on MetaFilter?
posted by nangar at 7:54 PM on August 19, 2012

cashman, let me refresh everyone's memory by quoting your imagined scenarios:

if there was a thread about racism and a bunch of white people jumped in and started problematizing racist white people's behavior and trying to figure out why they thought the way they did and what was the best way to combat that and end racism, well I'd turn a darn cartwheel.

and

I'm saying if people think that black folk want to talk about the problems but would react adversely to a bunch of white people coming into a thread and talking about how racist white people think, in an attempt to attack and end racism, I believe those people would be wrong. It doesn't happen to work the same way.

I agree that those sound like valuable conversations to have. They are not the only conversations to have.

Many useful and illuminating conversations about marginalization occur when a group of diverse but similarly-marginalized people gather to share their stories, their experiences, their feelings, and their frustrations freely among themselves, but available to interested members of the larger group --- without having to stop and explain themselves to members of the dominant culture who might question or doubt their experiences.

These conversations also benefit interested members of the dominant culture, who can learn a great deal about marginalized experience by quietly listening. (We could shorthand by calling it "an in-group conversation," and goodness knows I've learned a lot about my own privilege by listening quietly to these.)

Other useful and illuminating conversations happen when members of marginalized groups describe their experiences to receptive members of the culturally dominant group. Those conversations can be much harder, not only because the speakers must frequently stop to clarify the large and small points of fact and feeling, but because everyone involved can become acutely uncomfortable with the descriptions of how a privileging system persistently, consistently disadvantages some of the people present for the benefit --- often unsought --- of the others present. (We could shorthand this by calling it "a privilege 101 conversation," and again, I've learned a lot about my own privilege by engaging thoughtfully in these.)

Then there are the conversations you describe, where members of the culturally dominant group engage equally in trying to examine and erase the problematic aspects of the -ism at hand. (We could shorthand this by calling it "a problem-solving conversation.")

There are countless ways in which your (again, delightful-sounding) example would be ideal --- at the right time, and with participants who agree upon the kind of conversation we're having.

But that's part of the problem: all the participants have to agree upon to that conversation in order to have it. If the marginalized speakers (what a sociologist would call "an informant") want to have an in-group conversation, members of the dominant group are not entitled to impose a 101 conversation or as a problem-solving conversation upon them just because that's what they want, or because that's what they'd feel most useful, or --- and I think this is a big one --- because that's the one where they'd be most comfortable.

But perhaps the biggest difference between what I see in Metafilter threads about sexism (and for that matter, in threads about other marginalization and bigotry) and what you posit is simple: in the scenarios you describe, you are presupposing that these imagined members of the dominant culture are clearly and uncomplicatedly expressing eagerness to change.

That is, you presuppose that they're not burning up the time, energy, and good-will of their interlocutors by lacing through the problem-solving with ameliorating expressions their own guilt and discomfort, that they're not dismissing or minimizing the speakers' descriptions of injustice, that they're not privileging their own more familiar patterns of rhetoric or planning over the marginalized group's preferred methods of grappling with the problem at hand. In short, the dominant group often asserts its dominance even in conversations about how to demarginalize non-dominant groups.
posted by Elsa at 7:59 PM on August 19, 2012 [7 favorites]

It absolutely isn't unanimous.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 8:00 PM on August 19, 2012

Can anyone explain in a straightforward way why men should not talk about combating sexism on MetaFilter?

Men should totally talk about combating sexism. I wish they did it more often. It's just frustrating when there's a conversation about combating sexism and people don't want to talk about what to do about it, they want to explore the mindset of sexist men (which is not inherently a horrible idea, but is very, very often presented in a defensive if not exculpatory way.) The creeper thread was specifically about how men can help combat sexism - namely, by recognizing it when it happens, listening to your female friends when they tell you it's happening, and dealing with the perpetrators in a way that doesn't give them the chance to continue the behavior.

But that thread really didn't end up about ways for men to confront their creeper peers, it got stuck in a "but what about the creepers?" loop that is both common and infuriating. That's why I am a little more peeved at cashman than he deserves, because the thing that is totally failing to happen in those threads is for supportive men to say "man, that sucks, how can I help?" Instead, we get "man, that sucks, what you should do about it is..." which... not very many women are receptive to under those circumstances.
posted by restless_nomad (staff) at 8:02 PM on August 19, 2012 [21 favorites]

I think it's worthwhile to talk about how to do this....It seems to be close to unanimous here that men absolutely should not talk about this issue on MetaFilter.

I'm not sure how you get there from here. That is certainly something people should talk about on MetaFilter. I don't think it's been suggested for a second that the issue of how men can be less sexist should not be discussed here.

What shouldn't happen is having a situation in which people who do want to change the status quo and have that discussion are challenged to prove that the status quo exists, that the sky is blue, and that water is wet, or pressed to agree that the sky is chartreuse and that water is gritty, or if you don't agree, it's because you're clearly a strident and politically-correct harridan. That's not a "how" discussion, that's a "Why" and "Are you sure?" and "Show me" discussion.

There's a huge difference between these two kinds of conversations. A great starting point would be to learn how to perceive this difference.
posted by Miko at 8:13 PM on August 19, 2012 [28 favorites]

nangar: It seems to be close to unanimous here that men absolutely should not talk about this issue on MetaFilter. (I don't think anyone is saying men should not take up the issue with other men in real life.) This doesn't make any sense to me at all. (Maybe I've misunderstood something. I hope so.) Can anyone explain in a straightforward way why men should not talk about combating sexism on MetaFilter?

I don't think it's unanimous here at all, and very much seems to be a minority view. In fact, as far as I can remember I'm the only person to suggest that it might be best for men in general to stay silent in threads like this (I'm a guy, if that matters).

My basic point is that in discussions like this, the total number of words by men tends to be much greater than the total number of words by women. This has the effect of limiting the amount of attention that female voices receive.

Another effect of the uneven gendersplit is that women often end up responding to theoretical or critical contributions, limiting the amount of time they get to speak about how their lives have been affected by sexism and misogyny.

I'm a fan of theoretical discussions of feminism, but lived experience matters, and those who speak from the perspective of lived experience should be given more room to express themselves.
posted by Kattullus at 8:14 PM on August 19, 2012 [6 favorites]

I suspect a lot of people would love it if men talked about sexism, rather than whether sexism actually exists, or whether they themselves are offended by the way the discussion is happening.
posted by Bunny Ultramod at 8:30 PM on August 19, 2012 [25 favorites]

I know zarq, wasn't thinking of your comment earlier in the thread at all, and actually thought people were being unnecessarily harsh to you, but you guys worked it out and I thought I might've missed something, so didn't say anything.

Thanks. But I spoke without being aware of all the facts, and then got overly defensive. In that moment, I wasn't being constructive or helpful the way I would prefer. Having that pointed out to me is a good thing.

And I think I favourited one of Ivan Fyodorovich's let's not judge people's whole person too quickly comments, because of course, sure. But there's a limit. And, in the case I was talking about, it's not at all been just in MetaTalk, as I'm sure you know. Plus I was just thinking of the people in this thread, who by definition use MetaTalk. I don't remember seeing any new names, but if that's the case feel free to let me know here or by MeMail -- of course it's understandable if people are not familiar with someone's past, that's unavoidable and not a problem at all.

Honestly, I was thinking more abstractly, and not thinking in terms of just this thread. But, yes, I agree.

nangar: It seems to be close to unanimous here that men absolutely should not talk about this issue on MetaFilter. (I don't think anyone is saying men should not take up the issue with other men in real life.) This doesn't make any sense to me at all. (Maybe I've misunderstood something. I hope so.) Can anyone explain in a straightforward way why men should not talk about combating sexism on MetaFilter?

Add mine as another vote for "not unanimous."
posted by zarq at 9:02 PM on August 19, 2012

If you go back and give this thread a cold reread, it's pretty easy to trace what happened. The question was raised "has this place gone too girlzone?" When a handful of women and men responded "not really, no" several comments popped up which asserted that yes, women here bear "hostility to men" and are looking to blame men for their problems and characterize men as "evil sexist bastards," based on scattered comments from posting histories here and there. This gambit almost immediately forced women on the ropes; they were asked to review their participation and prove that they weren't "hostile" to men, or weren't strident politically correct overcompensating power-mad harridans seeking to silence men.

That shit is in itself sexist. I think if you reread the thread, stop at each comment, and ask yourself "Does this comment indulge, perpetuate, or promote sexist ideas about women?" it will become really clear where the discussion has not been about "sexism, it's a problem, how do we fix it" but about "how can women change their ways of being to allow me to be more comfortable."

Then there was a long tangent about how men feeling entitled to take extra space must certainly be due to their being "just tall" or having something special about their thighs and butt.

Following that was a conversation between men about men and why and how they weren't more supportive of women or whether they should feel guilt by association for rape.

By this point, discussions of whether MetaFilter was or could be a reasonably sane place for women - not even a "girlzone," just not a place where you consistently confront insulting stereotypes and dismissals in order to gain the benefits of participation - had become fairly invisible as we discussed all the ways in which men and maleness needs to change. That's all a good conversation, and after all you can't control the direction a conversation goes here. But the topic definitely migrated rapidly from "Girlzone: What would that zone look like and do we have one?" to "Men: Their struggles with reflexive sexism and equality, with real-time illustrations, and how they might be overcome."

I really don't know how to change that. It may be that men need a place for consciousness- raising and maybe this is the only halfway decent place there is for that. Maybe it'd be better off in its own dedicated "let's be less sexist" MeTa, or a "how can I be less sexist" AskMe. I really don't know if it can ever be neat and clean and not so angry-making and uncontrolled; maybe that's the nature of the beast.

But there is also a part of me that thinks that I would be fine with not knowing for sure that we have managed to fundamentally change hearts and minds, as long as I could come here and not be confronted with an array of stereotypes about things like my own presumed revengeful, "hostile," grasping nature or my inadequacy at being forgiving, peacemaking, conciliatory and patient in explaining it to others.

In other words, it's a big project not to be sexist. A big, good project that I hope everyone will take part in. But I would totally settle for a MetaFilter in which we just had nobody acting sexist, and no one else giving them tacit permission to do so.

There's no real "girlzone" here. For me, there's no real zone at all; only the sweet spot -- the interim of four or five weeks that sometimes elapse at a stretch -- before the next time I am reminded that some number of folks here don't yet accept my full equality as a human being, and have really only been tolerating me with mild condescension or resentment in the interim.
posted by Miko at 9:05 PM on August 19, 2012 [61 favorites]

This thread is beyond long at this point, but I want to give a huge thank you to the women here doing the heavy lifting. I'm more grateful for you than I can say.
posted by Salieri at 9:23 PM on August 19, 2012 [14 favorites]

What Salieri said and more of it. Thanks, women. (After we manage the equal pay and equal status and liberty things, we have GOT to find a better way to address a group of women. It can wait until then, though.)
posted by gingerest at 9:36 PM on August 19, 2012 [3 favorites]

Just to be clear: I do not think that men should remain silent in discussions of sexism. I know lots of very passionate, thoughtful male feminists, and some men who do not identify as feminists but who speak up against misogyny and sexism when they see it. It can be very powerful to hear privileged group members describe their awakening to their own privilege and the mechanisms by which they continue to grapple with it.

As much as I appreciate and enjoy the supporting discourse of male participants and recognize the power of privileged speakers to persuade their own group that privilege and marginalization are real, I hope that our community members don't think of those contributions as a necessary ingredient in those conversations. I would hate to think that women's experiences of sexism require male imprimatur to be accepted by our community.

A separate issue: some users pop up in Metafilter conversations about sexism, misogyny, and/or sexual harassment to provide idiosyncratic reasons for individual occurrences of sexism or harassment, to accuse female contributors of exaggerating or fabricating accounts of sexist behavior, or to excuse, question, or otherwise minimize sexist stories.

I don't care about the sex or gender of those participants (and I often don't know or notice whether they identify themselves by gender here at Metafilter), but I agree with those above who find those remarks unproductive, destructive to community discourse, and supportive of a larger system of sexist behavior.

I don't seek to silence those people, but once I identify them as recurring underminers and doubt-throwers, I certainly give myself blanket permission to ignore them, whether I'm writing or reading.
posted by Elsa at 9:53 PM on August 19, 2012 [7 favorites]

I really, really appreciate the participation from women in these threads. I know it isn't easy, and sometimes it must feel like you're not getting through to men, but you are. Thank you.
posted by bigbigdog at 9:57 PM on August 19, 2012 [3 favorites]

Third or fourthed or whatever number we are up to.
posted by Bunny Ultramod at 11:37 PM on August 19, 2012

zoo: a small but strident portion of metafilter

This would be a polite microaggression.

It's always fun to have a personal statement of the pain rape culture is like lead to to be identified as strident.
posted by Deoridhe at 11:52 PM on August 19, 2012 [9 favorites]

they want to explore the mindset of sexist men

Which has its place in some contexts, but doesn't really contribute all that much to solving sexism. Especially not in an internet debate context like here: it's been done to death, usually is excuse seeking behaviour and derails more productive discussions. Motives have their place in the courtroom, but in polite society it doesn't matter so much why you're douchey, just that you are being douchey.

Well intentioned men who would like to take away some of the burden of the everyday harassement many women experience need to slap down harassers, not worry about why they harass. If Sid the Sexist is slapped down hard everytime he makes a sexist crack, he'll learn not to do it sooner or later and whether he has really changed is of less importance.
posted by MartinWisse at 11:52 PM on August 19, 2012 [2 favorites]

(I should maybe clarify I'm thanking the women here because they are speaking for me, rather than because they are enlightening me. I mean, yes, they're enlightening me, but I'm a woman too and I appreciate their not-tireless-but-very-strong effort is what I mean. )
posted by gingerest at 11:52 PM on August 19, 2012 [1 favorite]

Deoridhe, something's gone astray and I am not quite clear on what that last sentence means. Is it basically "Being identified as 'strident' when one makes a personal statement of pain caused by the rape culture is fun"?

("Strident", like "shrill" and "hysterical", is one of those great words that connotes the feminine without denoting it, so one can get away with a gendered insult without being called on it.)
posted by gingerest at 11:56 PM on August 19, 2012 [2 favorites]

gingerest: Sorry, the sentence got a bit muddled.

It is hard to describe ones own experience of rape culture, as I did above. It is made harder when one is subsequently described as "strident" for doing so.

Bonus points for the later description of me (and the other women in the thread) as "politically correct" and somehow getting... something out of volunteering painful parts of our lives to people who will subsequently call us strident.

I don't cry at this point in response to threads like this, but I do get depressed, and in one of these threads I had a brief return to contemplating suicide as my best option. (It was a brief lapse, and I immediately ceased posting until my reserves were a bit stronger, but it really shocked me as I haven't been suicidal for a long time.)
posted by Deoridhe at 12:25 AM on August 20, 2012 [5 favorites]

Thanks for clarifying. Yes. And thank you, especially, for fighting the good fight.
posted by gingerest at 12:48 AM on August 20, 2012

zoo: using the language of social justice for political gain

Like others, I'd sincerely appreciate clarification on what you mean by "political gain." I don't see it. What I saw was people talking about the damage sustained from being chronically nitpicked, disbelieved, belittled, and trivialized. My impression was that they hoped to inspire more respect for the idea of letting people's accounts of lived experiences stand without nitpicking. And also, I would think, without having dishonourable, petty motives attributed to how they express themselves. Did you mean "political gain" to mean favourites, as in upvotes? That's the only way I can make sense of that phrase in that context.

I also am "not unanimous" with the idea of men shutting up regarding discussions of sexism. I appreciate succinct contributions from men who have spent a long time listening to women, taking their words and experiences seriously, and thinking about how to build a world where women's voices are as respected as men.

Men who have not bothered to listen, take seriously, or think about such things, on the other hand. Why would their advice about "how to combat sexism" contain anything of value to those of us who have been thinking exhaustively about these things, 1. since childhood, 2. because our survival depends on it? IME, those men have superficial advice, grounded in an understanding of vagina-owning realities that is simplistic and naive. Hell yeah, I think their "contributions" to discussions of how to combat sexism are at best irrelevant and useless. At worst, they derail, and re-entrench sexist dynamics.
posted by cybercoitus interruptus at 1:52 AM on August 20, 2012 [7 favorites]

Yeah, posting on gender threads on Metafilter used to be infuriating (to the point of migraines and laying in bed with a racing heartrate, unable to fall asleep until 4AM), then it became sort of interesting as I found myself more immune to egregious nonsense and could think out loud without too much concern about what anti-feminists thought of me, and now it's alternately boring and painful. Never was it meant for any other reason than to defend my rights and personal integrity. On the whole, the things that upset me now upset me when I was a 12-year-old girl with no knowledge or education in feminism or social justice; it was a way of defending myself and my body and intelligence from hostile male family members or classmates or authorities. It's the same now, I just have a better vocabulary for it.
posted by stoneandstar at 2:05 AM on August 20, 2012 [5 favorites]

Also, zoo, I think you're being too charitable to yourself. Your comment is about how people here talk too much and too stridently about rape culture in terms that you don't like. It's a pretty empty sentiment, except in that we now all know that you are simultaneously totally aware of the extent and nature of rape culture, but also find the conversation about it unnecessary. Wait, no, you find it unnecessary in these terms-- what are terms that you'd prefer? What is the better discussion that we're not having? Please let us know your master plan to end misogyny that makes this a much less urgent issue. Maybe it's just called "being a dude."
posted by stoneandstar at 2:20 AM on August 20, 2012

I don't cry at this point in response to threads like this, but I do get depressed

Shit, yeah. That's something I need to take into account more. Hopefully I'm largely not enabling sexist bullshit, but it remains the cases that threads are much less personal for me- - perhaps most men, feminist or not -- than they are for most women. If only because I'm in the incredibly fortunate position to not have to think about these things much outside of these discussions if I don't want to. Which makes it that much more important for me to be careful and not add to the burden already carried by those who can't switch off that way.
posted by MartinWisse at 3:38 AM on August 20, 2012 [3 favorites]

I've been lurking and thinking about this for a while, so apologies for the fact that it addresses some stuff that was said slightly earlier in the thread, rather than the most recent comments.

I understand, and somewhat agree with, cashman's earlier point about how some people of color might not appreciate people with white privilege using lynching as an analogy for rape culture. So I spent some time tonight coming up with a more personal analogy.

When I was growing up, my family of origin was often an abusive and toxic environment. My father had anxiety issues, rage issues, and some extremely fucked up ideas about gender roles; for instance, I wasn't allowed to drink milk as a child because my father didn't want me getting too much calcium, lest I grow up and find myself unmarriageable due to a "manly bone structure". He also subjected me to a lot of gendered insults, and on a few occasions, physical violence.

My mom definitely knew better. She considers herself a feminist, and she has always been a loving parent, so it pained her to see her child suffering due to such behavior. She would take me and try to console me after Dad went on one of his rampages; she was always genuinely confused when I seemed resentful of her efforts to comfort me and provide me with guidance.

I was resentful of those conversations because they always ended up taking exactly the same course: she would apologize for my father's behavior, and then try to explain to me why he was like that. I'd hear that the culture he grew up in wasn't very "pro-woman", and that his actions were really very understandable if you looked at them in light of the fact that he himself was abused at the hands of his own step-father. That wasn't the conversation I wanted/needed to have. What I would have found comforting would look more like me asking "how do we stop him from treating his family this way, AS SOON AS POSSIBLE", and the two of us brainstorming ideas for how to make sure it didn't happen anymore. If I had gone up to my mother and asked a question along the lines of "Hey, what makes Dad tick?", I probably would have appreciated and thoughtfully considered her approach of listing the things that may have contributed to his tendency to be abusive. But from my point of view, while those things were certainly related to the abuse I experienced, I just didn't care to hear about them, because they got me no closer to the goal of feeling safe in my home.

I think it is much the same with discussions of sexism and rape culture. When individual women are visibly hurting as a result of rape, rape culture, overt misogyny, cat-calls, slurs, and "micro-aggressions", any response from the men they're conversing with that doesn't at least touch on HEY LET'S TALK ABOUT SOME THINGS WE CAN DO TO MAKE THIS STOP can (understandably, imo) be seen as justification of sexist attitudes and behaviors.

Also, nthing the note of thanks to the "strident" women and receptive men in this thread, for making me feel like speaking up and sharing this wouldn't just be shouting into the wind.
posted by arianell at 3:44 AM on August 20, 2012 [44 favorites]

Please let us know your master plan to end misogyny that makes this a much less urgent issue. Maybe it's just called "being a dude."

What does this even mean?
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 4:04 AM on August 20, 2012

In terms of trying to understand people, it's best not to guess when simply asking a question will do.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 4:24 AM on August 20, 2012

It's cat & mouse in here, not anyone trying to help people understand anything. In fact, it's a good recipe for never solving anything. Grind down your perceived opponent until he's wary to open his mouth, and you win.
posted by gman at 4:25 AM on August 20, 2012

Also, nthing the note of thanks to the "strident" women and receptive men in this thread, for making me feel like speaking up and sharing this wouldn't just be shouting into the wind.

... changing the gender notation in my profile to 'strident'...
posted by cmyk at 4:28 AM on August 20, 2012 [11 favorites]

Speaking of good faith attempts to understand people... I've been trying to think what:

I'm of a general belief that for a small but strident portion of metafilter, the framing of conversations towards an overwrought and over-studied version of inclusivity is done for political and self-aggrandising purposes.

reminded me of, and I think I've got it - there was a former member who took a similar position. The problem being, he never managed to explain exactly what he meant by "political" either...

My instinct is that it's being used in the small-p sense - that it is about gaining status with a particular group within (or broadly within) MetaFilter. So, it's basically a fancier way of saying "enjoy the favorites" or "there's a lot of white knighting here" - a way to mark someone's statement as coming from ignoble motives unconnected with the actual issues.

The problem is that as soon as you state that anyone expressing [belief you disagree with] is doing so for ignoble motives - or rather that you reserve the right to define them as such - you've basically taken yourself off the board. Once you've said:

It's not so much that I hate being called a rapist from time to time, it's that it happens with such boring regularity.

and then identified that regular accusation as a political ploy:

I'm of a general belief that for a small but strident portion of metafilter, the framing of conversations towards an overwrought and over-studied version of inclusivity is done for political and self-aggrandising purposes.

What possible outcome is being aimed for? Where does one go from "[the set of people I am disagreeing with] regularly call me a rapist for dishonest and ignoble reasons"? Nowhere useful.

(Especially when it turns out that it isn't actually empirically true, and you get annoyed by people drawing attention to that - which was harmless hyperbole - rather than focusing on the real point - that they are not conversing honestly or in good faith.)

That I think is useful in another sense, however, which is how it ties into the "anger" discussion - that "angry" statements are dismissed on one side, and that a lack of emotional involvement is read as a luxury of privilege on the other.

zoo's statement is not a calm or rational statement - it's an extremely vehement one based on two very emotive statements, one of which (I am regularly called a rapist on MetaFilter) is easily falsified by empirical analysis and the other of which (people who talk about social justice on MetaFilter do so for political and self-aggrandizing motives) is effectively unfalsifiable because unprovable - it's a metaphysical speculation.

A statement being syntactical and containing no direct, personal insults, swearwords, allcaps outbreaks or exclamation marks does not make it necessarily logical or rational - nor does it prevent it from being aggressive, micro- or otherwise.
posted by running order squabble fest at 4:32 AM on August 20, 2012 [9 favorites]

So strident is a gendered insult? You can take that out then. It's not how I meant it at all.

When I was talking about people using the language of Social Justice for political and self aggrandizing means, I wasn't talking about everyone, I was talking about a small subset of people. Men and women alike.

I think there's a group of people on metafilter that don't realize how much they overwhelm the conversation and how strong their voices are. Again, it's not a girlzone and it's not everyone. It's not you Miko. I don't know if it's you Elsa. Sometimes, yes, you did assume correctly - sometimes it is you the young rope-rider.

As far as I can tell though, the blowhards are about 50/50 men and women.

They don't listen, they don't care to try and parse anything judged to be "sexist", they'll just be all over it with another explanation of how the majority don't get it. Every slip in language is an opportunity to a 2000 word screed that ultimately says little except "look at me".

They shame, and they shout; they carry grudges between threads.

You've asked me to prove that behaviours are self-aggrandizing and/or political in nature, and I can't do that. This is my opinion, and it's based on how the conversations turn and move and not on unique statements by individual posters.

There's been talk above as to how a weight of commentary speaks more to the sexist nature of that commentary than the actual individual (and defendable) comments and I agree with that. I agree with it in the context of how some people defend sexism, and I think it can also be snowcloned to say even though individual comments may not be self-aggrandizing or political in nature, the sheer quantity of them, and the speed with which they insinuate into the conversation makes me think that they are.


To the three comments talking about how it's proper to use the language of social justice to talk about social justice. I never had an issue with social justice, and I only have a bit of an issue with its language. My point was to do with the misappropriation of that language. All areas of study need jargon, but wherever there is jargon, you're going to find people bullshitting with that jargon and using that jargon for evil. This applies to everything from banking to computing to engineering and politics. If you think that the language of Social Justice is equivalant in its requirement for complexity to other areas of discourse and learning, then you must be willing to accept that it can be abused.


On a final note. I pretty much don't have a side when it comes to arguments about sexism on metafilter. Sometimes I seem to be with on the mansplaining butthurt white tears side and sometimes I seem to be on the straw feminazi side. You can go through my comment history and make your own call on that one. But it's worth knowing that every time I end up butthurt mansplaining, I'll get someone memailing me to say "thanks for saying that, I would have said it, but I've been scared away from having these conversations."

If you think you're one of a few lone voices standing up against intolerance on metafilter, then you're wrong. You hold the majority view and like anyone who's purportedly trying to discuss instead of argue, that dominance requires a modicum of restraint.
posted by zoo at 4:32 AM on August 20, 2012

I'm in the incredibly fortunate position to not have to think about these things much outside of these discussions if I don't want to. Which makes it that much more important for me to be careful and not add to the burden already carried by those who can't switch off that wya.

Thanks for your comment. That recognition is what was being referred to above as the luxury of being able to take an opt-in, detached, intellectual approach to the issue.

We often place value on "being open to debate" and being able to beanplate an issue endlessly, as if that is a marker of sophistication in argument. In fact it's simply a marker of not having quite as much skin in the game. It's not that others shouldn't participate, it's that, if they are well meaning, they should understand that when they participate they are speaking from a very different and somewhat more distant relationship to the subject matter. Faulting others for not being as coolly detached (and what does "not coolly detached" look like? Another word for that might be "strident") is projecting your own mental set onto someone else, and your experience, or how you imagine your experience might feel in their shoes, simply might not apply.

gman, fabulously unhelpful and nonspecific comment. "not anyone trying to help people understand anything" - I don't know what the hell else you think this is about. OK, what is it you still don't understand? Ask away. Maybe I or someone with more patience can "help" you - sorry, "people" - some more in this passionate quest to really understand.
posted by Miko at 4:35 AM on August 20, 2012 [9 favorites]

Yes - running order squabble fest - You're right. Like your hypothetical banned user, I'm using the word political within its dictionary definition, when instead I should be using a much more well known term like "white knighting".

zoo's statement is not a calm or rational statement - it's an extremely vehement one based on two very emotive statements, one of which (I am regularly called a rapist on MetaFilter) is easily falsified by empirical analysis and the other of which (people who talk about social justice on MetaFilter do so for political and self-aggrandizing motives) is effectively unfalsifiable because unprovable - it's a metaphysical speculation.

I've repeatedly explained what I meant when I said "It's not so much that I hate being called a rapist from time to time, it's that it happens with such boring regularity." It was a poor choice of words. For you, here it is again... I DO NOT THINK I'M REPEATEDLY CALLED A RAPIST ON METAFILTER.

Secondly. "people who talk about social justice on MetaFilter do so for political and self-aggrandizing motives"
I do not believe and have never said that all people who talk about social justice do so for political, etc reasons. I believe that some people use the language of social justice for political, etc., reasons. Not provable, no, but I have my suspicions about *some* people.

I'm curious as to whether, at this point, you're wilfully misrepresenting those you disagree with and if you're just trolling.
posted by zoo at 4:51 AM on August 20, 2012

Zoo: it's ok, it probably is me and you can certainly say it.

They don't listen, they don't care to try and parse anything judged to be "sexist", they'll just be all over it with another explanation of how the majority don't get it. Every slip in language is an opportunity to a 2000 word screed that ultimately says little except "look at me".

It seems like you just can't step away from your bias enough to consider this differently. You've already determined their participation is insincere; therefore, you've excused yourself from listening to them.

To the three comments talking about how it's proper to use the language of social justice to talk about social justice. I never had an issue with social justice, and I only have a bit of an issue with its language. My point was to do with the misappropriation of that language. All areas of study need jargon, but wherever there is jargon, you're going to find people bullshitting with that jargon and using that jargon for evil.

For someone who managed to use "strident," "butthurt," and "feminazi" in an extremely short span of time, I have to conclude that you might be deaf to some of the nuance of language. You see people who use "social justice language" as "bullshitting," apparently more often than not. What if you stepped back from your prejudice that people are simply trying to score points, and considered their comments from the point of view "What if they mean it? And what if they're using these words because they're the most succinct, most widely understood shorthand for complex phenomena or tricky categories? What if I try harder to understand the sentiment behind the words?"

If you think you're one of a few lone voices standing up against intolerance on metafilter, then you're wrong. You hold the majority view and like anyone who's purportedly trying to discuss instead of argue, that dominance requires a modicum of restraint.

To that I say "thank God that the 'majority view' on MetaFilter is anti-sexism," even though I am not sure that's entirely true, or even if it is, that our behavior is entirely free of the sexism we disavow. If you believe "dominance requires a modicum of restraint," then where is yours? MetaFilter isn't some alternative society, it's part of a larger society in which sexist views and behaviors are fairly dominant. If you think that MetaFilter doesn't need people to stand up for an anti-sexist environment because the "majority view" is anti-sexism, you're very, very far wrong. The only reason this place is as tolerable as it is is its ten+-year history of people identifying and calling out behavior that seems inconsistent with the site's stated goals and implicit value set of intelligent, inclusive conversation about topics and community issues. WE don't just say "Hey, this place is non-sexist" and retire on those laurels. Sexism is a pernicious and pervasive behavior, that all of us do sometimes inadvertently or on purpose, which offers tempting benefits sometimes, and as such it requires a fairly steady level of vigilance - and also of continuing to re-establish norms for people who are less informed about its structure and operation in dialogue, and for people who are just plain new to the site or to feminism in general.

So even if we could determine that "we don't want to be sexist here on this site" was the majority view, that would never mean we could stop calling out sexism when and where it pops up. Most of that calling out happens at a fairly low level, in direct exchanges in threads, but a lot of it happens in these lengthy discussions which pop up a few times a year.

I understand that you don't understand why people think this is important to do. All you can see is people trying to gain favor or stroke their ego. But you seem to consistently refuse to listen to those same people saying "I would rather not ever have to do this." I would rather not ever have a conversation like this, where I need to restrain my personal irritation and overcome my exhaustion to defend the site climate against sexist attitudes. For all the imagined points you think I am desiring to win by engaging with people who are actively insulting and belittling me and whom, on less important issues, I would much rather completely ignore, I would trade any of those perceived benefits you see people insincerely seeking for a site which was reliably free of gendered insult and dismissal. That's the real goal here, and that's why people are invested. Because you can't imagine being invested in such a goal, I suppose there's no way for the project to look anything but cynical to you; since you can't possibly extrapolate an honest motivation from our words, and don't apparently see anything needing changing on the site, you can only assume we must be in it for the glory. I'm surprised anyone would believe that, but it's true.

Thanks for this realization: It's probably a more important part of defense mechanisms against sexism (and other social justice causes) than I ever before realized to chalk up the other's motivations to posing and approval-seeking.
posted by Miko at 4:55 AM on August 20, 2012 [30 favorites]

cmyk: "...changing the gender notation in my profile to 'strident'..."

Now I'm torn between changing my gender field to match or leaving it on "normal".
posted by ArmyOfKittens at 5:04 AM on August 20, 2012 [5 favorites]

And yes, "strident" is a 40+-year old term applied as a pejorative to feminists in order to characterize their anger, commitment, and outspokenness as unattractive.

Like some others, I've occasionally tried to reclaim the term and consider "stridency" a tool to resort to at certain points, but on the whole, when someone else is calling me strident, they're usually not saying "I admire your passionate rhetoric!"

Isn't it amazing, though? What is being asked for here is so mild, so unremarkable as "can we all please do our best to avoid stereotyping and belittling people based on their gender." That's all. I'm fairly sure that's all any nonsexist on MetaFilter is looking for from MetaFilter. That fairly simple thing.

It's not "Can we limit men to speaking only during daylight hours," or "can we require everyone to refer to us as wombmen" or "can we ban men for making a sexist MeTa" or "can we begin with the assumption that any man in an AskMe is always wrong by default" or any such move which you could legitimately call unfair and extreme.

It'll never cease to amaze that all women are asking for is an equal level of respect, here and in the broader society, and the degree of freaking pushback, insult, motive-questioning, belittling, pressing, dismissing, rejection, complaint, and "explain why you deserve this AGAIN" you get is honestly just jaw-dropping. Isn't it? Shouldn't we just be all walking around holding our jaws in our hands to prevent them hitting the floor?

Truly, once you take off the patriarchy eyeglasses for a minute or two, it's really hard to understand why something so seemingly simple and basic should be so incredibly disruptive. I guess It underscores the point that patriarchy really does not want to be unseated.
posted by Miko at 5:09 AM on August 20, 2012 [36 favorites]

I guess It underscores the point that patriarchy really does not want to be unseated.

Rarely does any power wish to be unseated or shared, let alone on terms it does not define.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 5:20 AM on August 20, 2012 [1 favorite]

Agreed.
posted by Miko at 5:22 AM on August 20, 2012

Zoo: it's ok, it probably is me and you can certainly say it.
No it definitely isn't you. And if I thought it, I'd say it.

It seems like you just can't step away from your bias enough to consider this differently.
Always possible, and it's one reason why I continue to participate in these threads. My position has changed over the last ten years and it's probable it will continue to change.

You've already determined their participation is insincere; therefore, you've excused yourself from listening to them.
For some people, and I've only excused myself from listening to one of these.

For someone who managed to use "strident," "butthurt," and "feminazi" in an extremely short span of time, I have to conclude that you might be deaf to some of the nuance of language.
Agreed with "strident". In fact, it was the young rope-riders sarcastic use of strident which made me realise that it maybe was a poor choice of words. Loud or Aggressive may have been better words to use. "butthurt" and "feminazi" were used as words to accentuate how each side of the argument may see each other. Like saying "The Batshit insane God Squad" vs "Baby Killing Communist worshippers" instead of Republican and Democrat. I wasn't mocking either side. I was just struggling to name both sides in a non-biased manner.

You see people who use "social justice language" as "bullshitting,"
No I don't. I think *some* people use social justice language politically (with a small p).

What if you stepped back from your prejudice that people are simply trying to score points, and considered their comments from the point of view "What if they mean it?
I actually do this. I've mentioned the young rope-rider twice already, and I'll do it again. I've actually changed my position on her in exactly the way you're asking. Of course, we think about things completely differently but after a couple of runins with her, I've revised my opinion on her motivations.

And what if they're using these words because they're the most succinct, most widely understood shorthand for complex phenomena or tricky categories? What if I try harder to understand the sentiment behind the words?"
This is easy with some people and difficult with other people. And it's a sword that cuts both ways.

To that I say "thank God that the 'majority view' on MetaFilter is anti-sexism,"
As do I, but you have to admit that it's not unusual on metafilter to see someone who holds a different opinion to be hounded away from metafilter. Even when that contrary opinion is nuanced.

If you believe "dominance requires a modicum of restraint," then where is yours?
Well, it's here for one. Even though I don't think I'm particularly in a majority right now.

MetaFilter isn't some alternative society, it's part of a larger society in which sexist views and behaviors are fairly dominant. If you think that MetaFilter doesn't need people to stand up for an anti-sexist environment because the "majority view" is anti-sexism, you're very, very far wrong.
I do. I'm struggling to see where I've said otherwise.

I understand that you don't understand why people think this is important to do. All you can see is people trying to gain favor or stroke their ego.
This is misrepresentation & we're kind of repeating stuff. I understand why it is important and why people think it is important. I think *some* people are gaining favor.

But you seem to consistently refuse to listen to those same people saying "I would rather not ever have to do this."
Where. And how consistently? Seriously.

If you think I'm belittling you, then apologies for that. You think I'm calling you out, but I'm not. I don't agree with you on everything, but I respect what you say.
posted by zoo at 5:32 AM on August 20, 2012 [2 favorites]

It'll never cease to amaze that all women are asking for is an equal level of respect, here and in the broader society...

Sseriously. Sometimes I wish I could clomp around in a robotic exoskeleton or a hazmat suit or something to neutralize the visual effect of A Woman In Public that attracts the creepers.

That really is all I want. To be accorded the same sort of respects & courtesies that men get. (Or, contrariwise, to not get the special harassment reserved for women.) I do not want to grind Mandom under the heel of my dainty size seven combat boot; I just want to be able to go about my life without the OMG IT'S A GIRL static that I get from all kinds of unexpected directions.
posted by cmyk at 5:34 AM on August 20, 2012 [8 favorites]

"butthurt" and "feminazi" were used as words to accentuate how each side of the argument may see each other. Like saying "The Batshit insane God Squad" vs "Baby Killing Communist worshippers" instead of Republican and Democrat. I wasn't mocking either side. I was just struggling to name both sides in a non-biased manner.

I understand what you were trying to do with this, but for me, this had the exact opposite effect that you intended. Using derisive terms to describe groups is something that makes me roll my eyes and tell myself I can disregard this person's opinion because they clearly have some kind of axe to grind about something, and I don't want to have to read what they're saying and run it through a reasonable-human-being filter to figure out what exactly they're trying to say. Just like, for me, how seeing someone refer to Repubs vs. Dems as "Batshit Insane God Squad vs. Baby Killing Communist worshippers" would make me think, "Oh. Okay. Here's someone who's probably going to trot out the 'all politicians are alike, your vote is wasted no matter what, wake up sheeple' business if I keep reading."

In other words, by going to these extremes to prove that you don't have an axe to grind, you're making yourself appear that you do have an axe to grind. Maybe don't do this.
posted by palomar at 5:38 AM on August 20, 2012

I've repeatedly explained what I meant when I said "It's not so much that I hate being called a rapist from time to time, it's that it happens with such boring regularity." It was a poor choice of words. For you, here it is again... I DO NOT THINK I'M REPEATEDLY CALLED A RAPIST ON METAFILTER.

Well, yes. As I wrote, directly above:

(Especially when it turns out that it isn't actually empirically true, and you get annoyed by people drawing attention to that - which was harmless hyperbole - rather than focusing on the real point - that they are not conversing honestly or in good faith.)

This ties in nicely, actually, because when Languagehat initially asked you to provide an instance of having been called a rapist on Metafilter, you responded by questioning his motives (you may see a link forming here).

Secondly. "people who talk about social justice on MetaFilter do so for political and self-aggrandizing motives"
I do not believe and have never said that all people who talk about social justice do so for political, etc reasons. I believe that some people use the language of social justice for political, etc., reasons. Not provable, no, but I have my suspicions about *some* people.

Well, yes, again. As I wrote, directly above:

The problem is that as soon as you state that anyone expressing [belief you disagree with] is doing so for ignoble motives - or rather that you reserve the right to define them as such - you've basically taken yourself off the board.

That *some* people is reserving that right. By talking about *some* people, you can then say that you don't mean this person, of course, and that if they just disavow those people, and discuss social justice in the right way, they'll be accepted as a good-faith member of the conversation - while reserving the right to remove that identification at any point. It's a metaphysical variant of the tone argument, in effect.

You didn't seem to understand my uncertainty about your use of political, so let me try to restate. "National politics" and "office politics" are two different uses of the same word. My understanding of your usage is that it is the second, dependent, sense - that you believe they are competing for status within a system - in this case, MetaFilter. This appears to be supported by your further description of this set of people as "self-aggrandizing", and by your subsequent clarification of "small-p politics".

So, yes - "political" is being used here, I believe, as one might use "white knight" - or how you used "self-aggrandizing" with $members, or "snark" with languagehat, or indeed "troll", which you are now using of me. It's about imputing an ignoble motive, and thus insulating yourself from having to process or think about adverse reaction to your argument, because that reaction is ignobly motivated.

Which is a shame, because it means it's impossible to enter a useful, good-faith conversation on equal terms. Just like the tone argument, it's basically refusing to talk to someone unless they agree to stand on a trapdoor the button to open which is underneath your hand. It lacks a degree of conversational fortitude, let's say, irrespective of the confidence one has in one's own good faith.
posted by running order squabble fest at 5:49 AM on August 20, 2012 [10 favorites]

When I was talking about people using the language of Social Justice for political and self aggrandizing means,

What the fuck does that even mean? What is the language of Social Justice (and why do I feel the need to also capitalize Language in that phrase?), and how is it different from the language of social justice? Or is it?

You accuse some subset pf people of using particular terms and arguments for some purpose that you can't seem to define in order to get....toasters? Blenders? Approval from...who, exactly? And because this small subset of people is doing this thing you can't define *differently* from some other people (who are doing it in an okay and acceptable way), well, you disapprove of them and don't listen to them.

You can just say "I don't like how some people talk about this issue. It annoys me. Other people don't annoy me when they talk about it," without dressing it up with undefined jargon and sarcastic "feminazi"ing.
posted by rtha at 5:51 AM on August 20, 2012 [5 favorites]

If I wasn't so exhausted by this discussion I'd totally register The Language Of Social Justice as a sock puppet account. Sort of like Feminist Hulk, but with title-caps instead of all-caps, and more recourse to a thesaurus.
posted by harriet vane at 5:58 AM on August 20, 2012 [17 favorites]

Maybe one of the other commentators who has said they use social justice language for actual social justice issues could pick up your question rtha. maybe they could tell you "what the fuck it means".

And then you can take that answer, and swap "make society a better and more equal place" with "make yourself look cool while you shout on the internets"
posted by zoo at 6:01 AM on August 20, 2012

What's with accusing people of being loud and shouting on the internet? It's text.
posted by palomar at 6:05 AM on August 20, 2012

What's with accusing people of being loud and shouting on the internet? It's text.
What?
posted by zoo at 6:10 AM on August 20, 2012

"make yourself look cool while you shout on the internets"
posted by gaspode at 6:12 AM on August 20, 2012 [2 favorites]

And yes, that was a weird capitalisation on Social Justice. It's a common mistake on my part. I never really did work out how capital letters work. Seriously. It's a flaw.

Fell free to mock both that and my use of the Synonym Dictionary.
posted by zoo at 6:14 AM on August 20, 2012

And then you can take that answer, and swap "make society a better and more equal place" with "make yourself look cool while you shout on the internets"

This is called assuming the worst of people, and it makes discussions sort of impossible.
posted by shakespeherian at 6:16 AM on August 20, 2012 [14 favorites]

I got that the comment was aimed at me gaspode. This is why I answered it. I'm just wondering why I'm being questioned for using a phrasing that's part of the common vernacular.
posted by zoo at 6:16 AM on August 20, 2012

You're new here, but you'll soon learn, as many people have, that it's best to just drop out of the "conversation" and keep quiet. Saves a lot of wasted time.
posted by gman at 6:18 AM on August 20, 2012

shakespeherian: I prefer to call it assuming the worst in one comment. A comment that started with "What the fuck does that mean".
posted by zoo at 6:18 AM on August 20, 2012

I'm not puzzled by what other people mean when they talk about it. I'm puzzled by what you mean. If you mean the same thing they do, then fine. If you have a personal definition, then maybe share that. Because it seems like it's a particular thing that some people use in ways you don't like, while other people talk about sexism (for instance) in ways you find acceptable. You first used it in an accusatory, not descriptive, way. So I was wondering.
posted by rtha at 6:19 AM on August 20, 2012

If you think you're one of a few lone voices standing up against intolerance on metafilter, then you're wrong. You hold the majority view

Up to a point, Lord Cropper. I've got no doubt that if a straw poll was held right now the overwhelming majority of MeFites would declare themselves to be not sexist; the trouble is that you can easily believe this of yourself and still engage in sexist behaviour. A lot of it is sort of baked in in all of us, the result of living in sexist societies. Which is why these threads keep happening, even if we all agree that we're not sexist and sexism is bad, as sometimes we don't even realise we're doing it until it's pointed out to us. That's what drives a lot of the sound and fury.

But it's worth knowing that every time I end up butthurt mansplaining, I'll get someone memailing me to say "thanks for saying that, I would have said it, but I've been scared away from having these conversations."

I don't think pulling the old the lurkers support me in e-mail card is doing your case any good. It's impossible to verify and anybody with any familiarity with online debates will immediately dismiss your argument because of it.

In general in this very thread we've seen people talking about how awful they felt about earlier discussions, up to the point of getting suicidal thoughts about it, yet as far as I know the same has not been happening with people despairing of the relentless political correctness on metafilter grinding them down. Or have there been cases of people being hounded off that way, decent posters who couldn't take this strain anymore?
posted by MartinWisse at 6:21 AM on August 20, 2012 [9 favorites]

I'm questioning you because it just seems really weird to me. You're taking massive offense to the tone of others in-thread and accusing them of shouting at you or being "loud" and "aggressive", but you don't seem to see how the language you yourself are using is offensive and makes having a conversation with you just that much harder.
posted by palomar at 6:22 AM on August 20, 2012 [4 favorites]

A comment that started with "What the fuck does that mean".

Hey, no using the "tone argument"!
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 6:22 AM on August 20, 2012 [1 favorite]

I don't think pulling the old the lurkers support me in e-mail card is doing your case any good. It's impossible to verify and anybody with any familiarity with online debates will immediately dismiss your argument because of it.

I know it's not a very helpful or kind contribution at this point, but catching up this morning, it really did hit me as humorous that a person who accuses unspecified other people of white knighting, talking about social justice for in-group political reasons, etc. had to announce that the lurkers support them in email.

Nthing that I didn't get into the creeper thread because I was looking for e-praise; I got into it because that "bros before hos" dynamic made a significant portions of my college/grad school years miserable and because of that experience, it's a topic I care deeply about. And I didn't get into this thread hoping for memails of support; I got into it because when I saw something about this place being a girlzone, my immediate response was a disbelieving "really?".
posted by immlass at 6:29 AM on August 20, 2012 [5 favorites]

I don't think I've ever received an email of silent support. Clearly I am doing things wrong, and will strive to rectify my approach in the future.
posted by Forktine at 6:32 AM on August 20, 2012 [1 favorite]

MartinWisse: It's "up to a point Lord Copper". Interestingly. Hadn't heard the usage and had to look it up.

palomar: I'm only taking a tiny bit of offense, and that offense is being taken because I'm having to defend my position against about twenty people who also (it appears to me) are also taking offense. It's really hard to keep rational when it feels like you're being attacked from all sides.

I originally questioned the motivations of a small subset of metafilter, and as a consequence have had that message questioned and misrepresented and have myself been accused of a number of minor violations. (with a small v).

It seems like I'm being weird, but TBH, I'm just trying to make myself understood against what feels like a legion of people. I'm not sure how you expect me to behave in this situation.
posted by zoo at 6:36 AM on August 20, 2012

The "lurkers send me emails" thing wasn't to big up my own position. If you're comfortable scaring those you don't agree with away, yay! for you. If you think this is something that can be talked to concensus and understanding, then I would suggest that you're doing it wrong.

And yes - I may well be lying. Some shit you just have to take on faith.
posted by zoo at 6:40 AM on August 20, 2012 [1 favorite]

MartinWisse: It's "up to a point Lord Copper".

Blame my poor struggling IE7 browser, which has trouble dealing with this thread and at times forces me to type more blindly than normal...
posted by MartinWisse at 6:41 AM on August 20, 2012

It seems like I'm being weird, but TBH, I'm just trying to make myself understood against what feels like a legion of people. I'm not sure how you expect me to behave in this situation.

My suggestion would be to walk away. Not because you're right or wrong or someone else is right or wrong, but it's fairly impossible to have a conversation with a large group of people in this format.

If you want to stay, that's fine, but I'd recommend picking a person or two to converse with and ignore the rest. Responding to everyone and every point literally turns into a full time job and it iss rarely worth it.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 6:43 AM on August 20, 2012 [4 favorites]

Thanks to everyone who replied to my question earlier. Good to know that that's not as unanimous as I thought. I also think I have a better understanding of where the objections are coming from.
posted by nangar at 6:55 AM on August 20, 2012

zoo, your original message if I remember correctly was full of hyperbole, and seemed to indicate that all female members of Metafilter think you are a rapist, or perhaps a potential rapist. if I'm misremembering, forgive me. But if I'm remembering correctly... then it's pretty obvious why you're now having to defend yourself: hyperbole is a really lousy rhetorical tool. Especially when you are trying to talk to strangers over the internet about a very important issue. Maybe in the future it would be best to not use hyperbole?
posted by palomar at 7:05 AM on August 20, 2012 [1 favorite]

rtha:

I'm not puzzled by what other people mean when they talk about it. I'm puzzled by what you mean. If you mean the same thing they do, then fine. If you have a personal definition, then maybe share that

And I've been quite quiet on personal interpretations. For fear of swift and uncomfortable reprisals by all accounts. But I'll try and widen it out and give examples.

So - I believe that because of privilege, there are some things we don't understand or know about. And I'm relatively OK with saying that people need to stop talking and start listening. However, there are a couple of times when that particular idea is used to either silence people who may be talking sense or to overwhelm a conversation about something else.

They'll say things that sound to me like:

"It's obvious from what you're saying that you don't understand privilege. In may ways I was once the same as you. But over the years I've learnt something about the subject we're talking about and I can tell you that you aren't listening and this is a bad thing to do. Now stop saying what you're saying, and listen to what I have to say instead."

So - the language of social justice is here used to actually try and shut people up, and it's used as a signal to show everyone else that they're good people.

I'm also pretty suspicious of situations where a mistake by someone (calling a person retarded, for example) is then used by a number of people to talk about how bad it is to use the word retarded. Not that we shouldn't have the conversation, but after a while it just gets weirdly self-congratulatory and overly combative. This is often exacerbated by the one lone, weird, stubborn oppositional voice (I recognise the irony here)

When one person says something isn't cool - that's fine. When a bunch say something isn't cool - that's understandable. But when you have a whole heap of people repeating each other you've got a social situation which is more about group dynamics and the mob.

One person saying it is fine, but on metafilter what tends to happen is you get a series of people making the same point over and over again.

Some people get this. Miko always seems to have something new to add, and she doesn't appear (to me at least) to participate in this mob behaviour. But other people are exactly the opposite. They'll see the victim, and they'll get in little vicious attacks. They make the situation worse, and they're doing it for standing within that larger group.

Now I get BTW, that sometimes even if someone else has expressed your particular Point of View, you want also to say it in your own words. So I'm not making a general assumption about every person that piles into this conversation. But sometimes, I do feel like an odd comment rings false, that a specific person is over-exaggerating outrage in order to fuel their own ego. To make themselves look good.

They'll say all the right things, but it's badly placed or timed or something.

So my meaning with Social Justice (Sentence capped just for you) is to do with anti-discriminatory language and privilege and understanding how the constructs of our language reinforce the hegemony. And it's also about giving people the tools to allow them to see when they're being sexist or racist and how what they do and say can damage society.

But if you're silencing people as being anti-feminist when all they're expressing is that they think it's better being non-confrontational than being confrontational , or and you're calling someone racist when you know that it'll provoke an angry response instead of quiet refelection, and you're doing it a lot, and you're doing it in such a way as to place yourself in a position of authority in a thread, then I think you're using social justice language for political purposes.

I seem to have drifted off my aim of providing examples. Hopefully that'll provide a bit more understanding in what I'm trying to communicate. If not, fire away.
posted by zoo at 7:12 AM on August 20, 2012 [3 favorites]

or and you're calling someone racist when you know that it'll provoke an angry response instead of quiet refelection

Honestly I don't think it's always useful to posit that the oppressed voice needs to speak in such a way as to address the oppressor. I think women should be able to talk about feminism without having to explain it over and over again to men, even if there are men who seem to demand explanation.
posted by shakespeherian at 7:17 AM on August 20, 2012 [1 favorite]

palomar: One sentence in my 6+ sentence original comment was about being called a rapist. It was an over-exaggeration. It was wrong of me to say it the way I did and it detracted from my wider point. I was trying to say "I don't mind being called a potential rapist (I understand that as a man it is OK for me to be percieved as a danger), but it happens so often it gets boring."

So - to say it was "Full of hyperbole" is probably hyperbole itself.

Later comments found me defending the other things I said. I don't mind defending my position, but this feels more akin to me trying to hold back the Mongol Hordes. (Not Mongol Hordist)
posted by zoo at 7:20 AM on August 20, 2012

I just want to say that I am not participating in this thread anymore but have really enjoyed reading the discussion. It's always humbling to really absorb a perspective that is alien to my own, and I enjoy that feeling immensely. Thanks to all of you who are talking about these issues, as they are very important in my opinion.
posted by lazaruslong at 7:21 AM on August 20, 2012

And this is why you don't give examples:

Honestly I don't think it's always useful to posit that the oppressed voice needs to speak in such a way as to address the oppressor.

You know - I never said otherwise. You're quoting me out of context there.
posted by zoo at 7:23 AM on August 20, 2012

But my point is that you seem to be coming at this thread from the perspective of how it makes you feel.
posted by shakespeherian at 7:25 AM on August 20, 2012 [2 favorites]

"you're calling someone racist when you know that it'll provoke an angry response instead of quiet refelection"

I interpret this sentence as "posit[ing] that the oppressed voice needs to speak in such as way as to address the oppressor."
posted by the man of twists and turns at 7:29 AM on August 20, 2012

I'm not sure how you expect me to behave in this situation.

At some point, someone suggest a "3 and out" strategy. The theory was that if you can't explain what you mean in three comments, good communication is going to happen, so you might as well step away.

Also, there was this recent Meta in part (starting about here) about what to do (as a piley) when pile-ons happen. So, there you go, there's my personal opinion and the mods weighing in on how they would like people to handle the situations.
posted by Gygesringtone at 7:33 AM on August 20, 2012

Well - It's not my position. For the record.
posted by zoo at 7:34 AM on August 20, 2012

Some people get this. Miko always seems to have something new to add

Maybe you should learn from her example.
posted by Squeak Attack at 7:35 AM on August 20, 2012

That last comment to shakespeherian & the man of twists and turns .

Though "getting out if you're being piled on" and "speaking in such a way as to address the oppressor" have uncomfortable similarities.
posted by zoo at 7:37 AM on August 20, 2012

or and you're calling someone racist when you know that it'll provoke an angry response instead of quiet refelection

Making expansive statements about what other people "know" is falling back into your initial fallacy: it's claiming the ability to make accurate judgments about an unknowable quantity. In fact, it's doubling down: you now are able to discern the bad faith motivations of people who you believe are themselves able to discern the response their bad-faith arguments will inspire. That's a lot of intuition.

When you say:

But sometimes, I do feel like an odd comment rings false, that a specific person is over-exaggerating outrage in order to fuel their own ego. To make themselves look good.

They'll say all the right things, but it's badly placed or timed or something.

This is basically Spidey-sense. It's the pricking of your thumbs. In effect, you're saying "some people have good motivations, and some people have bad motivations, and the way to judge that is how they make me feel".

I think appeal to authority is dangerous in general, but particularly when the authority in question is yourself.

It's OK for us all to have feelings, but it's really hard to see what kind of universal rule could be drawn from them. And, generally, feeling that someone who just happens to disagree with you must be doing so for bad-faith reasons feels already like an unclear signal.

Anyway... IANYC, zoo, but to be honest I don't think making yourself understood is the problem per se.

If your intention is to carry on until everyone understands that you are right and they should agree with you, I think you're probably onto a loser, and I'd take Brandon's advice. If you're interested in critiques of your current argument - well, you've got a bunch of them already which you could read and think about without needing to respond immediately; in fact, responding immediately seems to mean you are missing things or making emotional, unevidenced statements which then lead to further exchanges.

The middle ground you're treading at the moment - insulting your interlocutors with lines like:

If you're comfortable scaring those you don't agree with away, yay! for you.

while complaining of the "confrontational" tone of the bad, political abusers of social justice - is probably not going to provide satisfactory results for anyone.
posted by running order squabble fest at 7:38 AM on August 20, 2012 [5 favorites]

Some people get this. Miko always seems to have something new to add
Maybe you should learn from her example.
posted by Squeak Attack at 7:35 AM on August 20 [+] [!]
eponysterical
posted by zoo at 7:39 AM on August 20, 2012

If your intention is to carry on until everyone understands that you are right and they should agree with you, I think you're probably onto a loser, and I'd take Brandon's advice. If you're interested in critiques of your current argument - well, you've got a bunch of them already which you could read and think about without needing to respond immediately

It's kind of black and white for you isn't it? Force people to understand I'm right or go away and try and work out why I'm wrong.
posted by zoo at 7:42 AM on August 20, 2012 [2 favorites]

Dude. You are really not helping yourself. Please take the advice you've been given in-thread to just step away for a while.
posted by palomar at 7:42 AM on August 20, 2012

I'd like to apologize for my part in once again making a thread about feminism into men arguing.
posted by shakespeherian at 7:44 AM on August 20, 2012 [6 favorites]

(and by that I mean, making snotty "eponysterical" comments does not help you. When you reach that point, it helps to just walk away for a bit and return if you feel like it later. That's all anyone means by "walk away". No one's trying to silence you, they're trying to help you not flame out here.)
posted by palomar at 7:44 AM on August 20, 2012

palomar: How am I not helping myself?
posted by zoo at 7:44 AM on August 20, 2012

You got there before me.
I sort of felt I was replying to snot with snot. But anyway - I'm ways way away from flaming out.
posted by zoo at 7:46 AM on August 20, 2012

Okay. Enjoy being as snotty as you can. I don't really want to watch this kind of thing. Take care.
posted by palomar at 7:48 AM on August 20, 2012

It's not a race to the bottom, zoo. It can be good to take a break and get a bit less involved.
posted by The corpse in the library at 7:53 AM on August 20, 2012

zoo: "Yes - running order squabble fest - You're right. Like your hypothetical banned user, I'm using the word political within its dictionary definition, when instead I should be using a much more well known term like "white knighting"."

If you honestly want a good faith discussion, I suggest that this is a not-great rhetorical tactic for you to take.

Accusing men of being white knights is a silencing tactic, intended to intimidate us into keeping quiet by questioning our honesty. It's also a blanket dismissal, which attacks all men who defend feminist principles, positions or ideals as sycophants, and implies that directly addressing our arguments is therefore unnecessary.

You've all but accused the "Metafilter mob" of bullying people who hold minority opinions on this issue. See that you don't engage in the same tactics yourself.
posted by zarq at 7:54 AM on August 20, 2012 [3 favorites]

Seriously, zoo, I think taking a walk from this thread for a while is an extremely good and at this point probably pretty overdue notion. Give it a breather.
posted by cortex (staff) at 7:57 AM on August 20, 2012

zarq: I don't think there's any "all but" about it. I am accusing "Metafilter mobs" of bullying people who hold minority opinions. This isn't a popular view by any means, but I think it's justified.

The "White knight" as silencing tactic thing. I take your point. Not my intention, but I hadn't seen it in that context. Thanks.
posted by zoo at 8:00 AM on August 20, 2012

I don't think I've ever received an email of silent support. Clearly I am doing things wrong, and will strive to rectify my approach in the future.

Funny--I sent one to the young rope-rider earlier in this thread. I also received several. I feel sad that people don't feel free to speak up, but it's a nice reminder of how important it is to do so.

For what it's worth, I find zoo's characterization of the young rope-rider and other feminists here as "loud" and "bullshit" to not only be off the mark but profoundly hurtful. That's the sort of thing I meant by polite microaggression.
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 8:03 AM on August 20, 2012 [20 favorites]

It's kind of black and white for you isn't it? Force people to understand I'm right or go away and try and work out why I'm wrong.

Nope - I don't think feelings can be right or wrong, in and of themselves. And these intuitions no doubt feel very real and very reliable to you, but it's going to be hard to convince everyone else that they should be allowing your emotional responses to determine how they respond to people.

So, I don't think you're going to convince people that you are right because the core of your argument is a series of "I feel" statements about your intuitive response to people you don't think are good-faith agents - which have now extended, it must be said, to assuming that they have the same powers that you do when they craft their posts in the knowledge of the reaction they will get.

So, that's part one. If your intention is to keep going until everyone acknowledges the rational perfection of your case, you're onto a loser, because your case is about your emotions and the judgments you have built on them - there is not rational perfection. If your intention is to try to learn something from the exchange, this cycle of increasingly emotional and scattered responses are not going to help you to do that.

If your intention, on the other hand, is to keep grinding until you either flame out totally in a feeling feedback loop ("You knew that I would react like this to you saying that. THIS IS ON YOU!") or everyone else just drifts off with the conversation totally killed - well, those are both things that can happen.
posted by running order squabble fest at 8:07 AM on August 20, 2012 [1 favorite]

For what it's worth, I find zoo's characterization of the young rope-rider and other feminists here as "loud" and "bullshit" to not only be off the mark but profoundly hurtful. That's the sort of thing I meant by polite microaggression.

I agree that it's hurtful, but I dunno how polite it is.

I also think it's hurtful to accuse people of taking positions for some sort of rhetorical points contest when this is the daily fabric of our lives we're talking about. This isn't a game for those of us who are female. When we log off here, we face the things we talk about. It's not a game, either, for men who see the problems that we face simply because we're women. The idea that it's done for fun when people have repeatedly said in the thread they'd rather not have these draining interminable conversations is missing the point that these are painful conversations. I've been sad all weekend because of this thread and what it emphasizes about my place as a woman in this community and the larger world. I'm sure someone will say it's just the Internet, but it's not. It's everywhere. It's just that here I can feel safe enough to defend my voice, while in the world I have to worry about my physical safety or getting fired.
posted by winna at 8:17 AM on August 20, 2012 [28 favorites]

If you don't actually know somebody's motivations, it's a good idea not to presume that you do, and then accuse them of having suspicious ones, and then refuse to identify who you're talking about.

Start by assuming people actually mean what they say and their motivations are to try to communicate something they think is important.
posted by Bunny Ultramod at 8:17 AM on August 20, 2012 [2 favorites]

This isn't a game for those of us who are female.

And that's what gets to me so much about zoo's statement here. He all-but-very-clearly says he doesn't care--he "doesn't have a side." And he has no problem with social justice but the way we "misappropriate" the language of it (as if he can perfectly read intent--why someone who does not care particularly about social justice is so worried about the misappropriation of its language, anyway, I'm not sure). He only seems to be participant to take certain women to task for being "loud", "strident", "overwhelming the conversation", "strong", "carrying grudges between threads" (oh, the hypocrisy!). It makes me mad and it makes me feel hurt and it makes me feel protective of the women here I agree with. Because this is deeply personal to me--I do have a side, and that side is my life--and here's this guy arguing against a community member who is not even actively participating any more because . . . she's loud?

My hair-trigger response would be a loud one, full of italics and curse words and, yes, the language of social justice ("concern trolling" would be a big one). But to respond that way would be making myself a loud, strident woman who shames and shouts. There's a terrific catch-22 built into conversations like these. And by "terrific," I mean "awful."
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 8:29 AM on August 20, 2012 [30 favorites]

I ascribed no motivations. I literally was saying that the behavior that was happening was not intended.

But, hey, congratulations on the gotcha, because, you know, if I have ever been guilty of the thing I think is a problem, it's no longer a problem for anybody ever.
posted by Bunny Ultramod at 8:30 AM on August 20, 2012 [1 favorite]

If you have a problem with me personally, take it to memail.
posted by Bunny Ultramod at 8:34 AM on August 20, 2012

Well, thanks for your contribution. It did wonders for pushing the conversation forward.
posted by Bunny Ultramod at 8:37 AM on August 20, 2012

Both of you, shhh.
posted by shakespeherian at 8:38 AM on August 20, 2012 [1 favorite]

I swear to christ, both of you are smarter than this "no u" shit.
posted by cortex (staff) at 8:39 AM on August 20, 2012 [6 favorites]

All right. I'm fucking done here.
posted by Bunny Ultramod at 8:47 AM on August 20, 2012

The only time I ever sent someone a silent e-mail of support, it turned out to be to someone who was (now famously) an imaginary person created as a bizarre secret sockpuppet.

I don't know what the moral there is.
posted by kyrademon at 8:50 AM on August 20, 2012 [6 favorites]

I will out myself as having sent a handful of secret support emails to some of the posters in this thread, because having flex leave seriously bummed me out and I didn't want to lose anyone else.

So now I will publicly thank people here for contributing, again, to a fraught and exhausting thread.
posted by ambrosia at 8:55 AM on August 20, 2012 [2 favorites]

All right. I'm fucking done here.

Silencing tactic FTW.
posted by zarq at 8:56 AM on August 20, 2012 [1 favorite]

ugh, this thread. why.
posted by elizardbits at 8:57 AM on August 20, 2012 [1 favorite]

I once sent a secret memail of FABULOUS PRIZES to someone but they never claimed the prize. :sadface:
posted by Doleful Creature at 8:57 AM on August 20, 2012 [1 favorite]

I send MeMails of hastily rewritten sea shanties.

Well, I did today, and I think I'm going to make a habit of it.
posted by cmyk at 9:08 AM on August 20, 2012 [4 favorites]

I did not catch that flex had disabled her account. I don't have words that I can put into this thread without catching heat for being inappropriate for how upsetting that is.
posted by immlass at 9:34 AM on August 20, 2012 [27 favorites]

I've been staying out of this thread, because yes, participating is exhausting. But I had an exchange on Facebook yesterday and today that really illustrates to me how this stuff goes in a non-Metafilter context. A (male) friend of mine linked to Aikin's remarks about pregnancy and rape, and gave as his only commentary "WAR. ON. WOMEN." The first comment said "Surely this is not part of a deliberate war on women, it's just collateral damage."

I responded and said "It's never deliberate, is it? It's just a result of what happens when you define some problems as Important to People, and other problems as Not Important to People, and then put women's issues into the second bucket because they aren't really people."

What then followed was a whole bunch of comments, all from men, saying "There isn't really a war on women, and using scary and overdramatic language like that and taking offense where none is intended just serves to alienate and otherize Republicans, and makes constructive dialogue impossible. It's just a difference in values and social position." (Many comments elided together, but all those phrases were actually used.)

My last comment then pointed out that what these guys were doing was saying that it was more important to make Republican men feel comfortable than to acknowledge the reality that women are being directly targeted by these policies. And if it's more important that Democratic messaging reach out to Republican men than Democratic women, well, what does that say about whose opinions and issues are important?

This is not an academic issue for me. I know, I know, it's just Facebook, but this kind of messaging is absolutely everywhere. Women need to be quiet about their own experiences because to do otherwise risks making men uncomfortable. Women need to quit "taking offense where none is intended" when someone speaks from a position of profound ignorance on an issue that is crucial to their lives, because otherwise men might not want to talk. It is everywhere and it is every day, and it is depressing and wearying and it grinds you down.
posted by KathrynT at 10:02 AM on August 20, 2012 [54 favorites]

I did not catch that flex had disabled her account.

Arrgghh. Half of me want to shout "Get back here & fight the good fight!" But the smart half of me wonders what the hell we're even fighting about. The right of half the human race to be treated with the same respect, understanding and consideration as the other half? Why on Earth is that even a fight in this place, in this day and age? *le sigh*
posted by Devils Rancher at 10:10 AM on August 20, 2012 [4 favorites]

i've been trying to shut up and listen so I'm just putting this here to keep my place in this long-ass thread
posted by klangklangston at 10:19 AM on August 20, 2012 [1 favorite]

What then followed was a whole bunch of comments, all from men, saying "There isn't really a war on women, and using scary and overdramatic language like that and taking offense where none is intended just serves to alienate and otherize Republicans, and makes constructive dialogue impossible. It's just a difference in values and social position." (Many comments elided together, but all those phrases were actually used.)

The guy said that womens' bodies can choose not to become pregnant if they don't want to. Which isn't just utterly stunning in its stupidity, but also pretty classic victim blaming. What sort of constructive dialogue are they striving for, building off that foundation? "Sorry you got raped, but it's your own fault you got pregnant?"

Jezebel had a post today, in their usual style: The Official Guide to Legitimate Rape. Considered posting it to the Blue, but decided it would just wind up pissing off too many people.
posted by zarq at 10:24 AM on August 20, 2012 [2 favorites]

zarq, did you post it in the thread?
posted by futz at 10:28 AM on August 20, 2012

I did not catch that flex had disabled her account. I don't have words that I can put into this thread without catching heat for being inappropriate for how upsetting that is.

Yeah. That's a real shame. I hope flex comes back.

(zarq came back. There's hope, right?)
posted by nangar at 10:29 AM on August 20, 2012 [1 favorite]

Oh God, they had that shitstain on the television at the gym over lunch. It looked like they were rebroadcasting a clip from the interview where he actually made the "legitimate rape" comment. Hate hate hate hate. I am so sick and tired of people who have NO FUCKING CLUE about the actual physical reality of things trying to legislate and create policy based on their damned "just so stories".
posted by rmd1023 at 10:30 AM on August 20, 2012

Republicans seem to have a real talent for pissing off people. I'm just waiting for Romney or Ryan to go on a rant about hillbillies or Cuban immigrants.
posted by nangar at 10:41 AM on August 20, 2012

you have to admit that it's not unusual on metafilter to see someone who holds a different opinion to be hounded away from metafilter. Even when that contrary opinion is nuanced.

There's no way to nuance a sexist opinion that makes me think it shouldn't be hounded away.

Even though I don't think I'm particularly in a majority right now.

My point: you are doing this within the context of a larger culture in which you are quite empowered. You can't take that off for a few minutes to argue in MetaFilter any way we can. You're in the majority when it comes to benefiting from the entitlements you bring with you everywhere, including here.

I don't know, zoo, it seems like you got driven to a point of retreat which has become, essentially, nothing more than "There are some people I don't like." You've indicated you might not like them because of your assumptions about them, you might not like them because of the language they use, you might not like them because they aren't inclined to agree with you - but ultimately, it seems like the only point you have left to make is that you don't like everybody. Since you insist that it's not whether someone speaks up for or against sexism that determines whether they please you or not in their style of discussion, then that point really has little to do with sexism, and it's really pretty idiosyncratic. I appreciate the link to taz' advice posted by Gygesringtone:

At this point we are asking everyone not to make the entire conversation about one person, and we do ask that person to step back when their participation begins to totally dominate a discussion... which, I agree, is not always fair when they are being put on the spot, challenged, and insulted. It's not a healthy dynamic at all, but aside from not even having the moderation coverage that would be needed to monitor every discussion like this and somehow "protect" any such a participant from that kind of feedback and/or blowback, it's also outside the paradigm here...

And I think that since the thread has kind of become about zoo's view of the world, which seems to be uniquely based on particular individual tastes in people or at least judgments of people that are based, I guess, on hunches, that it makes sense to me to try my best to drop the whole thing now. We've already lost one great user, temporarily I hope, and that's enough. But I get it. I'm tired of sacrificing great users on the altar of Freedom for Sexists!. I'm just plain tired of all this relentless, stubborn bullying.
posted by Miko at 10:50 AM on August 20, 2012 [10 favorites]

Correction: You can't take that off for a few minutes to argue in MetaFilter any way more than we can.
posted by Miko at 10:54 AM on August 20, 2012

futz, I just did, thanks. Didn't realize that post had been made.
posted by zarq at 11:04 AM on August 20, 2012

immlass: "I did not catch that flex had disabled her account. "

Shit. :(
posted by zarq at 11:05 AM on August 20, 2012

Bunny Ultramod's account also appears to be disabled, btw.
posted by running order squabble fest at 11:07 AM on August 20, 2012

Christ, people. We lost Bunny and flex because of this thread? That shit. ain't. right.

Please, please, please come back. Both of you.
posted by shiu mai baby at 11:10 AM on August 20, 2012 [8 favorites]

I rarely participate in these threads because just reading them takes all of the emotional energy I can summon without spinning further into anger/fear than I'd like to.

I have a head cold at the moment, so I won't delve into any of it too deeply except to say that I really appreciate the space that the mods give us to sort this type of thing out, the comments from so many women sharing their (our) experiences and standing up for respect, and the comments from male allies especially when they talk about how they are learning and changing through these discussions.

I have personally been stretched and challenged and changed by many of the discussions here about race and sexism, and it's not a comfortable process. I hope that we continue to see people expand their perspective and their compassion. It's difficult work, and particularly difficult to be stuck in the middle where you really want to be an ally but the words come out wrong because you've still internalized so much shit that you haven't identified yet and then you feel attacked. It takes a certain amount of bravery to keep on going, to re-examine the world yet again, to see those challenges as opportunities to learn more.

I also hope faze and Bunny Ultramod (who won the thread here) are taking a break to rest and eventually return. I hope we all keep tabs on ourselves so we can take breaks when we need to. MeFi is great and there are many voices here that I love, but not at the expense of your health.
posted by heatherann at 11:11 AM on August 20, 2012 [4 favorites]

correction: won the thread here
posted by heatherann at 11:13 AM on August 20, 2012

Crap. I also hope flex and Bunny Ultramod come back soon.
posted by rmd1023 at 11:13 AM on August 20, 2012 [1 favorite]

Almost every one of these threads result in people I like leaving. There are good aspects also, and probably some people who leave had been considering leaving for a while, but that is still a high cost. Steps to keep the tone civil and avoid the micro aggressions might be worth it.
posted by Forktine at 11:14 AM on August 20, 2012 [7 favorites]

Bunny Ultramod's account also appears to be disabled, btw.

Fucking, bloody hell. :(
posted by zarq at 11:16 AM on August 20, 2012 [2 favorites]

Then there was a long tangent about how men feeling entitled to take extra space must certainly be due to their being "just tall" or having something special about their thighs and butt

Ah, no... I was trying to lighten things a bit with a post I thought would be an obvious parody of "mansplaining" - I was cracking a fat joke at my own expense. Mansplaining the manspanning.

Anyone who's actually been on the commuter rail knows that women of size have the Exact. Same. Issues. (I once shared a three-wide with a tall woman who had to angle her knees a third of the way across the middle seat just to fit at all. How rude of her! She should have sawn off her legs in the way women have been trained to by society before sitting down.)

So, I thought a bit about what those responding to it were saying... and then marked this whole thread down as mostly real, raging sexism being fought by a bunch of baloney. I wasn't helping, and I couldn't help, so I disengaged.

Well, mostly. The observations and experiences about women being crowded out of serious discussions is an issue, and I'm surprised I hadn't given it much thought before. Going forward, I'm going to try to organize meetings with that in mind, with the challenge of making sure everyone's opinion is considered and weighed the same, and be aware of someone being shut down or crowded out unfairly.
posted by Slap*Happy at 11:17 AM on August 20, 2012 [4 favorites]

Well goddamn. Re flex and Bunny, I mean.
posted by rtha at 11:18 AM on August 20, 2012

zoo i believe you got (m)emails of support. i don't know when flex disabled her account, hopefully before the zoo show started, but if she saw it, i'm sure it upset the crap out of her. in my worst case scenario, being pulled entirely out of my ass, maybe she sent you a memail and then, not even being in the thread, she still got called out as imaginary. hopefully that didn't happen, but it really would be perfect.

flex, hopefully you're doing something fun and not this, but if you ever read this far in this thread, please know that at least this many people miss you. i know sometimes it feels like the pileon is interminable, but outside there's always blue sky somewhere, and if you're ever ready, come back.

this is not directed at people in this thread to make anyone not have the discussion they want to have, but i wanted to point out flex posted a meta last year with some always-good-to-keep-in-mind thoughts:

I've been trying to practice the Gentle Art of Being The Change You Want To See. This is what I think that path looks like:

*I will try my hardest not to Be The Problem
*I will treat members as if they're acting in good faith (unless they prove otherwise) and give them the benefit of the doubt
*I won't fight or make personal attacks, no matter how righteous I feel
*if someone makes a derailing or crappy comment, especially right at the beginning of a thread, I will flag it and I will NOT respond to it
*I will RTFA and also I will RTFComments before I comment
*I will only comment when I have something of value to add to the discussion
*I will not make too many comments in a thread
*I will graciously admit when I'm wrong
*I will make comments and posts of the kind I want to see
*I will encourage other members when they make comments and posts of the kind I want to see
*I will remember there are lots of readers and lurkers out there and I will comment in a way that makes them feel welcome to join in
*I will refuse to have a sense of doom about MeFi; MeFi has made many positive changes in the years I've spent here, and it can continue to evolve

I bet lots of other members are trying to do something similar. But I find it's lonely and mostly invisible work.

I've heard before that "it takes ten positive comments to match the impact of one negative comment". I think we've seen it doesn't take much negativity, relatively speaking, to create more negativity; and especially a perception of negativity, stubbornness, snark, and dismissiveness that can really make the community feel unwelcoming and unpleasant. It drives people away. We've already lost a bunch of good members over the years, directly from this perception - and who knows how many potential good members have been out there, wanting to participate, but deciding not to bother?

MeFi is shaped by its membership. This has often meant that the loudest voices set the tone. Practicing the Gentle Art is pretty quiet. And if you're too intimidated or too frustrated or just plain too tired to share your thoughts out loud, to take the time and the energy to discuss and defend them, then walking away and taking a break feels crummy, not empowering. If someone is quietly trying to be a Good Citizen, their effort just isn't going to be very noticeable - as an individual.

Forktine's right, she was probably thinking about this for awhile, but it still sucks.

i hope this isn't inappropriate to post here. and again, not directed at individuals currently commenting to silence anybody.
posted by twist my arm at 11:21 AM on August 20, 2012 [17 favorites]

Please come back, flex and Bunny. Please?
posted by palomar at 11:24 AM on August 20, 2012 [2 favorites]

Dano St also appears to have disabled his account, apparently in reaction to something I said.

That makes me sad. I wish we could have just had a conversation. But I suspect it would have not been productive.
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 11:25 AM on August 20, 2012 [1 favorite]

heatherann: I also hope faze and Bunny Ultramod (who won the thread here) are taking a break to rest and eventually return.

I hope Faze comes back too, but I suspect it'll have to be under a new account.
posted by gman at 11:28 AM on August 20, 2012

I hope you come back. :(
posted by agregoli at 11:32 AM on August 20, 2012

Almost every one of these threads result in people I like leaving.

That's part of the reason --- probably the main reason --- that I speak up in these threads to begin with. Years ago, I quietly backed out of a looooong MeTa about sexism, leaving the heavy lifting to other members whom I greatly respected.

And some of them hit the button on their accounts and never came back. I always carry the weight of that: wondering if pitching in would have lightened their load, made it easier for them to stick around. I'll never know, but it's strongly influenced my own feeling of duty. If I don't speak up --- and strive to speak civilly and clearly but with passion --- how can I expect anyone else to do so? So whenever I can, I do.

I'm not suggesting that anyone else bears that duty, mind you. That's the effect those departures had on me. We each get to decide where our duty lies. I completely understand why some users prefer --- or even need --- to remove themselves from an often draining, sometimes dehumanizing, frequently recurring conversation.
posted by Elsa at 11:34 AM on August 20, 2012 [11 favorites]

I hope Faze comes back too, but I suspect it'll have to be under a new account.

Yeesh, I knew this damn head cold was going to lead to a ridiculous typo. I meant flex.
posted by heatherann at 11:35 AM on August 20, 2012

Bunny Ultramod's account also appears to be disabled, btw.

God. damn. Hope he and flex both come back sooner rather than later.
posted by immlass at 11:38 AM on August 20, 2012 [1 favorite]

Going forward, I'm going to try to organize meetings with that in mind, with the challenge of making sure everyone's opinion is considered and weighed the same, and be aware of someone being shut down or crowded out unfairly.

This is something that teachers and facilitators who care about ending sex bias actively do. For instance, K-8 teachers who let students compete to answer a question ("Me! Me!") are contributing to an unintentional bias toward male students, who will volunteer more eagerly. So some strategies I was taught in my teacher training to combat that are using a number system, going in a particular order, mindfully alternating calling on girls and boys, and so on, just to be sure that everyone actually got their say.

If you've never tried it, next time you're in a big meeting keep a small tally of times men speak vs. times women speak. Results vary by group composition and type of meeting, but it can be very surprising to see how much more often men speak than women do.

Making sure everyone gets a chance to be heard is a major component of what facilitators and conflict resolution folks do. It usually requires imposing some structures on a give and take that don't always feel natural, and makes some people feel unnecessarily limited in their interactions (I admit it does me sometimes: I'm impulsive and talkative and it's hard for me to let others have their turn, too - but after all, that's why we need a structure sometimes). It's not easy, as conferring on oneself and cone's cohort the right to speak is one of the most basic forms of entitlement. So if you do try to address this, chances are you will make great progress and learn a bit along the way, and find that you actually have to do a lot of communications tweaking to get it to happen, but that it's worth it when it does.
posted by Miko at 11:42 AM on August 20, 2012 [13 favorites]

Bunny Ultramod is a very fine individual and I am a lot less enthused about a MeFi without him. Please do come back.

Flex, too. My hope is that a few nasty individuals don't end up wielding far more power in your choice to stay or go than the literally hundreds of MeFites who value you both so much and appreciate your great participation here.
posted by Miko at 11:51 AM on August 20, 2012 [6 favorites]

Almost every one of these threads result in people I like leaving.

No offense intended, because I think you meant that honestly and are trying to make things better and not worse, but I'd say the last bit of that sentence perpetuates the problem. "People I like." Well, several people in this thread have come right out and said they don't want certain kinds of people around here, and nobody disagreed. So are you crossing your fingers that they like the same people you like...?

I'm all for civility and fewer aggressions, and I think a specific part of those is focusing on behavior and not what "kind of person" someone is. I've seen nasty, vicious behavior from people who have had entire MetaTalk threads devoted to how awesome they are, and I have seen both frequent pile-on victims and frequent pile-on offenders post thoughtful advice and helpful information on AskMe that probably really made a positive difference to someone's day. It seems to me that there's almost always going to be some perspective by which losing Joan or Bill or Sally is a net minus for the site, regardless of who likes them or who doesn't.
posted by cribcage at 11:53 AM on August 20, 2012 [3 favorites]

Ivan Fyodorovich's account is likewise closed.
posted by shakespeherian at 11:54 AM on August 20, 2012

If you've never tried it, next time you're in a big meeting keep a small tally of times men speak vs. times women speak. Results vary by group composition and type of meeting, but it can be very surprising to see how much more often men speak than women do.

This was a really big reason why I chose to attend an all-women's college. Women have the floor.

The other reason was all the crap I endured in high school from creepers/assholes who would sit behind me in class and speculate loud enough for me to hear about my bra size, whether or not I was a virgin, how many fingers they'd be able to get inside me, and so forth.
posted by ambrosia at 11:54 AM on August 20, 2012 [3 favorites]

Since this thread has stretched on all the way down here, and since I've made it a personal point to read/listen to people's experiences on a more personal level in these types of threads; I would just like to add my thanks to everyone who keeps putting their experiences and thoughts out there/ 'fighting the good fight', even when it's as frustrating as it is.

These threads always manage to be extremely eye-opening for me, even when I think I got a better sense on the world from the previous one. Miko, Ivan, Heyho, Dee, numerous other people whose names have popped up consistently...

From someone who reads frequently, and only posts occasionally: Your words and efforts are noticed. Thanks.

Also, this has reminded me that I need to redouble my attention to making sure that my voice/male voices aren't dominating discussion in classes and student events. I generally take on a silent role in my campus' Women in Computer Science group, specifically for that reason.
posted by CrystalDave at 11:59 AM on August 20, 2012 [3 favorites]

Well, several people in this thread have come right out and said they don't want certain kinds of people around here, and nobody disagreed.

Can you show where? I have really tried to focus on sexist views and behavior, and though I am pretty clear I don't want those views aired or that behavior shown around here, I hope I didn't say that there are certain people I didn't like and didn't want around here.

We don't have to like everybody, but there's a big difference between people who participate constructively and work to observe requested behavior norms, and people who participate destructively and push to challenge people who make those requests. These threads seem to disproportionately result in losing the constructive people. That's such a pity.
posted by Miko at 12:00 PM on August 20, 2012 [1 favorite]

Oh, man, Ivan, too?
posted by rmd1023 at 12:05 PM on August 20, 2012 [1 favorite]

Well, I will say that I (secret!) memailed Ivan a day or two ago to tell him I appreciated how he'd made an effort to listen more to women in these types of threads after he and I had a bit of a throwdown in a recent MeTa about it. I'm sorry he's disabled his account.

I think it says something good about people when they're still listening and learning and trying to change (including Rory, in this thread in particular; I've really appreciated those comments), no matter how old they are. I tell my students this in my first lecture of the semester, and I hope it's something I do too.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 12:13 PM on August 20, 2012 [3 favorites]

Brandon, it means that apparently zoo thinks that his suspicion of "a few people on Metafilter" outweighs the value of their comments (which he seems to admit might are sometimes valid), and I have a feeling that the reason this is the case is that he will never actually deal with this stuff in a concrete way. The problem of misogyny is not urgent to him because he doesn't actually have to worry about it in reality. It is solved for him by leaving the conversation dismissively. Poof, it's gone. Thanks, the young rope-rider.

When I was talking about people using the language of Social Justice for political and self aggrandizing means, I wasn't talking about everyone, I was talking about a small subset of people.

Wow, who the fuck cares, then.
posted by stoneandstar at 12:14 PM on August 20, 2012

This was really worth keeping open. This dialogue has really lead to some positive and constructive outcomes. Go team!

Fucking ridiculous.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 12:14 PM on August 20, 2012 [3 favorites]

These threads seem to disproportionately result in losing the constructive people.

I suspect that it's much harder work to participate constructively.

Or maybe that just speaks volumes about my own struggle to keep my remarks clear and civil: snarky zingers and knee-jerk hyperbole pop into my head constantly in threads like this. It takes restraint to shake off those easy jibes, to push past them and articulate an point in less heated language.

It's easy to be dismissive of those who disagree. It's hard to engage in discourse without resorting to insults or blanket statements. When I spoke above about MeFi members I respect, I initially meant "those who spoke for me" --- but I deeply, deeply respect people who disagree with me but are willing to engage in discussion of contentious subjects without abandoning civil discourse or sacrificing clarity.
posted by Elsa at 12:15 PM on August 20, 2012 [6 favorites]

Question for the Mods: I realize you may not be able to answer this question, but did Ivan, Bunny, Flex or Dano St indicate if they were intending to leave permanently or would be back?
posted by zarq at 12:23 PM on August 20, 2012 [1 favorite]

Not Ivan too. I just want to hit my head against the wall.
posted by immlass at 12:23 PM on August 20, 2012 [2 favorites]

No offense intended, because I think you meant that honestly and are trying to make things better and not worse, but I'd say the last bit of that sentence perpetuates the problem. "People I like." Well, several people in this thread have come right out and said they don't want certain kinds of people around here, and nobody disagreed. So are you crossing your fingers that they like the same people you like...?

Huh? "People I like" was just shorthand (because typing on my phone sucks donkey ass) for "people who write intelligent, constructive, and thought-provoking comments about these issues." Sometimes I agree, sometimes I disagree; it's the quality of their contributions I enjoy and that's why I notice their absence.

And every time we have one of these, a couple of people whose contributions I most value go away. Like I said above, if it's because they were ready to go anyway, that's fine. But if it's because of the shitty comments and microaggressions (my new favorite term) and pissant LULZ people, then that's not so fine.
posted by Forktine at 12:25 PM on August 20, 2012 [1 favorite]

Elsa: "Or maybe that just speaks volumes about my own struggle to keep my remarks clear and civil: snarky zingers and knee-jerk hyperbole pop into my head constantly in threads like this."

Seriously. I've had a dozen comments ready to go at various points during this thread but deleted them all for being unproductive snark. I think I exhausted all my patient explaining energy on reddit lately.
posted by ArmyOfKittens at 12:27 PM on August 20, 2012

I realize you may not be able to answer this question, but did Ivan, Bunny, Flex or Dano St indicate if they were intending to leave permanently or would be back?

Flex was sounding pretty frustrated just with how Metafilter is a source of stress/unhappiness for her; Bunny left a note about being frustrated by how interactions had played out lately; neither Dano St. or IF left notes. I can't speak for any of 'em and won't make a prediction one way or the other, but as far as this stuff goes historically we often see folks come back after some time away.

I know it's a bummer when people leave, but it's kind of their call how they want to do what they need to do and we generally don't have much info.
posted by cortex (staff) at 12:28 PM on August 20, 2012

immlass: " I just want to hit my head against the wall."

Me too. Or beg the mods to disable the big red button. I didn't see eye-to-eye with Ivan on every single thing, but damn it he was intelligent and thoughtful and I really enjoyed his contributions. We need more people like him.

We've now lost four people (so far) to this damned thread.
posted by zarq at 12:30 PM on August 20, 2012 [1 favorite]

Yeah, bummed to see good people leave here, but if it becomes a source of stress for them I'd rather they stayed away for a while, recharged their batteries and actually do something fun with their spare time.
posted by MartinWisse at 12:31 PM on August 20, 2012 [2 favorites]

Thanks for explaining, cortex. It's appreciated.
posted by zarq at 12:33 PM on August 20, 2012

Or beg the mods to disable the big red button.

People will bail with or without a button, or sometimes will feel like they need to bail but will stick around and stay caught up in something they can't put down, etc. Historically they had to ask to be banned or scramble their password or so on; the phenomenon remained. Moments of frustration or catharsis aren't tied to the existence or not of a self-service button, much as I can understand how "I wish they hadn't left" can translate to looking askance at the mechanism.
posted by cortex (staff) at 12:33 PM on August 20, 2012 [1 favorite]

Holy crap. This thread is like a Gatling Gun.
posted by kyrademon at 12:33 PM on August 20, 2012 [3 favorites]

cortex: " People will bail with or without a button, or sometimes will feel like they need to bail but will stick around and stay caught up in something they can't put down, etc. Historically they had to ask to be banned or scramble their password or so on; the phenomenon remained. Moments of frustration or catharsis aren't tied to the existence or not of a self-service button, much as I can understand how "I wish they hadn't left" can translate to looking askance at the mechanism."

I know. I was speaking hyperbolically. I've used the button myself -- I wasn't being literal.
posted by zarq at 12:38 PM on August 20, 2012

Well, several people in this thread have come right out and said they don't want certain kinds of people around here, and nobody disagreed.

FWIW, cribcage, I disagreed, and there was another woman in the thread who disagreed as well. Just to make it as explicit as possible, I personally want people to be able to post their honest thoughts here even if I consider the thoughts to be sexist or don't like them, as long as the people are not trolling/lying/making personal attacks/calling names/etc.
posted by cairdeas at 12:38 PM on August 20, 2012 [1 favorite]

Actually, it seems like flex explicitly disagreed too, so that makes at least 3.
posted by cairdeas at 12:39 PM on August 20, 2012 [2 favorites]

As a palate cleanser, please enjoy Princess Darth Vader (from the femme thread).
posted by en forme de poire at 12:40 PM on August 20, 2012 [2 favorites]

Or beg the mods to disable the big red button.

That's a technical solution to a social problem. Having people be able to disable their account on their own without going through us is, to our mind, a very important thing for users to be able to do.

On preview, I get that you're speaking figuratively and hyperbolically, but again, not everyone understands the situation and how people respond to it in the same way. I hope everyone who left cools off somewhat and decides to come back, but it's a personal decision that people need to make for themselves. Not every departure is a bad thing especially in the short term.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 12:41 PM on August 20, 2012 [1 favorite]

I don't want anybody to leave either, not even folks I disagree with. Sometimes I wish people (including me) were a little slower on the draw and/or closed the window without posting, but I don't want them to leave (or get banned, another possible outcome of these threads).

Fingers crossed that they all go off, recharge, come back later and/or BND it if they can't come back as they are.
posted by immlass at 12:55 PM on August 20, 2012

- Well, several people in this thread have come right out and said they don't want certain kinds of people around here, and nobody disagreed.

- FWIW, cribcage, I disagreed, and there was another woman in the thread who disagreed as well.

And I explicitly said "I don't seek to silence those people" who disagree with me, even when I believe their remarks are "unproductive, destructive to community discourse, and supportive of a larger system of sexist behavior."

I do reserve the right not to engage with them on their terms; why would I pursue a civil, reasoned conversation with people I find neither civil nor reasoned? But choosing to pursue other conversations (or even ignoring people I think are trolls) is a long, long way from saying they should leave the community or that they should be silenced.
posted by Elsa at 12:56 PM on August 20, 2012 [7 favorites]

Just to inject something good into the thread, the two friends of mine who angrily shared stories about Todd Akin on FB today were both men, and they were both men who I have known over 10 years, who I do not think of as being politically conscious at all, and have NEVER heard to discuss sexism, feminism, or women's issues before. I think sometimes it seems like we are throwing sand into the wind, but I think things are slowly, slowwwwly changing.
posted by cairdeas at 1:03 PM on August 20, 2012 [2 favorites]

(Also in that comment, I expressed deep appreciation and respect for people who disagree and seek to engage in civil and intelligent argument. There are many ways to disagree, some of them productive and constructive.)
posted by Elsa at 1:03 PM on August 20, 2012

It's really great that we're all sad that people have left after they have already gone.

Maybe now is a good time to ask, and seriously consider, "what did we learn so this doesn't happen again?"

Of course, there's no silver bullet to prevent hurt feelings and miscommunication, but I'm sure there are some good lessons buried somewhere up in here.
posted by Tevin at 1:07 PM on August 20, 2012 [2 favorites]

On preview, I get that you're speaking figuratively and hyperbolically, but again, not everyone understands the situation and how people respond to it in the same way.

No one is actually asking Team Mod to disable the big red button. So you're both using a comment I made in an upset moment to tell the user base preemptively that something is not going to happen. With respect, can I ask you to please now let it go until the (hopefully unlikely) event that someone asks you to force someone to stay a member?
posted by zarq at 1:08 PM on August 20, 2012 [1 favorite]

(My mistake: it's here that mention that "I deeply, deeply respect people who disagree with me but are willing to engage in discussion of contentious subjects without abandoning civil discourse or sacrificing clarity." My larger point remains: there are many ways to disagree with other members, some productive, some destructive.)
posted by Elsa at 1:10 PM on August 20, 2012

The most constrained and well-understood example illustrating the general principle is, for me, the whole acquaintance versus stranger rape thing. I've had strong opinions about this for over twenty years. I feel and believe very strongly that the emphasis on stranger rape — in terms of fear, law-enforcement, and education — is counter-productive, a sort of unthinking and culturally instinctive means to avoid addressing the larger problem. [link; (Ivan Fyodorovich)]

The thing about sexual assault--and the "why do men support creepers?" thread gets right at it--is that while what women are generally told is to fear stranger rape, the ugly truth is that most women are sexually assaulted by men they know. [link, (immlass)]

I find it incredibly discouraging that, after over *40 years* of rape prevention efforts -- about half of a long lifespan; about 2 generations -- the overwhelming perceived risk is still of rape-by-stranger, rather than rape by a known person.

This misperception is counter-productive and toxic in so many ways that I can only begin to count; for simplicity, I'll just mention a few categories: Utilitarian, Cultural, Social/Interpersonal, Psychological.

Social/Interpersonal: We've seen this again and again in the Girl/Boy-Zone threads (and here I'm using a narrow definition where one gender seems to dominate the thread, and the other gender seems to be actively dismissed). Paradoxically, what may seem like a GirlZone thread to one member might seem like a BoyZone thread to another; in some cases, either view would have a valid and substantial justification for their characterization.

I'm going to take a risk here and mention the "Whatch Reading/Schrodinger's Rapest" canon/genre. I'm going to take the huge additional risk of alienating some by admitting frankly that for me, neither seemed especially praiseworthy or insightful, and I really wish they weren't linked to so often that they now have a mythic-status (because to me, it seems that the revisiting too often rekindles old shoutfests and grudges and suppressed grievances).

But, at least for now, those are the most often identified works of the canon/genre. I mention all this to allude to two posts (if anyone has the actual links, that'd be most welcome -- they articulated the perception extremely well) in one or two (possibly) related threads previous that *did* strike me as insightful, for different reasons, wrt women's perception of the risk of rape-by-stranger. I'll paraphrase as best I can:

The earlier (I think) of the two was a comment by a woman defending her preference/insistence for tall, muscular boyfriends, because, she claimed, she knew for a *fact* that cute, small couples were more likely targets, and she wanted/needed the extra safety that (she *knew*) came from having a tall muscular boyfriend when they'd go to some sketchy venue for entertainment.

It didn't surprise me that she had a strong preference for tall & muscular boyfriends, but I wondered what support she had for strongly claiming it was a *fact* (she may have emphasized that "no one can tell me different", and that insistence that no counter-evidence could ever be considered may well have been why this comment grabbed my attention). But what gob-smacked me was the implication that choosing a sketchy venue for a date was reasonable and desirable. I would never even *consider* deliberately picking a dangerous venue for an entertainment date; to me it seems not just reckless, but disrespectful of the person being dated.

The other was a exceptional articulation of the way women are taught/told/socialized, from a very early age, to be quiet, neat (tidy), careful (specifically mentioned, I think, was being told to be careful how one sat -- always keeping knees together, for example). To always be on guard against being unfeminine, etc.etc. [If I had to hazard a guess, I'd guess the author was Miko, but there are so many other exceptionally articulate women who post on Metafilter that it's only a guess/inference based on stylistic similarities]

I'd noticed this hyper-concern about physical safety from the anonymous and unknown (and often unseen) possible attacker in conversations with or between women I knew fairly well, deeply respected and admired. These are women I've seen navigate and defuse emotionally violent and potentially physically violent situations, including mob situations where there was a sort of gauntlet of shouting, possibly similar to some of the more horrific examples posted in the Cat-Calling threads (another important canon/genre; arguably more illustrative of the GirlZone/BoyZone topic), with aplomb. They are physically robust, and comfortably occupy an equitable social-physical space -- they don't intrude on other's space, but they don't shrink their space either. They're mothers, and teachers, which I mention to underscore that they know how to deal with teenage boys, the very caricature of Bad Male Behavior. They'd worked with the socially disadvantaged, which meant they had insight into marginalized communities and people, and would be less likely to characterize someone as horrible or dangerous just based on appearance.

And yet, despite all these remarkable attributes, they'd exchange brief stories of being afraid because they were momentarily alone, sometimes after dark [eg. "I was sitting in my car, checking my list, and looked up and saw a man walking towards me, and OMG I hadn't locked the doors!]. The stories were brief because nothing happened. In many cases, I was familiar enough with the times and places that I felt I could make a reasonable assessment of the actual level of risk, which would be "almost zero".[*]

Now, it's well established that in our society, there are a lot of risks that we misjudge by huge amounts, sometimes orders of magnitude. Air travel vs. driving is one of the canonical examples. Smoking used to be. In 40 years, against Big Corporate Money, the consensus view of the risk of smoking, driving (and the sub-category, drunk driving) has moved much closer to a realistic view. The perception of the risk of attack/rape-by-stranger vs. attack/rape-by-known-person apparently hasn't.

It's understandable why. The emotional investment is much deeper (although I've been astonished how deeply and stridently many people, particularly male, are emotionally vested in being able to drive a private car anywhere it's physically possible). The message is much more complicated and nuanced, and the amount of change of perception by, say, a set of legislative acts is really tricky. And finally, I'd expect the biggest pushback to come from the mothers and fathers of daughters.

But I don't think it's insurmountable. I think most of the change (which, incidentally, would have the even more important change of significantly lowering the actual rate of these crimes) would come from a general decrease of violence in our society. We have a model/example -- fights in public schools are now relatively rare; when I went through public school, were at least a weekly occurrence [this observation was made in a post by Cool Papa Bell]

[*] Note: I calibrated my assessment with my advisor-on-matters-female (she had additional insight from being in the front-lines -- for example, she had established and ran a women's shelter) and she agreed with my assessment.

On preview: Damn! Cool Papa Bell disabled his account.
posted by Tuesday After Lunch at 1:11 PM on August 20, 2012 [2 favorites]

With respect, can I ask you to please now let it go until the (hopefully unlikely) event that someone asks you to force someone to stay a member?

You'd think people would stop making hyperbolic comments in this this thread, at some point.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 1:12 PM on August 20, 2012

eas98:
" We can close this case then, unless people are really looking for a popcorn event."

posted by charred husk at 1:13 PM on August 20, 2012 [1 favorite]

No one is actually asking Team Mod to disable the big red button.

That is actually what I thought you might have been asking. We have had people ask for that before. Consider it dropped.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 1:14 PM on August 20, 2012

jessamyn: " That is actually what I thought you might have been asking.

No. Ye gods, no. I've used it three times and hope to never use it again in the future, but when I did was truly happy it was there.

We have had people ask for that before.

*jaw drops* OK... that's... okay then. Wow.

Consider it dropped."

Thank you. Sincerely.
posted by zarq at 1:18 PM on August 20, 2012

What? Why are all these cool people disabling their accounts? Major bummer.

I don't really understand it though -- it's not like your account will keep posting for you after you've decided to disengage. It's just to let us all know that they've left right?
posted by sweetkid at 1:20 PM on August 20, 2012

It's like throwing away the rest of the doritos instead of just putting them back in the cupboard, I think.
posted by elizardbits at 1:21 PM on August 20, 2012 [15 favorites]

Cool Papa Bell is on sabbatical, he'll be back at some point. I think he made a thread about it.
posted by Kwine at 1:24 PM on August 20, 2012

It has occurred to me that my earlier question could be interpreted as intending to silence or belittle or dismiss. If so, I apologize. "Why would their [men who haven't thought or listened extensively regarding women's experiences etc] advice about "how to combat sexism" contain anything of value to those of us who have been thinking exhaustively about these things?" was a sincere question, open to hearing thoughtful and sincere answers.

It seems to me like stating the obvious: people who have no experience of xxxx, have never given more than cursory thought to xxxx, have never considered it worthwhile to learn about multifaceted dimensions of xxxx from people who have lived and thought deeply about xxxx for decades....would be in a position to offer advice/solutions regarding xxxx that are objectively speaking neither useful, nor relevant, or nor accurate. For example, I know very well that I am uninformed about dog problems, nuclear physics, and fixing computers, to name just a few of the fields I'm completely ignorant about. Therefore, I refrain from offering advice or solutions about these subjects. It's not clear to me why some people apparently consider the subjects of sexism, sexual harassment, etc to be somehow different.

I don't think I'm overlooking something. Maybe I'm wrong. If I am overlooking something, I would appreciate having this pointed out to me. Shoot me a MeMail if you don't want to post publicly.
posted by cybercoitus interruptus at 1:25 PM on August 20, 2012 [6 favorites]

I've closed my account twice in my history here and both times it was because I recognize that I don't have the sufficient willpower to keep myself from responding more-and-more angrily to things that are severely enraging to me.
posted by shakespeherian at 1:26 PM on August 20, 2012 [2 favorites]

You have the same problems with doritos so I am totally right.
posted by elizardbits at 1:26 PM on August 20, 2012 [6 favorites]

Kwine: Cool Papa Bell is on sabbatical, he'll be back at some point. I think he made a thread about it.

No, that was the time before, which lasted all of two months.
posted by gman at 1:27 PM on August 20, 2012

Q: When have I ever not wanted to eat doritos
posted by shakespeherian at 1:28 PM on August 20, 2012

We're allowed to take sabbaticals? Can I get some grad students to keep posting FPPs about obscure video game trivia and crack wise?
posted by griphus at 1:29 PM on August 20, 2012 [5 favorites]

All right. I'm fucking done here.

Silencing tactic FTW.

Really? I remember (vaguely, no specific threads in mind) lots of times where a member is having a "real tough time", so to speak, because there's a big pile-on & such, and at some point they declare that they're done with the thread. Following that, there's a continuation of the pile-on (perhaps due to edit-lag), and sometime a bunch of "glad they've left" comments.

Then sometimes they'll come back, and we repeat the cycle.

So as a silencing tactic, it doesn't seem especially effective to me.
posted by Tuesday After Lunch at 1:31 PM on August 20, 2012

It's like throwing away the rest of the doritos instead of just putting them back in the cupboard, I think.

This analogy sounds right on the money for me* --- especially since there are always more Doritos at the store if you want 'em, just like you can always ask the mods to reinstate you** if you left on good terms.

Or it might be helpful to think of it as the MeFi equivalent of turning off the wifi so you can get some offline work done, or freezing credit cards into a block of ice: these measures, while drastic, provide both a physical stumbling block to an unwanted activity and an emotional message to oneself to avoid the unwanted act.

I've considered disabling my account temporarily, including last night. Getting some distance from a heated conversation can be very healthy, even if you have to force yourself to do it.

*except i would never, ever throw out the Doritos because I will eat them all before I think of throwing them out

** Is that correct, mods? If a member self-disables, they can request to come back? That seems to be what the FAQ says, but I kinda assume that you'd prefer users not to make a habit of hitting the button over and over.
posted by Elsa at 1:31 PM on August 20, 2012

Vaguely relatedly, whatever happened to the little mefi intern dude? Was he eaten by a grue?
posted by elizardbits at 1:32 PM on August 20, 2012 [1 favorite]

I don't really understand it though -- it's not like your account will keep posting for you after you've decided to disengage. It's just to let us all know that they've left right?

Everyone's situation is different, I think. In my case the first two times were because I was so pissed off that I wanted to literally block myself from responding in anger. So I took a self-imposed break rather than say something I knew I would regret, because I knew that when I reach a certain point anger overrides my self-control. In the third case, I was genuinely trying to exit the community permanently. Obviously I suck at leaving.
posted by zarq at 1:32 PM on August 20, 2012

Of course we'll never know the root cause of some account closings (if they don't tell us why they closed their account, anything we say is mere speculation), but I'll wager it wasn't this thread alone. It may have been the last straw, but the contentions flowered therein have more to do with a general malaise in public discourse than anything wrong with MetaFilter's standard operating procedure.

This is such a sensitive topic, for so many reasons already well noted upthread. It's just a sad fact of life that --especially as the conversation grows with increasingly unresolved arguments and ever-louder voices-- some folks are no longer going to be able to keep their emotions in check. Indeed, some were never able to from the start.

Talking about hard things without getting really wound up is just plain tough to do. Casualties, though undesirable, should be expected. This is true, but it's also a target. We know the problem, and we (as individuals) can work to fix it.

So if you care about what's happened here, regardless of which side you think you're on, if you actually care about the loss of members over this thread, let's do something about it. Let's promise ourselves to be even better than before; to work even harder for civil discourse, patience, forgiveness.

MetaFilter doesn't have an EDIT window, but it for damn sure has a PREVIEW button. Let's put it to use in an effort to become better at these kinds of discussions.
posted by Doleful Creature at 1:33 PM on August 20, 2012 [2 favorites]

Tuesday After Lunch: this hyper-concern about physical safety from the anonymous and unknown (and often unseen) possible attacker

You read the Schroedinger's Rapist thread. I assume, then, that you read the comments from women about how street harassment often escalates to threats and then actual physical assaults. Is that a correct assumption? To me, there's a real clear link between that, and a well-grounded (not hyper) concern about physical safety from anonymous and unknown strange men.
posted by cybercoitus interruptus at 1:34 PM on August 20, 2012 [4 favorites]

metafilter: i suck at leaving
posted by twist my arm at 1:34 PM on August 20, 2012 [2 favorites]

I don't even like Doritos that much, and I know they make me feel awful and sickly and leave a bad taste in my mouth. But I will eat them all. Relevant metaphor much?
posted by Elsa at 1:36 PM on August 20, 2012 [2 favorites]

Is that correct, mods? If a member self-disables, they can request to come back? That seems to be what the FAQ says, but I kinda assume that you'd prefer users not to make a habit of hitting the button over and over.

Yeah, if you button and you want back in, we'll unbutton you no problem as a general rule.

If you're doing it a lot we'll probably have a conversation with you at that point about possible alternate strategies to handle this stuff or whatever, but that's not been much of an issue historically.

There's the odd rare cases when someone has buttoned more in a "you can't fire me, I quit" capacity with like crazy shit happening on the back end as well or a meltdown on the site where coming back may not be so welcome if it's allowed at all, but the pushing of the button in that case is a red herring. And again, not a big recurring issue.
posted by cortex (staff) at 1:40 PM on August 20, 2012

It seems to me like stating the obvious: people who have no experience of xxxx, have never given more than cursory thought to xxxx, have never considered it worthwhile to learn about multifaceted dimensions of xxxx from people who have lived and thought deeply about xxxx for decades....would be in a position to offer advice/solutions regarding xxxx that are objectively speaking neither useful, nor relevant, or nor accurate.

Discussions of, say, street harassment or whatever tend to include not just descriptions of what it feels like to be harassed, but also speculation about why men do those things and what they are thinking when they do it, as well as why the men around them sometimes abet the sexism and sometimes act to mitigate it. A man might have no experience of being the victim of sexism, but chances are that he has experience of at least witnessing it, and quite possibly of complicity in and/or just plain doing it. That's orthoganal to the question of how to stop it, but is also not the same as being uninformed.
posted by Forktine at 1:42 PM on August 20, 2012

Tuesday After Lunch: " Really? I remember (vaguely, no specific threads in mind) lots of times where a member is having a "real tough time", so to speak, because there's a big pile-on & such, and at some point they declare that they're done with the thread. Following that, there's a continuation of the pile-on (perhaps due to edit-lag), and sometime a bunch of "glad they've left" comments.

Then sometimes they'll come back, and we repeat the cycle.

So as a silencing tactic, it doesn't seem especially effective to me."

It seems to me that Bunny was being goaded in an effort by Burhanistan to shut him up. In that respect, here in this thread, it worked quite effectively as a short-term silencing tactic. Perhaps a long-term one, too. Burhanistan accused him of hypocrisy and Bunny closed his account.

Bunny's history on this site (he used to go by another name -- something he copped to in Metatalk a year or so ago) featured a few similar incidents. He was accused of all sorts of bad faith behaviors over the years, including white knighting. So Burhanistan's comment seemed like more of the same treatment to me.
posted by zarq at 1:42 PM on August 20, 2012 [6 favorites]

Thanks, cortex. I haven't had to do it yet. Maybe I never will, but I'm glad to know it's an option.
posted by Elsa at 1:42 PM on August 20, 2012

Doritos are made with delicious evil. It's the only explanation.
posted by rtha at 1:47 PM on August 20, 2012

And salt (the regular kind), and whatever other magic they put in there that makes me unable to not eat them if there's an open bag around even though I don't really like them. Evil, I tell you!
posted by rtha at 1:52 PM on August 20, 2012 [1 favorite]

But what gob-smacked me was the implication that choosing a sketchy venue for a date was reasonable and desirable. I would never even *consider* deliberately picking a dangerous venue for an entertainment date; to me it seems not just reckless, but disrespectful of the person being dated.

Please recognize that most women have been told, since early girlhood, that just leaving the house puts one at risk of being assaulted or raped. Given that, the perceived choice is not between "sketchy, dangerous venue" vs. "clean, well-lighted, safe venue" — it's between "try to choose a venue that's not unusually sketchy or unusually dangerous while being sure to perform the ongoing, continuous threat assessment that women are taught to do whenever in public and hope for a reasonably positive experience" vs. "stay locked inside one's home as a prisoner of fear".

There is nowhere safe. "Make the safe choice" is not an option most of the time. "Make the least unsafe choice" is sometimes the best one can do.
posted by Lexica at 1:55 PM on August 20, 2012 [7 favorites]

zarq: Burhanistan accused him of hypocrisy and Bunny closed his account.

Oh fuck that noise. Dude is a huge hypocrite; we all are. He just happens to use linguistic back flips and relentless commenting to try and get out of it.
posted by gman at 1:57 PM on August 20, 2012 [4 favorites]

Forktine: A man might have no experience of being the victim of sexism, but chances are that he has experience of at least witnessing it, and quite possibly of complicity in and/or just plain doing it.

I would posit that men who are cognizant of witnessing it, being complicit in it, and just plain having done it, have actually invested time and thought into learning about its complex and often subtle dimensions. eg, tkchrist's advice in the Schroedinger's Rapist thread was some of the most useful stuff I've ever read. I meant the guys who toss off well-meaning, glib suggestions about dressing more conservatively, staying home after dark, and so on.
posted by cybercoitus interruptus at 1:58 PM on August 20, 2012

And yet, despite all these remarkable attributes, they'd exchange brief stories of being afraid because they were momentarily alone...The stories were brief because nothing happened. In many cases, I was familiar enough with the times and places that I felt I could make a reasonable assessment of the actual level of risk, which would be "almost zero".

I think zero might be the risk level for you, but when you're a woman/girl, at various unpredictable points in life you find yourself in these odd experiences now and then - could be broad daylight, could be a public place, etc. - and yet someone will still threaten or make an advance without invitation. I remember at the end of 8th grade, on the final day of class, I was the last one packing up my shit and leaving the classroom, and the teacher was out in the hall saying goodbyes and stuff - no one else in the room. Then a kid came into the room, came right toward me with purpose (scary!) and, rather than hit me, which I thought he was going to do, he grabbed me and kissed me, then left without saying a word. This wasn't romantic, this was not some nice kiss it was awful, and I'm pretty sure he did it on a dare. He wasn't someone I ever had much interchange with. And I have never known why he did it, because I never asked or told anyone about it all until now. It was disturbing and makes me very sad. In fact he was just at my 25th high school reunion and I just avoided him completely because I still have no idea what this was about and am just glad it wasn't worse.

And that's just one random story that has come back to me because we're talking about innocuous seeming settings with a low risk level - public school, daytime, people about in the hallway. One of the irritating things about being a woman - even an empowered, confident, aware, self-respecting, feminist woman - is that the sick fucks of the world don't know or care that you are all those things. The very fact of being female can put you in the "potential victim" category, regardless of your fine personal qualities - bad people prey on women; they know women are trained in certain ways that sometimes make them easier to overcome or less likely to protest.

I've spent a lot of my adult life trying to reject fear - or at least, not to let it stop me from doing things I should be perfectly free to do. But I would be incredibly stupid to think that because I've developed some inner strength and a sense of personal equality with anyone else, that means someone else won't see me, reduce me to "woman=victim," and try their shit on me. That's why even the most confident, strongest, even biggest of us can't ever really drop the sense of needing to be on guard and reduce our exposure to risk. I often lock the front doors of my house, not because I want to be a door-locker or because I am actually afraid of an invasion, but because I can't help but play the scenario in my head where my mom or someone is crying "IF ONLY SHE HAD LOCKED HER DOORS." Sometimes you just need to take the stupid, simple protective action even as you (rightfully) resent the conditions in society that make it wise for you take it.

Let's promise ourselves to be even better than before; to work even harder for civil discourse, patience, forgiveness.

This is an awesome idea, but would it have helped us in this thread? Where part of the question always was "Should it be the burden of women to work even harder than the harder they were already working at participating in civil discourse, showing patience, forgiveness?" It's just that this is exactly one of the sticking points within the argument: should women be expected to always choose forms of discourse that make men more comfortable? Is all this just the kind of fallout we can expect when we don't knuckle under and take on the responsibility to couch our phraseology in ways that don't threaten dominance? There's a Mutual Assured Destruction that takes place when neither party will refuse to disarm, but who should be expected to disarm?

I mean, I never know if I'm crossing a line or not. I try to stay respectful, though I don't always succeed. And when an opponent is insulting to you, it bugs me that my standard for appropriate gendered behavior would always be "back down and play peacemaker," and when I don't do that, the result is that it becomes partly my fault that the argument escalated. Whose responsibility is it to "be even better?" And what do most of us do when a handful of us aren't being "better" at all? Is there a way I can show the good faith civil discourse without having to retreat to behaving according to gender standard, and watching as someone with the opposite view leaps all over me and decides they have "won?"

Does anyone else see that as an uncomfortable dilemma? Is it really the woman's burden to always have to take the highest of high roads, no matter what kinds of shit are being said?

I don't even like Doritos that much, and I know they make me feel awful and sickly and leave a bad taste in my mouth. But I will eat them all. Relevant metaphor much?

Totally. I actually think Doritos have a smell that resembles vomit. It repulses me. And yet when my partner brings them home and gestures the bag toward me, I take one. Then a few more. Then next thing I know I'm licking my finger to wipe up the orange powder on the bottom of the bag.
posted by Miko at 1:59 PM on August 20, 2012 [27 favorites]

it's between "try to choose a venue that's not unusually sketchy or unusually dangerous while being sure to perform the ongoing, continuous threat assessment that women are taught to do whenever in public and hope for a reasonably positive experience" vs. "stay locked inside one's home as a prisoner of fear"

Even staying home isn't a guarantee of safety from rape. I was raped in my own apartment building, in an apartment where the door to the hallway was wide open. One neighbor walked by, saw me pinned to the floor calling for help, and walked away shaking his head. I still wonder what exactly was going through his head that he could look me in the eyes and ignore my cries for help.
posted by Elsa at 2:05 PM on August 20, 2012 [11 favorites]

Oh fuck that noise. Dude is a huge hypocrite; we all are. He just happens to use linguistic back flips and relentless commenting to try and get out of it.
posted by gman

I knew that you would be along shortly to defend burnhan. You always are.
posted by futz at 2:05 PM on August 20, 2012

I sort of hate myself for liking Doritos as much as I do. Especially since I'm trying to stay away from processed foods and there are three mini-marts within a two-block radius of my apartment and goddamnit I am going to end up face-down in a snack size bag of Doritos tonight, I just know it.

I guess that's better than eating a whole box of Cheez-Its in one sitting. AGAIN. CHEEZ-ITS WHY CAN I SERIOUSLY NOT QUIT YOU
posted by palomar at 2:05 PM on August 20, 2012 [1 favorite]

futz: I knew that you would be along shortly to defend burnhan. You always are.

If you're going to make stupid assertions, get the fuckin' name right. Now who are you?
posted by gman at 2:08 PM on August 20, 2012 [1 favorite]

I tired of his presumptuous style and called him on it. Is that silencing?

No, it's bullying.
posted by Miko at 2:08 PM on August 20, 2012 [2 favorites]

gman: "Dude is a huge hypocrite;"

I don't think he is. He seems to me to be a hell of a lot more thoughtful and sincere than many other folks here, not including you and me. He also has never seemed to have a problem with apologizing and owning up to his own behavior if needed, which strikes me as a decent sign he really was actively trying not to be a hypocrite.
posted by zarq at 2:15 PM on August 20, 2012 [14 favorites]

He definitely was. He gave a lot of consideration to his behavior here and his impact on the site and actively modified his own participation to try to contribute more and draw out less. I'm sorry he got worn out today and am really hopeful he'll be back.
posted by Miko at 2:17 PM on August 20, 2012 [1 favorite]

Miko: No, it's bullying.

You honestly don't have a fuckin' clue what many of you have done in this thread, do you? There was a conversation going on in the beginning, then virtually every single person on here who doesn't already have the same opinion, tuned the fuck out. It became walls of text that nobody whose opinions you're trying to shape actually read. A bunch of gauche high fiving in the form of If I could favourite that a thousand times, I would! So now it's gone from who can favourite the hardest to who can be the saddest over some members here taking a break, for reasons we cannot be sure of.

It reminds me of the mob mentality that went down with the Metafilter Saves Two Russian Girls From Lives Of Certain Prostitution. Anyone daring to give an alternate narrative was taken down by the group. Discussion was moved over to a site with a less hostile environment.
posted by gman at 2:19 PM on August 20, 2012 [9 favorites]

Does anyone else see that as an uncomfortable dilemma?

*Raises hand*

But then I'm not great at de-escalating things, so what do I know. Although I type and delete a lot more than I used to, so I guess that's an improvement of sorts.
posted by rtha at 2:19 PM on August 20, 2012 [2 favorites]

Disabling your account is a barrier to participation. When I cannot easily respond, I find that I spend far less time here, which is sometimes the point. Also, when I spend far less time here, I am less likely to wade through long, contentious threads, and less likely to stew over what I read here. And of course, when I can't post, I am unlikely to behave poorly here. Which is sometimes the point, too.

For two selfish reasons, I am sorry to see the posters listed above leave:

1) Because I'll miss them.

2) Because I logged on this morning to disable my account for a while, which I normally just do without public explanation, because my reasons are usually personal. But now it's going to look weird, since this thread was the last place I really hung out, and people have been dropping like flies. So, for the record, the only thing this thread had to do with me leaving again is that I found myself checking the thread compulsively, which reminded me that I really don't have that kind of time in my life right now. I wasn't really planning to come back this early from my last hiatus, but I got sucked into an (unrelated) high drama MeTa thread a couple of months back, which turned out to be a bad faith thread on the poster's part. Should have just ducked back out right then and there, but I guess I missed you all.

Since I'm breaking my usual "slip out quietly" rule, I'd just like to take one last moment to thank the women and men of MetaFilter who continue to fight the good fight. MetaFilter is a long, long way from being a GirlZone. But it is visibly further away from being a BoyZone, at least in my opinion. And every step has been painful.

Now, in my own attempt to engage in GoodFaithZone, I'm going to step away again for a while for personal reasons entirely unrelated to this thread. I'll be back. Thanks, again. You all rock.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 2:20 PM on August 20, 2012 [14 favorites]

gilrain: Your perception is directly contravened by a bunch of people who hadn't been an active part of the conversation speaking up to say how valuable many of the long walls of text had been to them.

Really? Go ahead, count 'em. Then count all the people who've been turned off and tuned out. Oh wait, you can't. Those emails that zoo spoke of up-thread, I'm sure they're real because I've received some myself. Not like the plethora I received during the Russian thread, but I wasn't really active in this one.
posted by gman at 2:25 PM on August 20, 2012

I guess that's better than eating a whole box of Cheez-Its in one sitting. AGAIN. CHEEZ-ITS WHY CAN I SERIOUSLY NOT QUIT YOU

Oh, golly, I don't even buy Cheez-Its, just look meaningfully at them in the grocery store and then forget them until next time.

I have two directly opposing questions: 1) Why have I never thought of mixing Doritos and Cheez-Its? 2) How can I possibly prevent myself from doing exactly that, eating the entire box + bag, and feeling sick for next 72 hours?
posted by Elsa at 2:27 PM on August 20, 2012 [2 favorites]

There is not big orange-fake-cheeze colored button. You cannot disable your doritos/cheez-its account. You are doomed.
posted by rmd1023 at 2:31 PM on August 20, 2012 [2 favorites]

I was never too down with cheez-its until they came out with Tabasco ones. My secret "why did I eat the whole box?" food is goldfish crackers. Last spring I was late to work and ducked into a deli and bought goldfish and an iced tea. The plan was to eat nibble through the day....they didn't make it to lunch. But yeah doritos, cheez-its and goldfish sounds like a terrifyingly addictive snack blend (maybe throw in some small pretzels).

I'm mainly posting this to try and fend off the sadness that so many members whose contributions I value and look forward to seeing disabled their accounts. Hopefully they shall return so that I can shower them in the snack food of their choice.
posted by miss-lapin at 2:35 PM on August 20, 2012 [2 favorites]

Those emails that zoo spoke of up-thread, I'm sure they're real because I've received some myself.

This kind of thing comes down to pissing-contest sorts of claims. Because I've gotten emails too, and I've sent emails, and there's an entire, active backchannel discussion. So the whole thing gets kind of moot. If it's part of the public discussion, it's in the thread.

I wish Some Ecards wasn't blocked at work, because I was going to make one saying "You have no idea how much support I have in MeMail."

I guess that's better than eating a whole box of Cheez-Its in one sitting.

Cheez-Its are delicious. They are definitely worth the indulgence, where Doritos only make me feel filthy. Also, I wish my dad never taught me to put cream cheese on Cheez-Its and make little cheese-on-cheese sandwiches. Because that shit is way too good.
posted by Miko at 2:38 PM on August 20, 2012 [4 favorites]

Those pretzel chips are boss. I have like forty bags of them because when I'm in the grocery store and I pass them I get scared I will run out. Since I eat a handful or two on the weekend at this point I have at least a year supply, but I'm still driven to get more every time. Just the plain ones, though. The ones with flavored are nasty.
posted by winna at 2:39 PM on August 20, 2012

gman, stop trying to bring down the Salty Snack Who'll Miss Who More Morally Righteous Circle Jerk.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 2:41 PM on August 20, 2012 [2 favorites]

Burhanistan: "True story: I actually broke in to Bunny's house and forced him at gunpoint to close his account. Then I shot him anyway!

Ridicule aside, you were trying to discredit his argument with a personal attack, rather than directly address what he was saying. I don't think your comment to him was constructive or helpful. It's also not a tremendous leap on my part to conclude that since he pushed the button immediately following your interaction, your comment was a major reason why he pressed the button. (Or the final straw.)

This is dumb, and I don't even know why I'm bothering. But, I did no such thing. I actually agree with him for the most part.

I'm sure if you had said that, it would have been obvious. You didn't, so it wasn't. At least not to me, an outside observer.

But, I tired of his presumptuous style and called him on it. Is that silencing?

Yes.
posted by zarq at 2:42 PM on August 20, 2012 [4 favorites]

I'm not really trying to change opinions. I'm trying to make MeFi more of a place where sexism is discouraged and eventually just not acceptable. It might help to change opinions as part of the road to get there, but changing opinions is actually no longer my goal and hasn't been for ages. Changing the atmosphere is. Opinions may precede the change of atmosphere or may follow - hard to say. Some men you just cain't reach. Others are already listening, thinking, and leading and well on their way.
posted by Miko at 2:43 PM on August 20, 2012 [21 favorites]

I assume, then, that you read the comments from women about how street harassment often escalates to threats and then actual physical assaults. Is that a correct assumption? To me, there's a real clear link between that, and a well-grounded (not hyper) concern about physical safety from anonymous and unknown strange men.

i pretty much get harassed every single time i leave my apartment. this is not hyperbole. sometimes the first time i get harassed is on my own block, but it's usually by the next block; rarely do i get more than three blocks from home before hearing the first catcall, first whistle, hey baby, hey momma, hey beautiful, god bless you.

the vast majority of dudes will say their thing and then stop there, but at least once every two weeks, one guy will get upset that i had the gall to ignore him and start yelling at me that i'm a fucking bitch, do i think i'm better than him, who the fuck do i think i am, you frigid cunt, you whore, you lesbian. that kind of thing.

about every three or four months, one guy will yell those things at me while following me down the block, sometimes on foot, sometimes in a car.

at least once a month, i get followed for at least few blocks by a random dude. sometimes guys that have catcalled me, sometimes they're guys i've interacted with briefly at the bodega ("excuse me"), sometimes they're guys i've accidentally made eye contact with because i forgot to wear sunglasses outside the house. i know they're following me because i stop, double around, cross the street, that kind of thing, and they do too. usually they get bored and leave if i duck into a bodega and spend enough time there, though i once had a guy wait so long outside that even the bodega dude was terrified.

one guy who followed me late at night after i'd made accidental eye contact while waiting to cross the street and started pestering me only left me alone after i walked up to two super butch punk rock lesbians with pitbulls who immediately realized what was happening and helped me tell him to back the fuck off; even then he didn't want to walk away until he understood i wasn't walking in any direction until we saw him walk back the way he came and was clearly gone.

i've never been assaulted, but i'm pretty sure that's due to a combination of my vigilance and dumb luck. anyone who thinks i'm paranoid because i worry about the possibility of rape every day can go fuck themselves.

btw: it's not a question of location, as i live in a pretty safe neighborhood, where there are always people on the street around the clock (potential witnesses!) and 24 hour bodegas for me practically every other corner to duck into if needed. this started happening to me as a teenager in cities. this is what my life is like every day.
posted by lia at 2:43 PM on August 20, 2012 [30 favorites]

Miko: not because I want to be a door-locker or because I am actually afraid of an invasion, but because I can't help but play the scenario in my head where my mom or someone is crying "IF ONLY SHE HAD LOCKED HER DOORS."

Tuesday After Lunch, do you see how many of us find this a "damned if we do, damned if we don't" problem?

Women are considered stupid and careless when we're assaulted, supposedly as a result of not taking supposedly sensible precautions like avoiding all sketchy venues or dressing more conservatively or walking around only in daylight or always making sure we're not alone with a man we don't know really really well. Or, assaulted in situation in which we happened not to lock car doors, it was dark, an unknown man came close to the car but for whatever reason we hadn't locked the doors. "Why didn't she lock her doors? Jesus, what did she expect?"

We're considered stupid and ridiculous and hyper-[unnecessarily]vigilant, when we take genuinely sensible precautions like choosing the least-unsafe option weighed against being able to live a relatively normal life ie going out to a club, having a drink or two, taking a deep breath and trusting that a man we've gotten to know through group outings with friends or more than 3 dates or whatever won't rape us. "Why is she so paranoid? Why do these smart self-assured women bother locking their car doors when it's obvious that there was only a 1% risk to her safety especially considering that most rapes are done by men they know and only a miniscule proportion are stranger attacks?"

*You* of course did not say anything about women being stupid or careless. Your comment was entirely respectful, thank you. I am saying that this is the way these kinds of discussions play out IRL, elsewhere online, and sometimes at metafilter.

Again, if you do not consider this a damned if you do, damned if you don't problem, I'm genuinely interested in why. Feel free to MeMail.
posted by cybercoitus interruptus at 2:45 PM on August 20, 2012 [10 favorites]

So now it's gone from who can favourite the hardest to who can be the saddest over some members here taking a break, for reasons we cannot be sure of.

I get really fucking sick of this constant concern-troll projecting that pops up in MetaFilter and MetaTalk threads-- that people's participation here is some sort of performance in order to assuage their own egos or something. Maybe that's how you participate here, guy, but please don't act like everyone else is as inward-facing as you are.
posted by shakespeherian at 2:46 PM on August 20, 2012 [16 favorites]

You honestly don't have a fuckin' clue what many of you have done in this thread, do you? There was a conversation going on in the beginning, then virtually every single person on here who doesn't already have the same opinion, tuned the fuck out. It became walls of text that nobody whose opinions you're trying to shape actually read. A bunch of gauche high fiving in the form of If I could favourite that a thousand times, I would! So now it's gone from who can favourite the hardest to who can be the saddest over some members here taking a break, for reasons we cannot be sure of.

I'm not trying to convince anyone. I'm trying to have a conversation, to commiserate, to connect, but I'm not trying to convert anyone. In fact, I don't have much optimism at all about persuading the more hostile and sexist members present toward my viewpoint. But I do believe that a community like metafilter is its comments, its active members. And so I think it's important to continue talking reasonably from a feminist standpoint, to continue standing up for myself and my values and their presence here.
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 2:46 PM on August 20, 2012 [13 favorites]

p.s. thank you to everyone who has had the patience and strength to speak for up for me and women like me, in this thread and others. please come back, bunny ultramod. please come back, flex.
posted by lia at 2:48 PM on August 20, 2012 [6 favorites]

So now it's gone from who can favourite the hardest to who can be the saddest over some members here taking a break, for reasons we cannot be sure of.

I find it very interesting that you and zoo and a few other folks are so CERTAIN that people are speaking up about the experiences of women here because of some drive for popularity, and not because, like, this is our life, dude. Yours is an extremely cynical and limiting take on the situation, and I find it depressing that some 1000+ comments later we are still being informed that we only care about these issues for social acceptance and not because we're capable of analysing experiences and education and making up our own minds on things.

I promised myself I would avoid feminism threads on MeFi after Elevator-gate, but since silent supporters have been called into question -- thanks to those who did speak up earlier, and I will miss reading the comments of Bunny and Ivan and flex and others who (understandably) are too burnt out to continue right now.
posted by jess at 2:49 PM on August 20, 2012 [24 favorites]

gilrain: I'm just saying that you're wrong that "nobody whose opinions you're trying to shape actually read" the fallout from this.

Yeah, I get it; you're ignoring my previous sentence ("...then virtually every single person on here...") and trying to nitpick. That's part of the problem here.

gilrain: We're trying to convince the silent majority. Not even convince, but inform.

But you do understand that fifty people (or whatever) hammering the fuck out of a subject, causes people to tune out. Look, I am a feminist, and much of the behaviour people exhibit in this world is just downright disgusting to me. It's actually completely foreign to my way of thinking and the way I was brought up; and I'm not just saying that in regard to women's issues. But I can tell you, with certainty, that people who are not part of the mob do not dare speak here because they're not interested in having a dozen other members rip them apart.

shakespeherian: Maybe that's how you participate here, guy, but please don't act like everyone else is as inward-facing as you are.

Don't call me "guy", champ.
posted by gman at 2:50 PM on August 20, 2012

Burhanistan: "No, it's bullying. Get it straight."

I don't think they are necessarily mutually exclusive. But fwiw, I don't think you were bullying him. So I've deliberately only characterized your comments to him as a silencing tactic, not bullying.

I like you. We agree on most things, more often than not. And if I think you're bullying someone, I'll show enough respect for you to say so outright.
posted by zarq at 2:51 PM on August 20, 2012

*Have* enough respect for you, I mean.
posted by zarq at 2:52 PM on August 20, 2012

It's just that this is exactly one of the sticking points within the argument: should women be expected to always choose forms of discourse that make men more comfortable? Is all this just the kind of fallout we can expect when we don't knuckle under and take on the responsibility to couch our phraseology in ways that don't threaten dominance?

I see the problem you're describing, but I disagree with the premise that "civil" necessarily means "forgiveness" or "making men more comfortable." It's absolutely possible --- as I'm sure you know, because I've seen you do it many times (and sometimes you and I have done it to each other)--- to remain civil while clearly and passionately disagreeing with and arguing against other contributors' remarks.

Does anyone else see that as an uncomfortable dilemma? Is it really the woman's burden to always have to take the highest of high roads, no matter what kinds of shit are being said?

I expect other contributors to take the high road, too. When they don't, I'm not going to expend much energy on them. I might make quick remarks to illustrate how their understanding of the conversation to date differs from my understanding of it (see my remarks to zoo, above, asking when precisely he'd been "called a rapist" and pointing out where I, for one, had explicitly contradicted that viewpoint).

But sometimes people aren't interested in addressing the actual points of a conversation. When someone repeatedly dodges reasonable questions or throws out slurs, I tend to ignore them --- not because I want to be polite or don't want to get into the mud, but because I believe it's unproductive, and because my energy is better used elsewhere.

I admit, I also feel free to ignore them because I believe people who restrict themselves to slurs and hyperbole aren't likely to win over fence-sitters; they're probably only attracting like-minded people.

Also, I wish my dad never taught me to put cream cheese on Cheez-Its and make little cheese-on-cheese sandwiches. Because that shit is way too good.

Uh-oh.
posted by Elsa at 2:52 PM on August 20, 2012 [3 favorites]

A friend was walking home from the grocery store one day. It was broad daylight in a perfectly nice neighborhood. A guy pulled up in a car; she got a hinky feeling, but when he just leaned out to ask for directions to a local hospital, she put her feelings aside and told him how to get there.

Then he came around the block again, pulled out a gun, and took her purse and phone.

If nothing had happened, if he had been just a guy looking for the local hospital, then I guess some people could feel all righteous about how she was nervous for nothing. But something did happen. It could have been worse, but it was bad enough.

Also, have a good time off, IRFH. I look forward to when you come back.
posted by rtha at 2:53 PM on August 20, 2012 [1 favorite]

jess: I find it very interesting that you and zoo and a few other folks are so CERTAIN that people are speaking up about the experiences of women here because of some drive for popularity, and not because, like, this is our life, dude.

And I find it interesting that you focused on that sentence, rather than the cold hard fact that a shit ton of people have stopped commenting in this thread because it's completely inhospitable to any form of constructive conversation. Don't you notice that there's really only the exact same people giving their opinions over and over again, and not really any others to be seen?

Of course there's merit to much of what's being said in here; it just doesn't need to so fuckin' hostile to those who might have an alternate viewpoint or even questions that might raise an eyebrow. Who's going to say shit when they know full well what the outcome will be?
posted by gman at 3:04 PM on August 20, 2012 [1 favorite]

But you do understand that fifty people (or whatever) hammering the fuck out of a subject, causes people to tune out.

I think that's pretty much OK. If they're not interested in the conversation then they're probably better off not being in it.

I see the problem you're describing, but I disagree with the premise that "civil" necessarily means "forgiveness" or "making men more comfortable."

I agree with you there. As you know I do generally try to do the civil thing. but I'm not sure that everyone understands these terms this way, and that's where the dilemma lies. They were proposed in the same sentence, in this very laudable and hopeful comment by Doleful Creature: "...work even harder for civil discourse, patience, forgiveness."

I can work for civility. I endorse civility. But if we go beyond civility and also require people to be things like patient and forgiving as well, I think we're going too far into traditional expectations for females to take the 'saint' role - men get to be impatient, women are patient. Men get to be hardnosed, women forgive.

And if others here also conflate "civility" with "patience" and "forgiveness" and other similar values - values that cross the line from basic human respect into emotional generosity and delayed or denied acceptance of one's right to express oneself, then even when a woman is being irrefutably civil, she can still be perceived as falling short of the expected mark. I've actually been faulted in this forum recently for not being as "good-natured" as I used to be. And I'm probably not, though I've yet to press the red button. But this expectation of not just bringing an approach of fair play, but sugar and spice as well, is, I believe, in itself an unreasonable and sexist expectation. I can be civil, but I am starting to bristle at being asked to be nicer while I do it. Just as I'm not here to decorate the world, I'm also not here to coddle it.
posted by Miko at 3:05 PM on August 20, 2012 [8 favorites]

Miko: I think that's pretty much OK. If they're not interested in the conversation then they're probably better off not being in it.

There is no real conversation going on, and that, right there, is my point.
posted by gman at 3:07 PM on August 20, 2012

Of course there's merit to much of what's being said in here; it just doesn't need to so fuckin' hostile to those who might have an alternate viewpoint or even questions that might raise an eyebrow. Who's going to say shit when they know full well what the outcome will be?

This is kind of a "welcome to our world" moment.
posted by Miko at 3:07 PM on August 20, 2012 [20 favorites]

"Also there a lot more lurkers out there reading Metas than I think you may be aware of."

This is the first MeTa thread I've had any part of, and I've only chimed in because I find the tension unbearable and I watch the whole thing unfold with a 'o god how do I make this better' mentality..

I lurk in MeTa threads because the evolution of these conversations is utterly fascinating from many levels. I think some day I'll have the ... something (gumption, maybe?) ... to actually participate, but at this point I feel like a kid watching the adults have a Very Serious Conversation at the dinner table.

But, you know, I will add this: thank you, sincerely, for sharing your stories because sometimes I forget that our societal mindset continually reinforces the idea that misogyny is OK. My gut reaction to stories like this is always incredulity, but then I remember, 'That may not be my personal experience, but things really are that shitty and I have to face that.' So, yeah. Thank you (honestly, and not with Internet-irony).
posted by Tevin at 3:09 PM on August 20, 2012 [1 favorite]

gman, I'm sorry you're not interested in the conversation, but I am actually still participating in a conversation - with Elsa, with rtha, with cybercoitus, with jess, with zarq, with gilrain, with Doritos and Cheez-Its. If you don't want to be part of it, you're welcome to not be, but that doesn't mean one isn't happening.
posted by Miko at 3:10 PM on August 20, 2012 [2 favorites]

Miko: This is kind of a "welcome to our world" moment.

You can honestly say that you feel like you or anyone else with a similar opinion were silenced in this thread? No, you silenced everyone else.
posted by gman at 3:10 PM on August 20, 2012

Of course there's merit to much of what's being said in here; it just doesn't need to so fuckin' hostile to those who might have an alternate viewpoint or even questions that might raise an eyebrow.

I have, at this point, exactly zero interest in hearing the 'alternative viewpoint' that women aren't fully human or deserve to live in fear and as sexual objects and that men are oppressed by evil women.
posted by shakespeherian at 3:10 PM on August 20, 2012 [35 favorites]

I was going to cut and paste the parts of lia's comment I felt I could have written, then realized it was the whole comment. I could have written that whole comment.

It's hard for people to understand in isolation why things "hey baby, hey momma, hey beautiful, god bless you: are bad but when it is constant, CONSTANT and often very quickly followed by shouting that's how it is.
posted by sweetkid at 3:11 PM on August 20, 2012 [4 favorites]

because it's completely inhospitable to any form of constructive conversation.

It may well be inhospitable to the conversation you want to have. However, several of us are still having conversations we find contructive. You are free to pursue the conversation you want; you aren't entitled to impose it upon other contributors.
posted by Elsa at 3:11 PM on August 20, 2012 [6 favorites]

The fact that shit regularly finds itself in my toilet is neither proof that the toilet should be hospitable to it, nor makes me closeminded for flushing.
posted by griphus at 3:17 PM on August 20, 2012 [4 favorites]

No, you silenced everyone else.

That is a hell of a thing to say, considering that there are people still talking in this thread. Or do you mean people who were questioning a woman's right to feel nervous alone at night? Or people who were saying some certain of us should be nicer/more polite/less strident when talking about sexism or rape? Or maybe people like the OP who started this meTa, alleging that all of mefi had become a girlzone on the basis of one comment in an askme? (A comment, by the way, using a term I have seen other people use when saying someone - male or female - should get a particular kind of lawyer.)
posted by rtha at 3:17 PM on August 20, 2012 [9 favorites]

shakespeherian: I have, at this point, exactly zero interest in hearing the 'alternative viewpoint' that women aren't fully human or deserve to live in fear and as sexual objects and that men are oppressed by evil women.

No, all you people want to do is hear your own voice. Why not just have a conversation with the mirror? It'd be just as constructive. I'll leave you to it.
posted by gman at 3:18 PM on August 20, 2012

I'll leave you to it.

Thank you.
posted by futz at 3:20 PM on August 20, 2012 [2 favorites]

I'll leave you to it.

Please do!
posted by shakespeherian at 3:20 PM on August 20, 2012 [2 favorites]

Miko: This is kind of a "welcome to our world" moment.

You can honestly say that you feel like you or anyone else with a similar opinion were silenced in this thread? No, you silenced everyone else.

I think Miko is saying --- and please correct me if I'm misreading you, Miko --- that women experience exclusion, marginalization, and tacit silencing of their perspective in mainstream society, and that this thread has become, among other things, a welcome chance to express ourselves freely. If you feel outnumbered or marginalized here --- if that sense of being a minority voice and self-silencing to avoid what you feel is an unfair and heated shouting-down is offensive to you --- you are experiencing a slice of what we feel every day.
posted by Elsa at 3:20 PM on August 20, 2012 [19 favorites]

You can honestly say that you feel like you or anyone else with a similar opinion were silenced in this thread?

I feel that a couple of people tried their damnedest!

No, you silenced everyone else.

Except you, I guess.

I don't like to think I silenced people. If anyone feels that I did silence them, please MeMail me, or say so here. I did say that we had a tendency for men to make conversations about sexism into conversations about men's feelings about sexism, and I saw that some people after that decided not to take things further in that direction. Perhaps you could say I silenced them, though it looked, by what they said, that they were electing to listen as a choice of their own. Plenty of others certainly didn't become silent after that part of the conversation, so if I was trying to silence anyone it looks kind of ineffective. Anyhow, again, if anyone feels I have silenced them personally, or that my participation has the direct effect of silencing, I'd be happy to have an exchange with them about it, public or private.
posted by Miko at 3:20 PM on August 20, 2012 [6 favorites]

gman, I don't understand what you are so mad about.
posted by sweetkid at 3:21 PM on August 20, 2012 [1 favorite]

Long threads dwindling down to the handful of people who are really interested in a subject is fairly normal, but I'm fascinated how in a thread where there have a been a variety of posters dealing in what I'd politely call anti-feminist dogwhistles, that somehow it's the posters who've consistently spoken up against that who are having it implied that they are the problem. Elsewhere on the web, people feel more empowered to post that stuff - if you want to see inhospitable, see what one of the science writers I follow has had to put with

Jenny ★
'frigid' for standing up against rape. & a 'fag hag' for supporting gay marriage. Have also been told NOT to post about rape or atheism
Jenny ★
Only today I have been called a 'simpleton' for something I did not say. A 'whore' for politely rebuffing a creep's advances...
Jenny ★ ‏
Heartsick of a constant barrage of personal attacks, threats, abuse, trolls, lurkers, stalkers, bullies & creeps.

If the dogwhistlers and their defenders think they're having a hard time over gender issues, I'm afraid I think they don't know what a hard time is.
posted by Flitcraft at 3:22 PM on August 20, 2012 [7 favorites]

It's quite a long way back, now, but can I just say, pace Cribcage, that I actually don't want certain kinds of people around here? For example, I don't want people who regularly crack racist jokes. I don't want people who threaten other members with sexual assault or other forms of violence.

I'm not sure if that counts as a kind of person or a kind of behavior - I don't have a clear picture of how one distinguishes between what people are like on an Internet discussion board and the sum total of their behaviors. I'm not a moderator, so what behaviors/people I want not to be around is largely academic, but clearly the moderators also do not want those kinds of people/behaviors either. Which feels like a feature rather than a bug.

There are other kinds of behavior which the moderators police - such as promoting your own or your friends' work above the line in FPPs, or promoting products you are paid to promote. Once can see why it would be a very bad idea in practical terms to permit these, even for well-known and liked members.

And then there are the regular behaviors which generally go on and are largely unmoderated, which include courteous disagreement, and indeed heated but respectful debate.

And then... there's a grey area of behaviors which I'd like personally to see less of, but which are hard to quantify to the point where it would be very hard to legislate for them without endless judgment calls and rules-lawyering. There's weird stuff that creeps into conversations about certain forms of music, or certain neighborhoods, or certain accounts of other's lived experience, which at times shades towards awkward territory about race, at times about gender, at times just about violent bad feeling between members. Or some combination of the three, of course.

Generally, I am very glad that I don't have to make calls about when these behaviors become sufficiently problematic to delete, or to ask somebody to step away.

Stating a presupposition that other people in a conversation are incompetent either intellectually or personally to be a part of it is, I think, one of the most difficult ones - in particular if that is based on a metaphysical judgement rather than an empirical one. If someone clearly hasn't read RedTFA, for example, that's fairly easy both to observe and to remedy.

Whereas if you think they are only participating to stroke their own egos, say, or because they have been seduced by a first year gender studies course - well, that's a value judgment, and one which is very hard to prove. I'd like to see it happen less, because it's kind of pointless, and just causes bad feeling.
posted by running order squabble fest at 3:22 PM on August 20, 2012 [2 favorites]

You can honestly say that you feel like you or anyone else with a similar opinion were silenced in this thread? No, you silenced everyone else.

Yet somehow you are still able to type words into the comment box and post them. I don't see why everyone is bending over backward to try to respond constructively to the agreesive bon mots you keep dropping into this discussion. I implore everyone to stop what they are doing and have a conversation that comports to exactly what gman wants, otherwise you are just commenting to boost your own ego and it makes gman so so angry.
posted by Falconetti at 3:23 PM on August 20, 2012 [1 favorite]

No, all you people want to do is hear your own voice.

Was that some kind of performance art?
posted by oinopaponton at 3:24 PM on August 20, 2012

Thanks, Elsa - I think you said it more beautifully, and actually got more out of it. What I meant by quoting was actually unimaginatively literal - I chuckled to see that this statement of gman's:

Of course there's merit to much of what's being said in here; it just doesn't need to so fuckin' hostile to those who might have an alternate viewpoint or even questions that might raise an eyebrow. Who's going to say shit when they know full well what the outcome will be?

Is almost word-for-word what I would say about MetaFilter in general as a place for women, and why I and some others keep trying to improve the atmosphere. On MetaFilter in general, there's much merit to what's being said, and it just doesn't need to be so hostile to those of us with an alternative viewpoint (i.e., feminism). Why speak up (against sexism) when you know what the outcome will be? ...In this case, angry dismissals and contestations, and users jumping like rats from a sinking ship. It is a sadly predictable outcome.
posted by Miko at 3:24 PM on August 20, 2012 [2 favorites]

This is an awesome idea, but would it have helped us in this thread? ...It's just that this is exactly one of the sticking points within the argument: should women be expected to always choose forms of discourse that make men more comfortable?

Ah, no definitely not what I meant. Just a general plea for individuals to try harder for understanding in the heat of the moment. Perhaps you're right and it wouldn't have helped at all in this thread. I honestly don't know.

Men get to be hardnosed, women forgive.
I shouldn't have mixed those terms, my mistake. It was a personally-driven statement. I'm a man, and I personally expect myself to be a forgiving person. Something I try to be all the time. It's hard, I can definitely feel that expectation that I'm supposed to be hardnosed in any given situation and I have to actively tell myself to stop trying to win every argument and just listen. You should see arguments with Mrs. Creature; there's a lot of weird awkward silences as I'm struggling internally to not be a collossal asshole and keep my privelege in check. I know that sounds ludicrous but some of this shit is so ingrained that it takes a considerable effort to remind myself that I don't have any right dominate a conversation and that for me, personally, a little forced humility and introspection (as bitter as that tastes sometimes) goes a long way, even though I'm screaming inside "I'm right! I'm right! How dare you speak to me that way!". And rationally I know this is a bad thought, this is not the way an enlightened and thoughtful person should behave. I don't want my kids to see me act that way. I don't want to perpetuate that kind of patriarchal malarkey.

These kinds of conversations and the experiences people share, and the bad examples of certain fellow males help reinforce in me the idea that I need to be ever-mindful of my biases and to personally try to be the best version of myself that I can be and fight sexism and rape culture any way that I can, even (especially) if it means admitting I'm wrong or I'm a jerk or anything else unpleasant about myself or the gender group that I sometimes represent.

On preview, what Elsa said. And for what it's worth I've written and re-written this comment a dozen times and I'm still unsatisfied with it. So I'll just say this: I'm grateful for those who have spoken out about this, even amidst a backlash of angry anti-feminist sentiment. Thank you for NOT disarming, you did the right thing, and I can say with conviction that you reached at least one person, who now recognizes the blinders of his own privelege and thinks about them every day and tries really hard to see past them. As painful as these conversations are I highly value them. And even though some folks seem to want to use these threads as a platform for their own bitterness or hate there's still a lot of good that comes from them.

I'll be sincerely mortified if my comments are interpreted to mean that women should be forgiving of men in this thread, and will willingly retract all of them if that's how it came across. Really, it was my longwinded (and in retrospect, ill-conceived) attempt to say: "everybody take a deep breath, let's start over before we lose anybody else."
posted by Doleful Creature at 3:29 PM on August 20, 2012 [9 favorites]

I'm not sure if that counts as a kind of person or a kind of behavior

I would call cracking racist jokes a kind of behavior because that's easier to point to.

And nthing the thank yous to the folks who stood up in the most recent part of this thread. I've been biting my tongue because as satisfying as some of the things I've been thinking might be to post, they wouldn't help and would just make things worse. I really understand the "take a break from MeFi" urge right now though. (Not going, just saying I get it.)
posted by immlass at 3:35 PM on August 20, 2012

And Doleful Creature, I'm sorry if it seemed I was calling you out there. I really admired the spirit of your comment, in fact, and agree that patience and forgiveness are good qualities.

I just want to live in a world, or at least a web community, where the expectation of displaying those qualities applies equally to all of us and both men and women are trying to live up to it most of the time - not a world where men can rant and be aggressive, while women must make a choice between displaying the patience of saints and leaving their important points to die, or replying in kind and being accused of being shrill and driving others off.

Thanks for the kind comment and fine example. *deep breath*
posted by Miko at 3:38 PM on August 20, 2012 [2 favorites]

Burhanistan, you have very little self-awareness and perhaps you shouldn't try to be so clever.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 3:39 PM on August 20, 2012 [8 favorites]

Clever is awesome when it works, but I try to keep mefi's own scalzi's comment in mind: the failure mode of "clever" is "asshole".
posted by rmd1023 at 3:42 PM on August 20, 2012 [4 favorites]

Incidentally, at this point this is fairly academic, but saying of Bunny Ultramod:

Haha. Ok, he can tell people what they're really thinking, but that's ok because he was on the right side.

Is sort of grammatically accurate but the rhetorical intent - to say that he and zoo were doing the same thing - is kind of skew-iff. What Bunny Ultramod did was call out what someone was doing - what their actions were, and how these actions had in the past been described when performed by other people. He then added, as a sweetener of that identification of behaviors previously identified as trial lawyering, that he was not presupposing deliberate or malicious intent.

So, when he said and I believe unconsciously, he was specifically asserting that he (Bunny Ultramod) was not assuming that specific person's damaging intent, despite the (asserted as) damaging effects of the actions taken. I think one can certainly see that as overreach, or as patronage - even a well-meaning statement of this kind might be unwelcome for a number of reasons - but it's doing something different in its rhetorical construction.

So, in both cases the speaker is at some point making a statement about motivation, but this is quite a different one from the assertion that some (largely unnamed) people are consistently motivated by ignoble desires, and these ignoble desires (for self-aggrandisement, for political gain) subsequently drive the actions they take. It's almost the opposite, in fact.
posted by running order squabble fest at 3:44 PM on August 20, 2012

If you're going to make stupid assertions, get the fuckin' name right. Now who are you?
posted by gman

What do you mean by who am I? I am a participant on this site and you are free to trawl through my posting history.
posted by futz at 3:44 PM on August 20, 2012 [3 favorites]

Why not just have a conversation with the mirror? It'd be just as constructive.

It's convenient of you to ignore the comments from people who have come by explicitly to say thanks for this conversation, and who have come by to note that they rarely or never participate in discussions like this but get a lot out of reading them.

But I hope you have a nice walk, or whatever you're doing now.
posted by rtha at 3:46 PM on August 20, 2012 [1 favorite]

"Why would their [men who haven't thought or listened extensively regarding women's experiences etc] advice about "how to combat sexism" contain anything of value to those of us who have been thinking exhaustively about these things?" was a sincere question, open to hearing thoughtful and sincere answers.

I've been kind of mulling over something similar. What do men bring to threads about women's experiences? What should we bring?

- Some of it is just well-intentioned but useless noise, as you suggest. It's the pitfall of trying to offer practical advice when it would be better to listen. I'm not sure it's specific to sexism discussions, although it may be specific to discussions between men and women. Like, I've had to learn in my relationships when to shut up and listen when my girlfriend was having a bad day instead of offering advice on how to fix it. That's only loosely related to sexism (I think), but it might be related to guys being encouraged to be assertive or over-confident. I bet I would also offer unsolicited advice to someone with dog or nuclear physics problems (and maybe I'd feel freer to do that to a woman than a man?), and it would be fair to ignore that advice too.

- Some of the advice or analysis men offer, I want to say is legitimate and on-topic insight into male/female interactions from a man's perspective. I mean, when men offer "you should have done X if you didn't want that to happen" or "he was only trying to do Y" it's just jerkish. But it seems to me that women's stories about their experiences often do invite feedback, maybe more than they realize. For example, a commenter above wrote "Woman after woman talking about how they have been hurt, their lives constrained, some of them traumatised and having to live in fear -- what does it say about a man that that is not enough?" Then two paragraphs later she says "I can imagine if a woman asked in one of these threads, 'Why are so many men this way?' You can come in with your analysis and insider insight and personal experience, and it'd be fine and welcomed and appreciated, as long as it's about protecting women rather than protecting men's feelings and image." It kind of seems like she might not realize that from my perspective she doesn't need to imagine -- she did just ask "why are so many men this way?"

I noticed this other times in the thread as well -- women's frustration at men's behavior comes across to me like "why are so many men this way?", but later it seems like they very much didn't intend to go down that road. It seems like there's this weird tension where women are legitimately frustrated that their stories are subverted into explanations or excuses for men's behavior, but where those same stories really do invite a discussion of why men are that way. If I was trying to routinely have discussions about sexism in a forum as large and unstructured as this one, I think that's a bind I would focus on.

- Some of what men will inevitably contribute is the defensiveness Ivan was describing upthread (which was an explanation I found really helpful, and I wish I said so earlier). Some commenters are, understandably, incredulous about how oblivious men can be to the basic reality of sexual violence. But ... it's not an act men are putting on. Even if we know the statistics, the pervasive reality of sexual violence for women is invisible and beyond comprehension for men unless they've spent a lot of time hearing women's stories,[1] and lots of men haven't -- until all of a sudden on Metafilter they do. So what's often going on in these threads is -- with only minor hyperbole -- someone is learning that a holocaust is going on for their benefit and without their knowledge. Denial, anger, bargaining, etc. are maybe not a perfect response, but they characterize those threads for a reason. And maybe they're even productive?

That's what I see going on anyway -- dunno if it's helpful.


(Meta: I feel really awkward about the binary-gender quality of my own writing. This conversation is weird because we're using "men" and "women" as fixed categories, but there's nearly as much variation among men and women here as between them, and plenty of people who don't identify with either camp. So here's an * to go after all the places I was lazy about that.)

(Meta 2: if I've said something that bugs you and you'd like a response, memail me; I'm happy to learn something but probably won't be able to follow the thread from here.)

[1] For example, even though I've spent a lot of time reading and thinking about this, it would never have occurred to me that a follow-up text message from a random wrong number would leave someone looking over her shoulder all day. You just can't learn that stuff intellectually.
posted by jhc at 3:53 PM on August 20, 2012 [5 favorites]

I've had to learn in my relationships when to shut up and listen when my girlfriend was having a bad day instead of offering advice on how to fix it.

I've heard that described as "Don't just do something, stand there!"
posted by rmd1023 at 3:59 PM on August 20, 2012 [1 favorite]

Thanks for your thoughtful reply, jhc. I'm thinking about your words too.

fyi, catchingsignals (the commenter you reference in "For example, a commenter above wrote "Woman after woman talking about how they have been hurt, their lives constrained, some of them traumatised and having to live in fear -- what does it say about a man that that is not enough?"") is a man.
posted by cybercoitus interruptus at 4:00 PM on August 20, 2012

I'm so confused.

Gman, what exactly is it that people want to say in this thread that we're not letting them say? (Putting aside how absurd that is, as nothing short of Mod intervention can actually prevent you from posting a comment here or anywhere else.)

No seriously.

I want specifics.

Is it, "Metafilter is unfriendly to men?"

Okay, well, we've talked about that pretty extensively, and now random people seem to just be dropping in to make vague comments about how social justice bullies are ruining things, without actually telling me or anyone else what opinions or thoughts they have that are being silenced. Mostly just a lot of ascribing shitty motivations to other people.

What else do you have?

What is it that people are memailing you in support OF?

What is it that you want to say that we aren't allowing you to say?

I mean, just a bulleted list of specific points or statements would be nice.
posted by Narrative Priorities at 4:31 PM on August 20, 2012 [7 favorites]

>What do men bring to threads about women's experiences? What should we bring?

What do you bring? Depends on the fella. What should you bring? An attitude like Tevin's would be awesome and appreciated - that is, a willingness to admit that his initial gut reaction may be "No way, nuh uh", and a willingness to check that reaction, listen, and take us at our word when we talk about the way we experience the world. An attitude like catchingsignals' is terrific - one of alliance and understanding and desire to make other men understand that no, really, this shit happens, and why tear women apart here for their experiences when you'd never question your Mom or your sister or your significant other?

That willingness to believe us when we say "This is what it's like for women" is like an oasis in the fucking desert. It's the welcome knowledge that someone is trying to understand and trying to make the world suck a little less.

These threads have the potential to enlighten and inform, but they seem to always degrade into "But, but, but, the MEN!", and that's so frustrating. It's already a Man's World, and it's aggravating as hell to be told that I need to be nicer about expressing my frustration with the way some men treat me (and other women), so I pretty much shut up.

But I'm tired of shutting up, and I am personally glad that there are fellas like Tevin and catchingsignals who listen and believe and are willing to take other men to task and remind them "Hey, buddy, let's not make this all about you."
posted by MissySedai at 4:39 PM on August 20, 2012 [11 favorites]

It seems like there's this weird tension where women are legitimately frustrated that their stories are subverted into explanations or excuses for men's behavior, but where those same stories really do invite a discussion of why men are that way. If I was trying to routinely have discussions about sexism in a forum as large and unstructured as this one, I think that's a bind I would focus on.

I was trying to figure that one out upthread, too. It is a tricky one, because as I said, I do want men to have conversations that help them overcome sexism. But speaking for myself and my own reaction, it's hard not to get stuck on the idea that there's really no good explanation for holding the idea that women are not full human beings equal to men.

Asking "Why can't men recognize that we're fully human?" is in some ways a rhetorical question. Because to us it is obvious that we're fully human. So the answer we're probably expecting or at least hoping for is "Women are fully human, and it's a shame we have so many problems recognizing that. We will all get right on that!"

But "getting right on that" easily slips into "Well, here are some reasons I used to not understand women were fully human, and so if you're reaching out to guys like me here are some ways to try it," or "It would be easier for us to recognize you as fully human if you weren't so shrill about it," or "I need more time and exposure to your ideas to accept you as fully human," or "no wonder people don't accept you as fully human, you're not considerate enough to my feelings about the matter" or "one day you will be seen as fully human and I'm working toward it as fast as I can paddle" or - in fact, I should replace "you" with they" because it becomes men talking to each other about ways to convince themselves women are fully human. And watching those machinations go back and forth, it's clear sometimes that they are not all yet entirely sure they really believe it.

It is really difficult to come to the realization that to some men, it is not at all obvious that we are fully human. That they need to do so much work to talk themselves into it. They may not even admit the idea at all, or admit it in words but not be at all interested in living the truth of the statement. Or they may grant the premise on conditions, and retract it when women start doing something they're less approving of as ways of communicating feminism. This sense of the complete irrationality, conditionality and fragility of the sense of men that we are fully human is what is frighteningly destabilizing.

So I guess the exasperation comes from confronting the reality of how much we aren't there yet, and are still really far from it in very many quite important and vital ways. I think what we would most prefer, of course, is not the extensive beanplating but a resounding chorus of "Definitely, women are fully human, and we shouldn't be so tolerant of anything that says they're not." And that's not what we get.

My cooler mind definitely sees that these attitudes do change, and they change in part because of these long miserable conversations. I've seen this happen my whole life, but rarely have I seen things change so spontaneously and immediately. It takes so much teeth pulling and rebuilding of worldview. Usually it requires somebody or somebodies - man or woman - to stand up and take the heat for being the one to object to an expression of sexism. It's definitely not so much fun, especially once you experience some of the negative consequences.

But not everybody needs that much time to change. Some people grow up with a strong egalitarian sense and seem to have just imbibed much less sexism. I see that it's unfair to compare the slower-growing type of feminist with that type of person. But I think what happens with the "why are men this way/but don't explain it to death please" dichotomy is that there's really no explanation good enough. Any explanation of why patriarchal systems worked on anyone, ever, is itself evidence for the profoundly rotten core of that worldview, and how could that have been overlooked?

So in short, I think maybe some of us don't have a lot of patience for hearing debates about the answer because there is no real acceptable, understandable answer to not seeing woman as full humans.

I understand all the things Ivan F talks about - that you have to go through this self-examination and review process and do all sorts of self-challenging to unseat patriarchal thinking. But I think it's also understandable for women to have a certain degree of impatience with that entire process for something so obvious as recognizing their full humanity. Not meant to be a race analogy, but it's kind of how you look back at slaveryand ask yourself "how could people not see something so obvious as that you can't own other people?" or opium dosing and ask "how could people not see something so obvious as that they had become addicts needing a continual fix?" It's akin to reading the medical journals of the day and watching doctors debate about whether this formulation is effective or a quack remedy. Especially when the thing that should require the least amount of thought and reconsideration and contextualization and debate is whether or not someone is a human being.
posted by Miko at 4:40 PM on August 20, 2012 [24 favorites]

It's Raining Florence Henderson: "I'll be back. Thanks, again. You all rock."

I'm glad you will be back. Soon, please.
posted by lazaruslong at 5:14 PM on August 20, 2012 [1 favorite]

I'll chime in as another poster who thinks some good is coming from threads like these. I've mostly lurked around the feminism threads, in gobsmacked wonder at the conversations. These threads are frustrating and hurtful and emotionally wrenching at times, but it's so incredibly encouraging to see civil conversation and signs of progress on the issue too. So many of the women I know are resigned to hiding out in explicitly feminine corners of the web or enduring sammich jokes and "Tits or GTFO" at every turn when they try to have a conversation online.

Thank you all for being patient, and having these conversations, they really do make a difference.
posted by peppermind at 5:30 PM on August 20, 2012 [8 favorites]

Personally, I don't even need all dudes to become feminists, though that would be nice. But as I said upthread, it would be fantastic to not be challenged about my own experience by someone who hasn't had it. I mean, I'm not an idiot, and I'm not five; I've had a number of decades of living amongst men, seeing and being subjected to gender-specific stuff from them.

So. If you're a guy and it's your first time really hearing some of the stories that get told in threads like these, resist the impulse (if you have it; you might not) to immediately question if it really happened that way, or if the teller of the story has maybe considered that she misinterpreted the incident, and so on. You might think you're the first person to ask questions like that. You're not.
posted by rtha at 5:33 PM on August 20, 2012 [15 favorites]

And to follow up on what rtha says above -- if it's NOT your first time at this particular rodeo, and you're watching some other guy who is being newly exposed to the reality of living in WomanLand, and you see THAT guy start to question if it really happened, or to suggest that the teller is misinterpreting, or whatever? Don't turn away and figure that the ladies will get to him. Step forward and say "I am a man, and these are not new stories to me. This is her experience, it is depressingly common, and although I know you mean well, you are about to Not Help in way which is also depressingly common."
posted by KathrynT at 5:48 PM on August 20, 2012 [19 favorites]

I've already said "Thank you" but since there are probably several lurkers who share gman's opinions, I want to confirm that there is a conversation happening here, and it's one I value. Generally, when I don't chip in, it's because someone else has already said what I meant, more clearly than I could, or it's because I am so blind with rage my contribution would not be helpful.
Second-class citizenship is the reality of women's lives - and honestly, there are plenty of women who can't even get that far, because they have other disadvantages like belonging to the wrong race or class. When anyone, a guy especially, dismisses that reality as unimportant, or as untrue, it's seriously crazy-making.
And that's where this thread started, for me - with someone insisting that, because a woman was advised to get a really vicious divorce lawyer, sexism was dead at MetaFilter and we'd all swung in the opposite direction.
posted by gingerest at 6:17 PM on August 20, 2012 [4 favorites]

I have, at this point, exactly zero interest in hearing the 'alternative viewpoint' that women aren't fully human or deserve to live in fear and as sexual objects and that men are oppressed by evil women.

I seriously doubt there has ever been a single MetaFilter user who has sincerely believed or argued this. Maybe there have been trolls. Certainly there have been hurtful, cringe worthy comments from dudes who Don't Get It, and sometimes there is a degree of misogyny from a minority of users that I find personally surprising and hurtful, but the way most feminism threads escalate to this level of hyperbole is part of what I was referring to above (way, way above) and part of why I often find feminist discussions on MetaFilter frustrating. I really don't want to find them frustrating. I really want MetaFilter to be a place where feminist issues can be discussed--and, actually, it is... But.

There has to be somewhere in between the mouth breathing misogyny of the Greater Interbutts and the meanness of MetaFilter's take.

Anyway.
posted by byanyothername at 6:24 PM on August 20, 2012 [1 favorite]

There has to be somewhere in between the mouth breathing misogyny of the Greater Interbutts and the meanness of MetaFilter's take.

I keep reading this thread, trying to figure out why it blew up into such a clusterfuck. Pretty much everyone agreed the eas98 was way off base and didn't have a long to stand on in complaining about Metafilter becoming a girlzone. Yet the thread blew up as opposed to people saying "Oh look, he said something ridiculous. Let's ignore him and move on."

Instead, five days later eas98 is still here, hasn't changed his mind, while 4 other people have split for a while. Not sure what y'all gained here or from these types of threads.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 6:33 PM on August 20, 2012 [3 favorites]

a shit ton of people have stopped commenting in this thread because it's completely inhospitable to any form of constructive conversation

Fwiw, gman, I stopped contributing to this conversation because A) I do have a life outside this place and B) because I lack the patience to spend days fighting with limp dicks like yourself.
posted by octobersurprise at 6:33 PM on August 20, 2012

Insults are not going to make a high-tension thread better by any possible metric. Please don't.
posted by restless_nomad (staff) at 6:42 PM on August 20, 2012 [1 favorite]

octobersurprise, I think that the "limp-dick" accusation may be one of those things that may FEEL good to say, but actually may not be all that helpful...
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 6:44 PM on August 20, 2012 [2 favorites]

Instead, five days later eas98 is still here, hasn't changed his mind, while 4 other people have split for a while. Not sure what y'all gained here or from these types of threads.

It's funny. In a lot of ways, this thread could just be regarded as ugly because it's uncovered some ugly aspects of our community: namely, the fear/loathing certain members hold for certain other members, the still-raw wounds from an anti-feminist thread that happened over a year ago, how some of us are still afraid to speak up, that some people are really really afraid of ladies. Some members have quit; others have made statements of outright hostility. And yet . . .

there's also an outpouring of gratitude here for feminist participants on this site. I'm sure someone's going to accuse me of self-congratulatory circle jerkatude or whatever. I'm also not sure I care. Women and men like Miko and Elsa and the young-rope rider and Rory and Forktine and so many others have been thoughtful and well-reasoned and brave. I feel like the ugly underbelly of the community has been exposed and revealed to be . . . well, kind of impotent. It feels more important now, not less, to speak up and be calm and thoughtful even if it pisses people off and results in petty grar. I guess I feel okay owning it--my strident feminism. Maybe the presence of the people here who have communicated, and vocally, makes metafilter a little more of a girlzone. But if it does? Well, who the fuck cares, and good, you know?
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 6:53 PM on August 20, 2012 [17 favorites]

Hm. I call 'em like I see 'em.
posted by octobersurprise at 6:53 PM on August 20, 2012

I seriously doubt there has ever been a single MetaFilter user who has sincerely believed or argued this.

I think there are a lot of people who definitely believe that women are fully human. At the same time, there are a whole lot of ways in which the behavior can still say "you're not supposed to act fully human," even though that's not what they believe. IT's one thing to believe it, and another thing to live it, and deal with the consequences, for individuals, in a situation in which that full humanness might actually be allowed to express itself. It's not always easy to recognize someone else's full humanity, especially when they're disagreeing with you and pissing you off.
posted by Miko at 6:55 PM on August 20, 2012 [4 favorites]

Not sure what y'all gained here or from these types of threads.

Think about it the other way. If we never ever had them, what would be lost?
posted by Miko at 7:06 PM on August 20, 2012 [4 favorites]

what exactly is it that people want to say in this thread that we're not letting them say?

Please please please, I want to know. I sincerely ask as well. I have been following this thread now for I don't know how many hundreds of comments, maybe 900. I have been watching and reading for some input from some of the people who make gender-related threads "difficult" for many of us. I know many of their usernames. I know some of them have read this thread at some point so I know it's true that they're not speaking up. But those who are speaking, gman, burhanistan, even zoo, aren't actually making any arguments about sexism or gender at all. They're not trying to establish the argument that Metafilter is a Girlzone. They talk about "the other side" but the other side of what??

gman and burhanistan both say they agree with what's being said but not how it's being said or who is saying it (the so-called mob). But they don't say it any differently. gman is a feminist but makes no feminist argument. It's nothing but personal insults, one-liner potshots, and vague accusations of insincerity. All the people memailing them support can't possibly only have that to say.

It's really not fair that the people who are making nuanced, reasoned arguments and sharing deeply personal experiences are the ones being called an aggressive and hostile mob. I remember the Boyzone threads very well and the many sexism Metas after that. What I remember is that those who thought this place was hostile to women had to present tons of evidence, make the connection between social justice theory and what was happening here, and relate many, many personal experiences to strive for something different. We could not get away with just lobbing a bomb here and there or complaining about people being mean. If there's a legitimate anti-male issue here or something (I'm not sure really because I don't know exactly what the silent oppressed want to say), then out with specifics or something.
posted by Danila at 7:13 PM on August 20, 2012 [20 favorites]

Think about it the other way. If we never ever had them, what would be lost?

I speak up more here because somebody did the groundwork so that Metafilter is one of the less woman-hostile places I know on the internet. Now maybe losing my voice wouldn't be a bad idea according to some people, but that's something.

(And this thread was where the MeTa that nobody made about the creeper thread ended up happening anyway. I think it was just luck and timing that that argument, which felt like an inevitable result of that thread, ended up in a MeTa started over something else.)
posted by immlass at 7:19 PM on August 20, 2012 [1 favorite]

It's not clear to me why some people apparently consider the subjects of sexism, sexual harassment, etc to be somehow different.

I think it's very similar to the way that "everyone" has an opinion about how to run schools and education, because given that they've been through school, they are familiar with the idea. Education is not a field where people easily recognize the expertise of the expert. Conversations about sexism, particularly when it comes to the experiences of women, are somewhat similar, in that a lot of men genuinely think that they know what the world looks like, and have a hard time accepting the expertise of the expert.

Also, I'd like to add my appreciation for our strident feminists, and express my hope that the members who have disabled their accounts will, like It's Raining Florence Henderson, be back in the near future.

I often stay silent in conversations like these because in addition to the emotional burden of having "yet another" conversation about sexism, it ends up being "yet another explanation" of the ways in which my particular cultural experiences of sexism are similar and different from those of "mainstream feminism." And then I feel guilty about my silence, as if I've shirked a duty.
posted by bardophile at 7:22 PM on August 20, 2012 [3 favorites]

I also have the confidence to speak to my experiences both here and sockpuppetly because of threads like these and other people's contributions. I know that when I talk about my assault here, no one is going to blame me to my face and that, in fact, it might be part of a conversation that helps change the tenor of interactions here and in the real world. I'd hate to lose that part of metafilter, which can make me feel that shitty things happen, but they can ultimately lead to some net positive.
posted by ChuraChura at 7:26 PM on August 20, 2012 [1 favorite]

Not sure what y'all gained here or from these types of threads.

Just one of the things I've gained here is the repeated confirmation that this is a place where I will speak my mind and counter the sexism that is pervasive in daily life. I stand up for my beliefs and for my right to speak my experience, without resorting to cruelty or insults.

That's a valuable thing for me --- there are many other contributors have spoken about its value for them, as well, in comments throughout the thread. If it's not valuable for you, that's okay. You can carve out a space at Metafilter that's valuable for you. There are a lot of pages here and no shortage of pixels.
posted by Elsa at 7:34 PM on August 20, 2012 [5 favorites]

As one of the lurkers, I'm also pretty bummed that we've lost members like flex and Ivan :( I hope they're just taking a temporary break.
posted by yaymukund at 7:34 PM on August 20, 2012 [3 favorites]

What do you mean by who am I? I am a participant on this site and you are free to trawl through my posting history.

'Who the fuck are you?' is a pretty understandable response to a comment that implies previous personal acrimony or at the least, prior familiarity and dislike.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 7:37 PM on August 20, 2012

Not sure what y'all gained here or from these types of threads.

I've learned that I need to open my damned mouth more often, not less, because people don't know things if no one tells them.
posted by ambrosia at 7:42 PM on August 20, 2012 [8 favorites]

ChuraChura, as I said above, I think there are lots of reasons to have these conversations... but if your comment

I also have the confidence to speak to my experiences both here and sockpuppetly because of threads like these and other people's contributions. I know that when I talk about my assault here, no one is going to blame me to my face and that, in fact, it might be part of a conversation that helps change the tenor of interactions here and in the real world. I'd hate to lose that part of metafilter, which can make me feel that shitty things happen, but they can ultimately lead to some net positive.

were the only positive outcome, then all the writing and argument (and, frankly, the stress --- these threads are pretty crushing sometimes) would be absolutely worth it, at least to me.
posted by Elsa at 7:46 PM on August 20, 2012 [4 favorites]

Think about it the other way. If we never ever had them, what would be lost?

About 20 blood pressure points.
posted by zarq at 7:55 PM on August 20, 2012

I seriously doubt there has ever been a single MetaFilter user who has sincerely believed or argued this.

My point is that establishing the fact of women's full humanity is almost entirely ever the point of these threads which some people were saying were too echo-chambery and high-fivey and etc. It is my contention that 1) I don't think that's true and 2) if there were ever a conversation in which everyone should be in full agreement, it is one in which we agree that women are fully human.
posted by shakespeherian at 8:00 PM on August 20, 2012 [3 favorites]

About 20 blood pressure points.

I know you're kidding, but speaking for myself, it's better for my sense of community, for my sense of self, and probably for my blood pressure to speak out against systemic injustice --- even if that means an inconveniently long and sometimes contentious conversation, even if it means yet another long and contentious conversation --- instead of shutting up and bearing it.
posted by Elsa at 8:01 PM on August 20, 2012 [9 favorites]

shakespeherian and Elsa have just put, quite eloquently, the reason why I keep throwing my two cents into these godawful threads. Even though it hurts to talk about these things, if I don't bring it up, if I don't point to a thing and say this happened to me and it is wrong, then it feels like I'm somehow.. complicit. Like I'm allowing it to continue with my silence.

I don't always have the mental fortitude to do that, and the times I can't, I am very thankful for the Mefites who can. What good has come from threads like this? Well, I speak up about these things. That's a pretty small thing, I'm just one person, but for me it's huge.

And that ain't nothin,' as Mal would say.
posted by cmyk at 8:09 PM on August 20, 2012 [6 favorites]

(and as a postscript, I think I have blown my gender-indeterminate-username cover. "cmyk's a lady?" That was funny, way back when.)
posted by cmyk at 8:14 PM on August 20, 2012

I know you're kidding...

Sorta? More than anything I truly regret that these conversations are even necessary. I find them emotionally difficult for many reasons. I also dislike the way they make people feel about each other here, and about the community as a whole. And seeing people closing their accounts in anger upsets me, too.

but speaking for myself, it's better for my sense of community, for my sense of self, and probably for my blood pressure to speak out against systemic injustice --- even if that means an inconveniently long and sometimes contentious conversation, even if it means yet another long and contentious conversation --- instead of shutting up and bearing it.

There's been a lot of discussion upthread about the backchannel discussions: the offsite, email and memail conversations that take place when threads like this one come up. About the boyzone and girlzone debates, and gender relations issues. Over the last 3 years, I've had numerous private conversations with female and male mefites who avoid threads on these topics because they find them too upsetting or stressful. I don't blame them. There are days when I wish I had passed threads like this by.

But other folks I've spoken to feel compelled to speak up for the greater good, and I guess I'm one of them. I think you and I are alike in that: even though I don't participate in every thread I believe that changing minds won't happen unless we're pro-active. At the same time, I feel like I constantly walk a fine line in these threads, because I don't want to talk over anyone. I know I'm not always successful at it.
posted by zarq at 8:22 PM on August 20, 2012

I participate because I like to argue, and because shutting up in the face of injustice or ignorance or outright bigotry has never helped those things go away.
posted by rtha at 8:29 PM on August 20, 2012 [10 favorites]

Catching up: wall-o-text (no one will read!*humorouswailofdespair*) to follow.

zoo: "But you seem to consistently refuse to listen to those same people saying 'I would rather not ever have to do this.'"
Where. And how consistently? Seriously.

I did, here. I don't often say it because I don't think so, but I think I might start more regularly appending that to the poss about things I really wish I didn't have to do.


Well, mostly. The observations and experiences about women being crowded out of serious discussions is an issue, and I'm surprised I hadn't given it much thought before. Going forward, I'm going to try to organize meetings with that in mind, with the challenge of making sure everyone's opinion is considered and weighed the same, and be aware of someone being shut down or crowded out unfairly.

Thank you, Slap*Happy.


Miko: That's why even the most confident, strongest, even biggest of us can't ever really drop the sense of needing to be on guard and reduce our exposure to risk. I often lock the front doors of my house, not because I want to be a door-locker or because I am actually afraid of an invasion, but because I can't help but play the scenario in my head where my mom or someone is crying "IF ONLY SHE HAD LOCKED HER DOORS."

I have things for people to trip on deliberately placed between my bed and the stairs - not because I actually think I'm a likely target (though I'm just outside the usual demographic for home-invasion stranger rape, do I get a prize for that?) but because it makes me less nervous to go to sleep. It tends to ramp up when I have other aspects of my life being scary, and I freely admit it's totally nonsensical (and as per above I wish I didn't have to do it), but I do it anyway.

And if others here also conflate "civility" with "patience" and "forgiveness" and other similar values - values that cross the line from basic human respect into emotional generosity and delayed or denied acceptance of one's right to express oneself, then even when a woman is being irrefutably civil, she can still be perceived as falling short of the expected mark.

I think this is another of those inevitable catch-22 situations (like the, if you make one mistake and are hurt it's your fault; if you are too cautious and you're not hurt you're mentally ill situation). It's meant to string us up, stop us from being able to accomplish things, make us doubt ourselves no matter what we do so that we're always off balance enough that a hard enough shove - verbal, usually - can make us fall over.

I don't know a solution.

I had a similar problemw ith a book called "Compassionate Communication," which always started with listening to the upset person and calm them down. A lot of the time, that solves a lot of the problems (I have 13 clients; I'd say with 12/13 a little support and a lot of listening about do it). But you have the people where the problem is they assume what they have to say is of vital importance and should be said to everyone, even if that thing is like gman's "Your conversation isn't a conversation and you're all bullies who drive people away with your walls of text." Ways of handling that are a lot more complicated and seem to inevitably result in the place it's occuring being called an echo chamber (see: Captain Awkward's blog, Pharyngula, Skepchick).

At that point the question becomes the equally challenging "How can we guard against people arguing in bad faith using loaded language while also not becoming so knee-jerk reactive that legitimate critiques go unheard." Again... no solution, just naming a problem I've seen over and over again.


Doleful Creatures: You should see arguments with Mrs. Creature; there's a lot of weird awkward silences as I'm struggling internally to not be a collossal asshole and keep my privelege in check. I know that sounds ludicrous but some of this shit is so ingrained that it takes a considerable effort to remind myself that I don't have any right dominate a conversation and that for me, personally, a little forced humility and introspection (as bitter as that tastes sometimes) goes a long way, even though I'm screaming inside "I'm right! I'm right! How dare you speak to me that way!". And rationally I know this is a bad thought, this is not the way an enlightened and thoughtful person should behave. I don't want my kids to see me act that way. I don't want to perpetuate that kind of patriarchal malarkey.

I don't know if this is heartening or not, but there is some evidence that a lot of societal chnges happen not within generations (where individuals tend to be influenced by their younger years) but instead between generations (where the internal struggles to Do The Right Thing have been replaced with Of Course You Do That). This can go the other way as well, of course, if "The Right Thing" is something one personally disagrees with, but if you're modelling a balanced discourse with your wife in front of your children, they will have mmore of a likelihood of assuming that's how romantic relationships work.

I know that personally there's a whole slew of baggage I just don't have because the most intellectual and logical person in my life was my mother, and the most nurturing person (my mom is nurturing, but she is primarily intellectual, which gives it a different feel) was my grandfather.


jhc: I noticed this other times in the thread as well -- women's frustration at men's behavior comes across to me like "why are so many men this way?", but later it seems like they very much didn't intend to go down that road. It seems like there's this weird tension where women are legitimately frustrated that their stories are subverted into explanations or excuses for men's behavior, but where those same stories really do invite a discussion of why men are that way. If I was trying to routinely have discussions about sexism in a forum as large and unstructured as this one, I think that's a bind I would focus on.

This is a really good point, and one I hadn't thought of before, so thank you. I think those questions are often meant to be rhetorical, as something meant to make the other person stop and think, but I'm not sure they serve that purpose well. I do think there is great value in men discussing together what they can do to further the goals of feminism, and I think Captain Awesome's bluepost could have been that but oddly wasn't.


cmyk: Even though it hurts to talk about these things, if I don't bring it up, if I don't point to a thing and say this happened to me and it is wrong, then it feels like I'm somehow.. complicit. Like I'm allowing it to continue with my silence.

I can understand this impulse - I really, really do - but speaking as one of the quieter voices (though one with a tendency toward wall-o-text status), if it hurts, don't do it. One of the hardest things for anyone involved in Social Justice to come to terms with is that sometimes the only way we can protect ourselves is to take care of ourselves first so that we don't burn out.

I think this mindset is a sort of culture-wide Stockholm Syndrom of sorts; there is a strong push to identify with the abusers in either action or inaction (which I think is why some of the language-turning of bullying, silencing, etc... above aimed at Feminists is doubly hurtful, one because they are meant as Bad Things and two because of the internal doubt I know I feel that to fight against the void is to become it). However, working until our fingures bleed, working ourselves into the ground, that is part of the accepted narrative for women's lives, and it's a narrative I really would like to undermine everywhere I can. No cause is worth the deep pain of anyone. Some of us can turn our pain into weapons (this is what I did with my rape), but not everyone can and that's ok - even a good thing - because I'm going to need the women who haven't turned their wounds into weapons to tell me when I need to put mine down.
posted by Deoridhe at 8:35 PM on August 20, 2012 [15 favorites]

What PhoBWanKenobi says here really resonated with me:

I feel like the ugly underbelly of the community has been exposed and revealed to be . . . well, kind of impotent. It feels more important now, not less, to speak up and be calm and thoughtful even if it pisses people off and results in petty grar. I guess I feel okay owning it--my strident feminism.

And, as she said there, if that seems like self-congratulatory ego-stroking to people who disagree, well, I don't care. Part of the power of these threads is the reality check they provide. They confirm that the pervasively sexist and misogynistic world I live in is real, even though it's apparently invisible to (or just ignored by) so many people, including people I care about and people who care about me.

Let me give a real-life example: it's deeply wrong that a witness to my rape could see me crying out for help, make eye contact with me, and walk away. It's disordered that he could think that was an acceptable reaction, that it was acceptable for me to be pinned to the floor by a sexual assailant and acceptable for a neighbor to shrug and walk away. It's monstrous.

But I am not monstrous or disordered for having been in that place, and ---- though it took me years to reach this conclusion --- maybe he was not monstrous or disordered for walking away. What is monstrous and disordered is the cultural marginalization of women's voices and the normalization of sexual objectification of women that may have persuaded him that a woman pinned down and crying for help is someone to he should ignore. Though I can't know what was in his head, I suspect that my trauma was normalized --- for him, for my rapist, even for me --- by a cultural landscape scattered with those traumas, greater and smaller.

These conversations make my experience visible to me and to others, and maybe even allow me to help others see their own experiences more clearly. They clarify for me and for others that our individual experiences are not out of the norm, that our solo stories of being marginalized and harassed and diminished and assaulted are repeated and reflected by others like us: in short, they reconfirm for me that it is not me or my personal history that is disordered, but our culture.
posted by Elsa at 8:48 PM on August 20, 2012 [18 favorites]

Miko: In this case, angry dismissals and contestations, and users jumping like rats from a sinking ship. It is a sadly predictable outcome.

I identify with that feeling. Like I mentioned way above I left because I couldn't take it. I didn't hit the big red button, but I left. And then I was drawn back after about a month because I had a bunch of links about one issue and nowhere to share it properly except here. I kept participation minimal for a few months, but dived back in fully recently. I love MetaFilter, I really do. It's a place that is such a part of me that I can't really imagine myself without it. But my daily level frustration at casual misogyny and sexism here got to the point that staying here was harming my psyche.

There are plenty of places on the internet which are better at handling issues of sexism (and racism for that matter) though MetaFilter, being one of the largest stable web communities, has its unique issues. MetaFilter could learn from them. Or MetaFilter could try its own thing. Either way, it's worth a shot.

I don't understand why we can't entertain site policy changes. I know it was a minor thing, but damn if the "offensisive/sexism/racism" flag didn't keep me hopeful that things were getting better, sexism-wise, for a good long while. Since then it feels like MetaFilter has been sinking slowly into a morass of sadly predictable monster-threads that never change anything for the better.

This shouldn't be an acceptable state of affairs and I'm surprised that the mods seem to accept that. I suspect that they don't, but I'm only going from a vague feeling of frustration that I get from some of the mod comments in this thread (which are few, fifty-four by my count in a thread which fast approaches 1500 comments, and mainly short). I understand why the mods would want to maintain a light presence in sexism-threads, but I would like for them to be more active. There isn't much public-facing engagement.

I know there's no magic solution that ends misogyny and sexism on MetaFilter, but there must be ways to make it seem less like a sinking ship.
posted by Kattullus at 8:50 PM on August 20, 2012 [6 favorites]

Actually, one thing that did give me hope fairly recently was when the mod-team became gender-balanced. Again, it's a small thing, but it gave me hope that things were getting better.
posted by Kattullus at 8:55 PM on August 20, 2012 [5 favorites]

I'm only going from a vague feeling of frustration that I get from some of the mod comments in this thread (which are few, fifty-four by my count in a thread which fast approaches 1500 comments, and mainly short).

The rest of your comment deserves a thoughtful response, and I'm going to chew over it a bit, but I did want to mention that we've been short-handed this week (Jessamyn's been on vacation and Matt's been out of town.)
posted by restless_nomad (staff) at 9:03 PM on August 20, 2012 [2 favorites]

We don't have to like everybody, but there's a big difference between people who participate constructively and work to observe requested behavior norms, and people who participate destructively and push to challenge people who make those requests. These threads seem to disproportionately result in losing the constructive people.

Maybe I was unclear. This doesn't address the point I tried to make, it merely moves the goalposts sideways from "people I like" to "constructive people." The distinction remains between you discussing whether Joan or Bill or Sally is participating constructively in a given thread at a given time, versus you deciding whether Joan or Bill or Sally is a "constructive person." And it's my suggestion that the civility level, and consequently the general quality of the site, will rise if more people focus these conversations on the former rather than the latter.

That's a general proposition. Specifically and individually, I'm not really interested in any non-moderator's individual judgment as to whether another member is a destructive person, a sexist, etc. And I presume there is at least one person to balance me out (and probably many more) who similarly couldn't care less about my opinion whether someone is an asset or a liability to this community. I don't think our crossfire on those points would accomplish much besides acrimony.

Again, I probably expressed my point poorly. Several people responded to my comment saying, "Yeah, I said that earlier," but I checked two of them and they hadn't. Then Running Order Squabble Fest ostensibly disagreed with me but basically laid out that same general distinction I'd been trying to make. So hey, that's on me for being unclear. Apologies.

On a separate note, if Gman and Burhanistan have left the thread, I think that's unfortunate. I agreed with several of their comments.
posted by cribcage at 9:04 PM on August 20, 2012

On a separate note, if Gman and Burhanistan have left the thread, I think that's unfortunate. I agreed with several of their comments.

If you can explain what about your comments you agreed with, that would be really helpful for me personally. I ended up deleting all my responses to him (but one, see above) as non-productive because they addressed only tone and not substance because I couldn't identify what the substance was besides me typing too much.
posted by Deoridhe at 9:14 PM on August 20, 2012 [1 favorite]

The only way gman's comments made sense to me was thinking about how many times that we've collectively gone through similar conversations, so maybe he wasn't getting much out of it and was annoyed at being bored. Because the problem is that most of the opinions being "silenced" were kinda idiotic opinions.
posted by klangklangston at 9:25 PM on August 20, 2012 [1 favorite]

Thanks for the posts. I believe I get it now (this is emphatically not sarcasm). I did the classic metafilterian thing. I overthought it. I should have taken my own advice and not treated sexism like racism. No more posts from me in these threads, no more fpps from me. If anyone wants the long version, memail, but other than that, I'll listen to women's stories, and I'll tell sexists and creeps Stop It. (this is not flippant or sarcastic) That's what's being asked, I get it, I'll be doing it. I am sorry for clogging up the thread and wondering why no one seemed to care about the types of posts I was making, and instead were angered. Cheers, thank you, and I hope to help this place become like Miko and others want it to be, a hospitable atmosphere for women to post.
posted by cashman at 9:29 PM on August 20, 2012 [11 favorites]

s/your/gman/2
posted by Deoridhe at 9:29 PM on August 20, 2012

I understand why the mods would want to maintain a light presence in sexism-threads, but I would like for them to be more active. There isn't much public-facing engagement.

So having chewed, I'm not quite sure what you're asking for here. Are you looking for more mod activity as in more deletions, more mod-styled notes, that sort of thing? Or are you hoping that the mods engage these topics in blue threads as people? (Basically the opposite of what Afroblanco was saying here.)

More deletions/mod notes is... well, it's harder than it looks. We moderate based on community mores, as expressed in flags, emails, Metatalk threads, and to some extend Mefi threads directly. For us to push hard in one direction by fiat is a big, big change from the way we usually do things, and won't go over super well. It would also probably involve a bunch of bannings on ideological grounds, and I don't think any of us are super comfortable making that change. I think it's pretty clear that Metafilter has changed over the years to be less sexism-friendly (see previous comments on eas98's history and how it would go over now) but that is one of those big ship/slow turn things. I don't think we're done turning (I think this thread is evidence of that) but I think we're also in a much, much better place than the vast majority of the internet, and certainly than most generalist sites. (Comparing us to social-justice-focused sites is not going to be all that helpful. They start with different core assumptions, attract different userbases, and serve different purposes. I think there is a ton of virtue in being a generalist site that can handle users who are not interested in or educated about general social justice topics, because they can get some of that base-level eye-opening here without specifically seeking it out.)

Engaging more with those issues on the blue as people is also hard, because those are the threads we have to mod, and it's almost impossible for me to trust my judgment about when an argument needs to be reined in if I'm participating in the argument. And we just flat don't have enough staff to be certain to be able to hand off high-intensity threads because we want to engage in them. I probably get away with it a bit more because I have longer shifts on fewer days, so I can usually safely comment in a thread early in the week and trust that it will have moved well on by the time I have to take it over, but it's still always a concern.

And Afroblanco's not-totally-verbalized concern is a valid one. We swing more conversational weight than the average user. Not everyone recognizes my handle, but a lot of people do, and that warps the conversation a little. When we're talking about kitty videos it's not a problem, but in a tough conversation it's something we have to be mindful of. I try to be visible, and I don't always refrain from commenting when I have something to say (I commented in the elevator thread a couple of times in a non-mod capacity, and other similarly politicized threads, although I don't tend to dig in much under any circumstances) but I am always aware of the line and it makes me really uncomfortable to have to switch roles in any given thread. It's not really fair to everyone else.

So... hopefully I've addressed your thought one way or another with my shotgun approach. If I'm way off, by all means let me know.
posted by restless_nomad (staff) at 9:59 PM on August 20, 2012 [7 favorites]

cybercoitus interruptus: It has occurred to me that my earlier question could be interpreted as intending to silence or belittle or dismiss. If so, I apologize. "Why would their [men who haven't thought or listened extensively regarding women's experiences etc] advice about "how to combat sexism" contain anything of value to those of us who have been thinking exhaustively about these things?" was a sincere question, open to hearing thoughtful and sincere answers.

I think your question was a response to my question "Can anyone explain in a straightforward way why men should not talk about combating sexism on MetaFilter?" I think I made it clear that I was talking about men talking about what they can do to combat sexist behavior by men. Your response made it clear that you don't think men can ever discuss sexism in good faith and without being condescending and dismissive. Some other responses were similar, but made it clear they didn't object to men discussing sexism if they were actually doing so in good faith.

This kind of response is depressing as hell on my end, but is completely understandable considering how badly some of these threads go.
posted by nangar at 10:34 PM on August 20, 2012

I guess I don't understand what you're getting at, cribcage. You say "I'm all for civility and fewer aggressions, and I think a specific part of those is focusing on behavior and not what 'kind of person' someone is," and I think you and I agree about that... if I understand what you mean, but I'm not at all sure that I do.

It seems obvious to me that we're judging people based on their behavior, if by "behavior," you mean the way they comport themselves in discussion. What else do we have? You are just words on a screen to me; I am just words on a screen to you. I don't know what "kind of person" you are, and you don't know what "kind of person" I am, except by how we behave --- how we speak, how we write --- here.

The distinction remains between you discussing whether Joan or Bill or Sally is participating constructively in a given thread at a given time, versus you deciding whether Joan or Bill or Sally is a "constructive person."

I'm not sure what you mean by this, either. When we communicate by words alone, as we do here, "people who communicate constructively" is consonant with "constructive people." Are you objecting to the distinction between "people who do X" and "X people"?

And, heck yeah, I prefer to discuss things with people who argue constructively than with people who don't. But as I said above, just because I find them disruptive and destructive doesn't mean I think they should disappear. What is disruptive to me is not necessarily disruptive to others. Plenty of people find this thread disruptive, but plenty find it constructive and helpful.

(Again, I don't know whether you saw my remarks that I do not seek to silence disagreement, or whether you think my remarks don't meet your criteria for not seeking to silence dissent, or whether you saw them and just didn't mention them, or possibly I have misunderstood your entire remark about some contributors who don't want certain kinds of people around here.")

It seems to me that there's almost always going to be some perspective by which losing Joan or Bill or Sally is a net minus for the site, regardless of who likes them or who doesn't.

I think that's probably true. But we're always going to lose people for one reason or another. That's the nature of any community. Are you suggesting a change that would prevent those losses? I'd love to hear it.

If a decree came down tomorrow that there were to be no more discussions of gender and sexism on Metafilter, I don't think we'd stop losing members. I do think we'd have fewer flash points for visible flameouts and red-button pushing, so the losses wouldn't be as visible. I suspect that many members who feel like I do would get quietly squeezed out by subtle sexism and no steam valve to release the frustration it causes or to make small, incremental changes in the site dynamic.

I've found voices to admire in these threads and felt my sense of community deepen. If that's not true for others, I'm sad to hear it --- but there are a lot of threads on MeFi and MeTa, and a lot of chances for people to find community without trying to diminish the communities that others find here.
posted by Elsa at 10:37 PM on August 20, 2012 [1 favorite]

But it seems to me that women's stories about their experiences often do invite feedback, maybe more than they realize. For example, a commenter above wrote "Woman after woman talking about how they have been hurt, their lives constrained, some of them traumatised and having to live in fear -- what does it say about a man that that is not enough?" Then two paragraphs later she says "I can imagine if a woman asked in one of these threads, 'Why are so many men this way?' You can come in with your analysis and insider insight and personal experience, and it'd be fine and welcomed and appreciated, as long as it's about protecting women rather than protecting men's feelings and image." It kind of seems like she might not realize that from my perspective she doesn't need to imagine -- she did just ask "why are so many men this way?"

I don't understand what you see as conflicting between the two.

The first was about it not being necessary to appeal to men's self-interests or nurse their insecurities to get them to care and change, that hearing about its impact on woman after woman should be more than enough.

The second was for men who find they seem to keep getting pushback however well-intentioned they are when they try to contribute their perspective. I was suggesting that if you find it difficult to judge the nuances of when your perspective would be welcomed (and there's no shame in it -- I'm awful at plenty of social nuances myself), a good time to contribute is when a woman asks for it, at least until you feel more comfortable with knowing what may be helpful and what isn't.


Some commenters are, understandably, incredulous about how oblivious men can be to the basic reality of sexual violence. But ... it's not an act men are putting on. Even if we know the statistics, the pervasive reality of sexual violence for women is invisible and beyond comprehension for men unless they've spent a lot of time hearing women's stories,[1] and lots of men haven't -- until all of a sudden on Metafilter they do. So what's often going on in these threads is -- with only minor hyperbole -- someone is learning that a holocaust is going on for their benefit and without their knowledge. Denial, anger, bargaining, etc. are maybe not a perfect response, but they characterize those threads for a reason. And maybe they're even productive?

So shut up.

In almost all other areas, when someone does't know what they're talking about -- and that is what you're saying right, that these men don't know what they're talking about? -- they do not demand to be a part of the conversation.

I am a man. Every comment I make in these threads, including the one I'm writing, I write with the possibility in mind that I may overstep the limits of what I know this time and women might start telling me that actually no, you've started talking out of your arse now, and it's making things worse for us. Because what I say may be based on past experiences of listening, talking to and caring for women, seeing its effects on them, and ultimately, attempts at empathy, but I would never live their lives. So if many women tell me I'm wrong, or I'm making things worse for them -- if one or two women tell me that, I may be able to tell myself they may be wrong, but when it's as many as is the case in these threads? When it's so many that people like gman start complaining about pile-ons? Then it's a fucking clue that I would need to shut the fuck up and reevaluate as to whether I know what the fuck I'm talking about, and even if I did, whether I was talking about it at a time and in a manner that was helpful to women. Because that's what it's about isn't it? Otherwise it would be just like gman says, and you just want to hear the sound of your voice.

You call it a "holocaust" -- which to me seems inappropriate and unnecessary -- but if you're going to call it a holocaust, how do people react to "denial, anger, bargaining etc." of a holocaust? You say these reactions from men are "maybe not a perfect response" -- hear yourself downplaying them? -- while picking apart the response of women. If it's something so awful that you feel able to wheel out the term 'holocaust', then why aren't you saying maybe the reactions from women are 'maybe not a perfect response', but it's up to men to understand women, rather than the other way round? I mean, that would make sense right, when it's such unequal weight?


I mean, when men offer "you should have done X if you didn't want that to happen" or "he was only trying to do Y" it's just jerkish.

Jerkish? Jerkish?


I noticed this other times in the thread as well -- women's frustration at men's behavior comes across to me like "why are so many men this way?", but later it seems like they very much didn't intend to go down that road. It seems like there's this weird tension where women are legitimately frustrated that their stories are subverted into explanations or excuses for men's behavior, but where those same stories really do invite a discussion of why men are that way.

So it is up to men to understand that despite the stories possibily inviting a discussion of why men are that way, the dynamic you just mentioned exists, and so it is often not appropriate or helpful there. Can men take on any of the fucking responsibility, or are we always going to dump it on women to understand us on top of everything else?
posted by catchingsignals at 11:13 PM on August 20, 2012 [10 favorites]

nangar: Your response made it clear that you don't think men can ever discuss sexism in good faith and without being condescending and dismissive.

I also am "not unanimous" with the idea of men shutting up regarding discussions of sexism. I appreciate succinct contributions from men who have spent a long time listening to women, taking their words and experiences seriously, and thinking about how to build a world where women's voices are as respected as men.
posted by catchingsignals at 11:29 PM on August 20, 2012

Argh, sorry, first sentence of last comment should've been quoted as from nangar.
posted by catchingsignals at 12:20 AM on August 21, 2012

But, I tired of his presumptuous style and called him on it. Is that silencing? Whatever.

Silencing is too much honor, but it was a dick move, to come in a thread and pick a fight with one particular person in a very childish way, at a point where it had become acrimoniously anyway. I don't know what sort of grudge match you thought you were engaging in, but it made you look like a douchecopter.
posted by MartinWisse at 12:38 AM on August 21, 2012 [4 favorites]

nangar: I think your question was a response to my question "Can anyone explain in a straightforward way why men should not talk about combating sexism on MetaFilter?"

Yes.

I think I made it clear that I was talking about men talking about what they can do to combat sexist behavior by men.

Actually I missed that. My apologies. Your sentence "It seems to be close to unanimous here that men absolutely should not talk about this issue on MetaFilter" had put me in mind of tzikeh's comment quoted upthread by zarq. tzikeh was talking about men telling women what women should do to combat sexism. So I misinterpreted your question "Can anyone explain in a straightforward way why men should not talk about combating sexism on MetaFilter?" in that light.

Your response made it clear that you don't think men can ever discuss sexism in good faith and without being condescending and dismissive. Some other responses were similar, but made it clear they didn't object to men discussing sexism if they were actually doing so in good faith.

Ever? I said "I appreciate succinct contributions from men who have spent a long time listening to women, taking their words and experiences seriously, and thinking about how to build a world where women's voices are as respected as men."

I stand by my assertion that irrelevance, condescension, and dismissiveness is inherent in the contributions of "men who have not bothered to listen, take seriously, or think about such things" [I meant women dealing with sexism, remember, not men talking about combating other men's sexist behaviour] yet insist on handing out advice on a subject they haven't taken seriously or thought much about. Sure, such advice can be good-faith. I just think that in difficult conversations about contentious topics, they're still potential grenades. Advice is an authoritative position, so grar potential is built in from the start regardless of how well-intentioned the advice is. On the other hand, self-checking along the lines of "Hmm, do I actually know anything about this topic?" has no grenade potential whatsoever.

Regarding the issue you meant and not the one that was in my head (again, I am sincerely sorry) --

I was talking about men talking about what they can do to combat sexist behavior by men [on Metafilter]

-- I think it's a shame that there aren't more threads about what it means to be a man, teaching boys to be men, different notions of masculinity, that kind of thing. Surely no one would object to men talking about how to combat other men's sexist behaviour, in a thread specifically about men and masculinities. Why aren't there more of them?

In threads about women, it's do-able, but trickier because of the men's voices drowning out women's voices problem that others have mentioned. Navigating that requires attention to things like being very aware of how much space they're taking up.

This kind of response is depressing as hell on my end, but is completely understandable considering how badly some of these threads go.

I'm sorry my words did that to you.
posted by cybercoitus interruptus at 1:03 AM on August 21, 2012 [2 favorites]

restless_nomad: So having chewed, I'm not quite sure what you're asking for here.

I wasn't really talking about the whole of MetaFilter so much as specifically MetaTalk threads like this one. Limited mod participation in a MeTa thread about sexism on MetaFilter doesn't make me think the mod-team thinks sexism isn't a problem on MetaFilter, so much as it makes me think that the mod-team thinks there is no hope things could be better than they are now. Which is a depressing thought in an already depressing thread.

That said, that one-third of the mod-team is taking a well-deserved vacation explains why right now isn't the ideal time to have that site policy conversation.

However, I agree completely with you in your concerns about mod participation in discussion threads on the Blue about sexism (and related issues).
posted by Kattullus at 2:21 AM on August 21, 2012

I've just decided that I don't give a fuck anymore if somebody gets their nose out of joint when women talk to each other about feminist issues, and some guys join in with real questions and real stories about their side of things. They're just going to have to grow a pair.

From now on, I'm going to flag the shit out of people I think are trying to derail the conversation to be all about them. And the ones who accuse other people of white-knighting or trying to score political points or whatever weasel words they've found to describe that they find it inconceivable that feminists might actually find these topics valuable. Up until now I've swung between sarcasm and genuine engagement, and I'm going to stop the sarcasm. Somebody might have to remind me of this if I get carried away.

I'm only going to respond to people who are participating in good faith, whether I agree with them or not, whether they're strident or hesitant or whatever. And I'm going to ignore anyone who's just being a douche, just talk around them. If they find the conversation threatening or boring, that's not my problem. There's a whole site for them to use, and a big world wide web for them to talk about stuff they enjoy. They can piss off and let us have our own conversation, it's not hurting them.

I'm turning over a new leaf. Flags for the douches, tiny American flags genuine engagement for the others.
posted by harriet vane at 2:28 AM on August 21, 2012 [17 favorites]

Surely no one would object to men talking about how to combat other men's sexist behaviour, in a thread specifically about men and masculinities.

In theory, that's what the creeper thread was about: men telling their creeper mate to knock off the creepy shit. It would have been interesting to talk about what makes that difficult, hear stories about how previous attempts went, discuss strategies, that sort of thing.

But a few guys derailed it over the definition of creeper and the constant refrain of how socially awkward guys have it bad. Even though the linked blog post made the definition pretty damn clear, good alternative definitions were put forward, and no-one thinks that socially awkward guys are the same type of person as a creepy potential rapist. I'd love to skip those derails next time and actually hear about the real issues men face in this area. In future, those kinds of derails are exactly the sort of thing I'll be flagging.
posted by harriet vane at 2:40 AM on August 21, 2012 [8 favorites]

P.S. Please come back, people who've left. The site is less good without you.
posted by harriet vane at 2:42 AM on August 21, 2012 [4 favorites]

restless_nomad: For us to push hard in one direction by fiat is a big, big change from the way we usually do things, and won't go over super well.

Having thought about it, I wouldn't mind a general mod fiat making it clear that sexism is less welcome on MetaFilter, but honestly, I'm not even asking that much. I'd just like one day to have a discussion of possible ways to make MetaFilter better than it is now, from the serious: "More strict mod policing of sexism." To the less serious: "From now on cortex only records songs on guitars that have written on them THIS MACHINE KILLS SEXISTS."

All I want is a vague sense that things could get better.
posted by Kattullus at 2:43 AM on August 21, 2012 [1 favorite]

To address Kattullus's question about mod participation here, I agree with restless_nomad (surprise!) that there are a variety of aspects related to this. For one, there's the question of whether one is participating in Mod Voice, or in personal voice, which constrains a lot of my would-be participation in various threads, especially the contentious ones where I might have to make a moderation decision... and I'm usually on almost every day (night for most of you), mostly alone, so as RN mentions, there's not a choice of handing off moderation of a given thread.

I probably would have commented in this thread earlier, either as a moderator or a user, but frankly, I just now, this moment, was able to catch up on all the comments (every day I wake up, and there are hundreds more!), and for the last few days I felt it was either doing just fine without me, or when I felt like commenting, I was just way too busy.

In terms of my personal thoughts about the girl zone/boy zone issue, I've experienced nearly the gamut of feelings here throughout the years, including the gutpunch feeling, including the going-away-for-a-while, including having nightmares and troubled sleep. It was after that last bit quite a few years ago that I decided that it was too dangerous for my emotional wellbeing to become that invested. I'm still invested (in fact more so, obviously, in different ways), but I had to create a personal filter for my participation... so a Me-Filter for Metafilter, in which I could view things through a glass, let's say, one step removed, more analytically, instead of at emotional ground zero of the blast, when the blasts came. If I couldn't do that, I closed the tab, and came back when I was sufficiently stouthearted.*

In addition to that, my feelings are informed by a really deep history here... like 12 years and change, since I avidly lurked for years before joining, and I've probably read every single comment in every single women/feminism/sexism/boyzone Metatalk thread, and most of the Metafilter threads. So, from my point of view, I've seen dramatic, if incremental, change that has made the site feel so much more inclusive to me as a woman, and really happy to work here. I also know a lot of history from a lot of posters, so I also feel some frustration when some conversations sort of crash and burn when I know (or feel like I know) that some of the participants are not as one-dimensional as some heated arguments can make them appear. I feel like, "O HAY, HERE'S MY FILTER WON'T YOU BORROW THIS FOR A WHILE UNTIL YOU ARE FEEL BETTER?"

So, no, I feel anything but hopeless, though I recognize all the obstacles, and have a lot of (usually) fairly complex opinions about each line item. But I'm afraid I will disappoint some people when I say that both as a moderator and a user, I feel committed to Metafilter as a general interest site as opposed to a site that is strictly/highly moderated to be explicitly safe. So instead of top-down imposition of absolute standards, the standards are modeled by the user base and moderation follows that, which is what has happened here... not as quickly or thoroughly as some would like, and far more thoroughly than others would wish. I prefer this model as user, because I never wanted to feel that I was a part of a community where there was some sort of artificial protective layer that allowed me to exist without being demeaned, humiliated, threatened, or ignored because of my gender... but if it weren't for draconian moderation and administration, the whole thing would disintegrate into a gleeful anti-woman/LGBTQ/PoC/etc. hatefest.

As painful as they can be, it is conversations like this that form the actual site standards, so nobody should feel that their thoughts and words are flung into a void. Despite this, I do always feel such dread, because I know that some people will end up pushing the button, and that is miserable. Please come back, you guys, whenever you're ready.

* This worked better than my holidays away, because I always ended up finding that most other places, even small, hobbyist communities, say, usually revealed themselves as more sexist and/or drama-ridden than Metafilter, while yet more dull and uninspiring.
posted by taz (staff) at 2:47 AM on August 21, 2012 [15 favorites]

I think the only problem with that, harriet vane, is that I'm not sure what flags would do in a discussion like this.

And, more broadly, flags I don't think will have much of an impact on people who are simply arguing badly - especially because, if you start from particular assumptions, you will never know that you are arguing badly. One might not see the dangers to a healthy discussion of demanding the right to identify any of his interlocutors as dishonest egomaniacs at any point within it. There is no internally perceived inconsistency in posting a dozen times in a row about how you are being silenced by the feminists. Und so weiter. And, if the writer can avoid direct threats or total flamefests, I'm not sure what a flag would do.

Possibly I'm underestimating the response level of the "derail" flag rather than the "offensive" flag, though, on reflection. I'm not sure what counts as a derail and what as an offshoot... to quote DarlingBri, above:

I really couldn't get over the fact that folks had to sit there and calmly and rationally deal with the posters saying that we had to be careful not to malign cops, that she could have consented while drunk, that the conviction failure was her fault for showering, and that without video of the actual rape we'll never really know.

I haven't read that particular thread, but would any of those things as stated count as a derail?
posted by running order squabble fest at 3:42 AM on August 21, 2012

We moderate for sexism, but that's different things to different people. I certainly didn't intend any expression of backsliding, and I'm sorry if it sounded that way. I think what you might be detecting, though (you can tell me if I'm wrong), is a resistance to the notion of a "safe place," because people will say things like, I thought Metafilter was supposed to be a safe place, so why do you allow XYZ? ... and I think all the moderators try to be explicit that this is not the case insofar as: some links will not be safe for work, some links may be disturbing, some opinions may be hurtful, and the moderation regarding any of that may not always suit everybody.

The idea of this being a general interest site simply means that it's not a women's issues site, specifically, or LGBTQ, or News, but we include all those topics, and it isn't expected that everyone who joins or posts will always be up to speed on all the site norms and standards or past discussions on any of that, so we have some problems with a lot of conversations becoming sidetracked with people saying things that have been covered before ... like, say, "I wish people would catcall me" or other tired chestnuts on some topics we've talked about before in posts about feminism or women's issues. We are not going to ban that person. We'd probably delete that comment if that's all it was, but if it was a comment that was not jokey and was seriously trying to engage, we wouldn't delete it, and we would hope that the thread participants would not then spend the entire rest of the thread arguing with this one person if they decide to dig in and take on all comers. That's where we have to step in and try to loosen the gridlock... and where we also get criticized for silencing outside/minority voices. So we're always walking a tightrope on how much is too much, or too little, too disruptive, or not firm enough.

Also, people would like us to be very specific about "the rules," and we can't because we don't have a moderator rulebook, but also because we feel like it's better not to be forced into extremely constrained reactions. So I can definitely say that blatantly sexist commentary is not okay, and that we will always take action. But what any given person may define as blatantly sexist may not always be what we see as blatantly sexist, though there can always be a conversation about that.

And anyone can always point out something as being a problem via the contact form and ask us what's going on with that and get an explanation or a discussion from us. Any time.

I don't know if that answers your question or not, but let me know if I'm still being unclear.

In terms of the thread Darling Bri mentioned... I just went to look (not to read the whole thing, because I can't at the moment), but there were only three flags on comments in that thread, two were for derailing where the derails were almost completely off topic, and one was for a sort of short, unclear response. I'd have to go ahead and read it top to bottom to see if there was a point where we could have redirected things if it was getting derailed in a victim-blaming way, but I do want to note that it was hardly flagged, and that we didn't get any contact form alerts of problems in that thread. I'll have a look when I can, and try to answer your question, running order squabble fest.
posted by taz (staff) at 4:45 AM on August 21, 2012 [5 favorites]

To the extent that moderation is led by, or modeled from, users, I think one of the keys going forward is going to be flagging and calling out what the magnificent TYRR far above called "microaggressions." The overt sexism is pretty much no longer tolerated -- the really gross "I'd hit it, and let me tell you the ways" and "I hate you nasty bitches" comments either don't get made, or get vaporized quickly -- which is fantastic.

But what watching the shape of this discussion revealed to me is how corrosive those small nastinesses are. I don't think this is so much a "changing the rules" issue as it is acknowledging that the site is better than it used to be, and our focus (as users who flag, and as moderators who, well, moderate) needs to tighten to see the small nasty stuff as well as the large.
posted by Forktine at 4:55 AM on August 21, 2012 [4 favorites]

s/your/gman/2

Ok, what does this mean? I thought it was a/s/l for age/sex/location? What is this strange dialect you speak?

>Think about it the other way. If we never ever had them, what would be lost?

The destructive feedback loop of piling on someone; that person getting angry and lashing out from being piled on; people continuing the pile on, now with more justification and the steady escalation until something blows.

Eas98 had a particular line of though and expressed. Everyone said "Uh no" or "Can you back that up with some evidence?" He backed down. The crowd did not. Perhaps they should have, after it was established that eas98 didn't have a leg to stand on.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 5:39 AM on August 21, 2012 [4 favorites]

It's replacing the typos with what was intended.

I like that there are very few rules on here. I really don't like it when things like rules and site policy and so forth is called for because nuance is a wonderful thing and I like knowing that this is space where nuance can be recognised.

There are very few rules and a fuckload of expectations. I like that a lot.
posted by h00py at 5:45 AM on August 21, 2012 [5 favorites]

The destructive feedback loop of piling on someone;

But this is a thing that happens in tons of threads that are not about sexism. They're about deleted comments, or deleted posts, or how someone called someone else a name but *that* comment didn't get deleted etc. This particular thread, and its subject, is hardly special in that regard.

But it also doesn't mean that something productive doesn't also come out of contentious threads, because that also happens, as it has in this one. You perhaps see the buttoning of people who buttoned as having greater weight than whatever good/constructive stuff has happened here; other people don't.
posted by rtha at 5:59 AM on August 21, 2012 [3 favorites]

The crowd did not. Perhaps they should have, after it was established that eas98 didn't have a leg to stand on.

Some of the things that were brought up in terms of the evidence against this place being a girlzone (like the creeper thread) were not considered indicative by other members. You're suggesting "we" for some values of feminist/right-thinking people/whatever won the thread and should have gone home. And yet there's enough underlying anger about cases like the creeper thread that we could sustain a 1500+ comment thread about current problems.

And people quit, sure; I know we almost had a fifth walkout because it was almost me, because I am so fucking tired of watching several of the cycles I've identified on this site on feminist topics. Maybe I should have flagged the shit out of a couple of people in the creeper thread but I guess things the mods have said and the elevator thread, etc., have convinced me that making that kind of topic all about the feelings of the creepy dudes rather than anything else is a site norm, or that it's just a discussion not going the way I'd like (it happens, just with depressing regularity on women's topics). But if I'd pushed the button and had a vacation for a while, it wouldn't have been this thread alone, it would have been every other thread that led up to this one too.

zarq said something about the 20 blood pressure points he wouldn't have if he weren't in here having these arguments. Maybe he'd be better off if he didn't, and maybe you'd be better off if you didn't, but some of us would be spending those 20 blood pressure points somewhere on this site if we were still here at all. These fights are shitty but at least they produce some incremental value for me and apparently for other women, which is why we're still having them.
posted by immlass at 6:16 AM on August 21, 2012 [8 favorites]

Hi all; just back from holidays. What's new?
posted by UbuRoivas at 6:22 AM on August 21, 2012

The crowd did not. Perhaps they should have, after it was established that eas98 didn't have a leg to stand on.


I think this is not a thousand-post pile onto eas98, though. If you do a CMD-F for occurrences of the word "eas98". After about a third of the way down the scrollbar, it dies off almost completely.
posted by running order squabble fest at 6:26 AM on August 21, 2012 [2 favorites]

it merely moves the goalposts sideways from "people I like" to "constructive people." The distinction remains between you discussing whether Joan or Bill or Sally is participating constructively in a given thread at a given time, versus you deciding whether Joan or Bill or Sally is a "constructive person." And it's my suggestion that the civility level, and consequently the general quality of the site, will rise if more people focus these conversations on the former rather than the latter.

This doesn't make sense to me either. "Shifting the goalposts" is a catchy term, but is not what was going on here; I was not so much shifting posts as suggesting we play on another field entirely. So I was contesting that accusation and also making a distinction.

We started from someone (you?) positing that we were arriving at a climate where we only wanted to hear from "people we like." I contest that accusation. There are people I dislike vehemently, who happen to agree with me on at least some things. And there are people I like a lot, who often happen to be opposite me on arguments. "Liking" is not the filter I would ever use to determine whether someone is participating well here. It's pretty much irrelevant.

So I made the distinction between "liking" and "being constructive." To me there is no semantic difference whatsoever between "being a constructive person" and "participating constructively." I suppose that people who are 80/20 in their level of constructive participation, where 20% of the time they go apeshit, could be challenged as to whether they are "participating constructively." But most users fall well on one side or the other of this divide. Constructive people participate constructively a majority of the time.

I'm fine with saying the thing we want to reward is "constructive participation." But that doesn't change anything about the behavior of people who are purposefully being a shit, and that's frequently their main contribution to the discourse. That's nothing to do with whether we like them or not - they're simply not constructive. If that's the majority of their participation, then as users, they aren't constructive. They aren't constructive users.

Everyone said "Uh no" or "Can you back that up with some evidence?" He backed down. The crowd did not. Perhaps they should have, after it was established that eas98 didn't have a leg to stand on.

Erm, but then there was a lot of continuing conversation from others, and responses to that conversation. It's not like the whole thread was about eas98 or his premise. If you start a fire and walk away from it, it can still burn.

Finally, I strongly agree with taz that MetaFilter should remain "general interest" and not aim to be a "safe zone" for women-only conversation. But I also strongly agree with the young rope rider that women have general interests and should be able to be part of a general-interest site without confronting sexism in such ugly ways. I'm sorry to see that put forward. I'm sorry, taz, that your participation depends on you having to adopt a filter where you tolerate or ignore sexism when it arises. I'd really like to work on a vision for the site where I can into any thread, or any conversation, and expect that no matter what happens, I'm not going to be challenged for legitimacy based on nothing but my gender, and neither are others. It doesn't seem unreasonable to me, and it seems to me that if we take the harms of sexism seriously, and would like to model a community where we have largely conquered that beast - one of the only, and it's quite true, only large-scale online general-interest communities where women can participate in large numbers and, 95% of the time, think of themselves as welcome contributors and full members - then we should by all means not be asking users to put their filters on before they come into threads. I mean...that just seems awful to me. "Sorry...we can't do anything about it. There are sexists in the world, honey. Get a thicker skin."

(Not trying to put words in your mouth, taz, so sorry). But I think that fatalistic attitude is harmful here. Honestly, can we really not do better?
posted by Miko at 6:29 AM on August 21, 2012 [9 favorites]

immlass: " zarq said something about the 20 blood pressure points he wouldn't have if he weren't in here having these arguments. Maybe he'd be better off if he didn't, and maybe you'd be better off if you didn't, but some of us...

Just to reiterate and clarify what I said yesterday to Elsa, these fights are valuable to me as well, even if I don't necessarily like all of their side-effects. I hope that I didn't give you or anyone else the impression with my sardonic blood pressure comment that I think these threads should be censored or stifled in any way.
posted by zarq at 6:48 AM on August 21, 2012

> I'd really like to work on a vision for the site where I can into any thread, or any conversation, and expect that no matter what happens, I'm not going to be challenged for legitimacy based on nothing but my gender, and neither are others.

I don't understand the difference between this and a "safe zone." I pissed off the young rope-rider somewhere up there by asking for clarification, and I hope I'm not going to piss you off too, but this is a genuine question and I am genuinely trying to understand: if you do not want people banned for having bad opinions (which is what it would take to create a safe zone), what is it you want? The mods have frequently made it abundantly clear that they are against sexism and for full participation by women, and the great majority of people who comment in these threads are hostile to the idiocy of users like eas98 (to the point where his fellow-travelers are whining about groupthink and being shut down and SILENCED ALL THEIR LIVES); what more would you like to see? I suppose there are tweaks that might reduce the friction to some extent, but nothing is going to keep a few troglodytes from speaking their minds and pissing off a lot of people—and yes, hurting some people's feelings to the point that they wonder if participation is worth it. But there are troglodytes out there, there are troglodytes in here, and they need to be confronted and refuted.

I don't enjoy these threads and I don't participate in them much any more unless I see some specific point on which I think the helpfulness of what I have to say outweighs adding yet more weight to the accumulating burden of the thread (and specifically the weight of yet another comment by a man), but I'm pretty sure they're more helpful than harmful, because people really do learn from them.

Also: Come back, flex! Please! We miss you...
posted by languagehat at 6:55 AM on August 21, 2012 [3 favorites]

Brandon Blatcher: " Eas98 had a particular line of though and expressed. Everyone said "Uh no" or "Can you back that up with some evidence?" He backed down. The crowd did not. Perhaps they should have, after it was established that eas98 didn't have a leg to stand on."

He left the thread in a huff, while saying that his opinion was being shouted down and saying that the community was "ostracizing all dissenters."

He said that "the comments [in this thread] have more or less validated what I was suggesting", complained the community was piling on and not taking him / his claims seriously, did not say he was wrong, then left.

So apparently, he stood by his assertion that Metafilter has turned into a Girlzone. That's not the same as 'backing down.'
posted by zarq at 7:01 AM on August 21, 2012 [10 favorites]

I'd like to thank the feminists sticking it out here, too. Thank you for standing fast.
posted by Karmakaze at 7:01 AM on August 21, 2012

Flex had a hot streak of some absolutely ace posts. Come on back, lady, you are awesome.
posted by Wolof at 7:09 AM on August 21, 2012 [1 favorite]

languagehat: I don't understand the difference between this and a "safe zone."

As I understood it, the young rope-rider and Miko are pointing out that no one has asked for a safe zone, and so it's a little unsettling to see it posited as something separate from the goals of a "general interest" site. I too kind of feel that way, am uncertain it's what Taz meant, and also feel a bit sad that a general aim for intra-human respect would be seen differently when it comes to women; as if there's an unspoken difference when it's women who hope for equitable respect. I too hope I've misunderstood taz.
posted by fraula at 7:10 AM on August 21, 2012 [3 favorites]

That kind of thing should be up to all people making comments, gilrain. Mods speaking on high about stuff would have way less of an effect than having it made very clear by the general population of this fine place that blatant sexism/racism/bigotry etc just does not fly.
posted by h00py at 7:13 AM on August 21, 2012

I know there's no magic solution that ends misogyny and sexism on MetaFilter, but there must be ways to make it seem less like a sinking ship

"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." - Ghandi

When threads like this happen, smile a fanged smile, and note that people are no longer ignoring or laughing at this.
posted by Slap*Happy at 7:18 AM on August 21, 2012 [7 favorites]

> As I understood it, the young rope-rider and Miko are pointing out that no one has asked for a safe zone

But I think they have, just not by that name. I'm trying to understand the difference, which is why I asked.

> and also feel a bit sad that a general aim for intra-human respect would be seen differently when it comes to women; as if there's an unspoken difference when it's women who hope for equitable respect.

I don't think that's at all the case, and I feel it's insulting to the mods and the vast majority of MeFites to say so.
posted by languagehat at 7:26 AM on August 21, 2012 [2 favorites]

I don't understand the difference between this and a "safe zone."... if you do not want people banned for having bad opinions (which is what it would take to create a safe zone), what is it you want?

To me, the idea of a "safe zone" - particularly as applied to the web, our concern here - has a very specific connotation. And I think it largely comes out of academic environments, beginning in the world of women's studies, and has been increasingly turned to as a means of creating better support for LGBTQ people. It's something you can find on other websites and in other communities where the terms of participation are very explicit and very codified, and is designed to produce a specific outcome: an atmosphere that is not just tolerant, but affirming and accepting, of specific kinds of views and expressions. There is often a vetting process that determines who has the right to post or comment, and training or qualifying systems for people who want to be part of this safe zone, or are required to be for their job. At this point there seems to be a national organization called "Safe Zone" with campus chapters, but there are also informal places which have set themselves up as "safe zone" on the web - such as "A Guild of Their Own" on BoardGameGeek (sorry, it's blocked at work, can't link) and other sites about rape or reproductive issues or politics which I won't link to - and in the real world. For instance, bookstores and cafes have declared themselves "safe zones," and the Occupy movement found that they needed to establish safe zones for women in many camps.

So the term "safe zone" as understood within the world of gender politics implies much more stated intentionality on the part of organizers, much more structure, and much more codified behavior. A safe zone would require people to pledge their participation as allies before joining a discussion. And it would carry consequences including exclusion for people who violated their commitment to help create a safe zone.

That's not what I want MetaFilter to be and I doubt that a single person here is asking for it to be such a place - or is high enough to imagine that would ever actually happen.

The distinction I would make is that we want MetaFilter to be a civil, public zone free of hate speech and harassment, and in which the contributions of all well-intentioned participants are taken seriously - not belittled, minimized, or stereotyped.

I can't quite imagine the kinds of stereotypes promoted about women here, even in this thread, being routinely glossed over if they were about races, economic classes, or sexual orientations, and I would be among those objecting if they were. Something about contemporary gender relations makes these statements seem like innocuous "opinions" rather than oppressive strategies.

I understand there are troglodytes here and maybe there always will be. But what I'd like to have happen is to be able to participate without being subject to the hate-based or fear-based strategies of troglodytes to limit or discourage my participation and that of other women and other feminists, and without having to witness small gangs of support form to champion and extend those strategies.

That doesn't require banning any uses. It requires those of us of goodwill here to reinforce those norms - visibly, to each other - and might require a further fine-tuning of mod antennae toward the subtler but no less insidious forms of sexism and bullying that arise in some of these discussions.

In other words, I'd like it if community norms and standards - not explicit structures, screening, and training and vetting systems - utterly rejected gambits refined over generations to coerce women into rhetorical submission. That's the difference between a "safe space" and a civil, inclusive MetaFilter.
posted by Miko at 7:49 AM on August 21, 2012 [20 favorites]

I'm glad this is all being discussed.

I would like to see more direct statements by the mods that blatant sexism does not fly, here. I'm not talking about banning users outright, unless they are unremitting, repeat offenders. Like eas98, for instance... but I am trying to back off of that and address this in the abstract.

I would like to see this too, and I say this as someone who is full of admiration for the mods and the community they've helped cultivate. I think they are better at creating community than most other moderator teams on the internet. I also think they could improve in this area, and that the general feeling seems to be that making this a safe space for women not to have to deal with hostility would make this an explicitly feminist space is wrong. I believe it would, instead, make this a better general interest site.

And I hope it doesn't seem like I'm jumping on taz--I've heard other mods suggest similarly in the past. The general moderation style here seems to encourage women to disengage after being harassed or insulted, rather than policing the people who say offensive things in the first place. There seems to be private policing and rehabilitation going on, but the lack of public moderator activity leads to the feeling that . . . well, that it's every woman for herself.

And to an extent, that's fine, and that's why I've been feeling better, with this thread, lately, with just being a feminist who is out there and vocal and refuses to back down or be bullied--because that's one of the best ways to influence the community overall and to make other women feel safe. But I think the mods could make this a more explicit goal, and it would be okay, even a good thing.

I keep thinking about Readercon, how that all went down, but I need to grab coffee and I guess it's less important
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 7:55 AM on August 21, 2012 [9 favorites]

And I am explicitly saying that I'd like metafilter to be a community where women are safe from harassment and hostility. For the record.
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 7:56 AM on August 21, 2012 [5 favorites]

Is blatantly sexist commentary okay here?

This is the tricky question, right? Because "okay" doesn't mean one monolithic thing on Metafilter or to every mefite, and that's part of where the "safe space" discussion comes in.

I'll tell you flat out that I don't think blatantly sexist commentary is okay in the sense that I think it's basically fucked up and alienating and I never like it. If I had my druthers no one would ever say blatantly sexist shit on Metafilter. It never improves this place. Okay as good and valuable? No.

Beyond that, it's not okay as some sort of default way of being for any given user; if some duder (or dudette, but the numbers aren't exactly falling to that side in practice) wants to hang out and basically just Be That Person Who Always Says Blatantly Sexist Shit Every Day, that's not really gonna work, they're gonna get shit deleted and if they can't figure it out they're gonna get banned. Okay as constant hobbyhorsing? Nope. Find somewhere else to be.

But if "okay" gets extended as far as "is ever allowed to occur" or "is not explicitly rejected in a codex of rules" or anything like that, we've got a problem, because Metafilter is not a place where there's a big list of rules that you must never ever violate on pain of immediate deletion and probably banning. So lots of things are "okay" in the sense that as much as I may think they suck or lots of people may think they suck, they're more likely to get talked about than any other course of action.

Because we talk about shit as by far the primary means of dealing with stuff—talking about stuff in threads when they come up, talking about stuff in Metatalk when it needs its own venue, talking about stuff over mefimail, over the contact form and IM a lot on the mod side. Almost everything that people feel is not really okay in some sense gets talked about.

Moving from "that's super crappy" to "that's forbidden / that's a banning", as some mod enforced way of dealing with something like that when comes along, would be a huge shift. And without that change, what are we talking about in terms of "okay"ness? Because there's no way to have cake and eat it to on this; either we're talking about unilateral mod-side enforcement changing (more deletions, more bannings), or we're talking about what we already have: people talking about the shit they think is problematic. It's "okay" to say something crappy, and it's totally okay for people to say they think that thing is crappy and why.
posted by cortex (staff) at 7:57 AM on August 21, 2012 [7 favorites]

I don't think MeFi should be a "safe zone", but I do think it should be a zone that is "not hostile/harassing."
posted by rmd1023 at 7:58 AM on August 21, 2012 [4 favorites]

The mods are selected by mathowie and, in a very real way, they embody the standards of this community.

mathowie approves them. I selected the last two specifically so that we would have gender balance on the mod team even though we don't have gender balance on the site. This was a deliberate decision. We get to hire, on average, a person every few years so while this isn't really a path to rapid change, I think it's had a serious albeit slow effect. Hi. I was on vacation last week. Sorry to not be more present in this thread. I've been reading but mostly trying not to comment. There is a larger issue about what happens to our staffing levels when someone takes a vacation, but it's not really relevant here right now.

To feel like they are unwilling to call out sexism in public is very discouraging. Maybe my reading of the mod comments in this thread are skewed, but I don't think any mod has actually condemned sexist behavior. That alone would go a long way.

We call out sexism in public here frequently. We may not do it enough for some people. We definitely do it too much for others. We rely on the community to police itself. In cases where there is overt "folks mostly agree that this is sexist" behavior we usually step in either with mod comments or deletions and/or discussions with the particular user. Most of the users that people have been concerned with in this thread have been spoken to by us. However, this is a behind-the-scenes thing. We will discuss specifics somewhat over email, we will not discuss specifics in this thread. If you think we're not doing enough or missing someone or something, then you need to contact us, use the flagging feature or find ways to talk about it or ignore it in the thread at hand.

MetaTalk, as you all know, is more lightly moderated and there is more chance of encountering sexist (and other sorts of lousy) comments here since we pretty much only delete stuff that is over the top. This part is the least likely to change part of how we do our jobs. We will step in, as we have in this thread, and call people out on their behavior but deletions in those circumstances are rare and banning rarer still [I know people were not asking for those things, I am explaining the situation].

People saying that no one is asking for MeFi to be a safe space are incorrect. People have, at times, asked that in the past and this is why taz has mentioned it this time as well. Each thread about sexist behavior has a relation to past ones and this is a topic that has come up and we have newer users who ask about this sort of thing. We also get email or critiques that the site is too hostile to men. People who think that MeFi is too hostile to men are welcome to not hang out here. We tend to spend lengthy email time telling people that that is, in fact, not true at all and said so at the top of this thread. I am aware that people are tired and upset at this point in a monster thread and I don't want to come in and be all "well these are the rules and we're just setting expectations" but just want to say that we do take sexist behavior on the site seriously, encourage people to use the flagging feature.

In other words, I'd like it if community norms and standards - not explicit structures, screening, and training and vetting systems - utterly rejected gambits refined over generations to coerce women into rhetorical submission

That is, generally, also what we would like. We're available to discuss this as we have been in this thread. That doesn't mean that there won't necessarily be any screed-y MeTa threads in the future, however, because as you point out there will always be troglodytes. And it does mean that these things will be open to community discussion so there's still going to be a lot of "is this sexist" and people who don't agree. I personally feel like we've come down fairly hard on overt displays of sexism on the majority of the site. I'm happy to have an open discussion about whether other people share this view. However in a general interest site where people discuss touchy topics like rape and sexual harassment, there will be a "feminism 101" angle to probably any thread, a small one, because this is the internet. Walking the line between what are clueless folks asking questions and what are sexist folks shutting down discussion is the work in front of us and something we could all use help with.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 7:59 AM on August 21, 2012 [10 favorites]

It seems obvious to me that we're judging people based on their behavior... Are you objecting to the distinction between "people who do X" and "X people"?

Not quite. I'm saying that if you want to discuss X, then you should discuss X. If you begin by framing your contribution as "judging people," then you decrease the likelihood that you'll accomplish anything—even improving whatever you perceive to be the problem—and you increase the general acrimony of the site.

Two moderators have said that there cannot be a blanket rule against sexist comments because three different people can have a reasonable disagreement about whether a particular comment is "sexist." That is the point. Now, some people will always believe themselves ultimate arbiters of what is sexist or what is "blatantly" sexist, or what constitutes "constructive behavior," and irrespective of whether that's helpful or whether everybody agrees with them or nobody agrees with them, you just can't stop that from happening. So be it. However, what you might be able to do is to stop yourself from taking that next step, "That is not constructive behavior and so you are not a constructive user."
posted by cribcage at 8:11 AM on August 21, 2012

If you begin by framing your contribution as "judging people," then you decrease the likelihood that you'll accomplish anything—even improving whatever you perceive to be the problem—and you increase the general acrimony of the site.

Instead of "judging people by their behavior," would you be happier with your phrase, "focusing on their behavior"? Or "determining the content of their participation" or "gauging their motives"? Either way, you leave out the next part of my sentence, which is "if by 'behavior,' you mean the way they comport themselves in discussion."

Since all we have of each other here is our words, that's what I assess when I speak to other contributors or or they speak to me, or when I see them speak to others. I find it useful to compile an ever-evolving portrait of people with whom I regularly interact, here and elsewhere, always keeping in mind that people have great capacity for change (both positive and negative). If someone repeatedly argues disingenuously, or repeatedly resorts to insults and zingers, or repeatedly trolls for shock value, that's a useful piece of information that gets tucked away in my mind and that I consider the next time I encounter them.

If you can dismiss that as pejoratively "judging people," then I'm curious about your own interactions with others. Do you start over with a fresh slate every time you engage in conversation, here or in real life? That must be tiring, to say the least, having to get people to bring you up to speed on their pre-existing beliefs and philosophies every time.

Now, some people will always believe themselves ultimate arbiters of what is sexist or what is "blatantly" sexist, or what constitutes "constructive behavior,"

As I said (in the very remark you quote above, actually) And, heck yeah, I prefer to discuss things with people who argue constructively than with people who don't. But as I said above, just because I find them disruptive and destructive doesn't mean I think they should disappear. What is disruptive to me is not necessarily disruptive to others. Plenty of people find this thread disruptive, but plenty find it constructive and helpful.

I'm certainly not claiming the One True Vision of what is constructive --- quite the contrary. Each of us gets to decide what constitutes constructive conversation for ourselves and we get to choose who to engage with.
posted by Elsa at 8:47 AM on August 21, 2012 [2 favorites]

> To me, the idea of a "safe zone" - particularly as applied to the web, our concern here - has a very specific connotation.

Thanks, that was a helpful explanation.

> That doesn't require banning any uses. It requires those of us of goodwill here to reinforce those norms - visibly, to each other - and might require a further fine-tuning of mod antennae toward the subtler but no less insidious forms of sexism and bullying that arise in some of these discussions.

In other words, I'd like it if community norms and standards - not explicit structures, screening, and training and vetting systems - utterly rejected gambits refined over generations to coerce women into rhetorical submission.

OK, we seem to be on the same page then.

> I don't think MeFi should be a "safe zone", but I do think it should be a zone that is "not hostile/harassing."

Of course it "should," just as the world should be, but it's not and can't be in practice (if you mean free of all hostility); the best we can do is to object strenuously to the hostility/harassment when it arises, and I think we're getting better at that.

Also, I'd like to take a moment to thank the mods for their patience and supportiveness in dealing with this extremely touchy and contentious issue (and thank Matt for being on board with hiring more women mods, one of the best things that's ever happened to MetaFilter).
posted by languagehat at 8:49 AM on August 21, 2012 [6 favorites]

Thanks, that was a helpful explanation.

I just want to say, for the record, that one of the things I love about MeFi in general (and one of the things I've definitely see change for the better in the time I've been here) is that when a situation like this one occurs, one where one person is using language in a general-purpose way while another person is using it in a highly specific and codified way? We get a lot more "Thanks, that was a helpful explanation" and a lot less "Well that's dumb / I've never heard of that / why would you need to use language that way / it's not my fault if you use language in a way different than Real People use it / grar." That plus the culture of sincere apologizing and backing off if you get too involved are the three things that, to me, most distinguish Metafilter from the Greater Interbutts.
posted by KathrynT at 9:09 AM on August 21, 2012 [16 favorites]

Two moderators have said that there cannot be a blanket rule against sexist comments because three different people can have a reasonable disagreement about whether a particular comment is "sexist."

Apart from the "blanket rule" question, I'm not entirely sure how much this is true. For instance, the "strident" thing - the user said he didn't know it has a history of being an accusation lobbed by sexists with sexist intent, but there are abundant standards of reference, for decades, that testify that its use can fairly be branded "sexist." Even if the speker didn't know that.

I guess there are comments about which there can be a reasonable debate, but there are also a lot of comments/words/stereotypes about which there might be a debate, but really not a reasonable one. That is, there is no position to retreat to about the comment being non-sexist other than that of ignorance of its sexist usage and history.

And those sorts of comments still often get tried out here. I don't think they all need to be sustained. That doesn't argue for a blanket rule, but again, perhaps more sensitivity to the stereotypes in action on the part of both mods and users: "Hm, hey, he just tried out the "strident" thing, or the "money grubbing divorcin' women" thing, and might not know that's a sexist stereotype and not one we really want to promulgate here."
posted by Miko at 9:11 AM on August 21, 2012 [3 favorites]

Do you start over with a fresh slate every time you engage in conversation, here or in real life?

This isn't "real life," in the sense that I presume you mean the term. It's different because as you note, "all we have of each other here is our words," and many of those words would only get said in a forum like this. But to answer your primary question, yes, I try to start with a fresh slate when I engage people here. For me that's not overly difficult because I don't pay tons of attention to usernames,^* but there are instances where it's conscious. There's a user participating in this very conversation who I recall directing some vicious comments at me in a political thread some years back. It was pretty extreme, so I remember it. But I try to ignore that history and read what that person contributes to this thread on its merits. I try to read the comment, not the person.

Because again, as you say, we really don't have much information about each other here. I see this happen on AskMe a lot: There will be a fifty-word post, maybe anonymous, and based on that tiny bit of information I'll see comments that purport deep conclusions about what kind of person the poster is, or about his/her spouse and relationship.

Yes, I try somewhat to blank-slate people here. I've seen what I consider to be small-minded, hateful comments in political threads (and clearly my opinion isn't universal, based on favorite counts) and then clicked open a literature thread to discover a fascinating tidbit dropped by the same person. It's not infrequent. So what I've learned personally is that while I'd love to see an end to what I judge to be small-minded, hateful comments, ignoring or losing those people would cost the community.

^* Having reached the end of typing this comment, I've already forgotten the username I'm responding to. No offense intended, just illustrating. It isn't something I pay much attention to.
posted by cribcage at 9:23 AM on August 21, 2012 [2 favorites]

From my perspective, more than banning or even deleting, what is being asked for is explicit, real-time commentary from the mods that specific sexist (and, of course, racist/homophobic/etc) comments are not cool. I'm not sure how practical that is, and would welcome feedback about that.
posted by bardophile at 9:24 AM on August 21, 2012 [3 favorites]

So what I've learned personally is that while I'd love to see an end to what I judge to be small-minded, hateful comments, ignoring or losing those people would cost the community.

I think the hateful comments cost the community too. A lot. And one hateful comment has a lot more impact than ten awesome literature comments.
posted by Miko at 9:35 AM on August 21, 2012 [3 favorites]

Languagehat: I think we're getting better at that

Absolutely. I really think we are. MeFi has gotten way less "boyzone" and I love seeing the shift towards a better (imao) level of discourse. I just wanted to note that at least this strident feminist isn't aiming for "safe space" levels of not-sexist.

And, yeah, yay mods. This is another one of those "I want to send each of the mods a cup of tea over the internet" kinds of threads.

Also, there's hope even for having less sexism in gamer forums. (excellent story of forum mods pushing back against sexism towards a gamer chick. such a pleasant change from the usual way that story goes.)
posted by rmd1023 at 9:38 AM on August 21, 2012 [2 favorites]

Maybe. But part of the reason I italicized the pronoun ("what I judge to be...") is that I think it's probably more likely to find agreement on what's an awesome literature comment than on what constitutes a hateful comment. Hence all those accumulating favorites.
posted by cribcage at 9:39 AM on August 21, 2012

While it's probably easier to favorite a delightful literature comment, I really don't think identifying hateful comments is all that hard. As I hinted at above, it's not always some mystifying gray area, not always a matter of opinion about what's sexist. There is writing and research on this. There is history. There is a preponderance of evidence for some words, stereotypes, and tropes as sexist. Not all, but many many.

Even in a hypothetical situation where there was a 50/50 split about whether a speciofic comment was sexist or not," then letting the comment stand without objection actually empowers the NOT side above the IS side - which changes the power balance quite a bit and shows that one 50 is more important than the other 50.
posted by Miko at 9:55 AM on August 21, 2012 [1 favorite]

Maybe. But part of the reason I italicized the pronoun ("what I judge to be...") is that I think it's probably more likely to find agreement on what's an awesome literature comment than on what constitutes a hateful comment. Hence all those accumulating favorites.

Hang on... is the argument that it's hard to decide what constitutes a hateful comment, because they get favorites? Because people who make hateful comments also probably like hateful comments, and thus also favorite hateful comments...

(In fact, who favorites what might be quite a good fuzzy-logic analysis of whether it's more or less likely to be a hateful comment... but there are probably easier ways to work that out...)
posted by running order squabble fest at 9:58 AM on August 21, 2012

Plenty of fun for you guys here, then.

What are you trying to accomplish here? Is this stirring up trouble?

If anything, a new gender-related thread is a chance to practice some of the good intentions seen here, and maybe that's what you mean? But your introducing it this way feels like maybe about one step away from "let's go over there and break THEIR windows!" And that's not good for the site.
posted by Miko at 10:02 AM on August 21, 2012 [5 favorites]

I think enough people will "favorite" a comment to bookmark it rather than agree with it that your analysis may be skewed, there.
posted by rmd1023 at 10:02 AM on August 21, 2012

I use favorites in threads like this to show support, but not always agreement. That's probably a lousy way to use favorites, but essentially they can say "keep talking." Still, enough people hate favorites, don't use favorites, use them differently, etc., that I think they are a pretty terrible metric of either quality or hatefulness.
posted by Miko at 10:05 AM on August 21, 2012 [1 favorite]

I use favorites as bookmarks, so I'm not unaware that different people use them differently. However, I know from previous MetaTalk threads about favorites that many people use them to indicate agreement, and when a comment receives thirty or a hundred favorites I think it is fair to use those favorites as evidence that some other people did not find the comment to be small-minded or hateful. Which was all I said.
posted by cribcage at 10:08 AM on August 21, 2012

Fair enough. It's definitely a fuzzy stats issue, I think. (awww, fuzzy!)
posted by rmd1023 at 10:13 AM on August 21, 2012

Hang on... is the argument that it's hard to decide what constitutes a hateful comment, because they get favorites? Because people who make hateful comments also probably like hateful comments, and thus also favorite hateful comments...

And that's without getting into the recurring question of how differently different people use favorites, and how individuals can use favorites in a variety of ways. Just a few of the ways I use favorites:

- to bookmark a compelling line of argument or piece of data because it is somewhat aligned with my own beliefs and I want to expand my own knowledge and maybe adopt some of their points
- to bookmark a remark that seems roughly aligned with my own viewpoint but I'm not sure and I want to examine it at leisure, the better to illuminate my own understanding of my position
- to bookmark a compelling line of argument or piece of data because it persuasively argues against my own beliefs or philosophy and I want to expand my own knowledge, challenge my own viewpoint, and see if maybe I was wrong
- I disagree utterly with the comment but it links to something fascinating/useful and I want to keep that bookmarked
- I disagree utterly with the comment and I want to quote it later when I have time to argue against it
- I have flagged the comment and I want to return later to see if it was removed, which helps me calibrate my understanding of the site guidelines
- It contains a turn of phrase that I find amusing, insightful, or otherwise worth remembering
- I want to remember the user for a while but don't want to mark them as a contact only to unmark them later (and maybe insult them, because different people use contacts differently too)
- it is a recipe for pie.

One way I almost never use favorites:
- because I simply and uncomplicatedly agree with the entire comment.

Now, I acknowledge that plenty of users do use favorites as up-votes or marks of agreement --- but I don't know what proportion of them do, and unless there's been an in-depth survey I missed, neither does anyone else.
posted by Elsa at 10:17 AM on August 21, 2012 [3 favorites]

Ivan Fyodorovich is already back (again).
posted by grouse at 10:29 AM on August 21, 2012 [1 favorite]

Yay! Welcome back Ivan Fyodorovich! I am happy that you have returned!
posted by bardophile at 10:30 AM on August 21, 2012 [1 favorite]

Yay! Here's hoping the others follow his lead!
posted by peppermind at 10:30 AM on August 21, 2012

> What are you trying to accomplish here? Is this stirring up trouble?

That seems to be his primary purpose around these parts lately. I wish he'd get over it and start actually contributing to the site.
posted by languagehat at 10:32 AM on August 21, 2012 [1 favorite]

Glad to see you back, Ivan!
posted by cmyk at 10:35 AM on August 21, 2012

nangar, I'm sorry again, I didn't make clear earlier that mostly I find that contemptuousness and dismissiveness comes across in what Rebecca Solnit calls "aggressively ignorant" comments. Meaning, comments from well-intentioned people who persist in talking authoritatively about something they don't actually know much about, against others who actually are more knowledgeable and have demonstrated this. The presentation of such comments may be civil and respectful enough, but the very act of tenaciously steamrollering on embodies lack of respect. Maybe it's unintentional, but the effects do damage regardless.

Of course men who make a few non-authoritative comments here and there about combating sexism are NOT contemptuous or dismissive. That's regular conversation. The problem is, going on and on authoritatively as if they're more expert than all the women saying "Hey consider that you're wrong on this subject about what many women experience." It has happened in all the sexism threads I've participated in, so if I come across as harsh, maybe it's partly because I've had to explain that phenomenon a few too many times.
posted by cybercoitus interruptus at 10:36 AM on August 21, 2012 [3 favorites]

My bad, I saw a comment in the Tony Scott thread that I assumed was more recent than it is. I could have sworn I checked his account but I guess not.
posted by grouse at 10:39 AM on August 21, 2012

From my perspective, more than banning or even deleting, what is being asked for is explicit, real-time commentary from the mods that specific sexist (and, of course, racist/homophobic/etc) comments are not cool. I'm not sure how practical that is, and would welcome feedback about that.

I kind of feel like we're already doing this, so maybe it's a devil in the details—every day we tell people to cool it on stuff, leave notes about stuff that's not okay in threads, hash stuff out on Metatalk. I feel like in terms of generally discouraging weird shitty comments of all stripes we've been pretty seriously and consistently vocal to the extent that (a) we know something is happening (b) at the time that it's happening.

So, maybe it's a couple different things you're talking about? From my perspective, the refrain is flag and use contact form, early and often, for problematic stuff if the desire is for us to see something promptly and be able to react to it as far as being on the scene in a mods-doing-mod-stuff capacity. But some of that is more "try to quash a mess" rather than "try to get in someone's face" so dealing with an errant weird sexist comment may not involve stopping to make a full-throated declaration that sexism is bad at every juncture; we're disinclined to turn one derail into another in a thread when we can turn it into not-a-derail, etc, so if it's a lack of those declarations being more common and conspicuous it might just be a cross-purposes thing.
posted by cortex (staff) at 10:41 AM on August 21, 2012

(favorited Elsa's comment to remind me about all the different ways people use favorites.)
posted by ambrosia at 10:42 AM on August 21, 2012 [1 favorite]

I wondered because, hey, there's no pie recipe in that comment. OR IS THERE?
posted by Elsa at 10:45 AM on August 21, 2012

However, I know from previous MetaTalk threads about favorites that many people use them to indicate agreement, and when a comment receives thirty or a hundred favorites I think it is fair to use those favorites as evidence that some other people did not find the comment to be small-minded or hateful. Which was all I said.

Sure. But that only gives you a rough number of people who either a) don't use favorites the way you do or b) have a different standard of hatefulness and small-mindedness or c) have other priorities - with possibly an emphasis on (b) and (c). There was a dude who was favoriting every post that was aggressive or insulting towards me at one point, and for all I know still may be. It's nice to have a hobby, I guess, but that's an unconventional use of favorites.

169 people favorited this comment. Some were probably bookmarking it for later reference, or using favorites in some other way, but no doubt plenty were sincerely supportive of the idea that women will give it up for, and actively enjoy being propositioned by, rich/handsome men.

I don't think that's a good sign of whether something is in absolute terms supported by the community as a whole, though, right? We just find out that there are X people around here who are sufficiently angry with women for $offense, $indignity or $witholdingsex to click a plus sign, although not necessarily angry enough to write something themselves. That X is probably not significantly less than 169 is a data point, but not I think a hugely useful one...
posted by running order squabble fest at 10:47 AM on August 21, 2012 [1 favorite]

I want to note that it was the conversation in this thread that got me to post in the one Burhanistan linked to. For what it's worth.

I also want to note that it's the progression of the conversation in that thread which means I probably won't be able to keep reading it for much longer. The phenomena being described is painful to experience, and seeing it diminished and doubted is as well.
posted by meese at 11:01 AM on August 21, 2012 [3 favorites]

So, maybe it's a couple different things you're talking about? From my perspective, the refrain is flag and use contact form, early and often, for problematic stuff if the desire is for us to see something promptly and be able to react to it as far as being on the scene in a mods-doing-mod-stuff capacity. But some of that is more "try to quash a mess" rather than "try to get in someone's face" so dealing with an errant weird sexist comment may not involve stopping to make a full-throated declaration that sexism is bad at every juncture; we're disinclined to turn one derail into another in a thread when we can turn it into not-a-derail, etc, so if it's a lack of those declarations being more common and conspicuous it might just be a cross-purposes thing.

I feel like this is the area where mod perception of the site and user perception of the site might significantly differ. I'll admit that my perception has palpably shifted since the elevator thread, where hincandenza posted something which many participants here read as outright hostile toward women--and where the women who responded were told not to engage with someone who was obviously hurting. There was a mod reaction directly to the comment (from cortex, if I recall correctly) only after several of us spoke out about it. That was appreciated, but it felt very . . . belated.

I suspect that that level of vitriol is often being dealt with aggressively or actively in back-channels. In fact, I suspect that those who respond to those comments get a quicker in-thread "cut that shit out" from the mods in part because we're not perpetually problematic users who are engaged in a dialogue with the mods about our behavior. But the lack of a public, authoritative call-out--and the presence of a call-out to those who respond to aggressive behavior--sends a tacit message to those reading that one form of aggression is okay and the other isn't. It makes it seem okay for people to say hostile things but not for the subjects of that hostility to respond, which makes metafilter seem generally less "safe."
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 11:23 AM on August 21, 2012 [10 favorites]

Thank you for writing that comment, meese, and thanks to gilrain for linking to it. It made me risk crashing my browser to open this humoungous thread.

It also helped me recognize what was happening with the client I just fired. Or rather, what he was trying to do, even though he'd hired me to figure it out for him, and what I was not accepting.

Maybe we need a new subsite, The Pink runs away, fast
posted by infini at 11:25 AM on August 21, 2012

> I also want to note that it's the progression of the conversation in that thread which means I probably won't be able to keep reading it for much longer. The phenomena being described is painful to experience, and seeing it diminished and doubted is as well.

Amen.

> Your comment in that thread was brilliant, meese. I found it extremely valuable. if this thread inspired you to share that, then I feel way better about what's happened here for the past few days. Thank you.

Amen to that as well.
posted by languagehat at 11:25 AM on August 21, 2012

Ok, I think I'm done with that new thread. sigh.
posted by bardophile at 11:40 AM on August 21, 2012

Erm, but then there was a lot of continuing conversation from others, and responses to that conversation. It's not like the whole thread was about eas98 or his premise. If you start a fire and walk away from it, it can still burn.

Well sure, if you want to throw logs on the fire. My point is that it started with eas98 and then just grew from there. Was that necessary if everyone pretty much agreed he was completely wronged and he backed down and had left the thread? That one leg getting so many people heated is incredible. The thread turned into place to vent and gripe, which is understandable on one hand, but also ramped up the emotions.

My question/concern boils down to this: Could the site handle responses to touchy subjects better? Could we try to avoid piling on people, even if we think they're wrong?

He left the thread in a huff, while saying that his opinion was being shouted down and saying that the community was "ostracizing all dissenters."

No, he recognized he was in the minority on this one, said "thanks for the discussion" and kept quiet until later.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 11:43 AM on August 21, 2012

One of the best parts of working for gay rights is that the workplace is explicitly feminist and shit gets called out.

From going to broader trainings, where there's often a bit of a disjunction in how language is used among different groups, I learned a lot from the way that the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force conducts meetings, which tend to minimize and resolve a lot of the identity politics wrangling that sometimes happens — within my office, the fact that the majority of us trust each other quite a lot helps make call-outs much less painful than they are here (I don't think that MetaFilter still has the same level of trust in the community that it once did, but it's also a lot larger). Things that the NGLTF does include reminding people that binary thinking (either/or) often causes more conflict than either/and, and that it's important to remember that these conversations take place within a community of interest and purpose, and that a lot of language that hurts is used inadvertently rather than to wound.

It has gotten awkward sometimes to be a straight white dude there, not least because the majority of our messaging is now focused on the "moveable middle," which happens to be straight, white dudes (generally older too). Like, that the idea of "transgender" freaks out a lot of people — is it silencing trans folk to de-emphasize their identity in order to avoid people we'd like to persuade shutting down? Intersectionality is important within the community, but not so much without, so how can that be balanced? What weight does authenticity have against pragmatism? And so a lot of the stuff that I came in thinking was touchy-feely bullshit actually allows a more effective conversation to happen with broader participation (and it still pretty much happens on my terms, which is a little fucked up itself).

It's also made me a lot more aware of in-group/out-group communications. For a lot of feminism discussions here, "men" (or non-feminist identified men, but "men" is shorter) are the out-group. At work, I'm often frustrated by things like that you're not supposed to say "gay rights" for a variety of reasons, but most explicitly because the idea is that you're communicating with the out-group. In-group people already know that gay rights are human rights (though generally, "LGBT rights" would be better). But putting that blanket on the discussion means that a lot of legit stuff can't be communicated as effectively.

And I think that does happen here, but I think that there are a couple of important caveats: First off, people keep acting like it's the job of feminists to be persuasive, to talk to the out-group. Well, that can be pretty fucking tiring and it can be a full time job, and I don't mind MeFi being a place where occasionally the out-group can't use its privilege to determine the mode of conversation and has to shut the fuck up. While that can be insulting to "men," I kinda feel like too fucking bad. Every month is Men's History Month, so it's not like you're being silenced all your life. The other part is that "men" don't feel like they can take part in the conversation? Well, two things: they are by commenting, and too fucking bad. You can learn a lot by listening (or reading here) and may be you don't need to be in every fucking thread.

(I once had a prof who gave me some good writing advice: Everything should always be able to stand up to the question, "So what?" or "Who the fuck cares?" Oh, you can't take part in this thread? So what? Oh, you can't say "nigger"? So what? You're not welcome everywhere all the time to set the terms of the conversation? Welcome to the fucking world, jackass. Either make a constructive comment or shut the fuck up. And no, "This happens to men too!" isn't a constructive comment. Shut the fuck up.)

(As another bit of a derail, I think that the most lasting negative impact of "political correctness" was the appropriation of the terminology to shore up the banks of privilege, and I think that a lot of the "men's" complaints here suffer from that misunderstanding, even as they'd decry political correctness in the main.)
posted by klangklangston at 11:47 AM on August 21, 2012 [23 favorites]

Brandon Blatcher: " No, he recognized he was in the minority on this one, said "thanks for the discussion" and kept quiet until later."

Which doesn't change the fact that when he did chime in later, he made it pretty obvious that he wasn't backing down and had not changed his mind.
posted by zarq at 11:48 AM on August 21, 2012

Which doesn't change the fact that when he did chime in later, he made it pretty obvious that he wasn't backing down and had not changed his mind.

He doesn't have to change his mind, simply behave in a civil manner.

Clearly you don't think what transpired between his initially peaceful departure from the thread and later strident return matter. I do. We're probably going to have to agree to disagree.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 12:01 PM on August 21, 2012 [1 favorite]

Great comment, meese.

That discussion is depressing. People who can otherwise agree that, e.g., the US tends to socialize debt and privatize profit, are somehow unable to see structural issues around gender, or race, or sexual identity. "Hey, that description of a structural phenomenon is insulting to me because it may apply to me, and my shit doesn't even stink, so how can you accuse me of (benefiting from) that heinous structural wrong?"
posted by OmieWise at 12:15 PM on August 21, 2012 [1 favorite]

I just suddenly feel like I'm missing some significant policy all of a sudden or that this thread has sort of been a weird backslide in terms of stated mod policy, like you all usually do this (moderate for sexism) but for some reason won't officially say that you do it.

I am very confused by this. I explicitly said that we delete egregious sexism and we'd get called out on it if we didn't. Subtle sexism is harder, as I said, and that's where discussions like this can help move the window - if people are more aware of it, they flag it faster and tolerate it less and that helps us move from "this is something that needs to be talked out" to "this is something the community generally agrees is not tolerated." If you see a comment or a thread where you think we're not catching the general snap, by all means ping us or start a MeTa to take the general temperature - we are always, always willing to talk this stuff out.
posted by restless_nomad (staff) at 12:18 PM on August 21, 2012

Well sure, if you want to throw logs on the fire. My point is that it started with eas98 and then just grew from there. Was that necessary if everyone pretty much agreed he was completely wronged and he backed down and had left the thread?

I think it was in a breath of dying down before others arrived to pick up his banner and carry it onward. It's not like it was about one person.

I feel like this is the area where mod perception of the site and user perception of the site might significantly differ.

I have to agree there. There were many points in this thread where I was like, "geeeez, I can't believe this shit is being left to lie," and perhaps it wasn't, actually, since I can't see the back channel mod/user conversation. Also, I did not flag. Not a thing, I don't think. In general, I've tried to embrace the FIAMO philosophy on the blue and in the green and it does seem to have some effect, partly as a steam valve and partly because it's clear I'm not usually the only one so the mods are taking action. But in MeTa like this, it just doesn't occur to me so much. Also, I'm not sure that any number of flags could make the 'subtle sexism' aka microaggression subject to deletion or reprimand. As long as they masquerade as 'legitimate opinion,' oppressive tactics are going to be supported by other users.
posted by Miko at 12:33 PM on August 21, 2012 [4 favorites]

As an experiment, I think I'll try it on that explaining thread.
posted by Miko at 12:35 PM on August 21, 2012

Brandon Blatcher: " Clearly you don't think what transpired between his initially peaceful departure from the thread and later strident return matter. I do. We're probably going to have to agree to disagree."

If you're saying that his later comments and reactions should be in any way considered justified or reasonable by the interim conversation, then no, I do not agree with you.
posted by zarq at 12:35 PM on August 21, 2012

Could we try to avoid piling on people, even if we think they're wrong?

The issue I'm seeing with this is that a pileon seems to be a phenomenon where a lot of people disagree with one person. Usually it's a spirited disagreement, sure, but basically it's that.

If someone comes into a thread and says, I don't know, whatever thing is hugely against the grain and said in a way that is kind of offensive but still within the bounds of a comment that won't get deleted, people speak up. It happens.

Avoiding piling on, in this case, basically means checking to see how many other people have disagreed with that person before you do, and if it's over a certain number, refraining from commenting, maybe?

I don't really see how that's workable.

It's the nature of the beast, pretty much. On a site with a user base this size, pretty much anyone who's reading any thread you post in is a potential person who might read what you wrote and disagree with it, maybe even by typing. Maybe there'll be one of them, or two or three, or one or two dozen. Or zero, if you're as lovely and pleasant to the touch as I. These are the risks you take.

To the person who's suddenly being disagreed with by a lot of people, it probably feels like a big thing - kind of confrontational, etc. One person's piling-on is another person's multiple disagreements.

It's perspective. It's like those MetaTalk threads where two parties, aggrieved at one another, keep insisting that the other party is getting special treatment from the mods.
posted by FAMOUS MONSTER at 12:36 PM on August 21, 2012 [2 favorites]

There were many points in this thread where I was like, "geeeez, I can't believe this shit is being left to lie,"

To be totally clear, we almost never delete stuff in MeTa (not never, but seldom) and we're not going to jump in mod-fashion unless someone is heading down the insult/personal attack route. MeTa is designed to be extremely lightly moderated, so they're where we discuss our moderation policies, not where we practice them.
posted by restless_nomad (staff) at 12:46 PM on August 21, 2012

As an experiment, I think I'll try it on that explaining thread.

Please keep in mind that that thread is already a serious mess (started out that way, and at the same time we talked about it and felt like we'd be admitting some sort of defeat by just deleting it wholesale and it didn't hit a flagging threshold where we felt "the community has spoken" on it). While we really appreciate people being willing to FIAMO and also bring to our attention the sort of microaggression stuff that people find problematic it might be worth waiting until a thread that isn't already a fast-moving tinderbox where we feel like we're employing more triage-type maneuvers just to keep the thread from being a train wreck.

I understand that this is all very frustrating to people. It's frustrating to me too. Going back and flagging comments from earlier in the day because you feel that they should have been dealt with earlier isn't going to be as helpful as flagging stuff that is coming up in a conversation that you are trying to have. I'm not sure what you were specifically saying you were going to do, but we occasionally see people go back and retro-flag stuff in a thread that is hours old or pre-dates some sort of mod "hey, no more of this" statement and it's not actually that helpful.

It's significantly more useful to have people speak up in a thread in a reasonable manner telling people that their backwards way of looking at things is not actually contributing to the conversation and/or making the conversation into some sort of them-focused situation. This is what we try to do frequently with our mod comments but more users could be doing this as well. More often, however, we get people ranting at the ranters and this, while maybe unavoidable, makes things into more of a muddled mess. There's a fair amount of that in the explaining thread already and I'm finding it personally somewhat upsetting.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 12:51 PM on August 21, 2012 [2 favorites]

I understand jessamyn to mean that we shouldn't go to the explaining thread, look for stuff that happened earlier in the thread, and flag it. I don't believe she was suggesting that we shouldn't flag new stuff up as it comes. Also, that we should model the kind of discourse that we want to have, rather than making personal attacks against those who we feel are behaving badly. That's my reading of her comment, at least.
posted by bardophile at 1:03 PM on August 21, 2012 [1 favorite]

I don't really see how that's workable.

I don't-make-comments ALL THE TIME. I not-make many, many more comments than I could possibly make. Sometimes it is an extreme act of WILL, not-making these comments.

In this thread, I probably should have not-made even more.
posted by the man of twists and turns at 1:03 PM on August 21, 2012 [1 favorite]

I don't-make-comments ALL THE TIME. I not-make many, many more comments than I could possibly make. Sometimes it is an extreme act of WILL, not-making these comments.


Oh, for sure. I don't mean to say that everyone's obligated to make comments all the time. I'm saying that I don't think it's workable to try to implement a system where only x number of people should offer counterarguments to any particular person in a thread and the act of choosing not to comment is somehow dependent on whether or not you've gotten in under that number. You know?
posted by FAMOUS MONSTER at 1:08 PM on August 21, 2012

It's a bit like salt in the wound, but at least we've been told how best to help the mods deal with this: we should flag it and push back! Except now you say to hold off on the flagging.

I wasn't sure what Miko was saying she was going to do and i wanted to clarify. I know there are a lot of eyeballs on this MeTa thread and also a lot on that MeFi thread some of which came over there pre-GRARed from here.

I think we realistically have to think about how we're going to make these sorts of things go better in general and people are talking about how to deal with this thread specifically.

If the argument is that these threads often wind up with a lot of microaggressive comments that have silencing effects on people talking about their personal experiences, we care about that. If the proposed remedy is to go through a really shitty thread and pick out all the microaggressive comments (past and present) to bring our attention to them while we're already camped in this thread and that thread and doing all the other work of running the site, realistically that's going to not be as useful as doing that generally in threads that you're involved in as things happen. And speaking in reasonable tones in that thread to the people who are being that way.

So, please flag comments as you see them happening. Please do not go back and flag hours-old comments that you think we should be seeing as examples of this phenomenon because we have just told you we're camped in that thread and keeping a general eye on things. Please continue to flag "this is super shitty and you should delete it" stuff. Please email us asking questions about why we didn't delete things. Please keep in mind that this is a site that usually has one moderator working at any given time, 24 hours a day and there is a built in limit to how much we can do and that people need to be mindful of that, whether or not they agree or disagree with the staffing choices that have been made. Please keep in mind that changing those staffing decisions as a result of a few really terrible threads is something that we talk about but unlikely something that will take place in a short time period.

Unless you have some other reason to think so, please assume good faith on the part of the moderators and/or explain to us where you feel that our perceptions and actions aren't matching the expectations that we've stated we're working to meet. If people want to adjust those expectations, please be aware that realistically that takes time and won't just happen as a result of people flagging a bunch more comments in a particularly shitty thread.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 1:10 PM on August 21, 2012 [1 favorite]

Brandon": ""s/your/gman/2"

Ok, what does this mean? I thought it was a/s/l for age/sex/location? What is this strange dialect you speak?

Sorry, obscure MOO code. I mistyped in my previous post, "your" for "gman" on the second line. The way to correct that in code is s(ubstitute)/your(error)/gman(correction)/2(line). At this point it's such a standard way for me to mark corrections that I didn't think to explain it.
posted by Deoridhe at 1:12 PM on August 21, 2012

I appreciate the clarification too. I had a comment in a window which I lost expressing the same confusion, but I see what your recommended approach breaks down to. So that's cool, sorry for making more trouble.
posted by Miko at 1:17 PM on August 21, 2012

obscure MOO code

Originally, it's how you do string substitution in the Unix utility sed. MANSPLAINED!
posted by RogerB at 1:20 PM on August 21, 2012 [1 favorite]

cybercoitus, you don't owe me an apology. I totally understand what you're talking about. Your response drove home how pervasive condescending, dismissive and "aggressively ignorant" comments are in discussions about sexism on MetaFilter. And that's depressing. But that's not your fault — it's true. It also helped me understand where some comments I was feeling grouchy about where coming from.

I did not interpret your comment as telling me I should shut up, and I hope I can contribute to making MetaFilter a little bit less like that.

You do not need to be apologetic about complaining about men being condescending and dismissive; it's a real problem. I just hope I can not contribute to it.
posted by nangar at 1:23 PM on August 21, 2012 [3 favorites]

Originally, it's how you do string substitution in the Unix utility sed. MANSPLAINED!

OMG i r teh opprezzed and nao i criez!

(Actually that makes sense, since I think MUDs were programmed in UNIX and MOOs are an offshoot of MUDS. I've forgotten most of my MOO coding, though, and I only briefly learned other coding, so this little correction is about all I retain - that and a deep understanding of why programmers stay up all night coding.)

...also it doesn't count as mansplained if I didn't know. ;) TRY HARDER!
posted by Deoridhe at 1:50 PM on August 21, 2012 [3 favorites]

> It's significantly more useful to have people speak up in a thread in a reasonable manner telling people that their backwards way of looking at things is not actually contributing to the conversation and/or making the conversation into some sort of them-focused situation. This is what we try to do frequently with our mod comments but more users could be doing this as well.

The problem in that Solnit thread is that a stubborn group of (how can I put this?) men is (once again) choosing the word "mansplaining" as a hill to throw grenades from, and no matter how often and how calmly it is explained to them that while the word may be imperfect it is just a word and is not aimed at you personally and it represents something real and harmful and can we please talk about that thing? their response is NO IT IS A BAD WORD AND WE MUST TALK ABOUT IT UNTIL ALL YOU BAD PEOPLE STOP USING IT. If I were a mod I would delete a bunch of those comments and add one of those modly advisories: [Note: A bunch of comments objecting to "mansplaining" deleted. You can have that discussion in MetaTalk if you really must, but here we are talking about the phenomenon it refers to and you are derailing that discussion, so please stop. Thanks!] But fortunately for all of us I'm not a mod.
posted by languagehat at 2:06 PM on August 21, 2012 [24 favorites]

The problem in that Solnit thread is that a stubborn group of (how can I put this?) men is (once again) choosing the word "mansplaining" as a hill to throw grenades from, and no matter how often and how calmly it is explained to them that while the word may be imperfect it is just a word and is not aimed at you personally and it represents something real and harmful and can we please talk about that thing? their response is NO IT IS A BAD WORD AND WE MUST TALK ABOUT IT UNTIL ALL YOU BAD PEOPLE STOP USING IT.

No, the problem is that some people refuse to drop it, including you. Several men and women have agreed that the use of the term is a little bit of the problem of why these conversations go the way the do.
posted by Big_B at 2:12 PM on August 21, 2012 [4 favorites]

All these discussions go this way, and most of them don't involve the term "mansplaining". It's always something. What I wouldn't give if just once they'd look past and try but never mind, poking the privilege hurts.
posted by Danila at 2:28 PM on August 21, 2012 [12 favorites]

The problem is that the word itself is a derail. Use it and 1/3 of the thread is about how terrible it is/how it is perfectly appropriate language. The author did not even use the word in her piece and yet it becomes the litmus test for the thread.

I submit that if a single word is that polarizing, that it's use should be severely curtailed.
posted by bonehead at 2:30 PM on August 21, 2012 [1 favorite]

The reason 'mansplaining' in part of the problem these conversation have is that it is a convenient hook for people who want to object to the premise of the conversation writ large. Whether it's 'That happens to men too!' or 'You're exaggerating' or 'That's not really a big problem and you are just getting bent out of shape' or 'You're just trying to score points on the internet!' or 'Stop complaining' or 'You're being just as sexist when you describe the problem with sexism' there is always some convenient hook to dismiss the conversation. So in that sense I agree with you, Big_B, but probably not in the way you'd like.
posted by shakespeherian at 2:31 PM on August 21, 2012 [12 favorites]

All these discussions go this way, and most of them don't involve the term "mansplaining". It's always something. What I wouldn't give if just once they'd look past and try but never mind, poking the privilege hurts.

Right, and it's always about tone. "See, people would listen to your point if you explained it THIS way and not THAT way. There's your problem. Now, I were explaining it, here's how I would do it..." blah blah let's go on a derail .
posted by sweetkid at 2:31 PM on August 21, 2012 [10 favorites]

On the religious site where I post, some of the worst homophobes are the very people who scream blue murder if the word homophobic is used at all - usually making a huge fuss about its etymology. Up to a point, to circumvent them making it all about how victimised holders fo anti-gay belief are if someone uses the 'nasty' word, I will use the word anti-gay instead.

However for some time now, I've noticed that the very same people who make the huge fuss about how awful the word is and how it shouldn't be used, will inevitably if not in that post but in their next post or next thread post something hideously anti-gay, so I've come to the conclusion that they just use the argument about the word as a proxy for their prejudice and I'm damned if I'll pander to it anymore.
posted by Flitcraft at 2:40 PM on August 21, 2012 [12 favorites]

shakespeherian: "The reason 'mansplaining' in part of the problem these conversation have is that it is a convenient hook for people who want to object to the premise of the conversation writ large. Whether it's 'That happens to men too!' or 'You're exaggerating' or 'That's not really a big problem and you are just getting bent out of shape' or 'You're just trying to score points on the internet!' or 'Stop complaining' or 'You're being just as sexist when you describe the problem with sexism' there is always some convenient hook to dismiss the conversation."

I actually agree with the premise of that explanation, but disagree with the implied conclusion. The word has actually bothered me a little bit since I first learned it in this thread, but it doesn't anymore. Because it does serve that very very useful function, that of objecting to the premise of the conversation writ large. I don't want to put words in your mouth, but it sounds like you are suggesting that hooking onto 'mainsplaining' as a way to object to the larger premise of the conversation is dismissive. To me, I think that's fucking awesome.

The only analogue I can draw, being a male and hopelessly ignorant of true perspective when it comes to women's issues and mansplaining, is that of my atheism. I don't want to raise the religious debate itself here, but rather just use it as a comparative framework. In many of the discussions and debates I participate in concerning various religious topics, there are inevitably the same old goddamn premise problems again and again and again. It really feels like we just can't make any progress on the issues at hand if we aren't discussing the issues and facts from the same plane of reality. So the same begging the question, tone arguments, appeals to popularity and antiquity and comfort, et cetera ad nauseam are always present. And the thing is, these sorts of objectionable premises directly effect the value and validity of the discussion that ensues. At a certain point, for me, I just don't want to keep talking with someone who insists that, for example, "faith" in Science is "just as religious as a Christian or Muslim" or whatever. I can only imagine that for women, the same must be true when encountering the same tone arguments and objectionable premises that you mentioned above.

So I guess what I'm trying to say is, I really wish there was a convenient word like "mansplaining" that helps the user to object to the premise writ large for other things too, like religion and politics (for me personally). Not to dismiss the discussion, but rather to work on getting us to address the goddamn premises for once, and maybe having done so, make some real progress.
posted by lazaruslong at 2:54 PM on August 21, 2012 [3 favorites]

It's always about tone.

A lot of what I do goes out as crisis communication stuff, providing information in very highly-charged atmosphere where many people have real grievances and hurts and the consequences can be severe and long-lasting. I'm not great at it, not compared to what I've seen from the real comms professionals, but the one thing I have learned is that anything other than a straight, factual (and verifiable, sourcable factual) comment will lead to problems. Argument and disengagement are the consequences of poor communication, and people just end up shouting at each other, positions ossified. No winners, no advance, no education.

Yeah, tone does matter. I'm not suggesting mefi comments should be vetted through a comms person or run past a lawyer first, but Danila is correct: "poking the privilege hurts". Why do it needlessly, if only to produce an argument? Is the benefit to using a mildly sarcastic term greater than living with a great chunk of the ensuing discussion being about "tone"?
posted by bonehead at 3:00 PM on August 21, 2012 [1 favorite]

sweetkid: "Right, and it's always about tone. "See, people would listen to your point if you explained it THIS way and not THAT way. There's your problem. Now, I were explaining it, here's how I would do it..." blah blah let's go on a derail ."

With respect, I do not understand the argument that one's tone towards others should not matter in a discussion, if one is trying to be persuasive. It makes little sense to me: when people feel they are being characterized unfairly, then it is only natural for them to react defensively and tune out.

I'm not saying that one should have to meet rudeness with politeness. Or accept condescension or dismissal from privilege. And yes, there are going to be times when people say things that just need to be forcefully and aggressively rejected

But I simply don't see how insulting people who are actually trying to learn from your lived experience solves anything.
posted by zarq at 3:04 PM on August 21, 2012 [3 favorites]

anything other than a straight, factual (and verifiable, sourcable factual) comment will lead to problems


....And this gets, um, problematic when talking about one's personal experience, and one is describing what happened, and someone comes along and says "That didn't happen", or "You must have misinterpreted," or some other dismissive thing, and of course there's no verifiable evidence that yes, I did feel threatened when the large man followed me down a dark hallway and tried to talk to me. The "problem" there doesn't spring from my inability to offer hard evidence of my feelings or of the thing I experienced, but from other people's (mostly but not solely men's) inability to believe my experience even if they haven't had it.
posted by rtha at 3:07 PM on August 21, 2012 [13 favorites]

Is the benefit to using a mildly sarcastic term greater than living with a great chunk of the ensuing discussion being about "tone"?

But these conversations always turn into tone conversations, regardless of what tone is used. It was too jokey, I couldn't take it seriously! It was too serious, lighten up, lady! It was too angry, no one wants to listen to yelling! It was too dispassionate! It was too long! It was too short! It was too condescending! It didn't explain its terms!
posted by shakespeherian at 3:07 PM on August 21, 2012 [17 favorites]

If people are actually trying to learn, I'm quite happy not to call a spade, a spade, but 'a jolly nice gardening implement', but when the spade-wielders turn out to still happy to hit people with it - I think sometimes you have to call it a bloody shovel and have done with it.
posted by Flitcraft at 3:08 PM on August 21, 2012 [4 favorites]

Check that western world privilege GREG maybe they meant Machu Picchu
posted by elizardbits at 3:09 PM on August 21, 2012 [1 favorite]

Well, there are few ways to turn off a student than to be sarcastic to them.
posted by bonehead at 3:11 PM on August 21, 2012

By all means somebody go ahead and come up with a perfectly unobjectionable gender-neutral alternative to "mansplaining" that is still readily comprehensible as a specific term for when a man is being a condescending know-it-all to a woman.
posted by prize bull octorok at 3:13 PM on August 21, 2012 [2 favorites]

By all means somebody go ahead and come up with a perfectly unobjectionable gender-neutral alternative to "mansplaining" that is still readily comprehensible as a specific term for when a man is being a condescending know-it-all to a woman.
posted by prize bull octorok at 11:13 PM on August 21 [+] [!]

Because we clearly need a specific term for exactly that set of circumstances.
posted by Reggie Knoble at 3:15 PM on August 21, 2012

They're not students. Many of them are active opponents. Concern trolls who actually aren't on our side at all but full of advice about how to handle this better. People who steadfastly refuse to engage with the posted links but want to have the same debate they always do. People who only engage with the link to dismiss it because it's anecdotal, all the while claiming they agree they just don't like the presentation. But do the offer an alternate presentation? No, just dig their heels in and get ready for a fight.

I don't believe the hostility is due to the term. If it was just the word "mansplain" they'd have let it go by now, seriously. They don't go into depth regarding the power of the word to hurt and disenfranchise men while we are talking about the systematic disenfranchisement of women.

It is a derail. It's not even in the article. If someone in the thread used the word and you didn't like it, no more than one comment is required. I feel no one should be contributing to serious topics like this unless they make an effort to engage with the link.
posted by Danila at 3:18 PM on August 21, 2012 [12 favorites]

Yes. As you know full fucking well from the over 1000 comments in this and other threads telling you so.
posted by elizardbits at 3:18 PM on August 21, 2012 [12 favorites]

Because we clearly need a specific term for exactly that set of circumstances.

We really do. It happens a whole lot. And when women try to make our space, we're often very quickly dismissed as, oh... strident, for example.
posted by Deoridhe at 3:26 PM on August 21, 2012 [7 favorites]

sweetkid: "Right, and it's always about tone. "See, people would listen to your point if you explained it THIS way and not THAT way. There's your problem. Now, I were explaining it, here's how I would do it..." blah blah let's go on a derail ."

With respect, I do not understand the argument that one's tone towards others should not matter in a discussion, if one is trying to be persuasive. It makes little sense to me: when people feel they are being characterized unfairly, then it is only natural for them to react defensively and tune out.


That's not what I meant, of course people shouldn't be insulting. What I mean is the derail when someone says, "mansplaining is a bad word," or "tone is too strident," or "shrill," what have you. There is always a lengthy derail about how if only women/feminists/whatever just explained things in a more palatable way, then they would help their cause, rather than being able to use words of their choice and a tone of their choice.
posted by sweetkid at 3:27 PM on August 21, 2012 [6 favorites]

The thing that gets my goat about the whole "mansplaining" thing -- the concept, not the word -- is that, even if it is predominantly a male-on-female thing, when you get down to it, the gender angle is a red herring.

It's just behaviour, and if the behaviour is problematic, address the behaviour without adding ANY extra baggage that might alienate your prospective converts. "Hey everybody: Don't be a condescending ass." "Hey men: Stop being condescending asses." Which one is better?

Like, if your employees have a problem with punctuality, and you openly attribute it to their race, well, that's probably more likely to piss them off than make them punctual.
posted by Sys Rq at 3:28 PM on August 21, 2012 [3 favorites]

Well, there are few ways to turn off a student than to be sarcastic to them.

There are fewer ways to demonstrate that you are completely unwilling to engage the topic at hand than to do everything in your power to not talk about the topic at hand and instead complain about the way it was presented.
posted by Doleful Creature at 3:29 PM on August 21, 2012 [11 favorites]

Sys Rq, the gender aspect is not a red herring, it's an important distinction of the erstwhile universal phenomenon. Sure asshole behavior comes from all sides, but the point is that this particular described subset of asshole behavior is socialized, empowered and protected by a gendered power imbalance. This is what the article was about, this is what all the other woman who chimed in are trying to say.
posted by Doleful Creature at 3:32 PM on August 21, 2012 [14 favorites]

sweetkid: " That's not what I meant, of course people shouldn't be insulting. What I mean is the derail when someone says, "mansplaining is a bad word," or "tone is too strident," or "shrill," what have you. There is always a lengthy derail about how if only women/feminists/whatever just explained things in a more palatable way, then they would help their cause, rather than being able to use words of their choice and a tone of their choice."

Ah, sorry. Yes. We're on the same page then.
posted by zarq at 3:33 PM on August 21, 2012 [2 favorites]

Check that terran world privilege ELIZARDBITS maybe they meant Mount Seleya
posted by entropicamericana at 3:34 PM on August 21, 2012

I'm suddenly feeling inspired to do an interpretive dance.
posted by rtha at 3:35 PM on August 21, 2012 [3 favorites]

> Because we clearly need a specific term for exactly that set of circumstances.

You don't, because you don't care about the phenomenon. Why exactly are you in this discussion? Oh, right, you're male and you have Something to Say.

> when you get down to it, the gender angle is a red herring.

Hey, ladies, you're wrong about being oppressed as women! Aren't you glad I explained that to you?
posted by languagehat at 3:35 PM on August 21, 2012 [31 favorites]

> "Because we clearly need a specific term for exactly that set of circumstances."

Yep, we sure do.
posted by kyrademon at 3:37 PM on August 21, 2012

Hey, ladies, you're wrong about being oppressed as women! Aren't you glad I explained that to you?

Huh. If that's really the message you took from what I wrote, maybe you're not the language expert I thought you were.
posted by Sys Rq at 3:40 PM on August 21, 2012 [1 favorite]

Like, if your employees have a problem with punctuality, and you openly attribute it to their race, well, that's probably more likely to piss them off than make them punctual.

I genuinely can't work out whether we have slipped in time to the past, where we will have to explain to skeptical antebellum Americans that racism is not going to be a great policy in the longer term, or to a distant, terrible future, where men are victims of constant discrimination.
posted by running order squabble fest at 3:45 PM on August 21, 2012 [1 favorite]

Because we clearly need a specific term for exactly that set of circumstances.

Yes we need words or succinct phrases in order to capture these kinds of patterns. Otherwise we are silenced by a million "are you sure" and "what are you talking about". I mean, we get those anyway, but putting a name to it helps solidify the phenomenon and prevent gaslighting. It's also great for instantly clueing in other women to what you're talking about and they can share their experiences. We have to make the invisible, visible.

We've had this conversation many times before and will keep having it. Hey here's another one (found that thread while I was trying to find a way to constructively answer Reggie Knoble).
posted by Danila at 3:57 PM on August 21, 2012 [2 favorites]

...it is predominantly a male-on-female thing...

This constitutes denial?

I'm not saying it isn't a problem. I'm saying that if the aim of Solnit et al. is to fix it, there are ways to go about it that don't include divisively trollish framing.
posted by Sys Rq at 3:58 PM on August 21, 2012

You know, there are lots of terms it would be pleasant to see go away for much the same reasons. Like, say, "white privilege".

You know when that term is likely to go away? When there's no more white privilege.

In the meantime, filling up a discussion about white privilege with complaints about the use of the term white privilege is pretty much just a waste of time.

Nonetheless, that's pretty much what's happening over in the Rebecca Solnit thread.
posted by kyrademon at 4:11 PM on August 21, 2012 [6 favorites]

Solnit didn't use the term. It's odd that you think she did.
posted by running order squabble fest at 4:14 PM on August 21, 2012 [1 favorite]

(In fact, the only mention of the term, I think, is to reference that somebody else introduced her to it after she wrote the article, in the foreword:

Young women subsequently added the word “mansplaining” to the lexicon. Though I hasten to add that the essay makes it clear mansplaining is not a universal flaw of the gender, just the intersection between overconfidence and cluelessness where some portion of that gender gets stuck.

So, the one use of the term - not in the original article - is to make it clear that it isn't an appropriate term to use of all men, nor is it intended to reflect on all men.)
posted by running order squabble fest at 4:18 PM on August 21, 2012 [1 favorite]

nangar, we're cool. Consider yourself hugged! (only if you feel like having one, naturally)

You do not need to be apologetic about complaining about men being condescending and dismissive

Excellent! Successful communication FTW!

I do go overboard with apologies. I even pre-emptively apologize. It's not because it's a socially-conditioned nervous tic (well maybe social conditioning is like 25% of it). It's because 1. if I've fucked up, I really am sorry, and I try not to let my ego get in the way of admitting it, and 2. IME online and IRL, if I admit being wrong or the possibility of being wrong first, that opens a space for the other person to consider that maybe they're wrong.

It's pragmatic presentation, as in that women-and-negotiation-minefield bit I quoted in the Solnit thread. Why should I have to soften, make more likeable, put a pleasant smile on, my words and presentation...all to compensate for somebody else's refusal to put aside his/her ego? His/her refusal to consider that maybe they subconsciously negatively judge women for "aggressive" behaviour that's lauded, or at least seen as normal, in men?

I shouldn't have to, in a just world. Since this world is not just, and I am extremely practical by nature, I usually pour a lot into framing my content in a softer style. It costs me* time and energy. It costs me meta-frustration when all those saintly efforts taking the high road are ignored if I slip up once by expressing unvarnished anger and some men are all YOU WON'T GET ANYWHERE USING THAT TONE! It costs me double when people, in sexism threads usually men, persist with vague accusations, sneers about petty motivation, snark, well-meaning explanations about how xxxx phenomenon doesn't actually involve sexism (based on their lifetime of empirical data from being at the receiving end? No). (Nobody's responded to me in this thread that way, sincere thank you, but in other threads. And reading those kinds of responses to others still enervates me.)

*Ironic -- I originally wrote "It costs me nothing." Because I'm so used to doing it now that at one level, it feels like second nature. Like brushing off those microaggressive catcalls, unasked-for remarks about my fuckability, etc, you just get used to it, adapt to the shittiness of it, and get on with life. On deeper levels, it has cost me a magnitude of time and energy and hope that I shudder to think of.

I'm glad to say that my stores of hope get replenished by men who grasp how much they don't know about being a woman dealing with this shit, modify their interaction styles appropriately, and succinctly say so to us and to other men. We've got to get that kind of respectful interaction role modelled more for boys. This multiple-iteration, one-soul-at-a-time pace burns too many of us out.
posted by cybercoitus interruptus at 4:22 PM on August 21, 2012 [10 favorites]

I'm not saying it isn't a problem. I'm saying that if the aim of Solnit et al. is to fix it, there are ways to go about it that don't include divisively trollish framing.

Racists also say that calling racism "racism" is divisive. You may want to not belong to that tradition, but it's a thing, this claim that we would all be happy talking about it if no one "blamed" anyone and no one tried to make anyone feel bad about their retrograde and oppressive actions. The thing you appear to want, that no one be incommoded by the recognition that some people, men in this case, are engaging in bad and oppressive behavior, even if all men are not engaging in bad and oppressive behavior, is a way of saying that you do not take this issue seriously and do not want to engage in any attempt to ameliorate the problem so (accurately) described.
posted by OmieWise at 4:35 PM on August 21, 2012 [9 favorites]

I'm saying that if the aim of Solnit et al. is to fix it, there are ways to go about it that don't include divisively trollish framing.

It's also not always the goal of every discussion of sexism to 'fix' sexism. Sometimes people need or want to talk about something, whether or not men approve of the language being used in the conversation.
posted by shakespeherian at 4:39 PM on August 21, 2012 [5 favorites]

Anyway - trying to get back to the original point, rather than the derail-about-a-derail.

Sys Rq, I get where you're coming from with the idea that one should posit an ideal state for all people alike, but the problem is that your formulation is somewhat like if the President, after Katrina, had said "All states of the union should have the appropriate level of FEMA attention". It's certainly true, and it's a great statement of principle, but it's kind of drawing attention and focus away from the important detail that New Orleans is underwater. It's an odd formulation.

And, speaking of comparisons, the comparison of women talking, primarily to and for the benefit of other women, about specific acts from specific men which they find oppressive with a racist statement made by an employer to all his employees of a particular race is ... not a useful comparison, I think. It doesn't map, effectively. Men are not in the same position as employees (and, in the comparison you draw, employees of a different race from their employer).

That, I think, is the first problem with that comparison. The other problem is probably that your argument would then logically be that those employees should not protest, or turn up late, or even suggest that they are unhappy with that racist generalization, in case it encourages the employer to be even more intransigently racist because of their divisively trollish response to his justified unhappiness with their tardiness. That's the equivalent, if you extend the metaphor, of saying that women should frame their conversations in ways calculated not to upset men.
posted by running order squabble fest at 4:47 PM on August 21, 2012

The problem in that Solnit thread is that a stubborn group of (how can I put this?) men is (once again) choosing the word "mansplaining" as a hill to throw grenades from, and no matter how often and how calmly it is explained to them that while the word may be imperfect it is just a word and is not aimed at you personally and it represents something real and harmful and can we please talk about that thing? their response is NO IT IS A BAD WORD AND WE MUST TALK ABOUT IT UNTIL ALL YOU BAD PEOPLE STOP USING IT. If I were a mod I would delete a bunch of those comments and add one of those modly advisories: [Note: A bunch of comments objecting to "mansplaining" deleted. You can have that discussion in MetaTalk if you really must, but here we are talking about the phenomenon it refers to and you are derailing that discussion, so please stop. Thanks!] But fortunately for all of us I'm not a mod.

I couldn't agree more with this.

In other spheres, this is what happens. If I come into a thread about a brand new Pixar movie and say that Pixar is stupid and their movies are childish, my comment is going to get deleted as a total derailment, because it would turn the conversation from one about the movies themselves to one about are they childish and am I an asshole for saying so and so on. And that's a great thing!

So why is this sad and tired style of derailment that seems to be happening in every recent discussion of gender not treated the same way? It demonstrably derails the conversation and produces GRAR in place of discussion. (And in case the anti-mansplainers weren't first, I'd be just as happy with mod intervention at the first enthusiastic use of the term, too, if that's what it takes to keep these derailments from happening.)

But right now we are getting exactly what LanguageHat describes, where the discussion gets repeatedly derailed by expressions of concern over tone and terminology, rather than the ideas and events that are what make the article worth posting in the first place.

This gets back to comments above about microaggressions and how they are currently flying under the radar of both moderation and flagging; unless they start getting treated for the derailments they are, we are just going to get more of the same.
posted by Forktine at 5:06 PM on August 21, 2012 [11 favorites]

The thing that gets my goat about the whole "mansplaining" thing -- the concept, not the word -- is that, even if it is predominantly a male-on-female thing, when you get down to it, the gender angle is a red herring.

No, the gender angle is central. Men explaining things to women that women already know is one of the many ways that it is reinforced to women, over and over and over again, that we should shut up - even if we know things, even if we've studied things, even if this is our field and we are an expert. It's a way of reinforcing that simply by being female we will never know as much as some random man who likes to talk. It is a pervasive and extended part of the systematic undermining of women's work and contributions, and directly causes harm to the women it is directed too, both in terms of undermining our self-worth and in terms of reinforcing yet again that we aren't important, aren't experts, and really should let the men do the talking.

It is systematic and pervasive.

Women who fight back against it often suffer severe social costs. I remember one time I was in a bar, had a beer and was generally enjoying watching people (introvert in bar = ooh, watch the social interactions!). One of the gentlemen int he party of near-strangers I was at the bar with came over to talk about me, and he loved The Secret and thought it was the best thing ever. His example was that poor people are poor not because they lack money but because they have a poor mindset. I very directly and firmly informed him of why he was wrong, and how the lack of money was far more important than any mindset they had, as poverty is self-reinforcing (via lots of systems which I started to explain).

He visibly recoiled from me as I began to disagree with him, leaning back and raising his brows. As I talked, he began to smirk - one corner of his mouth rose and his lips became tight (if you've studied involuntary facial responses, any single-sided expression is in the contempt family of expressions). After I started giving him examples, he interrupted me and said something to the effect of, "But don't you think their way of thinking psychologically makes them poor, since all they have experienced is poverty?" (We were both psychology students, hence the emphasis on the word). I said, heatedly, "No," and started to explain why. He got up and walked away.

I was never invited out with that group again, and the friend who had included me quietly let our acquaintance drop.
posted by Deoridhe at 5:07 PM on August 21, 2012 [20 favorites]

It's like whack-a-mole, this thing.
posted by Miko at 5:13 PM on August 21, 2012 [9 favorites]

Re: Mansplaining

Webster's added "flexitarian" fer chrissakes, I think we can deal with the neologism.

"it turns out, her ex was a horrible mansplainer about literature -- he had a passing interest in it, she was a damned literature teacher -- she did gently let me know that there are a couple areas in which I tend to mansplain."

My girlfriend's ex was an "expert" on whistling, and had convinced her she couldn't whistle despite her sounding like everyone else when she does.
posted by klangklangston at 5:20 PM on August 21, 2012 [2 favorites]

So why is this sad and tired style of derailment that seems to be happening in every recent discussion of gender not treated the same way?

Well, take a look at that thread and let me know at which comment you would have started deleting as derails?

Because I've seen sitting in that thread all day (though it was posted right before Matt's shift, so who knows if that had anything to do with anything), we've deleted a few comments [and fielded the inevitable emails about those deletions] and left a few mod notes and even discussed just axing the entire thread because it was becoming an embarrassing trainwreck but there's no specific point that was apparent at the time, when the thread was just fine and then where one or two comments made it go all sideways. People went back and flagged a bunch of comments after the fact, but I've been checking out every flag pretty much literally as they came in and reading every comment and even with this thread fresh in my mind, was not sure what I'd do differently.

And the few people who objected to the mansplaining term were addressed directly by other members of the thread and for the most part, while this was derailing it's on the top of the thread which, while it wasn't specifically about the word mansplaining was definitely about men's tendency to do this explainy thing. Which is just going to go poorly on almost any site full of overly analytical young men.

I know this sounds excuse-ridden and like weak sauce. At the same time, we have a very small and not particularly flexible toolkit and a very small staff. And this is based on our expectation that people will, for the most part, be able to manage themselves if no one is trolling and most people (not all people) are operating on the site in good faith.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 5:22 PM on August 21, 2012

Metafilter is not a safe space.

I don't know whether it should be, but I know it's not currently, not for anyone. I'll say this up-front just because I know if I don't I'll be called on it: it's not a safe space for women. Things happen here that shouldn't happen anywhere. But I don't think that's a point that really needs much explanation to demonstrate its truth, so I'll leave it at that. Meanwhile, once or twice I've tried to engage constructively a bit on things that get dismissed under the heading of "men's rights", and I know just how well that's gone. We do have systemic problems, and they can't be neatly filed under a one-size-fits-all "patriarchy hurts everybody" explanation. This comment is probably my best overall attempt at articulating what I'm trying to get at, should anyone care to read up on it.

Some of it, I think, is just the phenomenon of the internet. Everybody's an armchair economist, political scientist, etc., etc., and too, everybody's an armchair gender theorist. This is how we often get discussions based around catchphrases, because the real gender theory folks have known for a long time that there's a whole lot more going on than the internet-comment-soundbite versions can ever hope to express.

A recurring example (to pick one among several) is complete lack of awareness of what privilege really is and how it really works. For every ten times I see the word "intersectionality", I see a hundred more comments from people who really desperately need to be exposed to the idea that there are other, and perhaps even bigger, pictures they're missing by taking a one-dimensional view.

Anyway. All of this makes me sad, because the end result is that we get people yelling at each other and trying to stake out the more-offended-than-thou high ground, rather than people actually trying to talk about issues and overcome biases and ingrained notions. Simply because of the demographics of prolific commenters in those threads, this means that a lot of it is directed at "men" (that monolithic yes-I-mean-all-of-you-unless-you-take-offense-then-can't-you-see-it-wasn't-about-you-personally group) and issues they raise. A lot of it consists of disrespecting and dismissing and, yes, even some downright othering. There is even, to parody today's thread, quite a bit of "femsplaining", with a purpose of establishing/reinforcing roles and relationships to the advantage of the people who do it.

I don't know how to solve that, though, and I'm tired.
posted by ubernostrum at 5:29 PM on August 21, 2012 [3 favorites]

Another example, not of mansplaining but of how men assume that the space women take up should be theirs.

I go to a parking garage semi regularly to see clients and go to the coffee bars; you get the first portion of time free, and then after that you're charged by the hour for any part of the hour. I had mistimed my going to my car, so I was over the free period of time, but I still had a chunk of time before my next client. It was a hot day, so I decided instead of parking on the street near my next client's home, I would remain in the parking garage for a while since I was paying to exit anyway.

So there I am, car on but idling, listening to the radio and reading some website on my phone. I'm about as relaxed and secure as I get - without extreme violence no one could attack me, and I'm having a pretty good day. Suddenly, there is a very loud knock on my window, and I look up to see a man leaning over the window, looking down at me. His expression is very angry - eyes narrowed, face a bit read, lips tight together and pulled down at the sides. I'm instantly extremely nervous; he looks almost violent. I look in my rearview and there's a car there, not quite cutting off my exit but close to it.

The time I took to assess the threat was apparently Too Long, because he knocks on the window again, his expression getting even tighter. I roll down the window as little as I can, worried he'll reach in and attack me, and say - tightly I'll admit, "Yes?"

"Aren't you going to go?" His tone of voice was rather loud, very tight, and read as extremely aggressive. I'm instantly doubly on alert - he's angry and escalating fast.

I'm also increasingly pissed. I am doing nothing to this guy - I am literally just OCCUPYING A PARKING SPACE - and he is approaching and demanding things of me, specifically MY PARKING SPOT. Over the years I've tried to cultivate my anger in response to things like this, as a way of taking up my space in the world and feeling like I have a right to exist.

So I say, "No." and roll up the window, and then sit there.

He yells through the window a bit, the word bitch might have been used (I was trying very hard not to hear), then goes back to his car. the floor is concrete, so I can't tell you if he stomped or not. He went into his car and then idled there for a longer while, waiting. Again, his car was almost cutting off my exit, and definitely cutting off the direction I would want to go, and at this point I just Did Not Feel Safe. So I quick-dialed 911 on my phone, just in case, and went back to reading my website - but this time with ears pricked for him and his car, and an eye on my mirrors.

After about five minutes he drove off, gunning his engine very loudly.

Once I was sure he had hit the next level, and double checked to make sure he wasn't around, I backed out and drove out of the parking-space.
posted by Deoridhe at 5:30 PM on August 21, 2012 [16 favorites]

> Inspired by the thread, I talked to my girlfriend about the issue. I actually had to explain what mansplaining is, first... bit ironic, that!

Heh. My wife asked me why I was sighing and cursing so much today, so I explained, in the course of which I had to explain what mansplaining is, and she loved the term. (She also made psychological observations about the guys who belligerently object to it which I wouldn't dream of repeating here, but which amused me greatly.)
posted by languagehat at 5:31 PM on August 21, 2012 [4 favorites]

We do have systemic problems, and they can't be neatly filed under a one-size-fits-all "patriarchy hurts everybody" explanation.

I'm not sure I understand. The context you placed this in - between one sentence referencing "men's rights" and a link to a comment in which you talk about male privilege (and its lack) and specifically talk about homeless male vets - seems to me to be a specifically gendered one. So what I'm not understanding is how patriarchy is disconnected from those. Unless you're talking about some other, completely different systemic problems. What am I missing?
posted by rtha at 5:46 PM on August 21, 2012 [1 favorite]

At the same time, we have a very small and not particularly flexible toolkit and a very small staff.

This is like the third or fourth, maybe more, mention of staffing and feeling spread thin in this thread. Assuming that this is referencing background discussions about whether or not to add staff, I've thought the recent additions have already helped with coverage and consistency, and if more staff is needed I'm all for it.

Well, take a look at that thread and let me know at which comment you would have started deleting as derails?

If we are going from the start, I'd say that this comment is probably not one I'd delete, but definitely one that combines GRAR with a misreading of her position that is definitely derailish and worth a "Nope, don't go that direction" comment at least.

Then it goes really well for a while (presumably with some culling; my memory isn't sharp enough to mix and match neatly from when I read it while it was ongoing), but then we get a comment which could and should have been rephrased to make the same points but with less GRAR. The first redirection to MeTa happened only 20 minutes later, which is a great response time but long enough for more GRAR.

But then reading up from the bottom, three of the last four comments (as I type this) are still focusing on the term itself.

So I'm not sure if it is as much earlier redirection to MeTa that was needed as it was repeated redirection; the GRAR seems to have been leapfrogging the moderation due to the speed of the thread.
posted by Forktine at 5:47 PM on August 21, 2012 [2 favorites]

I just wanted to say, as I try to do in every thread like this, that I learn something from every one of these and thanks to the people willing to fight the good fight. And, again, I apologize for past indiscretions and try to catch myself when I might be mansplaining. It's hard, actually, since I gab a ton anyway and am a horrible listener. Working on it.
posted by maxwelton at 6:04 PM on August 21, 2012 [3 favorites]

and too, everybody's an armchair gender theorist.

Yeah, I don't really think this is true. Denying there is anything to discuss, because really, men have it tough too, is not really being an armchair gender theorist. It's being a sexist. I agree that a lot of these guys think their denial of responsibility and political accountability is adequately masked by their poor attempts at gender "theorizing," but that does not make it so.
posted by OmieWise at 6:14 PM on August 21, 2012 [4 favorites]

I imagine intersectionality is not wholly alien as a concept to many of the people talking here - but I also don't think intersectionality means what you may think it means, Ubernostrum. And, tbh, we've already done the "competing to look most offended' bit - it starts here.
posted by running order squabble fest at 6:41 PM on August 21, 2012

The mods in this thread have mentioned flags as a solution. I wonder if flags aren't a part of the problem. For mods they're a source of information for the general site mood. For users they're the equivalent of screaming into a pillow.

Flagging doesn't feel like it accomplishes anything, from the user perspective. In my experience, unless I'm using the "HTML/display error" flag, nothing ever happens. Intellectually I know that flagging accomplishes something, but there's no feedback at all. So I don't bother, really. Actually, "bother" is the wrong term. It's more that I never think of it.

For the record, I'm not arguing that flags should be made user-visible (it's a terrible idea). I don't think flags in general are a solution to MetaFilter's sexism problem. I don't know what is, really.

I don't know enough about how flagging works mod-side to comment on that, beyond saying that I feel that something as complex as community mood is hard to measure quantitatively.
posted by Kattullus at 7:09 PM on August 21, 2012 [3 favorites]

I'm discouraged. Just left that explaining thread again. Whatever it is we think we're doing, it isn't working.
posted by Miko at 7:10 PM on August 21, 2012 [5 favorites]

when predictable posters show up to tell the women how we're doing it wrong, i try to just leave the thread. that happened super early in the explaining thread so i've stayed out of it. just because the same people throw up the same road blocks, it doesn't mean progress isn't made.
posted by nadawi at 7:23 PM on August 21, 2012 [1 favorite]

just because the same people throw up the same road blocks, it doesn't mean progress isn't made.

But it means that you pretty much have to take yourself entirely out of a discussion you're interested in, have something to contribute to, and would enjoy hearing from others about if it didn't come with a big dose of toxicity.

I'm really having a hard time accepting "just opt out!" as the ideal solution. We could and should be having really good discussions about these topics, given the numbers of wise, smart, and experienced women and men here. Instead, we repeatedly get caught in the briar patch - we drive you and other helpful/interesting commenters away, the loudmouth idiots get the reward of seeing their prancing and display is accepted, and those who try to engage with them get exhausted and insulted. This is not a win-win.
posted by Miko at 7:28 PM on August 21, 2012 [5 favorites]

i agree with a lot of that. sometimes i still engage and just ignore the posters who i view as problems (and sometimes i respond because i feel like i can make a larger point using their fucked up logic as a starting point - and then, of course, sometimes i just fail at it and grar-rar-rar all over the place). i think that's what we can get better at - when it's the same shit-stirrers, just don't respond. talk about the thing you want to talk about. i know how difficult it is to ignore the elephant of idiocy in the room, but i think it can be the best tactic when dealing specific people.
posted by nadawi at 7:37 PM on August 21, 2012 [3 favorites]

It's a good goal but in practice it's hard to pull off. I've seen it happen from time to time. But when one person espouses Crazy View X, even if a subset of others try to carry on a conversation around them, once a few people engage Crazy View X, the conversation carries on. And someone is always desirous of addressing Crazy View X, either to support it or to contest it. In theory, "if we all just try our best," it works, but in practice, people don't behave that way. We rely too much on the internal motivations of others to be extra wise, extra mature, extra patient, and do the right thing. Eventually people who want to have a conversation get tired of trying to have it in a room where poo is being thrown.
posted by Miko at 7:45 PM on August 21, 2012 [3 favorites]

On the religious site where I post, some of the worst homophobes are the very people who scream blue murder if the word homophobic is used at all - usually making a huge fuss about its etymology.

Argh this kind of blatant flopping is the worst.
posted by en forme de poire at 7:51 PM on August 21, 2012

i see progress in this thread and that thread with guys talking about how these threads have shown them a different perspective and guys asking the women in their life if they feel marginalized in conversations and then women talking about how they didn't know there was language for these things and that they'd been confused but through these threads they see that it's one more thing they're not alone on. people are changing and learning and growing* - the people who are positive it's our tone or word choice or victim mentality and not at all ever the fact that we have boobs are going to dig that hole until they find magma probably, but others are listening.


*years ago i used to be one of those "i'm not a feminist, i'm a humanist"/i'm not like the other girls" idiots and i spewed some of that here, including some feminist sounding MRA bullshit. it was through threads like these that i realized how poisonous some of my assumptions were and how wrong i was to let the fringe on either side define feminism for me. these threads have made me more aware of my tendency to in-fight in a very pushing along the patriarchy sort of way and have helped me find ways to change that about myself.

on preview - yeah, i do agree with all of that. hence my staying mostly out of it (also because i have personal grief shit going on and i have some unchecked anger looking for a target so i didn't think i'd be helpful on this go around).
posted by nadawi at 7:52 PM on August 21, 2012 [4 favorites]

To respond or not to respond ...

I am saddened that strong (attention seeking) voices can drown out real discussion. I am saddened to see people who can contribute interesting perspectives bow out of a thread because of the noise. I don't believe we have only the choice of 'fight or flight'.

I choose to respond - but I respond to the inappropriate behavior (derailing); I don't argue the points in the off-topic posts. I'll admit, I am not able to do this all the time, but when I do, I try to be calm and persistent. (Albeit in the 'explaining thread' I felt mostly invisible, lol.)

Don't feed the ... um ... derailing =]
posted by Surfurrus at 7:52 PM on August 21, 2012

I think it's worthwhile to keep chipping away over the long haul at doggedly problematic issues like sexism and the common tendency of some people (including posters here) to use various arguments to silence others and or provoke a strong enough reaction that people feel the need to take a time out or seem so "strident" that they do more harm than good.

The question of course is the potential benefits (having a more inclusive community that engages in less boyzone or sexist behavior) worth the Sisyphean task of constantly trying to move the boulder up that damn hill over and over when the same old group of people seemingly push it right back down the slope whenever you seem to be making positive momentum? All too often it seems like the people most passionate and articulate about making positive improvements to a user community (whether Metafilter or any number of other communities - I've seen this happen multiple times) begin to lose patience with the slow rate of progress and the seeming inability for the community to engage with the subject matter at hand in a frank, open, and most importantly introspective manner.

I think we tend to view success or failure of these threads in too much of a binary way. Complete success one way or another either for or against a stated position rarely seems to happen especially here but I think it's possible to see gradual incremental change at the margins on subjects like this as more and more often I see threads like the mansplaining thread have frank and introspective comments despite the tendency for the overall signal to noise ratio to be diminished by constant bickering over whether a term like mansplaining should be replaced by a gender neutral word so as to not cause anyone any distress.

As hard as it is to stay engaged in threads like these which both tend to move at ridiculous rates and can be personally discouraging I do think that they tend to be worthwhile because they illustrate to new and old users alike that a) you aren't alone in feeling othered at times and b) that if you continue to engage in openly sexist (or other -ist) behavior you are going to be challenged. Some people obvious view that as a challenge to rise to but eventually I think most people are going to moderate their behavior when they see that their opinion is less and less tolerated by the overall community. Yeah sometimes it seems like an echo chamber or a dogpile in these threads and while that's not always ideal I do think that it is important for people to keep trying to engage and keep trying to emphasize that you don't have to be tolerate of -ist behavior to have a inclusive community.
posted by vuron at 7:55 PM on August 21, 2012 [2 favorites]

I started reading the explaining thread intending to post it in it (because I've been feeling guilty about not shouldering the load), but by the end, that intention had fled into the night. And this is from someone who doesn't like the word "mansplain" even as I frequently experience it, still thinks that the first five or six options is to show and inform and educate, and am pretty patient about doing so, and have 2 or 3 humdingers of examples from the past few days. But I just don't have the energy to try to get through to people who don't believe it exists at all. Maybe next time.

I started an comment four or five times in this thread, too. I started out by making the point that I don't believe the folks who do think the pendulum has swung too far are bad people, or have bad intentions, or are big ol' jerks. In fact, I think most of them have good intentions, don't want to be or seem to be sexist, and are incrediably frustrated. I really do believe this, and I think it does need to be said more often than it typically gets said, but it was depressing me, too, because I felt like I was putting men's feelings before my own experiences, so I closed the window without saying anything.

I'm not nearly as frustrated as some of the folks who have been participating. I don't know if it's because I have much lower expectations, or if I'm just inured to a lot of this stuff. I have no good suggestions for how to make it better around here, which is also frustrating. I like to fix things, make things better, and I just don't know how I can do that in these threads. (I believe this is something that has to come from the community and not the Mods, and as a member of the community, I don't know what to do!) I feel like I throw my voice into a well so deep that you can't hear the plop.
posted by julen at 7:57 PM on August 21, 2012 [2 favorites]

running order squabble fest, far too often I see incredibly one-dimensional views, often invoking "privilege", as in "because you are a member of a generally privileged group when we look only at this one axis, I can dismiss any claim you make to facing problems, or dismiss those problems as being by definition nowhere near as bad as someone else's".

A good analogy would be if someone had gone into the thread with the woman in France (?) who made the film about street harassment, and said "well, you live in a developed Western country, so your problems can't be that bad". I'd like to think most people would not be happy with that response, but too often we are happy with that type of response when it targets certain specific axes.

The comment I linked mentioned homelessness, for example; it's possible to make one-dimensional assertions about the problem, and to an extent gender is highly relevant (men are, according to every study I've seen, the large majority of long-term unsheltered homeless). But to really understand it you need to also look at race and class and a whole bunch of other issues that are involved in the dynamics. Which means that you need the ability to see the interplay of all those issues and the way they produce these outcomes, rather than just declare "group X is privileged, so what are they whining about" or respond with "because patriarchy". Want to guess which type of response is more common on Metafilter?

And rtha, my main issue is with the desire to equate "is or has a gendered component" with "is patriarchy". The two are not the same, should not be assumed to be the same, and attempts at expansive slices-dices-fits-all-causes definitions of "patriarchy" typically do not end well. And even at best, "this just shows how patriarchy hurts men too" really is victim-blaming, and that really is not what we should be striving for.
posted by ubernostrum at 8:24 PM on August 21, 2012 [1 favorite]

Those are extremely powerful comments, Eyebrows-- I cowered down in horrified sympathetic embarrassed identification by the time I reached the end of the second one-- but I can't imagine that IF will get a better shot from anything that could happen around here to change a few things about himself that are alienating a lot of people in his life.

I'm glad you're such a good person, because that is some armor-piercing insight right there.
posted by jamjam at 8:31 PM on August 21, 2012

And, once again over there, I literally just got told that by someone who has never met me that a major part of my childhood and adolescence did not happen. Just completely negated, because he doesn't believe it could be true.

Maybe if you're a child of the Victorian era. I don't know anyone born in the US who has been raised this way, nor do I know anyone in Western culture who has raised a daughter this way. I think this is a canard.

I just. . . what are we supposed to do with this?
posted by KathrynT at 8:36 PM on August 21, 2012 [12 favorites]

I just saw that comment, too, KathrynT (I've only briefly skimmed in an out of the thread). My jaw is still hanging open. It's such a perfect example of what people there (and here) have been talking about that it's like bad performance art.
posted by rtha at 8:42 PM on August 21, 2012

Yeah, I don't think I've ever seen the central thesis of a post proved quite so conclusively before.
posted by restless_nomad (staff) at 8:47 PM on August 21, 2012 [10 favorites]

because he doesn't believe it could be true

She, apparently, going by user profile.

what are we supposed to do with this?

Just what you and others did: push back, tell your stories, testify. It's good stuff and it's essential that it gets said.
posted by neroli at 8:48 PM on August 21, 2012

Wow. I just. There isn't. Wow.

Y'all should see the face I am making right now.
posted by cmyk at 8:49 PM on August 21, 2012

I think the face I'm seeing in the mirror is probably the same as yours.
posted by SweetTeaAndABiscuit at 8:52 PM on August 21, 2012

" There are these two young fish swimming along, and they happen to meet an older fish swimming the other way, who nods at them and says, "Morning, boys, how's the water?" And the two young fish swim on for a bit, and then eventually one of them looks over at the other and goes, "What the hell is water?" " *

I think we have some water issues. And now, in my case at the least, faces being stuck in horrified rictus issues.
posted by pymsical at 8:58 PM on August 21, 2012 [5 favorites]

She, apparently, going by user profile.

Well, I guess I'm glad that her experience has been so very different than so many others, and I will continue to hope that year after year, that freedom does becomes more universal. For a long time, I probably would have nodded in agreement, and then I had co-ed classes. Whoops.
posted by jetlagaddict at 9:08 PM on August 21, 2012

(Thinking aloud, I think has been covered, but in case it hasn't my memory sucks.)

There has got to be a way in threads which have sexism connotations to just turn off the TONE derails? Because that's all these folks have, and as has been pointed out endlessly, by focusing on that they not only drown out the real conversation to be had but avoid thinking about the issue itself.

I suppose the mods would Hate Us Forever if we just opened a new meta for tone arguments to happen in whenever they crop up in any number in the blue? Yes they would.
posted by maxwelton at 9:19 PM on August 21, 2012

I suppose the mods would Hate Us Forever if we just opened a new meta for tone arguments to happen in whenever they crop up in any number in the blue?

That's pretty much what MeTa is for, actually - it's the place where we talk about *how* we're talking about things. Can't say I want to see a sharp spike in the number of contentious MeTas, but if you feel a particular thread is having a problem with tone arguments as a substantial derail, you are certainly welcome to take it to MeTa. It doesn't mean the conversations can be cleanly severed, but in some cases I think it does help.
posted by restless_nomad (staff) at 9:23 PM on August 21, 2012 [1 favorite]

You're welcome to open the MeTa threads that you need to for that sort of thing, just don't do it automatically, do it if you think it needs doing according to the situation. I think part of the problem today is that saying "please go talk about this in the MeTa thread" and that thread is 1600 comments long isn't really a suggestion people are likely to take seriously.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 9:24 PM on August 21, 2012

Okay, normally I lurk. Maybe post an answer on the green. But "Victorian Era" got to me. I don't care if you're male, female, or somewhere on the spectrum between. Do NOT tell me that my experience did not happen to me.
posted by Meep! Eek! at 9:40 PM on August 21, 2012 [2 favorites]

I started to create a new MeTa thread to talk directly about the question of derailments from tone arguments and "polite microaggressions," but realized that doing so late at night and when both this and the ridiculous mansplaining mess are still active would have been unkind to the moderators.

I do think it is a needed conversation, though, and I worry that the intermittent discussion of it here gets lost in the 1698 comments here (as I type this, and growing). Some of the comments in the Solnit thread are just plain egregious, and it's a perfect concentration of what is normally spread thinly across the entire site.
posted by Forktine at 9:52 PM on August 21, 2012 [1 favorite]

Do NOT tell me that my experience did not happen to me.

I wish this MeTa had been there for me last month when I was trying to explain to Mr Tall White Man what my worm's eye experience was like in Africa and he said, "But I've never seen anything of that sort". No, you haven't, you're not a short brown woman.

And I was sitting there after he left the workroom feeling punched in the gut and tears of an absolute utter loneliness pouring down my face. That surprised me. That feeling of utter and absolute loneliness. I think that's why I've been avoiding these threads till now.

I am learning a lot by reading about all this. They don't teach this stuff where I tend to hang out.
posted by infini at 10:57 PM on August 21, 2012 [13 favorites]

In case she's still reading - this lurker wants to say thanks, flex, for your consistently awesome posts and comments, especially your epic bra post on the green - which finally got me into a properly fitted bra. Here's hoping you come back soon.
posted by zennish at 11:18 PM on August 21, 2012 [2 favorites]

On the blue. BLUE. Ugh.
posted by zennish at 11:21 PM on August 21, 2012

For people feeling burnt out, I bring you a few of my favorite offerings:

First: Calming Manatee. The manatee loves you.

Second: Texts from Cephalapods. OMG, octopuses are SO~ embarrassing to have as friends.

Third: Cute Overload, which is what it says on the tin (runs~!!).
posted by Deoridhe at 11:36 PM on August 21, 2012 [9 favorites]

Oh, my God. MY BLOOD PRESSURE. Look, this latest ASSHOLE comment. I flagged it as noise, but is there any point to doing that? I don't flag very often because I err on the side of second-guessing myself. Is this kind of shittery considered deletable? I mean, would enough people agree that it's shittery? I can see some arguing that it's merely not having RTFA, or a misinterpretation, plus not having bothered reading any of the preceding conversation. I don't recall comments getting axed for that.
posted by cybercoitus interruptus at 1:18 AM on August 22, 2012 [1 favorite]

Jesus. Deoridhe, thank you for the manatees and cephalapods and cuties.
posted by cybercoitus interruptus at 1:19 AM on August 22, 2012

I do think the flagging helps, especially if we all flag and move on because then when the mods' attention is drawn to something with 10 'derail' and 15 'offensive' flags on it, they can delete it without having to delete all the comments that responded to it. If you don't respond to the douchebaggery, it's easier for the mods to take action.

Failing that, point out that it's a derail or a tone argument, then re-rail the conversation. If all of us who are frustrated with this do that, I bet it'd help shift the discussion in a better direction. All they've got is tone arguments and accusing other members of lying, we don't have to respond to such threadbare bullshit.
posted by harriet vane at 3:30 AM on August 22, 2012 [1 favorite]

A good analogy would be if someone had gone into the thread with the woman in France (?) who made the film about street harassment, and said "well, you live in a developed Western country, so your problems can't be that bad". I'd like to think most people would not be happy with that response, but too often we are happy with that type of response when it targets certain specific axes.


Well, one hardly need imagine such a response. One need only go to the case of Rebecca "SkepChick" Watson, to whom no less a luminary than Richard Dawkins said:

Dear Muslima

Stop whining, will you. Yes, yes, I know you had your genitals mutilated with a razor blade, and . . . yawn . . . don’t tell me yet again, I know you aren’t allowed to drive a car, and you can’t leave the house without a male relative, and your husband is allowed to beat you, and you’ll be stoned to death if you commit adultery. But stop whining, will you. Think of the suffering your poor American sisters have to put up with.

Only this week I heard of one, she calls herself Skep”chick”, and do you know what happened to her? A man in a hotel elevator invited her back to his room for coffee. I am not exaggerating. He really did. He invited her back to his room for coffee. Of course she said no, and of course he didn’t lay a finger on her, but even so . . .

And you, Muslima, think you have misogyny to complain about! For goodness sake grow up, or at least grow a thicker skin.

From which we can conclude a) that being clever doesn't necessarily make you smart and b) that the use of "stop complaining, people have it worse elsewhere" is not a revolutionary concept, on either side. However, this is not really intersectionality. In fact, it's a very good example of of a privilege-preserving derail - Dawkins wants you to stop looking at people like him (western, male, relatively affluent, attend atheist conferences and conventions) and instead look at those people over there (foreign, male, relatively impoverished, do not attend atheist conferences and conventions). He's using various forms of privilege to shore up a specific male freedom (never to be criticized for making inept advances at 4am in elevators by the subjects of those advances). Which leads us neatly on to intersectionality.

So, intersectionality. Intersectionality is a tool developed by feminists to destablize and critique the dominant dialogs of second-wave feminism - dialogs, it argued, primarily constructed by middle-class straight white women, and blind to the destructive effects of white and straight privilege, among other things. It seeks to establish and critique a matrix of domination - an intersecting series of ways in which inequality is perpetuated through a number of oppressive systems, including but not limited to class inequality, inequality of global wealth, race inequality, inequality of sexual orientation and gender inequality. Intersectionality aims to align the struggle against patriarchy with the struggle against racism, poverty and various other -isms, and to identify them as facets of the same struggle.

One of the useful things about intersectionality is that it allows the lens of examination of privilege to be tilted in interesting and useful ways.

However, if you genuinely believe that the response on MetaFilter to the existence of homeless vets is to say "what are they whining about? They are largely men, and women always have it worse than men, regardless of their individual circumstance", I think you might be reading the goatee-universe MetaFilter. I'd definitely want cites, because I believe this to be a false assertion based on my experience.

In fact, homelessness has already been mentioned as a problem disproportionately affecting men, waayyy uptherad:

MetaFilter isn't the only place I submit links; I submit to reddit a whole bunch too. When I run across articles about improving mental health care (for men), homeless advocacy and solutions, and violence-reduction strategies, I'll flip them to r/MensRights.

Logically, mental health care, advocacy for the homeless and violence-reduction strategies are areas where men's rights activists and feminists should be largely aligned. Sadly, the man of twists and turns found little interest in these topics in r/mensrights, but that doesn't mean that people seeking to address them will not receive the support of feminists, nor that those people cannot be feminists.

Along the same line, it's sort of goatee-universe logic to argue that saying patriarchy hurts men too is "victim-blaming" - to be exact, it's an unwise attempt to appropriate a term from feminism to use against it. To paraphrase Audre Lorde, the mastrix's tools will never destroy the mastrix's house.

Men are not patriarchy, patriarchy is not men. The systems of dominance that make up patriarchy have many casualties, because patriarchy is not dedicated to the simple elevation of all men over all women - it is dedicated to the perpetuation and elevation of the representatives of patriarchy. This is, in fact, intersectionality 101.

So, Christine o'Donnell benefits from patriarchy in ways that a homeless male veteran does not, and suffers from it in ways that he does not. Relatively few aid organizations, however, are trying to provide food and shelter to Christine o'Donnell. Which seems sensible.

I suspect that few people here are adopting the goatee-universe positions you are positing, where patriarchy = all the men and privilege = the thing that only men, and all men, have over all women to the same extent and in the same way.

However, if one is talking specifically about, say, men repeatedly and vocally refusing to accept the validity of a woman's testimony of her lived experience, as one is to a very great extent here, privilege is a diagnostic tool, if you like, which can be used to examine why that is happening.
posted by running order squabble fest at 4:27 AM on August 22, 2012 [27 favorites]

Intersectionality would be a welcome addition to gender threads and I'll think about talking more from that angle, but intersectionality isn't about unrelated ways other people have it bad. Intersectionality and mansplaining might be, how does the dynamic work between men of color and white women and does it still exist in the same fashion? Or as was asked by someone (sorry can't find it), do gay men mansplain to women? How does mansplaining manifest in LGBT spheres? What about experiences of disabled women having their ailments mansplained to them?

I do apologize for arguing with derailers and trying to get them back on track.
posted by Danila at 4:37 AM on August 22, 2012 [5 favorites]

The question of course is the potential benefits (having a more inclusive community that engages in less boyzone or sexist behavior) worth the Sisyphean task of constantly trying to move the boulder up that damn hill over and over when the same old group of people seemingly push it right back down the slope whenever you seem to be making positive momentum? All too often it seems like the people most passionate and articulate about making positive improvements to a user community.. begin to lose patience with the slow rate of progress...

This is the crux of the thing, and I'm actually dangerously close, probably closer than at any point in my 10 year (lurker-->member) participation on MetaFilter, to saying "no."

I'm also frustrated because I don't see ready solutions at hand. I think it's definitely time to move the dial on what's above/below the acceptable line with regard to casual/micro sexism cropping up in threads. I know we vaunt the ability of MetaFilter to be a place of learning for people who wander in with these unexamined views, but just not being able to spew your ignorant stereotypes and have them stand might be a damned sight faster way to learn that they're not welcome than having 100 earnest people digging through their life experience and aquired knowledge to wheedle you into accepting the possibility that women as a group might not be misguided halfwits.

But if that's not a solution that we can envision, then I don't really know where to go. I was thinking about it as I law awake part of last night (not because of this, don't worry), and resorting to my usual problem-solving, roll-up-your-sleeves ideas, which is my nature. Form a committee? Hold a 'summit'? Create an alliance? Donate more so more staff can be hired? I really don't know the answer, but I'm interested in trying to think of some things to try.

I do know that, despite my great love of MetaFilter and the many good things it's brought into my life, I'm less and less interested in this crap and my contribution levels have definitely dropped a lot over the last couple of years because of it. I've never even looked at the red button before, but I get it now. I'm tired of pouring out 40s for excellent people who have left, and sad that we have so many potentially great contributors who stay quiet and don't participate because they don't want to wade in. There's a massive opportunity cost there - there are the obvious and unpleasant ways in which jerks make the site inhospitable, and then there are these side effects of discouraged participation which just plain make it less inclusive, less interesting, and less good.

Fantastic and helpful comment, running_order.
posted by Miko at 4:39 AM on August 22, 2012 [11 favorites]

...not being able to spew your ignorant stereotypes and have them stand might be a damned sight faster way to learn...

Yes. Yes yes yes yes yes. Persuasion doesn't work on people who are invested in not talking about the topic and want to stop us from talking about it. It's just threadshitting in a wordier disguise.
posted by harriet vane at 4:59 AM on August 22, 2012 [1 favorite]

Pony request: mods, could we have a flag list that appears after you've flagged someone? It doesn't have to do anything, it's just that like favourites, sometimes once just isn't enough to get me to bite my tongue.
posted by harriet vane at 5:05 AM on August 22, 2012

I think the moderating in the Explainer thread is starting to help. I know it's no fun, but thanks. Meanwhile, my MeMail is lighting up, but that's my problem to deal with. ;)
posted by Miko at 5:06 AM on August 22, 2012

do gay men mansplain to women?

*grins at memory of long drawn out friendly fights with former roomie in Finland*

Yes.

As S. told me once, he's still the man in the house *rolls eyes*
posted by infini at 5:08 AM on August 22, 2012 [2 favorites]

I think one real issue here is simply that I believe (based on previous mod comments) that we aren't allowed to call people who are clearly concern trolling in that thread (or elsewhere) concern trolls. But that's what's going on, and continuing to try to engage some of those folks as if they were acting in good faith leaches the willingness and ability of people who want to really have decent conversations to engage in those kinds of conversations.
posted by OmieWise at 5:10 AM on August 22, 2012 [1 favorite]

Gentlepeople, lend me your ears.

Running order squabble fest, miko and others, can I request you to cut and paste some of these insights (intersectionality, whole new concept for me) and others such as this (so that you don't have to repeat your work/writing) in my humble Ask, please? With any authors or sites or titles from which to educate myself further?
posted by infini at 5:16 AM on August 22, 2012

What Ask is this? There have been a lot of "Feminism 101" discussions and resources posted in the past. I thought we even had a Wiki for them at one point. Have to get ready for work so can't search.
posted by Miko at 5:42 AM on August 22, 2012

I assumed it was this one she meant, and commented in it :)
posted by ArmyOfKittens at 5:46 AM on August 22, 2012

This askme. Uh, on preview, what ArmyOfKittens said.

Meanwhile... dear me. I keep reading "goatee-universe" as "goatse-universe" and my brain vapor-locks trying to figure out what that even *could* mean.
posted by rmd1023 at 5:53 AM on August 22, 2012 [3 favorites]

And rtha, my main issue is with the desire to equate "is or has a gendered component" with "is patriarchy". The two are not the same, should not be assumed to be the same, and attempts at expansive slices-dices-fits-all-causes definitions of "patriarchy" typically do not end well. And even at best, "this just shows how patriarchy hurts men too" really is victim-blaming, and that really is not what we should be striving for.

ubernostrum - apologies for missing this last night.

I think that when someone is being punished or rewarded in part because of their perceived or enacted gender, then patriarchy is playing a part - how could it not? That doesn't mean that it's doing the heavy lifting all by itself - race and class and so on absolutely come into play. And I'm not at all understanding how pointing out that patriarchy hurts men (it hurts everyone, though in different ways and means and measures) is blaming the victim. Individual homeless male vet did not invent patriarchy; all men, as a class, who are alive right this second also did not invent patriarchy. It is beneficial in some ways to many and corrosive in other ways to more.
posted by rtha at 5:54 AM on August 22, 2012 [1 favorite]

Miko: "What Ask is this? There have been a lot of "Feminism 101" discussions and resources posted in the past. I thought we even had a Wiki for them at one point. Have to get ready for work so can't search."

The wiki has a "Metafilter Intro-to-Feminism" page that was begun by Brandon Blatcher, who incidentally also posted this MeTa asking for suggestions on how to make MeFi more friendly to women back in 2007 after the flag that had originally been labeled "offensive" was changed by mathowie to "offensive / sexism / racism".

Anyway, the wiki page is in need of some content. If any of you would like to add to it, signups are free. I'm happy to do so for anyone who asks and makes link or content suggestions. Just send me a MeMail.
posted by zarq at 6:12 AM on August 22, 2012 [6 favorites]

I do know that, despite my great love of MetaFilter and the many good things it's brought into my life, I'm less and less interested in this crap and my contribution levels have definitely dropped a lot over the last couple of years because of it. I've never even looked at the red button before, but I get it now. I'm tired of pouring out 40s for excellent people who have left, and sad that we have so many potentially great contributors who stay quiet and don't participate because they don't want to wade in. There's a massive opportunity cost there - there are the obvious and unpleasant ways in which jerks make the site inhospitable, and then there are these side effects of discouraged participation which just plain make it less inclusive, less interesting, and less good.

I couldn't agree more. Personally, I'm not feeling the need to take a break (though I have before), but I am close to simply choosing to not read and comment in these discussions, because the effect of the people who are clearly not participating in good faith is so toxic and leaves me feeling cranky. I have enough natural crankiness in my life, and there's no reason to seek out more. (If it hurts when you slam your hand in the door, the first step is to stop slamming the door...)

The solutions to this are structural, not appeals to people's better nature. It almost certainly means hiring more moderators to be able to maintain coverage on vacations (with the huge bonus of making sure current staff don't burn out, because they will be able to take nice long European-style vacations without needing to think about work); it means adjusting the bar of what counts as "sexism" and "derail" and hence requires intervention; and it means ongoing comments/directives encouraging flagging in those situations.
posted by Forktine at 6:13 AM on August 22, 2012 [1 favorite]

Wait, what? Brandon set up the feminism wiki? Is this some sort of ... situationist long game?
posted by running order squabble fest at 6:24 AM on August 22, 2012 [2 favorites]

Brandon": ""s/your/gman/2"

Ok, what does this mean? I thought it was a/s/l for age/sex/location? What is this strange dialect you speak?

Sorry, obscure MOO code. I mistyped in my previous post, "your" for "gman" on the second line. The way to correct that in code is s(ubstitute)/your(error)/gman(correction)/2(line). At this point it's such a standard way for me to mark corrections that I didn't think to explain it.
posted by Deoridhe at 4:12 AM on August 22 [+] [!]

obscure MOO code

Originally, it's how you do string substitution in the Unix utility sed. MANSPLAINED!
posted by RogerB at 4:20 AM on August 22 [1 favorite +] [!]

No, the sed for that would be

2s/your/gman/

which is syntax that sed did not originate but inherited from ed, which in turn got it from QED.

NERDSPLAINED!
posted by flabdablet at 6:29 AM on August 22, 2012 [3 favorites]

Miko don't you dare go.
As for those concern trolls and those not acting in good faith and who just like to stir the embers to watch a fight I believe a little bit of naming and shaming goes a long way.
This thread is nearly a week old now and many people have dropped by. Some shouldn't have and many haven't read the whole 1717 comments. This in itself causes a problem. I don't know what the solution is but people like Miko, who is one of the more eloquent writers here, people like her hitting the button is not a preferred one and would not benefit the site. Jerks need to be told and the telling should be public.
posted by adamvasco at 6:34 AM on August 22, 2012

running order squabble fest: "Wait, what? Brandon set up the feminism wiki? Is this some sort of ... situationist long game?"

When their comments here on Mefi are all you know of a person, it's easy to think of them almost as one-note caricatures. But I'm frequently reminded that people are far more complex in real life than they are online.
posted by zarq at 6:41 AM on August 22, 2012 [9 favorites]

I don't have the impression that Brandon isn't a feminist.
posted by Miko at 7:02 AM on August 22, 2012 [4 favorites]

Wait, what? Brandon set up the feminism wiki? Is this some sort of ... situationist long game?

What is your exact point with this comment?
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 7:19 AM on August 22, 2012 [5 favorites]

> I think it's definitely time to move the dial on what's above/below the acceptable line with regard to casual/micro sexism cropping up in threads.

I agree. I wouldn't have once, because I am as strong a free-speech believer as you'll find, but I've come to realize that the damage caused by shitty comments like the ones in the Solnit thread (an especially tragic victim of this syndrome, because Solnit is talking about an incredibly important and pathetically underdiscussed problem that could have sparked a really great thread) is far greater than that caused by denying their say to asshats like the guy who posted that nonsense about how Solnit was just as bad because she wrote a bunch of books and couldn't possibly know what she was talking about. Those people can go down to their corner bar and spew that shit; when it's allowed to stand here, it stifles real discussion, forces a lot of smart and eloquent people to waste their time trying to politely and patiently counter the bullshit, and drives good members away. (Come back, flex!)

So yeah, here's another vote for more aggressive deletion and [Please don't do that stuff] modly activity. MetaFilter can be better than this.
posted by languagehat at 7:41 AM on August 22, 2012 [13 favorites]

One good thing from this thread is that I learned a new word: Intersectionality.
posted by charred husk at 7:41 AM on August 22, 2012

Yeah, Brandon's a good egg.
posted by Kattullus at 7:49 AM on August 22, 2012

Is that why so many want to lay him?

HAR HAR
posted by cashman at 7:53 AM on August 22, 2012 [1 favorite]

On the site I cut my internet teeth on, we would often encourage ourselves and others to not feed the trolls. Just ignore the people obviously trying to stir turds, or dicker others over trivialities, and so on. It was often stated in topics and not really a big deal if someone took offense at being called a troll, because everyone else was too busy ignoring them . The scope of the topics tere was much tighter, and it was much more obvious what was a derail and what was not, but generally, derails were ignored by the posters.

When I first came here, I had a mental dialog of "troll! another troll!" in my head and it took me a while to figure out here that troll was one of the biggest insults you could use here, and that it was not okay to assume that another poster wasn't operating with the utmost sincerity. I accepted that this was Metafilter culture, but it never really changed my base feeling that some posters here are huge trolls, and almost never operate with any sincerity or true interest in exchange of ideas. They've come into this topic with ulterior motivations and been allowed to freely engage in their idea of Metafilter, which is following other posters around the site to harrass and swear at them.

So I would love to be able to go into topics and say Don't take the bait! Walk around the big turd just laid in your path! but I know that's not cool here, and the scope of the discussion is wide enough that derails can be a matter of opinion.
posted by Squeak Attack at 7:58 AM on August 22, 2012 [1 favorite]

It's a horrible balancing act for the mods, of course.

And, as I said upthread, it's something that needs to be tried out when the site is not already raging. There's this inflammation sort of thing that happens where when there are a few really difficult threads, problems spill over into other parts of the site, everyone is really het up, people quit or get time-outed in droves [two of the people in that Solnit thread either left or got the night off bringing the total I'm aware of this week to six or possibly seven] and every single comment or mod action gets a level of scrutiny that makes it difficult to do anything much less anything different.

We ask people to take things to MeTa, they don't, we try to curtail angry acting out in thread or tell people to not make it all about them, they quit. These are problems and while I know most people may not mind if someone who has been acting like a stubborn jerk quits the site, we actually do care. It matters, even if we may not disagree that their leaving has been better for the community as a whole. We can't just hound people off the site because we disagree with the way they acted in a single thread. People have bad days and outside things in their lives that affect their interactions here. So we work slowly which isn't always something people are okay with and it gets really difficult when there are a few fast moving threads.

So, again, agreeing to the general idea. Disagreeing that starting with the Solnit thread is going to do anything but increase the body count. We, by necessity, work on the long game here. We'd like to address this issue in general but whichever way the window shifts, it's not really going to start with the Solnit thread and we'd appreciate your patience.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 8:16 AM on August 22, 2012 [12 favorites]

We, by necessity, work on the long game here. We'd like to address this issue in general but whichever way the window shifts, it's not really going to start with the Solnit thread and we'd appreciate your patience.

That makes sense, Jessamyn. Thank you.
posted by bardophile at 8:22 AM on August 22, 2012

Yeah, thank you. I don't know how you all do it. The reading alone is enough to exhaust a person.
posted by cashman at 8:24 AM on August 22, 2012 [2 favorites]

jessamyn, as always, I'm in awe of your reasoned approach to modding here. And I can certainly see your point re the generally inflamedness of where things stand and how that leads to problems that make changes difficult to institute now. I think what I, and several other people, are seeing here, though, is not people having a bad time in a single thread, but consistently having trouble with the notion that sexism exists and affects women negatively. In turn, those folks (almost all men) are consistent in their derailing of threads in which sexism is the topic. This amounts to a de facto suppression of discussions about sexism, and a concomitant suppression of women on the site. It's quite distressing, and I know you're playing the long game (and that you care about these issues), but I do think it's important not to (even rhetorically) buy into the "it could just be a bad day/they might see the light tomorrow" position since I think that obscures the very real effects of this continued behavior.
posted by OmieWise at 8:25 AM on August 22, 2012

and drives good members away. (Come back, flex!)

This seems kind of inappropriate.

flex doesn't seem to have stated explicitly why she hit the big red button but her contributions in this thread make it seem unlikely that it was for the reason you seem to be suggesting, as she was actually taking issue with people shouting down others because they felt they were in the right.

Her first post in this thread:

I never thought I'd feel this bit of sympathy for anyone on "the other side" (which "side" has extended essentially the opposite to me on many occasions) but I am so tired of seeing threads devolve into Righteousness That Does Not Allow For Nuance vs. Everyone Else.

It's still bullying and dismissiveness - an unwillingness to hear anything outside the party line - and I find it not only hypocritical but quite frankly boring because it squelches participation and does not allow for evolution in discussion. I absolutely agree it is maddening to hear the same kneejerk shit over and over, but the righteousness is its own form of kneejerk, and the repeated shoutiness is exhausting and rude.
posted by flex at 4:50 PM on August 16 [11 favorites +] [!]
posted by Reggie Knoble at 8:25 AM on August 22, 2012 [4 favorites]

I'm not sure if the internet popularity of I'd-Hit-It jokes has died down, but it certainly has around Metafilter. I don't know whether to attribute that to straight-up deletions (so I just haven't seen them), middling success of these epic feminist discussions, or Jessamyn's erstwhile Cooter Counter. I do feel like the Cooter Counter had some effect, though, and I wonder if similar-functioning kind-of-jokey-all-in-good-fun-but-seriously-guys-what-the-fuck tactics might be employed by mods or others to keep awareness up around the site of certain recurring issues such as these.
posted by shakespeherian at 8:29 AM on August 22, 2012

I think one real issue here is simply that I believe (based on previous mod comments) that we aren't allowed to call people who are clearly concern trolling in that thread (or elsewhere) concern trolls. But that's what's going on, and continuing to try to engage some of those folks as if they were acting in good faith leaches the willingness and ability of people who want to really have decent conversations to engage in those kinds of conversations.

"Concern troll" as a specific bit of language is really problematic for reasons largely directly related to how "troll" is itself really problematic. It doesn't get read the same way by everyone, it invites an argument over the definition of an overloaded term, it buckets people immediately and visibly into subjectively-declared "people who deserve credit" vs. "people who deserve none" partitions, etc.

I think if you think someone is doing something that you'd describe as concern trolling, you can absolutely call that out; just find some way to do it that's more explicit and less putting-a-stamp-on-it than literally calling them a concern troll. Because it doesn't work, it doesn't settle things down, and it certainly doesn't redirect the thread away from them when you go there.
posted by cortex (staff) at 8:32 AM on August 22, 2012 [3 favorites]

Brandon: would you take "expression of sincere confusion"? I'd just seen a post in the mansplaining thread where you had expressed your amusement about how emotional people were getting. So it was a sudden and surprising juxtaposition.

If you want to go a little deeper, then... Well. We're not talking about personal characteristics here, I want to say right off the bat, but about behaviors. And the behaviors I mainly associate with you in this kind of discussion involve telling people that they should not care about things, that you would not care about said things, and sometimes that, when you do experience discrimination, you are not affected by it, and others should not be either. I guess if called upon to find examples I could go fishing, but for the moment I hope it's OK to say that this is just a thing I have noticed in some of your behaviors, whether correctly or not.

Now, that's a pattern of behaviors which I often associate (and this is not _at all_ suggesting this is the case here, only seeking to provide insight into my thought process, as requested) with people who have experienced a trauma, and have responded to it by "hardening up". That's just my association, of course. So, when people say that they are amused or interested by something, that often reads to me as a distancing mechanism, which means "this is important to me, but I don't feel able to show emotion about it".

And feminism, while feminists can be and often are tough, is more about being open to people's responses to stimuli, I think, and to one's own. Intersectionality in particular is about attempting to feel and relate to injustices even when they do not directly disadvantage you. As is Quote-unquote male feminism, or feminist ally practice, or what you will.

So, that seemed like a surprising datum - that you were the founder of the MetaFilter feminist wiki. It seemed odd. That doesn't really affect whether you are a good egg or not, pace Katullus - I know plenty of good eggs who, for whatever reason (often, IMHO, not great ones, but that's MHO) do not identify as feminists. But it's a broad church, of course - one can identify as a feminist and still take powerful issue with others who also identify as feminists. We've seen that in this thread, and indeed in the Solnit thread.

If you do identify as a feminist, and if you are offended at the suggestion that it is surprising that you might not identify as a feminist, then clearly I have misread your behaviors, and drawn an incorrect conclusion based on responses which seemed to me to be representing a view that concepts like tone argument, trigger warnings, whatever-we're-calling-mansplaining-now and the male gaze are (a) in themselves funny, and (b) that people who take them seriously are silly.

So, that was my surprise - that you were not just feminist-identifying but a kind of foundational Metafilter feminist. But it might be totally unfounded surprise. If you identify as a feminist, and you find it upsetting to have doubt cast on that, I'm both very happy to be corrected and very sorry about my error.
posted by running order squabble fest at 8:40 AM on August 22, 2012 [4 favorites]

I think what I, and several other people, are seeing here, though, is not people having a bad time in a single thread, but consistently having trouble with the notion that sexism exists and affects women negatively.

I Get It.

We have a lot of long-time users here who do not share the "things have to change" conclusion reached by many in this thread. They exist and are real people who also have access to email and the flagging feature. It's not a simple thing to try to figure out how to get more aggressive dealing with casual sexism [which, by definition, doesn't have bright line boundaries that you can make clearly enforceable rules around] which, as I'm sure you know, gets defended as if people had a god-given right to employ it.

One of the reasons we don't have a more aggressive approach to sexism generally is because it's really fucking difficult. It's easy to say "Don't say cunt" it's difficult to say "Don't stifle discussion" or "Don't continually derail the conversation by coming back to your own misapprehension of the topic" because both of those things are subjective and will be argued to death by our little pack of rules lawyers. And they also require a unified approach by the mod team and, ideally, by "management." This would be simpler to do if we had twice the staff. We have spent a lot more time visibly moderating against the "Take on all comers" style of discussion as well as the "Make sure it looks like you're not trolling" but even that is very slow going.

As it is, in practice, this becomes a sort of microcosm of the larger issue where the mostly-female mod team gets leaned on (sorry cortex) and pressured by people on (at least) both sides of this topic as we run a site that's been in existence for 13 years. I feel that I could build a site from HTML that would have the characteristics and the moderation that I chose and keep it that way through sheer force of will. Making a site with an existing culture into one that has a slightly different culture, if you're unwilling to be pretty draconian about it, is complicated.

And yes, to speak to your point I feel like there are some people for whom MeFi is their Continuing Bad Day and they act out here because they are bored or irritable without giving much thought to the real-world effects their contributions have on other people's real lives and it's past time to tell them to quit that. That's the biggest thing that I feel we could be applying pressure on [a few early comments in the Solnit thread which were just exasperated complaints by both male and female commenters probably could have been axed] and where we'd like to go.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 8:45 AM on August 22, 2012 [11 favorites]

[derail]I really respect and admire Rebecca Watson, absolutely ADORE the SGU, and was so disappointed in Mr. Dawkins' behavior in that debacle. Just goes to show that intelligence has nothing to do with our personal blind spots. It's a real shame, as I like Mr. Dawkins as well. Also, in DJ Groethe. Really impressed that Ms. Watson stuck to her guns and declined to attend TAM.[/derail]
posted by lazaruslong at 8:54 AM on August 22, 2012 [1 favorite]

where the mostly-female mod team gets leaned on (sorry cortex)

Clearly cutting my hair was a subconscious attempt to reposition the fulcrum!
posted by cortex (staff) at 8:54 AM on August 22, 2012 [1 favorite]

I keep forgetting about the haircut.
posted by shakespeherian at 8:55 AM on August 22, 2012

our little pack of rules lawyers

Who you calling little?
posted by bardophile at 8:56 AM on August 22, 2012

Thanks, jessamyn. As I said, I have some sense of the problems here, especially because you (plural mod) have been good enough to share them pretty transparently, and I think you are doing very good work within the bounds of all of that. I know, too, that my own Bad Day meter gets tilted by some of these threads and my contributions proceed from 'constructive' to 'snippy' (I would like to think I don't hit 'destructive' most of the time) with some regularity. I guess in part, and this isn't great, my comment above was a defense of that. I'm honestly personally struggling with how much respect and benefit of the doubt is due other community members who engage in serial dismissal of topics like this, and while on the one hand I'm embarrassed about the extent to which that struggle contributes to less than civil conversations on the site, I think my comment is also meant to suggest that there is (as I'm sure you're already aware) an overall cost to the site when sexist behavior continues, especially (at least for me) when it comes from serial dismissers.
posted by OmieWise at 9:07 AM on August 22, 2012 [1 favorite]

I do feel like the Cooter Counter had some effect, though

Ghah, that stupid thing; I still resent being listed on there simply because some literal-minded bell-end let zeal get in the way of reading comprehension. That it's still up on the wiki, and that apparently some jerks were using it to be jerky (As per grouse's removal) pisses me off.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 9:26 AM on August 22, 2012 [1 favorite]

You think you've got it bad, I'm credited twice. (As far as the ultra-low stakes of the unofficial wiki record go, you could always go leave an explanatory comment on the talk page, I guess.)
posted by cortex (staff) at 9:30 AM on August 22, 2012 [2 favorites]

Yeah but you did it on purpose.
posted by shakespeherian at 9:33 AM on August 22, 2012

I think it's definitely time to move the dial on what's above/below the acceptable line with regard to casual/micro sexism cropping up in threads.

Another vote in favour. Mod heroism can only go so far once the fire's burning. Pluck weeds when you see 'em.
posted by ead at 9:35 AM on August 22, 2012

Brandon: would you take "expression of sincere confusion"?

Absolutely and thanks for explaining.

I'd just seen a post in the mansplaining thread where you had expressed your amusement about how emotional people were getting. So it was a sudden and surprising juxtaposition.

No sweat, clarification here.

If you want to go a little deeper, then... Well. We're not talking about personal characteristics here, I want to say right off the bat, but about behaviors. And the behaviors I mainly associate with you in this kind of discussion involve telling people that they should not care about things, that you would not care about said things, and sometimes that, when you do experience discrimination, you are not affected by it, and others should not be either.

Yep, I've said and done these things, totally understandable on your part. To clarify a bit, my general though process is so: "Sexism is obviously wrong, on a degree that only the truly ignorant would say, so taking them seriously on that note takes more emotional energy than it's worth". Sure, we're all human and we al reach breaking points where that one comment or look or whatever produces the FUCKING ENOUGH stance and verbalization.

But yeah, I usually put the racist and sexist lines of thought in the class of "oh a child is talking" and who responds to everything that flies out of five year old's head?

So, that was my surprise - that you were not just feminist-identifying but a kind of foundational Metafilter feminist.

Well. Honestly I'm feeling like I need to take myself off that list, if I was ever on it or the list even existed. I came to that conclusion last night, while hanging out with two guys and three women, playing board games and later just the three women, while eating homemade pizza. All three of the women are beautifully smart, capable people. Two are those women are know for their strong opinions and explaining things that other people probably know more about. No one refers to them by their sex when they do that. We (the larger circle of male and female friends) just say "Oh, you know T. was just being T., so I let her blow off steam and then steered the conversation somewhere else". Only one of those women is my wife, but I've hung out with all three alone and shot the breeze about various things and I've asked them for help on stuff they know more about than I. This isn't something new or strange, but it hit home as I was thinking about this thread and feminism on Metafilter while hanging out.

What goes on in these feminism threads doesn't seem to match my personal life. That's probably due to the difference of physical life vs Metafilter, where the group in the former is naturally and repeatedly self selected, so racist/sexists/assholes don't last long, while the later is thrown together group from around the world with a low barrier of entry and staying. I know some of the personal stories of the women and I know it hasn't been easy and they've dealt with at times horrendous, unfair and downright appalling shit from some men. Yet I've never, ever felt as anything less than their friend and nor a shred of very understandable anger at those problems from men directed towards me, a man. The same can't be said for Metafilter. Perhaps I'm taking things too personally.

I've interviewed and hired women to work for me. All of them have said I'm awesome and one of their best bosses ever and most have kept up friendships with me after they've moved on. This isn't a big deal, just the way it should be.

I'm not perfect in regards to sexism, in real life or Metafilter. Just two days ago I asked the mods to delete a comment of mine because it was edging into the creeptacular territory. Yet the comment was written with the full exuberance and meaning of "This post is awesome and you're awesome for making it" and nothing else. It took a minute or two to recognize that the innocent intent would not be clear from the meaning.

What goes on in these feminism threads is not fun. I come to Metafilter for fun. It's fun to learn and I've learn a lot in previous threads about feminism, stuff that has changed how I think and interact with the world, stuff I'm eternally thankful for learning. The current feminism threads no longer feel like fun. Instead they're an emotionally draining battle that negatively effects how I think of other members and how they think of me. I find myself ranting about these threads instead of saying to real life friends "Hey, I found this cool link/video/site on Mefi today."

What goes on in these feminism threads feels more like an agenda and less like the desire to share something new and amazing. Agendas are fine. Agendas are important. Agendas for female equality is absolutely one of the most important agendas in the world. It is repugnant, morally and flat out idiotic on an individual and societal level to deny half the population the ability to be anything less than exactly what they want to be. That's a basic truth.

But the agenda of feminism on Metafilter seems to be inching towards nitpicking, pettiness and raw anger. I don't mean to offend anyone with that statement, just express what I'm seeing. Really, micro aggressions? What the hell is that? Mansplaing? Someone suggested forming committees or alliances? What does that even mean??Sure, the chance of those ideas being implemented is small, but that these threads now express the idea of stamping out any and all gendered insults or lines of thought is disturbing. It doesn't seem realistic and even if it is, the cost strikes me as too high. I rather see the community deal with the sexism or ignore the really crazy bits. But for now I'm done with this topic on the site.

Anyway. This turned out way longer than expected. I get that this is minority view and Thanks for listening, but there's high resolution video of a spacecraft landing on Mars that I've been meaning to get to. Peace to all.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 10:50 AM on August 22, 2012 [10 favorites]

> What goes on in these feminism threads doesn't seem to match my personal life.

Very understandable, and it's good that you recognize that disconnect.

> What goes on in these feminism threads feels more like an agenda and less like the desire to share something new and amazing. [...]
But the agenda of feminism on Metafilter seems to be inching towards nitpicking, pettiness and raw anger. I don't mean to offend anyone with that statement, just express what I'm seeing. Really, micro aggressions? What the hell is that? Mansplaing?

...But then you should know better than to say stuff like this, which you do way too often. Just because something is inside your head doesn't mean it needs to come out in public. Yes, micro aggressions. Yes, mansplaining. If you want to know what the hell it is, listen to what the women are saying. And for Christ's sake stop talking about "nitpicking, pettiness and raw anger." It doesn't help.
posted by languagehat at 11:20 AM on August 22, 2012 [17 favorites]

And yet, despite all these remarkable attributes, they'd exchange brief stories of being afraid because they were momentarily alone, sometimes after dark [eg. "I was sitting in my car, checking my list, and looked up and saw a man walking towards me, and OMG I hadn't locked the doors!]. The stories were brief because nothing happened. In many cases, I was familiar enough with the times and places that I felt I could make a reasonable assessment of the actual level of risk, which would be "almost zero".[*]

Returning to this because of an article in today's Oakland Tribune: Oakland police: Woman sexually assaulted by man who got into her car at stop sign

Police are warning women to lock their car doors while driving after a woman was sexually assaulted last weekend by a man who got into her car while she was at a stop sign.

Police said the 25-year-old woman was attacked by a man who opened the passenger side door while she was at the stop sign at E. 9th Street and 29th Avenue in the Fruitvale at 3 a.m. Saturday.

Once he was in the car, the suspect grabbed her cell phone, handed it to another man standing on the corner and then ordered the woman to drive to an isolated area, where police say he sexually assaulted her.

To anyone who wonders why women react with hostility when told that we're being paranoid and that the risks we're facing are "almost zero", stories like this have a lot to do with it.
posted by Lexica at 11:23 AM on August 22, 2012 [4 favorites]

To anyone who wonders why women react with hostility when told that we're being paranoid and that the risks we're facing are "almost zero", stories like this have a lot to do with it.

Just this morning I was reading a study about risk and design in a particular kind of civil engineering project. It centered on a basic equation: risk equals probability times consequences. So even though the probability of a random attack like that is extremely low, the consequences are so high that one needs to take the risk seriously.

It's not crazy thinking or paranoia; it's the same kind of cold-blooded risk calculations you go through to assess whether or not a bridge will survive a flood or what kinds of rivets to use on an aircraft wing.
posted by Forktine at 12:00 PM on August 22, 2012 [11 favorites]

Where it gets out of hand is when its not contextual. That is, one displays a different level of awareness when walking in a street in a Delhi or Nairobi than in a Helsinki or Singapore. Perhaps what BB is picking up above is that online, here, the context of the various textual communications is not there so the words come out with far more purity than say if a friend was sharing a story with a friend over a pizza or a beer in the relaxed safe atmosphere of a warm kitchen.
posted by infini at 12:04 PM on August 22, 2012 [1 favorite]

What goes on in these feminism threads doesn't seem to match my personal life.

Well, me too, you know? Because at the moment, the only people I know that I rely on to tell me that an experience I've had is not real or that I've totally misinterpreted it are on Metafilter. None of the guys I currently know and am friends with in meatspace do this (nor do the women). Maybe this says something about how awesome I am about picking friends, or maybe it's a really stark difference between online and meatspace interactions, maybe both and more.

But that disconnect doesn't make me feel like people who tell stories about being catcalled, or who call out men who are dismissive, etc. here on mefi are being nitpicky or petty. And being angry is a-okay by me when you've got something to be angry about. The disconnect makes me feel grateful that I don't have to encounter this as often as I used to in my non-online life and community. It doesn't make me think that people here are making things up or turning mountains into molehills.
posted by rtha at 12:05 PM on August 22, 2012 [14 favorites]

Brandon Blatcher: Mansplaing?

You mention that you're grateful to be able to learn things from MetaFilter. Here's your chance to do so again: This is immlass' definition from upthread. This comment and this one further explain why noting gender with regard to the behavior is appropriate.

This is a thing.

It really does exist.

It really is a problem.

It's a big problem when it manifests in business environments. It's an even bigger problem when it shows up in politics, as with Todd Akin, who apparently thinks that he knows better than women how their own bodies work. Why is it a bigger problem? Because at that point it's not just one man condescendingly dictating to a woman how she should feel, think or act. It's one man fighting to pass legislation which will dictate to women what they have a right to do with their own bodies.

So yes, it's a thing. We talk about it because it's important. You don't have to take my word for it, either. Please go through the Solnit thread yourself and look at the women who basically said, 'it's really a thing, and it's really a problem.' That it is inherent to the way they were socialized in modern culture. Two female mods said it. So did a whole bunch of female MeFites.

Meanwhile, the Solnit thread featured women giving personal examples of ways mansplaining has directly affected them. What happened when they talked about those incidents? Did their stories give rise to reasonable, sympathetic discussions? No, of course not. A lot of men showed up to explain that the problem isn't gendered -- can't possibly be gendered! -- because it happens to them too.

And you just have to laugh at the irony of the situation. Or cry. Perhaps crying would be more appropriate. Because it's not JUST that the defensive guys don't get it. It's that they don't have a blessed clue what an exemplary job they're doing of proving the point people are trying to make to them. You know, if they'd only bother to listen instead of telling women how they should be feeling.

But the agenda of feminism on Metafilter seems to be inching towards nitpicking, pettiness and raw anger.

I disagree with you on the nitpicking and pettiness. That's neither here nor there.

But as for raw anger.... let's imagine for a moment that you've spoken from the heart about an incident that happened to you, which has affected you deeply. Now imagine that people whom you normally have no quarrel with, whom you usually respect and interact pleasantly with, but who are mostly strangers, tell you you're a liar who doesn't know what you're talking about.

I bet you'd be pretty angry. In your shoes, I would be too.
posted by zarq at 12:07 PM on August 22, 2012 [9 favorites]

Yes, mansplaining. If you want to know what the hell it is, listen to what the women are saying.

Dumb edit on my part, I understand what is and recognize it exists. just object to the term. Substitute "Is the term mansplaining really helpful?" for "What is mansplaining?" in the original comment.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 12:25 PM on August 22, 2012

But the agenda of feminism on Metafilter seems to be inching towards nitpicking, pettiness and raw anger.

Wow, it's disappointing to hear you think that. But I would just go back to the earlier point made by me and several others - that we really don't want to be breaking this shit down, calling it out, and dealing with it at such a consistently elementary and detailed level, either. What we'd all prefer is the MetaFilter you get to live in always - the MetaFilter of cool, awesome stuff that people post and discuss. But we repeatedly - like, over the course of years, not just a thread or two - find that we can't even do that much without running across day-to-day, garden-variety sexism.

Honestly, I want the fun stuff too. I want MeFi to be an amusing and interesting place for R&R and to learn a thing or two every now and then. I'm definitely not coming in here with an "agenda," unless my agenda is to read interesting stuff by interesting people and sometimes take part in the conversation. The problem is that there are a lot of days that I - maybe "we" - can't get to the end of our agenda because someone comes along with a nasty comment meant to put us back in our place, or a tired stereotype directly challenging a larger point we're making or even the legitimacy of our participation, and then we're right back here. And I think you can tell that I don't have an agenda, because I never ever start these threads, and I actively try to resist participating in them, but in the end I get pulled back in because I just don't with this place to be so plain unwelcoming and nasty to a big portion of its interested and interesting membership.

Well, me too, you know? Because at the moment, the only people I know that I rely on to tell me that an experience I've had is not real or that I've totally misinterpreted it are on Metafilter.

Seconding that. I don't run across this stuff with nice friend groups like you and your wife have - I don't hang out with unrepentant sexists! And I don't walk through my daily life on the lookout for sexist incidents, though I address them as I can, when they happen.

What that all means is that it's only really on MetaFilter (and in the national news, I guess) that I actually ever confront people seriously advancing ideas that are sexist and that are essentially attempts to limit women's participation or attack women's contribution. So it's really only on MetaFilter that there is a regular need to speak up about it.

I guarantee you that if I had friends saying the kind of thing we are seeing regularly popping up in these threads, they wouldn't be invited for dinner any more. That'd be it. We would have words. The terms of our interaction would be redefined. I just don't seek or tolerate that stuff in my personal environment. So I'm not interested in doing that here, either. I know this is not my personal environment, but it is certainly a network of which I'm a member and lies somewhere between the great ugly world where Republicans advance ever crazier ideas about reproductive rights, and the more intimate world of benevolent, intelligent people which I try to inhabit. And as a member I have a say, however small, in how the community conducts itself and in the kind of community it should be. And I want to be one of the people saying "let's make it less sexist so more people can participate without being the focus of a gender-based attack," and if that's my agenda, it doesn't really seem so out of line to me. Should it?

Also, the thing about committees, allies? That was me and wasn't meant literally. I was attempting to transcribe the brainstorming process I might use if this shit were going down in my church, say, or on a volunteer crew. By way of illustrating that I'm a solutions-oriented person not sure what combination of solutions are appropriate here, but that I'm trying hard to think about it.
posted by Miko at 12:30 PM on August 22, 2012 [12 favorites]

Fwiw, I envy you all the positive meatspace vs feeling its MeFi that's negative experiences. Its quite the reverse for me, only due to circumstances and the nature of my work. Thank you for sharing and teaching (a few more links and a wiki update wouldn't hurt though ;p so I too can figure out how to identify such people for friendships in the real world and know what to stand up for or walk out for beyond of the obvious)
posted by infini at 12:46 PM on August 22, 2012 [3 favorites]

Its quite the reverse for me

You know, infini, I'm sure that's true for others as well, and thanks for the reminder.

I think that the fact that MeFi is a better option than some real world environments is really powerful to think about. And I can think of many environments that would definitely be more challenging than MeFi in this regard, and many times in life when our relative isolation from other egalitarian people makes it seem like there is no escape from some form of oppression or other. I can recall, for instance, comments by closeted gay teens in reactionary Christian communities, posts by isolated women in abusive relationships with few allies, people living as foreigners in cultures of which they aren't members, among other similar straitened circumstances.

And all the more reason why I don't think we should be repeating negative 'real-world' experiences here. After all, a lot of people are online in the first place to get access to people and ideas that can increase their quality of life, and human potential, that are all too rare in their offline lives.
posted by Miko at 1:46 PM on August 22, 2012 [2 favorites]

Brandon": ""s/your/gman/2"

Ok, what does this mean? I thought it was a/s/l for age/sex/location? What is this strange dialect you speak?

Sorry, obscure MOO code. I mistyped in my previous post, "your" for "gman" on the second line. The way to correct that in code is s(ubstitute)/your(error)/gman(correction)/2(line). At this point it's such a standard way for me to mark corrections that I didn't think to explain it.
posted by Deoridhe at 4:12 AM on August 22 [+] [!]

obscure MOO code

Originally, it's how you do string substitution in the Unix utility sed. MANSPLAINED!
posted by RogerB at 4:20 AM on August 22 [1 favorite +] [!]

No, the sed for that would be

2s/your/gman/

which is syntax that sed did not originate but inherited from ed, which in turn got it from QED.

NERDSPLAINED!

I am feeling a sudden, entirely pleasant, sense of recursion. Has this string of corrections of corrections of explinations of 'splanations finally achieved kline bottle status?
posted by Deoridhe at 1:52 PM on August 22, 2012 [2 favorites]

So even though the probability of a random attack like that is extremely low, the consequences are so high that one needs to take the risk seriously.

The analogy I've been using is asking people if they eat raw eggs, or raw pork chops, or raw chicken. "No, of course not," they say. Well, why? "Because they can make you sick." What are the actual chances that a raw egg will make you sick? It turns out it's about 1 in 20,000.

Now, in a survey of college-aged men, it turned out that about 6.4% of them admitted to rape or attempted rape as long as the word wasn't used. That's roughly 1 in 15. So why is 1 in 20,000 a high enough risk to take action against, but 1 in 15 isn't?
posted by KathrynT at 1:58 PM on August 22, 2012 [35 favorites]

This week a rapist was caught in my area.

He would wait until closing time at bars, select women who were so intoxicated that they were nonfunctional, and offer them rides home. If they accepted, he would take them to one of the local garages and rape them in the elevators. Often the women were clearly unconscious when this happened, and when he finished he would just leave them there. It could take hours for some of them to wake up, and some seemed to not realize they had been raped.

My horrible, internal, immediate response was, "They shouldn't have drunk that much."

Not, "Oh my gods, this person is a predator."

Not, "That is horrible."

Not even, "I'm so glad he was caught and hopefully he'll be locked up forever."

No, I jumped immediately to victim blaming, and then did a secondary jump to being afraid of victim blaming, and then my Feminist Training kicked in with "IT IS NEVER OK TO VICTIM BLAME" and I went on to more productive thoughts.

Lifelong feminist. Raised it. Years examining feminist thought. Immediate jump to victim blaming.

Today I was in one of the elevators in one of the parking garages and it struck me - I could be standing on the spot where a woman was raped.

I could be standing on a spot that a rapist felt safe to rape someone.

I could be standing on a spot where the disregard of one person by another was acted out in a horrifically brutal way.

Since Elevatorgate, elevators have taken on a new spectre for me; I can't step into one without thinking of my vulnerability and how many people discount that vulnerability and would verbally attack and insult me for expressing it. I often think of Watson, and the over-a-year of online and in person harrassment she and several Skepchicks have received - including harrassment at a conference where they had raised money so people could attend.

People harrassing fsking FUNDRAISERS because they are Skeptical and Female and bring up things like, "Women don't want to constantly feel like they are a potential date when they are in public."

I really, really hate elevators.
posted by Deoridhe at 2:11 PM on August 22, 2012 [18 favorites]

Yuck yuck yuck!!

About Assange's rape allegations:

That's false. The first girl consented to having sex with him, but with a condom. She claims he did something to sabotage the condom, or something like that. But she did consent to having sex with him.


Leaving... out the part where they had consensual sex the night before, and then had more consensual sex when she woke up. I think it makes a pretty big difference, and I'm pretty sure that most juries would agree. Of course they don't have Jury trials in Sweden. Can you point to an example of someone being convicted under a similar set of circumstances in Sweden? Or do you think it's just never happened before?


There's more tucked away in there. It's ironic because that thread seems almost a poster child for some combination of mansplaining and assuming the worst of your interlocutors and disingenuous questions (on both sides).

There are people arguing that because no one would ever get convicted for what Assange was charged with in the US or other nations, it's outrageous that Sweden and the UK are making such a big deal out of it.

They're absolutely right that there would be no conviction. There would almost certainly be no report because what American in her right mind would try to report that kind of rape?

But if some big political hullaballoo around Assange will be a catalyst for some nation somewhere actually taking that kind of overriding of will seriously, that seems like a very positive development. I am finding that threat so frustrating!
posted by Salamandrous at 2:40 PM on August 22, 2012

The interesting thing about the two rape accusations and Assange is that as far as I know, the owmen involved never called it rape or even sexual assault. Both of them (separately, if my memory is correct) wanted the police to convince him to get an STI test so they could be sure he was clean. It was the police they reported it to that classified it as sexual assault since he had violated their consent (forcing unprotected sex when they agreed to protected sex).
posted by Deoridhe at 3:24 PM on August 22, 2012

Brandon Blatcher: "But the agenda of feminism on Metafilter seems to be inching towards nitpicking, pettiness and raw anger."

I have stayed out of recent threads on women's issues for just this reason. They make me sad.

I, and many other women, have benefited from hearing other women's personal anecdotes about what they've experienced. I've shared my own in the past, and I've recognized myself in others. I've also read comments from men who have appreciated and benefited from those stories as well. It's important to note this, because I know some women feel that those experiences are being dismissed and invalidated by men on the site, and that hurts and angers them.

I think, though, that the problems with the feminist threads have to do with people rising to the bait on both sides way too often. This really comes into play when person X comes in and says something ignorant, willfully inflammatory or just counter to the consensus. In a long thread, someone is always going to say something you disagree with. That's just a fact of life.

The thread could go two ways at this point that would actually end well. One, X's opinion is accepted as what it is, and a differing opinion--not a long-winded diatribe on the history of sexism--could be given to X. And a lot of folks have said they get tired of doing that when that means they have to explain sexism, again, and that's fine. Because the other route is just to ignore X, or, if you really think X is deliberately stirring things up, flagging X's comment as a derail or noise or offensive/sexism/racism. The thread goes on, productively, either way.

Instead, in my experience with these threads, the X commenter takes on too much focus. Feminists on Metafilter have said that they feel they must "stand up" against sexism and that's why they take X on. I understand the inclination, but I think it can do more harm than good, especially when "standing up" to X, who may either be woefully obtuse or willfully inflammatory, frequently takes the thread away from those inspiring personal accounts that actually DO educate and inform others.

Instead, X is judged and found to be a sexist attempting to deny women their rights because he is threatened by empowered women, and this is something that sexist, clueless men do. It is very difficult to argue even in good faith when you have been tarred with that "Sexist" brush.

Note that X may even be a sexist jerk. And I know that there are some who don't believe it is wrong, when faced with sexism, to attack in kind, that because there's this imbalance between men and women in society, it is "okay" to make these digs at men. "Well, we've been oppressed by certain assholish behaviors in the past, so now we reserve the right to be assholes to everyone who happens to have the same plumbing!" just doesn't fly in my book.

Seriously, it is crazy to think that one person, X in this case, accurately reflects the opinions of most of the male members of Metafilter. I have met some of the wonderful Metafilter men in person, and conversed online with others, and in my experience the MAJORITY of men on Metafilter are not sexist, clueless OR "mansplainers".

I don't feel that X is necessarily representative of even most men off Metafilter. I know others disagree. If you are looking at the world through this Sexism lens, maybe where I'd just say, "Christ, what an asshole", you'd say Sexist.

Whatever the reasoning, when we get abhorrent insults thrown around like "limp dick," I defy anyone to say that is not deliberately, angrily, mean-spiritedly sexist.

The mods--and we have fabulous women moderators on Metafilter--get attacked no matter what they do. Miko--Miko! Whom I respect and admire--dominated this thread earlier, and her comment, "I'm sorry, taz, that your participation depends on you having to adopt a filter where you tolerate or ignore sexism when it arises," was just so far out there crazy different from how I saw what taz had to say on the subject that I had to close the thread and walk away.

The original thread will continue until--I notice this, and I am sure I am not the only one--it has winnowed down to a small group of people, the people who are most committed to arguing until they "win". The rest of us have noticed that the ugliness is now on both sides of the argument, and we just don't want to be a part of that. The uplifting personal stories are gone. It's all disgusted contempt for sexist men and their sexist ways and how nothing ever changes.

And when the topic comes up, "Wow, this is a really long, contentious thread!" What happens? The dedicated faction will wearily expound on how they cannot believe they have to go through this all again, that they have to explain themselves, and sexism, and the patriarchy and privilege and the power imbalance yet again.

And we are left with nothing but a lot of account closures and some like-minded people congratulating the other like-minded people, on both sides, for at least trying to take a stance.
posted by misha at 3:34 PM on August 22, 2012 [8 favorites]

Just to clarify - I didn't actually post in the wrong thread. I should have expanded a bit more though.

I brought those quotes from the Assange thread because
- they seemed to me like examples of small 'civil', even off hand comments, that create a really chilling environment
- I felt really upset about them and thought that this thread might be a good place to express and maybe share that.

That whole thread... I probably should have stopped reading long ago. I don't know if it merits its own Meta thread but it is a whole potpourri of problematic from a feminist/women-friendly perspective.
posted by Salamandrous at 4:00 PM on August 22, 2012 [1 favorite]

Today, between this and the Solnit thread, my favorites ran out for the first time ever. So maybe I should chime in with a more explicit expression of support, given that the end goal, as Miko put it, is changing the atmosphere of the site. At favoriting-while-lurking can't do as much for atmosphere as talking. (Since it makes a difference in this discussion, I should note here than I'm a man and a feminist.)

I'm saddened to see that this thing ended up such a mess, but can't fault those of you who felt that the ignorant, sexist comments being made in both places couldn't stand. You all fighting the good fight and I'm sure it must seem thankless at times. Well, thank you.

Those of you who gave up in frustration: enjoy your break! I hope you're back with us soon, refreshed and recharged. The site is worse without you.

As for the rest: I'd happily see far more timeouts being given to the instigators of these sorts of derails (the thread itself and several in-thread trolling runs). It's possible that these people are engaging in good faith, but if so that good faith is coming from a place--and being expressed in a manner--that is clearly hurtful to other members of the community. Allowing their speech to stand is a decision that comes at the expense of those already less privileged and marginalized in this space.

But changing the way the site is modded is difficult. I get that, and I'm sure it is doubly difficult to mod at the intersection of free speech and gender (and in other cases race or class) privilege that we're dealing with here, so I really do appreciate the hard work and thought that the mods have put into these threads.

(And to think: I poked my head in a couple of times over the past couple of days, didn't notice the comment count on the Girlzone thread, and actually thought to myself "Oh nice! Metatalk is looking quiet and uneventful. Guess everyone's happy!")
posted by col_pogo at 4:28 PM on August 22, 2012 [1 favorite]

I so appreciate what you wrote, Misha. I have been mostly lurking for a long time and just happened to get drawn back by both the Solnit thread and the Assange thread ... then arriving here. Once again.

My take is a bit different, though. I *expect* attention seeking, diversionary posts online (even on Mefi). I have often shook my head in bewilderment at the tedious stream of patient responses 'diversion-trolls' get from people who take them seriously. (Yes, I will use that word - and will not argue it's meaning.)

I realize that Mefi is special especially because it gives everyone a chance to learn at their own rate, but ... sometimes I just want to scream, "Can you just take it to email, dear missionaries?!" Most of the time the effect of Good Intentions (especially around any topic concerning women) is wasted -- simply 'pearls before swine'. The offenders begin getting really offensive (mostly in very sly ways) and then the 'nitpicking and pettiness and raw anger' flows freely - from all directions.

Maybe there are some women who take on this 'fight' because it is one they feel they can't take on such battles in meatspace. After all, there is some satisfaction in a good bon mot online. Mostly, however, I believe that women and the more enlightened here are not happy fighting in threads. Part of the problem is that too many people simply don't understand that no amount of reasoning is going to change the conversation. The attention seekers/trolls are feeding off the anger. They aren't listening!

I continue to ignore people who have been answered dozens of time for the same whine (see Assange post above) instead of calling them out or trying to reason with them. Still, I feel we need some kind of 'code' to remind others to do the same. (FIAMO?? Flag it and MOVE ON)

This passion for being 'kind and fair' to everyone no matter what they say is bleeding the life out of the community. It sort of reminds me of how liberals in the US allow the nipping and whining of diversion-trolls with absolutely baseless contentions to get so much attention and response. Bleeding us dry, folks ... bleeding us dry.
posted by Surfurrus at 4:55 PM on August 22, 2012 [2 favorites]

her comment, "I'm sorry, taz, that your participation depends on you having to adopt a filter where you tolerate or ignore sexism when it arises," was just so far out there crazy different from how I saw what taz had to say on the subject that I had to close the thread and walk away.

Well, taz and I had an exchange about it where she clarified that's not what she meant, and I think we're good. I definitely misunderstood aspects of what she said, but I also think I can see why: she talked about having to employ an emotional filter or having to simply close a thread and leave as ways of dealing with sexism. So I'm still feeling like, even though I understood she was saying that was what worked for her as a way to stay in a good relationship to the site - instead of outright recommending that other people get off the site and avoid entire threads when they go awry - that it's not awesome that any people, in order to participate, have to do so in a highly emotionally guarded manner.

And I am still not sure that the solution is, as you propose, misha, just ignoring. There is some portion of ignoring we can do which will help. Just talking past the disruption. But it's not the entire solution and still places the responsibility for a solution on the people who haven't caused the problem.

no amount of reasoning is going to change the conversation.

What do you say to the numbers of people who have credited conversations like these, even this very one, with changing their perspective?
posted by Miko at 5:05 PM on August 22, 2012

What do you say to the numbers of people who have credited conversations like these, even this very one, with changing their perspective?

I myself have not seen a 'sea change' as it happened in a thread. I am sure that big changes do happen due to kind people taking the time to help others grow and learn -- but I suspect much of the pertinent exchanges are happening via email. (or maybe that is just wishful thinking)

When you don't address sexism it looks like the community endorses it. The mods can't be everywhere all at once.

I used to feel outrage. It was easy to 'shake my cage' and incite me to rush to the rescue. Now I have more respect for the way of the 'calm elders' who swipe at gnat-trolls with humor or dismissal. Engaging in these off-topic, point-by-point arguments is jumping into quicksand. The impulse to do it is based on one's belief that the other person is willing to listen to facts and reason. I haven't seen much of that from the derail-trolls -- they are simply pulling at threads to unravel the whole conversation.

(egads ... I'm going metaphor nuts today.)

BTW, I really do believe that is essential that all help maintain a respectful tone here. That alone would help preserve the 'safety factor' so that good people don't curl up and leave.
posted by Surfurrus at 5:25 PM on August 22, 2012

I myself have not seen a 'sea change' as it happened in a thread

Oh, I don't think it happens within a thread at all and I'd never expect it to. It happens over time, with a gradual cumulative effect of absorption, slow changes in conversation, moderation, thought outside the heat of the moment, individual development etc. One person at a time, one discussion at a time, over time changes the tenor. It's not like we ever have a sudden rebirth in the thread and a new day dawns for everyone.

In 10 years, just as taz noted, it's changed a real lot, but there's certainly no one thread you can pinpoint to that is responsible for that change. But even in this thread, a few testimonials:

i think metafilter has changed for the better-

I have personally been stretched and challenged and changed by many of the discussions here about race and sexism

Metafilter has changed over the years to be less sexism-friendly but it's one of those big-ship, slow-turn things

I've learn a lot in previous threads about feminism, stuff that has changed how I think and interact with the world, stuff I'm eternally thankful for learning

I'm grateful for those who have spoken out about this, even amidst a backlash of angry anti-feminist sentiment. Thank you for NOT disarming, you did the right thing, and I can say with conviction that you reached at least one person

I don't do any personal counseling on this topic in MeMail, other than a few people saying "I've been thinking things over and am in a new place," but maybe some greater amount of back and forth happens in others' MeMail.
posted by Miko at 5:39 PM on August 22, 2012 [2 favorites]

Forgive me for asking here, but I noticed iconomy closed her account too (within the past 2 weeks). Anybody know what happened? She was awesome.
posted by cashman at 5:44 PM on August 22, 2012

Unclear. She had an AskMe that maybe didn't go the way she wanted, but didn't leave us a note.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 5:47 PM on August 22, 2012 [1 favorite]

the young rope-rider: How are we supposed to self-police and talk things out if we are also supposed to walk away and literally not mention sexism when we see it?

Flagging is Metafilter's self-policing mechanism. It's what the mods would *prefer* we do if we encounter offensive/sexist/racist comments. That's why there is an offensive/sexism/racism flag.

Additionally, you can bring problematic issues to Metatalk, where they belong, as his been done in this case, even though most of us don't agree with the OP's stance, rather than clogging up the thread with the same old controversies.

I know sometimes it is hard to FIAMO when something upsets you. I am not even saying you should always FIAMO. However, I also think that always jumping on comments that disturb you is a recipe for disaster, even when you are right.

It will exhaust you. You will find yourself trying to prove that Someone On the Internet is Wrong, all the time, because someone always is--and you'll miss all the great, insightful and heartwarming community moments because you're arguing, once again, a point that you have argued umpteen times before.

Other users will peg you as "That (pet issue) User"; some will follow you around the site and ambush you in other threads just to disagree with you even more. Believe me, this happens. They assume all your comments are criticisms. You may find all your comments are actually becoming criticisms!

You will burn out on the site, and you will push the Big Red Button, and the users who might have been your friends will just be very sad to see you go.
posted by misha at 5:55 PM on August 22, 2012 [3 favorites]

In the six years I've been here, it's changed a lot in terms of how much just general sexist stuff floating around (there's way less now), and it's all happened over a long series of threads, so yeah, there's no one thread anyone will ever be able to point to and say "There it is! The Change!"

It's exactly the same as a lot of other topics. Pick any thread about copyright/intellectual property; Apple; religion (esp. Christianity); people being dumb in the South (U.S.); and so on, and you'll see a lot of the same arguments happening across a span of years. And out of those threads - in spite of their well-earned reputation for being bitter and spawning bad feeling - comes change as well. People change their minds, or at least consider points they hadn't considered before. They talk, listen, read.

Flagging is Metafilter's self-policing mechanism.

It's not the only one. Mods have been clear in other discussions that it's okay to challenge something someone has said (without name-calling), it's okay to open meTas if the issue is meta to the topic.

I've stayed out of the Solnit thread, but I have read through bits of it. I wouldn't have flagged the comment about how no one is raised with "nice girls do/don't do these things" unless they were raised in the Victorian era. Why would I flag it? It's not trolling. The poster is a longtime member and not a troll. The poster said something I think is best addressed by speaking to the point, and not just flagging.
posted by rtha at 6:01 PM on August 22, 2012 [2 favorites]

Misha wrote: Seriously, it is crazy to think that one person, X in this case, accurately reflects the opinions of most of the male members of Metafilter. I have met some of the wonderful Metafilter men in person, and conversed online with others, and in my experience the MAJORITY of men on Metafilter are not sexist, clueless OR "mansplainers".

I often think about this point after these long threads. I know I have a tendency to take this point for granted and don't always express it; it my head it's a given. Even if someone says something that is rooted in sexism on MeFi, I don't think they are (necessarily) a bad person or a full-fledged sexist jerk. They may not realize it or see it, and it is often an opportunity for positive change or introspection or even thoughtful disagreement. Sometimes it isn't, and then there isn't much you can do. There are some posters who I know I could not get through to, and I won't even try. Others - including some of the posters in the thread who are often vocal from a male perspective - I think of as being more open to listening when they aren't being frustrated by the fact that they think we're not listeing to them.

This is one of the reasons I don't like the term "mansplain" - after the satisfactory snark rush, all that is left is that a portion of the populace that I'd like to think about the action is instead distracted by the term and defensive and not in a conducive mood to discuss. It makes me feel like I'm wasting a bit of the opportunity to get my point of view across.

That said, I would prefer not to spend a lot of my limited commenting footprint soothing and prepping people to be ready for my message, though. I don't want to have to say "I know you aren't bad guys - really I do " every time, and worry about constructing and phrasing my phrase to cause the least amount of accidental or incidental offense (especially if the thread is at a point where no one else is doing this) and still get my point across. It's one of the reasons why I usually watch these threads, post once or twice mostly describing my own experience, and then bow out.
posted by julen at 6:11 PM on August 22, 2012 [1 favorite]

That's why there is an offensive/sexism/racism flag

It's actually kind of the other way around. As I recall, thatvflag came out of essentially the first round of MeTa threads like this one.
posted by OmieWise at 6:20 PM on August 22, 2012 [4 favorites]

Flagging is Metafilter's self-policing mechanism. It's what the mods would *prefer* we do if we encounter offensive/sexist/racist comments. That's why there is an offensive/sexism/racism flag.

Flagging is one of Metafilter's self-policing mechanisms. For example, way up above, Jessamyn commented that:

It's significantly more useful to have people speak up in a thread in a reasonable manner telling people that their backwards way of looking at things is not actually contributing to the conversation and/or making the conversation into some sort of them-focused situation. This is what we try to do frequently with our mod comments but more users could be doing this as well. More often, however, we get people ranting at the ranters and this, while maybe unavoidable, makes things into more of a muddled mess. There's a fair amount of that in the explaining thread already and I'm finding it personally somewhat upsetting.
posted by Forktine at 6:33 PM on August 22, 2012 [2 favorites]

Deathalicious wrote in the original thread: I think at the very least it would be instructive for people to say, instead of "I find that word offensive." to instead say, "Here's what goes on in my head when I see the word; this is why it upsets me, this is my reaction to it."

1. The thread isn't about that, and any such attempt would be rightly seen as a derail.
2. It isn't easy to break the societal pressure for men to be stoic.
3. It is unfair to demand that men open up further and draw more attention to themselves after portraying their complaints as being narcissistic.
4. It's not our job to educate you.

posted by Joe in Australia at 7:13 PM on August 22, 2012 [1 favorite]

Feminists on Metafilter have said that they feel they must "stand up" against sexism and that's why they take X on. I understand the inclination, but I think it can do more harm than good, especially when "standing up" to X, who may either be woefully obtuse or willfully inflammatory, frequently takes the thread away from those inspiring personal accounts that actually DO educate and inform others.

They have also said that they feel that these small instances of low-grade sexism, or polite microaggressions, do a lot of harm (I agree with this), and that pointing them out when they happen can sensitise people to seeing them and avoiding doing them accidentally or to calling others out. Both of which are fine goals. Not everyone wants to do this, people who want to do it cannot always do it, but saying "Metafilter cannot be all things to everyone, so when it comes to it we are going to choose women over sexist assholes, people of colour over racist assholes, etc" isn't just some kind of derail from the inspiring personal stories.
posted by jeather at 7:19 PM on August 22, 2012 [1 favorite]

Thank you, Miko, rtha -- and all of you -- for your seasoned views of Mefi over time. Yes, I can appreciate how long it can take to see changes (and, yes, sometimes I focus too much on the lack of change). I also appreciate the sharing of different ways of dealing with frustration. We all have different styles, so it is interesting to compare 'tactics'. I will see if I can stretch my repertoire a bit - I could be more patient and trusting of good intentions. Still, if anyone sees me failing -- and spinning out into snark mode (my worst resort), you are most welcome to nudge me back to civility!
posted by Surfurrus at 7:22 PM on August 22, 2012 [1 favorite]

The original thread will continue until--I notice this, and I am sure I am not the only one--it has winnowed down to a small group of people, the people who are most committed to arguing until they "win". The rest of us have noticed that the ugliness is now on both sides of the argument, and we just don't want to be a part of that.

Not so much. The most recent thread I completely gave up on was one where a young man announced that the whole Republican War on Women was orchestrated with the primary intent of saddling young men like himself with unwanted families, so that they would no longer have the time or energy to protest globalization and social injustice. It wasn't rhetorical ugliness that was a problem - it was the way the whole topic was reframed so that men were foregrounded.

Not everyone gives up for the same reasons, is what I'm saying, here. And if I push the big red button it will probably be because I'm tired of talking to men about stuff that's centrally meaningful to my own life and having them treat it like eighth-grade debate club.
posted by gingerest at 10:33 PM on August 22, 2012 [21 favorites]

"But the agenda of feminism on Metafilter seems to be inching towards nitpicking, pettiness and raw anger."

A few weeks ago, the topic of rape came up within my family while we were on vacation. My brother said that he doubted the statistics - he didn't really think that between 50% and 25% of women have been raped or sexually assaulted. When he asked me, I did a mental tally of my close female friends trying to count which of us have been raped. My pause was taken as agreement with him. I tried to object further, but I was still distracted by my mental tally, and the sudden challenge to my privacy - should I bring up that I am one of the raped ones? He doesn't know. No one in my family knows. Maybe three friends know. I've started talking about it more, but not in the personal context of what it really means to me, but rather in a political context, as someone standing up for other women who experienced my type of rape.

He followed it up by saying in response to my pointing out that some women were raped more than once, that at some point the woman really should take responsibility for other people raping her.

And that changed the conversation for me. Now, not only was I part of this silent population of Women Who Were Raped Who Don't Tell People, but now I was one step along the path back to My Rape Was My Fault.

Because I thought my rape was my fault for over ten years.

A decade.

Thought rightly I should say that for at least half of that, I didn't consider it rape. So when I was trying to do a count, I was also trying to figure out how many were in my role - they had been raped and they didn't know; they were suffering, but there weren't words for why.

I backed down on the conversation and stopped communicating. I just shut up. And now for the entire period since then, I have been struggling about whether I should send him an email. About whether I should let him that his little sister was raped. Whether I should put myself in the role of having someone I love and trust (like I loved and trusted my rapist) validate the nasty voices in my head which say that my rape was my fault and I should just shut up about it.

I don't know if it would be nitpicking to point out that words like "nitpicking" and "pettiness" both demean the topic we're talking about, and the feelings and emotions of the people who feel strongly about the right for women to take up public space without receiving abuse simply for being visible and female, but I'll take the risk and point it out anyway.

And yes, I feel raw anger. I'm trying very hard to not express it here, though part of me wants to in the face of all of my stories and experiences being dismissed as part of the following descriptions of this thread: "petty" "nitpicking", "satisfaction in a good bon mot online", "woefully obtuse or willfully inflammatory", "disgusted contempt for sexist men and their sexist ways", "self-congradulatory", "arguing, once again, a point that you have argued umpteen times before".

It's not the fight that makes me feel tired and sick and want to shut up. It's the dismissal.
posted by Deoridhe at 11:24 PM on August 22, 2012 [41 favorites]

Very true. So many people are willing to dismiss these stories (unless they're uplifting stories, those are fine) and knowledge and brush it off.

If you don't want to know about people being angry about rape or silencing, don't go into the feminism threads. Your presence isn't compulsory. I don't go into sport threads and threadshit, because I'm not looking for a fight or trying to stop people from talking about it. It'd be great if the same courtesy could be extended to all threads here.

I sort of agree with Misha but for different reasons. The feminism threads *always* have a discussion about terminology to start with, because so few people read the fucking article and the people who most want to jump to being offended by feminism are least likely to do so. But once it's been explained that yes, women can tell the difference between a creeper and a socially awkward guy; yes, we know mansplain is problematic but no-one's come up with an alternative that actually describes the phenomenon instead of dismissing it; once the terminology du jour has been argued out there's no reason to repeat that discussion in-thread when the next half-dozen guys come in and make the same fucking stupid comments because they're more interested in lecturing than participating in the convesation. Once is plenty. Maybe we should link back to the start of the previous discussion when the objections get repeated? I dunno. But I don't think it helps the conversation to continue to make the same points to different people if they can't be arsed to even read the thread.
posted by harriet vane at 12:36 AM on August 23, 2012 [11 favorites]

Just popping in to note that even when there are only a handful of people left commenting on a MeTa thread, it doesn't mean that there aren't people lurking and keeping up. I've been following this thread from it's inception, have only commented once, and am still here. I suspect I'm not the only one.
posted by Meep! Eek! at 12:50 AM on August 23, 2012 [18 favorites]

the feelings and emotions of the people who feel strongly about the right for women to take up public space without receiving abuse simply for being visible and female
posted by infini at 2:56 AM on August 23, 2012 [1 favorite]

Maybe we should link back to the start of the previous discussion when the objections get repeated?

A moanbius strip?
posted by running order squabble fest at 3:17 AM on August 23, 2012 [3 favorites]

Just popping in to note that even when there are only a handful of people left commenting on a MeTa thread, it doesn't mean that there aren't people lurking and keeping up.

Awesome. We're a great big Silent Majority. #winning!

Seriously, I don't know how much there is left to say. We're a zillion comments in and the only thing we've accomplished is to lose three of the handful of voices willing to regularly and reliably speak up here. So basically, what we've achieved is more silence and things just got worse.
posted by DarlingBri at 3:32 AM on August 23, 2012 [1 favorite]

Please, this is really disturbing to me, this is really disturbing right?:

And like I said, when has anyone ever been prosecuted for something like that? When has anyone been convicted? Given the kinds of things juries are willing to look over in actual rape cases, I don' think it would garner a conviction in most jury trials, although Sweden doesn't use them.

Personally, no I wouldn't have a problem with a girl I'd had sex with the night before, and fell asleep with afterwards re-initiating while I was still asleep in the morning, and I certainly wouldn't consider myself a rape victim. Would you go running to the cops if that happened?

The accusation is penetrating her before she was awake and when she woke up and protested and tried to get away, pinning her down and immobilizing her and continuing to fuck her until he was done. That is what Delmoi is characterizing as 're-initiation.'

I flagged it just in case, but I guess this is normal civil discourse on which people should pop in with their disagreements. Please pop in?
posted by Salamandrous at 5:39 AM on August 23, 2012 [5 favorites]

I'm not at all sure the summary is so negative as all that. We've ended up with some degree of endorsement for ticking up the degree of moderation, and a number of people have expressed that they will change their strategy for responding to comments that offend in specific and recognizable ways.
posted by Miko at 5:40 AM on August 23, 2012

I don't think it's that simple at all, DarlingBri. Anyway, what's the alternative? Not having these discussions at all?

delmoi's comment is a perfect example of "Let me imagine how I would feel. Hmmm. I'd feel differently than she did, therefore her feelings are invalid because mine are correct and that trumps her actual experience, which I haven't had."
posted by rtha at 5:49 AM on August 23, 2012 [16 favorites]

I was just wondering why the Assange thread wasn't showing up in my recent activity, when I remembered that I'd removed it several days ago, after the discussion seemed to be moving firmly in the direction of talking about whether or not it was "really" rape. Or at least that's how it appeared via RA
posted by rtha at 6:29 AM on August 23, 2012

I was just wondering why the Assange thread wasn't showing up in my recent activity, when I remembered that I'd removed it several days ago, after the discussion seemed to be moving firmly in the direction of talking about whether or not it was "really" rape. Or at least that's how it appeared via RA

That's the same reason I removed it from mine, too.
posted by Forktine at 6:32 AM on August 23, 2012

rhta: "Let me imagine how I would feel. Hmmm. I'd feel differently than she did, therefore her feelings are invalid because mine are correct and that trumps her actual experience, which I haven't had."

Weirdly, I had that very kind of experience yesterday. I was telling someone I've known well-but-not-friend-well for over a decade about my experiences with the Icelandic immigration authorities (long story short, my ex-wife was not given residency in Iceland because there was a stupid law passed that was later overturned by the judicial system as contravening human rights treaties the Icelandic state was party to, but it was in effect for long enough for us to get hit by it). My acquaintance refused to believe anything I was telling him and said that I had to be misremembering and misinterpreting what had happened because the Icelandic state wouldn't do something like that, and that, besides, it wasn't really that big of a deal anyway because I wasn't married anymore and living in the US wasn't much of a hardship.

To say that I was enraged is an understatement, but I was in a place where I couldn't really display my anger, so I just had to change the subject quickly. I realized as this was going on that I was having an experience similar to a woman being mansplained to. This doesn't happen to me often. I can remember one such experience many years ago, but other than that this was akin to being treated like a child. If this happened to me on a regular basis, I think I would burst in a squelchy explosion.
posted by Kattullus at 6:40 AM on August 23, 2012 [13 favorites]

The Assange thread is a trainwreck. I was following it to get information/links/facts -- to better understand the threats and/or realities of his possible extradition. I have never been -- would never be -- a 'rape apologist'. Most people who support Assange's right to NOT be extradited to the US are NOT in favor of him evading trial/questioning on the charges. That point is continually ignored by the crusaders (along with the repeated advice that the rape charges have been *extensively* discussed in previous threads).

I just WISH there were some kind of 'thread split' for people like me. Maybe even a color-coded division of posts. Those that want to fight their agendas (insult, insinuate, bait, threaten) can go one way ... and leave the rest of us to discuss the original post.

BTW, people who want to bring the 'rapey' fight into this thread are really annoying. It is like a little kid who wants to stir up a battle on the playground and win allies against specific targets. FLAG it and MOVE ON.
posted by Surfurrus at 7:56 AM on August 23, 2012 [1 favorite]

the 'rapey' fight = the rape issue in the Assange thread
posted by Surfurrus at 8:02 AM on August 23, 2012

"I was just wondering why the Assange thread wasn't showing up in my recent activity, when I remembered that I'd removed it several days ago, after the discussion seemed to be moving firmly in the direction of talking about whether or not it was "really" rape."

Yeah, I was curious about it too, and then couldn't deal with the rape culture — I was starting to picture too many fellow members as rapists due to the cavalier way they minimized the allegations. (That I just finished the Girl With the Dragon Tattoo books didn't help).
posted by klangklangston at 8:13 AM on August 23, 2012 [2 favorites]

Ah, and as I said, I will thank you for the nudge, young rope-rider. (Though I'm not any less annoyed, lol)
posted by Surfurrus at 8:14 AM on August 23, 2012

May I insert -- back to the playground analogy -- that the Assange discussion reminds me of a strange girl-boy dynamic I've seen. I'm having some sympathy for the males who are getting hooked into blurting out things they might not ordinarily say. I take (some of) their inflammatory posts with a grain of salt, possibly because I have seen so many men being 'baited' into babbling, frothing messes by skillful barbs from 'innocent' women. It would be nice if everyone had the ability to express their vulnerability ('that word hurts me personally'), but I think we all know that isn't the case. Pounding them over the head once they've made their horrible responses is not going to make them more vulnerable.

This does not in any way excuse their blunders -- and certainly does not make the horrible comments any less painful for others. (Not to mention, it does not cover the perpetual flow of 'fighty' posters eager to poke at feminists and women in general.)

and ... upon preview ... I do not discount Salamadrous' views; I just think one should be careful of stepping into a drama that is ripe with agendas. When a thread becomes a crusade it is no longer a discussion. The whole rape discussion in the Assange thread should have been moved to metatalk from the beginning I think.
posted by Surfurrus at 8:31 AM on August 23, 2012

Coming into this thread, almost a week after it started, reminds me of a few mornings in college where I got out of bed to go to the bathroom and found some of the same people in the lounge, stil having the conversation they'd begun the night before.

Not wasted time, by any means. Just an observation.
posted by wenestvedt at 8:40 AM on August 23, 2012 [2 favorites]

OK, OK ... I am saying that some people choose to incite fights -- and that, yes, women do it just as well as men. I know how to do it; I learned it well when I realized as a child that my power was mainly in words and many times boys could be driven into a frenzy by mine. Some of the behavior (using loaded words/insinuations) may not be intentionally 'baiting' - and some may in fact be intentional in that doing such is a way of demanding a new vocabulary. Still *some* is just plain agenda-driven crusading.
posted by Surfurrus at 8:49 AM on August 23, 2012 [1 favorite]

"I'm having some sympathy for the males who are getting hooked into blurting out things they might not ordinarily say. I take (some of) their inflammatory posts with a grain of salt, possibly because I have seen so many men being 'baited' into babbling, frothing messes by skillful barbs from 'innocent' women. It would be nice if everyone had the ability to express their vulnerability ('that word hurts me personally'), but I think we all know that isn't the case. Pounding them over the head once they've made their horrible responses is not going to make them more vulnerable."


If you can't handle the riposte, don't cross swords. And frankly, often the point isn't to have them express their vulnerability, but to shut up and stop arguing in an obnoxious way.

Sorry, that all just reads as special pleading and it irks me.
posted by klangklangston at 8:53 AM on August 23, 2012 [3 favorites]

so, we need to make sure that we're kind and non-provocative enough that we don't further an agenda? Because otherwise boys go into a frenzy?
posted by KathrynT at 8:53 AM on August 23, 2012 [2 favorites]

Some of you are just hearing what you want to hear. You can check my posting history; I have never, never had trouble saying that men should not expect women to 'do their work' (learning to communicate better) for them. I have never had trouble slapping down obnoxious posters.
posted by Surfurrus at 9:00 AM on August 23, 2012 [1 favorite]

DarlingBri: the only thing we've accomplished is to lose three of the handful of voices willing to regularly and reliably speak up

Yes, that's an incalculable loss. At the same time, I'll point out that previously quiet women have spoken up to say that women speaking up in threads like these help them have confidence in their own voices; discover a vocabulary for experiences and feelings that they had brushed under the carpet; and reframe those experiences and feelings as entirely legitimate reactions to larger shitty patterns. Patterns that status quo defenders keep characterizing as unremarkable, and why-you-making-a-big-deal-out-of-something-so-normal.

I find that heartening. Thank you for typing out your comments and hitting the big yellow "post comment" button, y'all! I hope to see your usernames in future threads!

I've been thinking of it particularly after quoting Linda Babcock in the Solnit thread. In her other book, Women Don't Ask, she describes how we are often unconscious of what implicit lessons others absorb from our everyday behaviour. Eg, she discovered her daughter had concluded that only daddies are supposed to handle the money and change lightbulbs, because Babcock and husband were in the habit of him lightbulb-changing and paying (I haven't got the book to hand...it was some pragmatic reason like husband's pockets being more accommodating to a bulky wallet, or something). After that, they shook up and consciously, evenly, distributed their role modelling of skills and behaviours. They didn't want to send more implicit messages about "only Mommies do this, only Daddies do that."

That reminds me that Amy Sutherland in her book What Shamu Taught Me About Life, Love, and Marriage found that an animal training principle worked for her people relationships: "Every interaction is training." I wish younger, entirely-timid me had had a Metafilter (post-Discussion Point, anyway) to practice speaking up in.

Now I'll go catch up on yesterday's comments.
posted by cybercoitus interruptus at 9:07 AM on August 23, 2012 [8 favorites]

To be fair, that's why civilized countries make you wear the burkha, to keep from inflaming men's passions.
posted by klangklangston at 9:12 AM on August 23, 2012 [1 favorite]

Awesome. We're a great big Silent Majority. #winning!

Seriously, I don't know how much there is left to say. We're a zillion comments in and the only thing we've accomplished is to lose three of the handful of voices willing to regularly and reliably speak up here. So basically, what we've achieved is more silence and things just got worse.
posted by DarlingBri at 6:32 AM on August 23 [1 favorite +] [!]

Sorry. I didn't mean to cause offense or pour salt onto fresh wounds with my comment.
posted by Meep! Eek! at 9:25 AM on August 23, 2012

a "reliably good" poster

How comforting it is to have you here evaluating the appropriateness of our posting histories and validating our feelings.
posted by kneehigh at 9:42 AM on August 23, 2012 [2 favorites]

when we get abhorrent insults thrown around like "limp dick," I defy anyone to say that is not deliberately, angrily, mean-spiritedly sexist.

I'll cop to it being an insult and I'll cop to it being rude, even. But a rude remark addressed to a man by another man is not, in any way the word is ordinarily defined, or in any way the word has ever been ordinarily defined, "sexist."
posted by octobersurprise at 9:54 AM on August 23, 2012 [5 favorites]

Or, to put it another way, Surfurrus had specifically said that s/he wanted previous good behavior to be taken into account. That response was gilrain being nice.

Anyway....

Looking on the bright side of the road, account closure isn't self-immolation. I've been pondering hitting the button myself in the fairly near future, because it's emotionally exhausting and time-consuming to do this stuff, even with the bonus of being a dude, and so basically being able to treat the promulgation of basic human respect as a gnarly extreme sport. I'd hope to return, though - it would mainly be about putting a hurdle in front of the Recent Activity feed and the ability to respond to stuff.

Hopefully the people who have disabled their accounts are just taking constitutional breaks, and will be back at some point in the future, and hopefully also the atmosphere of the site will be better for the discussion which led them to take the break.
posted by running order squabble fest at 9:54 AM on August 23, 2012

I am saying that some people choose to incite fights -- and that, yes, women do it just as well as men. I know how to do it; I learned it well when I realized as a child that my power was mainly in words and many times boys could be driven into a frenzy by mine. Some of the behavior (using loaded words/insinuations) may not be intentionally 'baiting' - and some may in fact be intentional in that doing such is a way of demanding a new vocabulary. Still *some* is just plain agenda-driven crusading.

Be careful here. You are describing three very different things:

1. Baiting someone solely because you want to see them get more worked up. For your own amusement.
2. Demanding someone change vocabulary in order to continue a conversation that you feel is otherwise linguistically loaded against you.
3. Pursuing a long term agenda of combating a particular belief.

You started by accusing women of the former then slid into the other two. Which is fine, if that's what you really meant. But to be clear: the first is trolling -- bad faith conversation for your own amusement -- and the trolls I see in conversations about feminism are overwhelmingly male. Women do indeed troll from time to time, but IME not when discussing feminism. Simply because the entire theme of such conversations is listening to women's experiences and trying not to get drowned-out by men's (otherwise ubiquitously-expressed) opinions on the same topics.

Trolling is a sort of topic-specific behavior; it's very rare for someone to troll on a topic they're already sick to death of hearing their opponent's opinion on. Because hearing more of that opinion is not amusing.
posted by ead at 10:06 AM on August 23, 2012 [3 favorites]

You can check my posting history

This is not directed at Surfurrus, but this brought up for me one of the catch-22 pairing of demands which tie me personally into knots. Surfurrus, I hope you will accept me using this as a launching off point rather than addressing you directly and accusitorily. If not, I apologize.

All things in quotes are paraphrases of how I percieved things socially, not direct quotes.

----------

We're not supposed to pay attention to the history of people who have said insulting things to women, minimized women's role, and indicated they think feminism is wrong. We're supposed to approach every new thread with as much of a "blank slate" as we can. This is metafilter's rule, but it's also a social rule offline - bring up something that disturbed you a week after and people will often respond with surprise you're still "dwelling" on something "negative" and say or imply you should "get over it).

But when people are saying, "What you did is hurting the movement," of "Flag it and move on," we're supposed to take into account their posting history and give them the benefit of the doubt - even if their current words are hinging on longstanding and deeply harmful stereotypes. This also connects up offline; many is the time I have heard people lament that people in category x were so suspicious of them because "I'm an ally. I've volunteered and donated money. I have tones of X friends!" I've even thought that (though thankfully not SAID it; I hate showing how much of an ass I can be!).

Rephrased and paraphrased: "If I type/do/say things you agree with, pay attention to it. If I type/do/say things you disagree with, ignore it."

-->Here's one kernel of problem I see with that approach - we learn through encountering things which are outside of our experience which then become part of our experience. Sometimes there might be a nagging feeling that "Something Is Wrong," but it takes someone else to crystalize that into, "OMG that's a THING???"
"Mansplaining" is actually an example of this - a lot of wome for a long time felt like Something Was Wrong when they talked to men, but there wasn't language to describe it until "Mansplaining" was port-mandeaud. Part of the pushback of "we can use this, damn you all!" is that it was such a succinct and regularly experienced thing for so many women, and so it fills a gap and describes a pain which prior to that did not have a description. The use of the word is largely inter-feminist, meaning not as something explained to non-feminists and used as a way of forwarding the goals of feminism, but rather something which reinforces how systemic the problem is and gives us ways to discuss it amongst ourselves - hopefully eventually to find a solution.

-->Here's another kernal of a problem - even the best allies/advocates screw up sometimes. A lot of learning about how to live in a culture of systematic, intersecting oppressions is to learn when and how to take challenge to our assumptions seriously without falling back onto the defense of "but I'm on your side!" I'm a lifelong, proud, ardent feminist woman; I am still regularly sexist. Trying to combat a system when you are raised in it and will receive pushback from it is really difficult, errors are inevitable and so is not knowing what is the Right Thing to do.

-->Here's a third - an unspoken assumption in these "You're doing it wrong" or "stop advocating, it's driving people away/your doing bad things" discussions is the assumption that there is only one way. I think history shows up pretty clearly that advocating for cultural change actually works best when lots of people push for it in lots of different ways. I personally think Civil Rights would have looked very different if Martin Luther King, Jr. didn't have a Malcom X, Rosa Parks, and bell hooks around - not to mention all the less famous women and men behind the scenes. People have different strengths and weaknesses, and a movement which doesn't account for that isn't a movement, it's a ritual.

This thread has become (did not start as, but became, in part because I manipulated you all into it - OMG EVAHL FEMINIST MASTERMIND MANIPULATOR!!!! I HAFF TEH POWAH!!!!) a way of marking systematic aspects of sexism and how they affect the women who experience them, and how we respond in ways both helpful and hurtful. I think this discussion has to happen, and happen a lot, not because we're retreading ground that is clearly marked out but because we're not, and the way to make new paths is to walk over the same ground again, and again, and again, until we find the clearest, safest, most sensible path for everyone whose walking; it's a collaborative, not a singular effort.

I don't see the calls to not talk about it - for whatever reason - as at all helpful. I think we need more talk, more refining, more people reading along and thinking who will find their own ways to make their beliefs, experiences, and wants known. Ten years ago, I was the silent audience of wonderful people who shocked me out of my complacent racism; even now I'm often the silent audience of wonderful people who shock me out of all kinds of internalized prejudice; I'm one voice among many, and I want more voices, not fewer.

I'd love to know the perspective of the "other side", whatever that means in this case. I hear that I'm man-hating, shrill, over-emotional, and talk too much - but I'd really like to hear about the experiences and beliefs behind those thoughts. I don't know a way to convince anyone to share the experiences and beliefs, though, instead of just describing unspecified people who are Clearly Wrong In This Thread; I wish I did.
posted by Deoridhe at 10:09 AM on August 23, 2012 [12 favorites]

I don't blame anyone for ducking out of the Assange thread. But as one anecdotal data point, I left it because it felt like I was the only one objecting to the rape minimization. And I don't think that's constructive; if one lone commenter keeps jumping up and down on a point, then it becomes about the person and not his point. If I had felt like there was a more active community-wide objection to some of the really offensive things that were being said in that thread, then I'd have stuck around.
posted by cribcage at 10:14 AM on August 23, 2012 [1 favorite]

If I had felt like there was a more active community-wide objection to some of the really offensive things that were being said in that thread, then I'd have stuck around.

I'm just one other person, but sorry (for not being able to get to these threads). I'd have been in there but my commenting has trailed off from reading the neverending comments in here. I'm kind of mad the mansplaining thread was like 150 comments deep before I saw that one. And while I was trying to catch up on this thread and that one, the little post counter got up to 63. Then I left and came back and it was 126, and I just figure I need to put some good keywords in rss so I can more quickly get to those threads. I know often when there is a shitty comment out of the gate, that it can make the thread go badly. So perhaps if the folks in here still reading can get into these threads early with good comments, we can have the reverse happen, and the thread go well.
posted by cashman at 10:22 AM on August 23, 2012

I didn't even go into the Assange thread. I knew it was going to attract comments that would enrage me and that the people who were heavily invested in Assange were not going to be open to any interpretation of events other than "Assange is right and being persecuted unfairly". I was off the net when the Solnit thread was posted and stayed out of it for the same reason (and let me add to the chorus of "GRAR WTF?" at "your life didn't happen the way you say it did" from man OR woman). I don't even know how to address that as a commenter because as shitty as I think those threads are likely to be, I don't feel as a community member that flagging a post because folks are going to make shitty comments is right. (Feminist-related subjects wouldn't be the only ones I'd flag for that either.)

on preview: those are threads I'm not sure early commenting would keep the thread from derailing or going to an awful place.
posted by immlass at 10:25 AM on August 23, 2012

> I believe, and perhaps a mod clarification would be useful here, that what the mods have discouraged in the past is using posting history as a cheap gotcha.

We are certainly free to our personal opinions of other posters based on our past experience, and I think we're even free to use posting history in posts if it is truly apropos. Naturally, whether it's a cheap gotcha or truly apropos is frequently up for interpretation and falls to the mods. I didn't think there was a blanket ban on bringing up posting history, though.

That has been my understanding as well. I don't think anyone expects us to literally ignore posting histories; it's just not a good idea to say "Oh, you say that now, but look at what you said back in 2008!"
posted by languagehat at 11:05 AM on August 23, 2012

But a rude remark addressed to a man by another man is not, in any way the word is ordinarily defined, or in any way the word has ever been ordinarily defined, "sexist."

I usually don't like resorting to the dictionary, but here I shall:

sexist: adjective 1. pertaining to, involving, or fostering sexism

sexism: 1. attitudes or behavior based on traditional stereotypes of sexual roles.

Is it your contention that the insult 'limp-dicked' does not revolve around traditional gender roles?
posted by the man of twists and turns at 11:11 AM on August 23, 2012 [1 favorite]

Yeah, see above. Our issue with going back to old history is not really with acknowledging and accounting for the existence of past behavior as it is with doing so in a way that's like jerkish or grudgey/baiting or weird interpersonal baggage, etc. Basically proceed with care and make sure what you're doing is about furthering the discussion in some constructive way rather than just being like NO U SUCK.
posted by cortex (staff) at 11:16 AM on August 23, 2012

So surfurrus, what I'm hearing you say is that men have said horrible and painful things, but women baited them into it, so it is the fault of women? Am I reading you right?"

Thank you for forming your post as a question - it helps. The answer is no. You are omitting the part about MEN and WOMEN doing this. (Why would you omit that?) AND you are omitting the words *some* and *sometimes*. (Why would you do that?) I am not fond of my words being taken out of context in a black/white assertion about my point of view.

When I said check my posting history" I should have said "SCROLL UP" -- I have been consistent in this thread. Forgive me for believing in gray?
posted by Surfurrus at 11:20 AM on August 23, 2012 [1 favorite]

it's just not a good idea to say "Oh, you say that now, but look at what you said back in 2008!"

This is why there needs to be a huge sign over the door "Welcome to the Indelible Web, All ye word twisters, and despair"

or some such.

Do the kids know this yet?
posted by infini at 11:21 AM on August 23, 2012 [1 favorite]

on preview: those are threads I'm not sure early commenting would keep the thread from derailing or going to an awful place.

That is useful to know. I am too naive.

As a side question, I would like to know if - in terms of staying on topic in threads - was I wrong to point out that the rape issue had been *extensively discussed* in previous threads and this Assange thread (started because of his asylum in the embassy) was on a different topic? Or ... should I allow that all the old anger and frustration around that issue will be pulled out yet again and drown out any other discussion?
posted by Surfurrus at 11:24 AM on August 23, 2012

Someone replied to one of my comments in the Assange thread with something along those lines, "We've discussed this before so let's not do it again." In my case, it wasn't a relevant reply. The myriad previous times that MetaFilter may have discussed those charges has absolutely nothing to do with the tone of comments that were happening in that thread.
posted by cribcage at 11:35 AM on August 23, 2012

Holy crap, I didn't realize the Assange thread from last week was still going. Almost 1500 comments.
posted by grouse at 11:39 AM on August 23, 2012

I just took another look at the beginning of the Assange thread -- it actually started out pretty well, informative, interesting, even entertaining. It wasn't until an hour in that someone decided to throw the first grenade: ... Doesn't really extend to celebrity rapists.

After that most were still discussing livestream, unfolding events and legal issues -- but there were the few who wouldn't let go of the 'rape' issue and it turned into a big ugly derail. I should have left as soon as the word was mentioned.
posted by Surfurrus at 11:45 AM on August 23, 2012

You are omitting the part about MEN and WOMEN doing this. (Why would you omit that?)

Well, it's hard to pin down, because when you introduced this topic you called it "a strange boy-girl dynamic" and said "I have seen so many men being 'baited' into babbling, frothing messes by skillful barbs from 'innocent' women."

While I endorse your idea that it would be "nice if everyone had the ability to express their vulnerability," in trying to do my own truth-test for whether 'women are baiting men in order to reduce them to babbling, frothing messes' I just can't conjure up that vision and apply it to anyone here.

People have to be responsible for what they say. Sometimes a person is indeed struggling so much that they're not expressing themselves in the way their better self would like. Sometimes they can't even predict that the words they are about to blurt out are ones that they've habitually used but didn't realize have a history as a sensitive epithet. And I agree with you where you say "This does not in any way excuse their blunders -- and certainly does not make the horrible comments any less painful for others."

But I don't see the need for, or in fact any accuracy in, projecting onto this kind of interchange a value-laden story in which the women involved have discovered their "power" to use their tricks to reduce men to "babbling, frothing messes" and use this power to gain an unfair advantage. The idea that women are lying in wait, trying to draw out an unsuspecting man into saying something sexist with sophisticated tricks: ...no, I think that's a narrative conforming to stereotype, not an actual thing. I can believe you that you personally perceive this narrative as active in your own life and think it applies, but I question the entire narrative as a fairly classic product of patriarchy, and basically reject it as explanatory of anything.

If someone is good at using their words, they're entitled to be good at using their words. And when we respond, even if we're not at our best when we're doing it - and I have plenty of those moments - still, we say what we meant to say, in that moment. I can't get behind any sort of handicapping idea here, where it's a verbal argument in its medium. And I don't see this frankly evil and self-serving intent in women where you see it.

Over and over, people say "I'd rather not have to," and I believe them. This "power" doesn't have to be employed where no one is dribbling out sexist stereotypes. I think ead's breakdown is really sharp: I don't see anybody trolling.

And if someone, in their inexperience or confusion or in their honest attempt to hurt, uses an epithet or stereotype, and they get confronted for it, that's one of life's learning experiences. It's certainly happened to me ("retarded," "articulate," etc.) It is in making those sorts of missteps or mistakes that we learn. If our blurtings were unconscious, well, here's a great chance to examine some unconscious bias you didn't even know you had.
posted by Miko at 11:53 AM on August 23, 2012 [11 favorites]

was I wrong to point out that the rape issue had been *extensively discussed* in previous threads and this Assange thread (started because of his asylum in the embassy) was on a different topic?

I don't think you were wrong to point it out at all. However, I do think that at this point the Assange issue is such a flashpoint on a long and ongoing discussion of "what is rape" with regular infusions of "this really is not rape" (which I have seen in response to Assange's actions toward these women - see "she consented the first time, so he could assume consent for the second") that I'm not sure an open commetariate with the level of modding we have could prevent that derail. One or the other of the "side" (where I define sides as 1) Assange didn't really rape those women, they just regretted sex afterwards; 2) Assange did rape the women but the legal wrangling over it is a blind for extraditing him to the USA; 3) Assange did rape the women and not extraditing him to Sweden shows how unimportant we consider the rape of women) will bring up the topic and then the whole thing is off and running.

I'm not sure I'd characterize the discussion as endlessly discussed, though. I think this is an area where the disagreements are so broad and fundamental and the multiple sides are sometimes so subtle that small amounts of movement have been going on over time but that the ground still needs to be re-tread.

The issue of rape in Assage's case is "what counts as real rape," and there is a political effort to redefine "rape" as "forcible rape" (it's debatable whether Assange's case would count - he pinned her down, yes, but they were in the same bed and she might not be injured enough for it to 'count' as 'force') which puts the "it's rape if she says no" people directly at odds with the "I don't want to have to worry whether the other person wants this" and the "it's difficult to tell if a woman wants sex" groups. This is a much more fraught area of the entire "what is rape" discussion because culturally and historically it wasn't really considered rape (see: husbands cannot rape their wives).

Another significant piece is that although people say that being branded a rapist has severe social costs - it really doesn't. Bringing up that Assange has been accused of rape is a way of trying to balance this imbalance - where people dismiss rape as anything of importance in other contexts. Another interesting discussion might be: to what extent does and should the criminal or alleged criminal activity of a person affect them in obstensively unrelated areas, and what does unrelated mean when you're talking about discrete individuals?
posted by Deoridhe at 11:55 AM on August 23, 2012 [1 favorite]

But a rude remark addressed to a man by another man is not, in any way the word is ordinarily defined, or in any way the word has ever been ordinarily defined, "sexist."

This is incorrect. Men can be sexist against other men. Women can be sexist against other women. African Americans can be racist against other African Americans. Older people can be age-ist against other older people. Etc. Etc. Happens all the time.
posted by LordSludge at 12:00 PM on August 23, 2012 [2 favorites]

Men can be sexist against other men.

This is kind of true, and "limp dick" could count (but is on the milder end; the sexist part comes into the expectation that a Real Man is always Hard, so you must be a Woman). What makes it sexist is the alignment of Unworthy Men with women (who are automatically lesser and thus no man wants to be anything like a woman).

This is indirect sexism aimed at the not-woman to continually reinforce that woman is bad, though. What makes language sexist is the use of language for females (in this case recast as impotent men - emasculated (which strongly implies feminized)) against men as a way to ultimately reinforce that women are lesser. Every use of "ladies" by a coach is also sexist and the immediate target is men, but where it gets more complicated is that the ultimate target is always women. Insults like "limp dick" are several steps removed from being a direct insult on women, though it is still on the continuum of "being a woman is bad" and rarefies that "man" and "woman" are completely exclusive opposites.

A lot of the sexism expressed against men is actually attacks against women and reinforcement of the man in-group. In a similar way, a lot of the sexual interest and expectation aimed at women are actually homo-social interactions between men establishing a pecking order and have nothing to do with women at all (hence the lack of focus on finding someone you want to spend time with and instead a focus on how "hot" a given woman is). The person we're interacting with often isn't who the structural discrimination/prejudice is aimed at; humans are much more complicated than that.
posted by Deoridhe at 12:27 PM on August 23, 2012 [13 favorites]

the young rope-rider: I would much rather have her garner community support in whatever way seems best for her than to have her flag, see no action, and then silently disappear.

See, that sounds scary to me. "Garner community support in whatever way seems best for her" sounds like ganging up on others, pile-ons, and mob mentality are okay with you. They aren't to me, no matter what side of a debate I'm on.

You and I seem to have that disconnect. I feel like bullying is wrong, no matter who is doing it.

You feel like it's okay to do whatever it takes to attack someone you see as sexist (I think this is an important distinction, by the way). Just because you are a woman does not mean you speak for all women. I may not agree with you. And even when I do, I won't support bullying tactics.

So, if you are bullying someone, I'm going to step up, because I think that's the right thing to do.
posted by misha at 12:30 PM on August 23, 2012 [3 favorites]

How are we defining bullying, here?
posted by Deoridhe at 12:33 PM on August 23, 2012

Men can be sexist against other men.

Go ahead—explain that to me. Explain to me what it would mean for a man to be "sexist" to another man. And explain how that behavior is something different from merely being rude, or insulting, or condescending, or bullying.

I usually don't like resorting to the dictionary, but here I shall:

I'll see your dictionary.com and raise you the OED:

A., n. A person who advocates or practises sexism; esp. a man who discriminates against women on the basis of sex.

In quot. 1949 : a person who promotes the importance of the sexual instinct as a guiding force.

1949 F. J. Sheen Peace of Soul viii. 155 The rebellion of the masses against social order..is matched by the rebellion of the libido and the animal instincts, which the sexists advocate within the individual.
1961 Current Anthropol. 2 320 Apparently anyone who believes in genetic racial differences is a ‘racist’... I suppose by analogy that anyone who believes in genetic sex differences is a ‘sexist’.
1968 S. Vanauken Freedom for Movement Girls—Now 7 A sexist is one who proclaims or justifies or assumes the supremacy of one sex (guess which) over the other.
1976 New Yorker 5 Apr. 57/1 He was very stern and disagreeable and a gross sexist.
1989 B. Spock & M. Morgan Spock on Spock xxi. 247 In the Forties, I was a sexist like almost everybody else.
1992 Economist 18 Jan. 44/1 It becomes an intolerance of those who do not practise this hyper-tolerance (so that anyone who argues that a canon of authors who happen to be white and male is better than one picked by sex and skin colour is a racist sexist); which is pernicious.
2004 Voice 22 Mar. 9/2 New European directives get tough with the bum-pinching sexist at the photocopier or the school that treats black teachers unfairly.

B., adj. Of, relating to, or characteristic of sexism or sexists; that advocates or practises sexism, esp. against women.

1968 C. Bird in Vital Speeches (U.S.) 15 Nov. 90 There is recognition abroad that we are in many ways a sexist country.
1978 J. Irving World according to Garp xvi. 344 The sexist notion that women are..the acceptable prey of predatory males.
1988 Verbatim Autumn 1/2 Most feminists, even recognizing the influence of preverbal and nonverbal forces,..see acceptance of sexist language as an insidious poison.
1994 W. Farrell Myth Male Power (rev. ed.) Introd. 5 Feminism justified female ‘victim power’ by convincing the world that we lived in a sexist, male-dominated, and patriarchal world.
2002 R. Gervais & S. Merchant Office 1st Ser. Episode 1. 38 ‘Does my bum look big in this?’ That's not sexist, that's the bloke saying it..at last!

Even dictionary.com says "especially, such discrimination directed against women."
posted by octobersurprise at 12:34 PM on August 23, 2012

Huh. I just learned something. I always thought that the definition of sexism was not limited to actions by men against women. I was wrong.

Since we're quoting the OED:

sexism

Originally: the state or condition of belonging to the male or female sex; categorization or reference on the basis of sex (now rare); (in later use) prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex.

1866 J. H. W. Toohey in Boston Banner of Light 10 Nov. 2 The qualifications are constitutional, if not organic, and, for the first time, become fundamental—mere sexism being of secondary significance.
1873 S. S. Hennell Present Relig. II. i. 319 Intellectual Philosophy..held itself free therefore, stringently, from Sexism.
1906 R. S. Clymer True Spiritualism 91 Abstract rights are inherent in the soul or internal consciousness, and are independent of sexism, excepting that it tones and governs the individual in his or her recognition or apprehension of these inherent rights.
1934 Lowell (Mass.) Sun 12 Mar. 8/3 We have among us now every Old World ism ever conceived—Socialism, Communism, Nazism, Anti-Nazism, atheism, semitism, anti-semitism, internationalism, Fascism, sexism, [etc.].
1963 Morning Herald (Uniontown, Pa.) 2 Jan. 4/2 Several Very Important People in Show Business will unite to combat Sexism in America which some of them contend is as damaging as Communism.
1968 C. Bird in Vital Speeches (U.S.) 15 Nov. 90 Sexism is judging people by their sex where sex doesn't matter.
1971 Guardian 15 Jan. 11/4 The concept of a ‘woman's page’..perpetuates sexism by stressing the ‘special’ domestic interests supposedly adhering to women.
1980 S. Trott When your Lover Leaves (1981) 77 She sees rape as..the extreme of misogyny and sexism.
2000 Internat. Jrnl. Advertising 19 13 Today's ‘retro’ approach, far from glamorising the past, sends up and highlights the ‘clichéd’ scenarios, the blatant sexism, the obvious, simplistic psychosexual imagery.

Thanks for that, octobersurprise.
posted by zarq at 12:49 PM on August 23, 2012

'Typically' and 'especially' are not 'always', which is how I understand the original comment, that is, it is impossible for men to be sexist to other men. I maintain that men, in my experience, regularly engage in "prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex," even when the target is other men.

I agree with Deoridhe that 'A lot of the sexism expressed against men is actually attacks against women and reinforcement of the man in-group.'
posted by the man of twists and turns at 1:01 PM on August 23, 2012

LordSludge: “Men can be sexist against other men.”

octobersurprise: “Go ahead—explain that to me. Explain to me what it would mean for a man to be "sexist" to another man. And explain how that behavior is something different from merely being rude, or insulting, or condescending, or bullying.”

Somebody gave a really good explanation of this here a few years ago – wish I could find it now, it was extremely good – but men are absolutely the victims of sexism. Sexism does not just hurt women.

This is something that starts at a very early age for most of us men, and continues through our adult lives. The hectoring, the constant bullying, the pressure – all of these are sexist things. The general expectation of society that I as a man should not express emotion, that I should not talk softly, that I should not even like beautiful music or flowers or babies or anything like that – these are sexist shitty things. And they're not just rude, insulting, condescending, or bullying – although they may be any or all of those things. There is a specific gendered quality to these attacks, because they're specifically an exclusion from my gender, an alienation and an insistence that I must not be a true man if I don't conform to certain expectations.

With her customary eloquence, Deoridhe explained above why this hurts women, and that's the central fact of it: it reinforces men as the privileged sex by insisting that those who don't meet the criteria are not men. At the same time, I don't think we can forget that this really does hurt men, and hurts them early and often. I think this one fact – the fact of sexism against men in our society – is probably the central reason why so many men grow up to be sexists and end up doing it to younger men all over again.
posted by koeselitz at 1:02 PM on August 23, 2012 [18 favorites]

Yeah, "stop being such a limp dick" is a short hop from "stop being such a woman." It means "you are a bad person because you don't conform to the conventional ideal of your gender." In the words of the OED, it is stereotyping on the basis of sex. And it comes up so much in places like high school locker rooms because it has a particular sting for young men -- think how shameful it would be if people thought you were a woman!

So yeah, don't call it sexism if you don't want to. But maybe avoid it anyway.
posted by jhc at 1:07 PM on August 23, 2012 [1 favorite]

There is a specific gendered quality to these attacks, because they're specifically an exclusion from my gender, an alienation and an insistence that I must not be a true man if I don't conform to certain expectations

This is all true, but it's a different thing from one man being sexist to another as a man, which is the assertion misha and LordSludge were trying to make, I think.
posted by octobersurprise at 1:15 PM on August 23, 2012

Whether you call it sexism or not, it was a really unconstructive comment. Can we agree on that much?
posted by peppermind at 1:20 PM on August 23, 2012 [3 favorites]

i have to stay completely out of assange threads. it's a topic that deeply interests me and the people who support him are generally people i align myself with, but the rape apologies (and then people leaping from that specific case to "and here's the danger with chicks lying about rape") and the hostility to anyone who thinks wikileaks is important, but that he's an egotistical creeper is enough to make me feel completely unwelcome. i agree with characterizations up thread that reading those threads lowers my opinions of people and makes me wary of going out drinking with them. i don't want to think this way so i just pretend the entire wikileaks thing never happened.
posted by nadawi at 1:21 PM on August 23, 2012 [12 favorites]

My thought process is exactly the same as nadawi's.
posted by DarlingBri at 1:26 PM on August 23, 2012

it was a really unconstructive comment. Can we agree on that much?

Of course it was "unconstructive." It was meant to be insulting. That said, it wasn't more unconstructive than about 85% of this conversation.
posted by octobersurprise at 1:42 PM on August 23, 2012

> I'll see your dictionary.com and raise you the OED:

In the first place, pulling out a dictionary and claiming it trumps actual usage is wrong; no dictionary can keep up with language change. And in the second place, that "esp." in "esp. against women" means "especially," which means that according to the OED, while "sexism" is usually considered to be directed against women, it isn't always, the implication being that in the remainder of the cases it's directed against men, which is what you were apparently trying to disprove.

> There is a specific gendered quality to these attacks, because they're specifically an exclusion from my gender, an alienation and an insistence that I must not be a true man if I don't conform to certain expectations.

This is exactly right. I still remember vividly a moment in grade school when fellow classmates came up to me at recess and demanded I look at the backs of my hands, then the soles of my feet, then the sky. Fortunately I passed the test, because if you did it the "wrong" way, you were told "You're a girl!" I don't think any of us had even heard of homosexuality, let alone the word "faggot" (this was a half-century or so ago), but the idea of being told "You're a girl" was obscurely horrifying even though I had no idea what it might mean. This is how gender paranoia gets instilled and ingrained.
posted by languagehat at 2:04 PM on August 23, 2012 [6 favorites]

This is exactly right. I still remember vividly a moment in grade school when fellow classmates came up to me at recess and demanded I look at the backs of my hands, then the soles of my feet, then the sky.

What is the 'wrong' way? I think I know for the feet, but not the others.
posted by winna at 2:19 PM on August 23, 2012

The hand thing is if you splay your fingers out to look at them you are a gal and if you bend your fingers, like making a fist, you are a dude. Although I learned it was all about how you looked at your nails, not the backs of your hands. This all seemed very important at the time.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 2:22 PM on August 23, 2012 [5 favorites]

Go ahead—explain that to me. Explain to me what it would mean for a man to be "sexist" to another man.

"I don't want to hire a man for this job because men are bull-headed, agressive, and dumb."

Yes, *some* sexism towards men can be traced to sexism towards women -- "limp-dick" or "weak" or "effeminate" would be good examples. But not all. There are plenty of anti-man stereotypes too, many on display in this thread, that don't have their roots in negative comparisons to women.

Tunnel-vision and hyperbole don't help the feminist argument.
posted by LordSludge at 2:25 PM on August 23, 2012

"I don't want to hire a man for this job because men are bull-headed, agressive, and dumb."

This seems pretty notional. I mean, I'm sure it's happened somewhere in our big wonderful world at some point outside of this thread, but it isn't really a problem like women not getting hired because they're women is a problem. See also: some White person somewhere has had their offer on a house in a Black neighborhood rejected because they were not Black.
posted by OmieWise at 2:29 PM on August 23, 2012

This seems pretty notional. I mean, I'm sure it's happened somewhere in our big wonderful world at some point outside of this thread, but it isn't really a problem like women not getting hired because they're women is a problem.

Never said it was a common problem. I was answering the question posed to me, "Explain to me what it would mean for a man to be "sexist" to another man." -- the subtext of that question being that ALL anti-male sexism is actually anti-female sexism in disguise, and actual anti-male sexism is impossible. So there's an example of man-on-man sexism. Enjoy.
posted by LordSludge at 2:34 PM on August 23, 2012

But, you know, in case I wasn't clear enough: trotting out notional examples like that and using them to argue that sexism is a problem experienced by men too is insulting and in bad faith. Putting aside for the moment any arguments about whether the big -isms can really be applied as a term against the group in power, the notional example draws an equivalence, makes it seem as if men and women are equally victims of sexism. This is not true, and asserting it, even through analogy, is a dismissal of patriarchal oppression of women. It's a kind of lazy "nuh uh," a grade school response to a serious social issue, and it betrays those who employ it as not serious.
posted by OmieWise at 2:35 PM on August 23, 2012 [2 favorites]

(On non-preview)
posted by OmieWise at 2:35 PM on August 23, 2012

Gotcha, no worries. Again, just answering the question as posed. Save your grar for another day.

Just to be clear, if the question was, "Explain to me what it would mean for a common, endemic scenario that rivals anti-female sexism where a man to be is "sexist" to another man".... well, I'd be coming up empty, because I don't think there is one. There are pockets, to be sure (childcare, etc. -- I'm sure #mensrights will provide more examples), but it's a trivial, trivial issue compared to anti-female sexism considered as a whole.
posted by LordSludge at 2:44 PM on August 23, 2012 [1 favorite]

I could be wrong, but I thought the whole thing with men discriminating against men was that it was essentially the other side, as in, supporting it, of discriminating against women.

Like, I'm not going to hire this man to be my secretary because I view women as secretaries. They should be doing that sort of thing - men should be working in a 'manly' position. I'm not going to hire this man to babysit my kids, because I view that as women's work.

And then as the backing for that, women get looked over for positions they should get because men think of them existing in these women-only professions, or just generally think they should be someone's housewife, making a sandwich, in the kitchen, or just otherwise fulfilling some stereotypical role.

Male nurse? Ha! Oh sure male nurses exists, as well as female physicians. But the stories I vaguely recall are of male nurses getting teased (famously depicted in Meet the Fockers or something, right) and women getting disrespected as physicians.
posted by cashman at 2:47 PM on August 23, 2012 [1 favorite]

Also I ran across this recently, if anybody is interested. It's an NYT article about how Google looked at their hiring processes and changed them because they were not hiring women at the rates they wanted. They discovered some problematic elements and changed them.
posted by cashman at 2:50 PM on August 23, 2012 [6 favorites]

Cashman, that's incredibly interesting. And it's heartening to see a company as large as Google see their gendered employment problems as 1) actual problems which 2) probably have solutions.
posted by KathrynT at 2:56 PM on August 23, 2012

LordSludge: “I was answering the question posed to me, 'Explain to me what it would mean for a man to be 'sexist' to another man.' -- the subtext of that question being that ALL anti-male sexism is actually anti-female sexism in disguise, and actual anti-male sexism is impossible. So there's an example of man-on-man sexism. Enjoy.”

See, now here's where I disagree with you. Virtually all anti-male sexism is anti-female sexism in disguise. That doesn't mean it doesn't hurt men, but we're living in a patriarchy after all. The notion that there is some shift in the wind and suddenly we're doing to men what we used to be doing to women is false. It's part of the same beast, and the sexism that hurts men is the sexism that comes with the patriarchal machine.
posted by koeselitz at 3:19 PM on August 23, 2012 [3 favorites]

koeselitz: See, now here's where I disagree with you. Virtually all anti-male sexism is anti-female sexism in disguise. That doesn't mean it doesn't hurt men, but we're living in a patriarchy after all. The notion that there is some shift in the wind and suddenly we're doing to men what we used to be doing to women is false. It's part of the same beast, and the sexism that hurts men is the sexism that comes with the patriarchal machine.

I don't see where we're in disagreement here, and I don't see where I've said what you imply I'm saying. Maybe somebody else is putting forth the idea that anti-male sexism is endemic? But not me, and I've explicitly said so:

Just to be clear, if the question was, "Explain to me what it would mean for a common, endemic scenario that rivals anti-female sexism where a man to be is "sexist" to another man".... well, I'd be coming up empty, because I don't think there is one. There are pockets, to be sure (childcare, etc. -- I'm sure #mensrights will provide more examples), but it's a trivial, trivial issue compared to anti-female sexism considered as a whole.

I was simply countering the idea that anti-male sexism cannot exist, even in concept -- for reference, the original question/challenge:

Go ahead—explain that to me. Explain to me what it would mean for a man to be "sexist" to another man. And explain how that behavior is something different from merely being rude, or insulting, or condescending, or bullying.

The hostility here is clouding people's judgement, and it's not just you. Maybe dial back the grar or at least attribute it correctly?
posted by LordSludge at 3:36 PM on August 23, 2012

I was simply countering the idea that anti-male sexism cannot exist, even in concept

I get it - it's a logic puzzle, or a thought experiment?

OK, next up - how can a Welshman be francophobic against a Venusian? Best answer wins pie.
posted by running order squabble fest at 4:00 PM on August 23, 2012

I get it - it's a logic puzzle, or a thought experiment?

Dunno. Ask the person who issued the challenge/question.

OK, next up - how can a Welshman be francophobic against a Venusian? Best answer wins pie.

Nope, no belittling going on here...

Everyone needs a hug, indeed.
posted by LordSludge at 4:07 PM on August 23, 2012

OK, next up - how can a Welshman be francophobic against a Venusian? Best answer wins pie.

"My dear Venusian friend, you are being as cowardly as a Frenchman. Also, I'm Welsh."
posted by Sticherbeast at 4:09 PM on August 23, 2012 [7 favorites]

I think there's a degree of self-belittling going on, to be honest, Sludge. Much as Misha's "When you say that, it makes me think that you are going to bully, and pile on, and gang up, and I will fight you" is sort of ... self-dramatzing?

Being able to imagine a situation in which type X can display prejudice Y against type Z is a fun game, but I'm not sure where it gets us. We agree, presumably, that sexism is overwhelmingly a thing that is experienced by women, at the hands of men, although women may internalize and perpetuate sexism and many men are also disadvantaged by sexism, but usually not verbally. There's a line between completeness and lawyering, and I think we might be teetering on that line.

I mean, if we want to imagine a situation where Tony Stark called Steve Rogers bullheaded, arrogant and just a typical man, and demanded he be kicked off the Avengers*, that's a thing we can do, but I'm not sure it really speaks much to the issues at hand. It's kind of a "what about the (avenging) mens" derail.



*Later, they kiss and make out up.
posted by running order squabble fest at 4:27 PM on August 23, 2012

The original challenge was that it was not possible, even in concept, for a man to be sexist towards another man -- that sexism is, by definition, an anti-female endeavor. I disagree with that and provided a hypothetical example. I even stated that man-on-man sexism is "trivial, trivial" in prevalence compared to anti-female sexism. Men CAN be sexist against other men; it is not common. Probably very rare indeed.

There probably ARE people who insist anti-male sexism is just as common as anti-female sexism. I am not one of them. I don't know how to make that more clear.

I would also strongly agree with koeselitz's point that most anti-male sexism is anti-female sexism in disguise. That's a fantastic observation. (But I do disagree that we're in disagreement about this!)

I think you and several others are reading too much into my responses and piling on arguments that I never made and never intended. Please, please, please stop belittling me, derailing conversation, and squelching conversation by bring up silly LOL-tastic examples. Just address the words as written and stop misrepresenting your imagined opponents. I think we're pretty much on the same page here. Let's talk like adults.

And hug like children.

And hunt like toddlers.
posted by LordSludge at 4:46 PM on August 23, 2012 [3 favorites]

(Really sorry if this comes across as patronizing or whatever, but goddamn this is frustrating having words put in my mouth!)
posted by LordSludge at 4:46 PM on August 23, 2012 [1 favorite]

> Although I learned it was all about how you looked at your nails, not the backs of your hands.

That's it! It was the nails! I was looking at my hands trying to remember the words, but I got it wrong.

Also, when you look at the sky you're supposed to open your mouth and stare slack-jawed if you're a real guy. To keep your mouth shut is girlie behavior.

Please tell me boys don't still pull that shit...
posted by languagehat at 5:07 PM on August 23, 2012

But if you're wanting a real-world male-on-male sexism example: I am personally sexist against male doctors. I think their egos can get in the way of proper diagnosis. (Most notably/recently, a male doctor insisted that my staph infection was fungal and bristled when I disagreed and refused to do a culture/test. I immediately went to a female doctor, she did a culture/test, and sure enough it was staph!) No, I don't think this is a common opinion, but I would generally MUCH rather have a female doctor than male, given the choice.

I've also had a female manager who actually told me she didn't like to hire female workers because they were "too emotional". My response was something like "Ummmmmm..." because, well, what do you say to something like that??
posted by LordSludge at 5:18 PM on August 23, 2012

I am apparently both a girl and a boy. I would gawp at the sky with my mouth open, cross my foot in front of me to look at the sole, but splay out my hand to look at my nails.

I bet almost everyone does at least one of the three the 'wrong' way for their gender.
posted by winna at 5:19 PM on August 23, 2012 [1 favorite]

languagehat: "Please tell me boys don't still pull that shit..."

Sadly they do ... I witnessed the nail thing being used on my 10 year old nephew at a swim meet this summer.
posted by the_artificer at 5:31 PM on August 23, 2012

The original challenge was that it was not possible, even in concept, for a man to be sexist towards another man -- that sexism is, by definition, an anti-female endeavor. I disagree with that and provided a hypothetical example

I can't resist giving in to this quibble even though I know that's what it is.

In the hypothetical - a man doesn't hire another man because he thinks the man will be too [orange], then presumably he prefers a woman - a priori - because he expects the woman to be more [green]. You don't get any preference at all without assigning gendered expectations - that's another way in which sexism against men is just another facet of sexism against women.

Even if [green] is generally thought of as a positive quality, if someone is presuming that women are always more [green] and men are always more [orange], he's maintaining a sexist opinion about women: that women are usually [green].

There might or might not be a good case for preferring [green], as in your example of the doctor. As long as we have a society which conditions the genders differently, there will be some specializations that each gender is overall better trained, conditioned, and encouraged to do.

That doesn't mean it's "not sexist" to assume that all men will have [orange] or all women [green] as their qualities, based only on their gender as the predictor. In your example, you assume female doctors will be better diagnosticians. Some are, some aren't, and if you did a controlled run of test cases you'd likely have found a distribution.

But you're willing to posit that all female doctors will be better diagnosticians, which means all men will be worse diagnosticians. That's sexism - but not "sexism against men," because you can't have that concept without espousing sexism against women as well. Your sexist expectation of women is "better diagnosticians."

Remember, not all qualities placed in forced association with a gender are negative. After all, being nurturing, observant, thoughtful, kind, and so on - all traditional female expectations - are positive qualities. WE don't call qualities of people "sexist" just because they're sometimes negative. They can be positive too. We call them "sexist" because, by deploying these expectations, we limit the scope and the potential access to all human experience and ability we might otherwise offer that person.

If you're differentiating between the sexes in your expectations that - predicting only on gender - any individual will behave or be skilled in certain ways, then you're being sexist. Therefore, if your expectations for men - again, predicting only on gender - are different than they are for women, you by definition have sexist expectations for women to go along with your sexist expecations for men. Even if your expectations for women might be the more positive or desired of the two. They often are, but that makes them no less a trap for individuals who don't conform when they run up against people - especially against a united, trained society of people - who expect you to behave differently, and are willing to try insisting on it, to sometimes extreme extents.
posted by Miko at 5:37 PM on August 23, 2012 [6 favorites]

LordSludge:
"I don't want to hire a man for this job because men are bull-headed, agressive, and dumb."... Never said it was a common problem. I was answering the question posed to me, "Explain to me what it would mean for a man to be "sexist" to another man." -- the subtext of that question being that ALL anti-male sexism is actually anti-female sexism in disguise, and actual anti-male sexism is impossible. So there's an example of man-on-man sexism. Enjoy.

No, sorry, not sexism.

It is discriminatory (so is the fact that in my field we deliberately try to hire a certain number of men) but it isn't sexism - not in anything but the absolutely loosest, farthest from the source sense where the word begins to resemble other words like general prejudice on an individual level.

One aspect of discrimination - any discrimination, from sexism to racism to ableism to classism - is that it is systematic and culturally reinforced lack of power and access to rights and opportunities. There are stereotypes about men being "dumb" and "aggressive" and "bull-headed", but usually men benefit from these stereotypes ("Women shouldn't show their bodies to men because men can't control themselves and then women cause themselves to be raped", "Men can't be left alone with children because they don't know how to take care of them," "Men can't do housework because they are bad at it") without it costing them much, if anything unless they are violating gender coded behavior (see: men who object to rape and rape apologia, men who take care of children, men who clean). The men who face insults, violence, and even just social stigmatization are those who align themselves with women, either through the stereotypes of things associated with women or by supporting women. The men who conform to it often have people try to explain their behavior as, "Well, you know how men are."

I totally agree that these attitudes suck. I totally agree that the source of them as apologia for mens actions is the same as the source of sexism.

I almost wrote that I didn't think this was a significant source of pain (due to the aforementioned advantages of being able to rape people, not have to engage in childcare, and not have to clean), but I don't even agree with that because I think the suffering of masculine-identified men is legitimate and valid, and their attempts to express it are hindered by the very stereotype (men are stoic and don't show emotions) that exists.

What I don't agree with is:

1) there is sytematic discrimination, loss of power, loss or rights, and violence against men for conforming to masculine stereotypes. I believe those stereotypes largely serve as excuses for unethical and cruel behavior and reinforcement of a superior male in-group. The individuals the stereotype injures are often those who don't want to be cruel but don't know another way to exist in the world.

2) that women should be the ones to fight these stereotypes through the created tools and wisdom of the study of sexism, feminism, and womanism (I am not a womanist, but I do my best to support womanists).

I honestly believe that it is the responsibility of masculine identified men to work toward dismantling the stereotypes associated with that. I'm welcome to share what I have learned as a feminine identifying woman about how insidious these stereotypes can be (especially when some of them are accurate!). I'm happy to be your ally in you reclaiming your emotions, your self-sufficiency, your concept of consent, etc... and in broadening out what it means to be a man. I can't do it for you, though, anymore; it is an internal issue that you have to own as a problem and work through because the process of working through it is at least partially the process of solving it (especially for men, as the "men don't have emotions" means you are often very locked away from your emotional responses for things and how that affects your behavior).

As a final note, I'm very uncomfortable with the "gotcha" tone of your response. It feels and I analyze it as much less an attempt to have a conversation so that you, as a masculine identified man, can learn about dismantaling internalize stereotypes from me, your equal, and much more as a way of saying, "Men suffer to, so... I win." I apologize if I read you wrong, but the final word ("Enjoy." Really?) in particular has rendered me very suspicious.
posted by Deoridhe at 5:38 PM on August 23, 2012 [14 favorites]

The original challenge was that it was not possible, even in concept, for a man to be sexist towards another man

Actually, "even in concept" is a phrase only you've used (twice) - it wasn't in the "original challenge", which at no point used that phrase. But that's a sidetrack within a derail, so let's not worry about it too much.

So, here's the thing. Remember upthread, when you said that it was "hurtful and Othering to hear that I, as a man, should be treated as a rapist" - which nobody at any point said? And, when it was pointed out that the hurt of experiencing a thing which you had not actually experienced was maybe not the big issue compared with, say, being at risk of rape, you left, and then popped back up just now to rules-lawyer here with an improbable hypothetical?

And before you left the thread, remember where you put in some jokey derails about toddlers, and took offense on Reggie Knoble's behalf at someone using the humorous address "brohammed" (which was also "belittling", apparently)? And did an "o tempora, o mores" bit about how men and women were talking past each other and everyone was at fault?

And now we're here, in a thread where people are talking about their lived experience of sexism, imagining improv scenes in order to derail the thread again into a linguistic quibble, while also giving the feminists a little bit of a 'splanation about how feminists hurt their case.

We're not even talking about your hurt feelings this time - we're talking about the possible hurt feelings of an imaginary victim of male-on-male sexism in a hypothesis.

I'm sure you have a good-faith belief that you are a good-faith participant, and that saying that you get how bad women have it demonstrates this. I'm sure that attempts to highlight the problems with the way you are engaging look to you like "grar", or piling on, or belittling, or LOL-tastic derails. But I think it's kind of more complex than that. We're in a derail, right now, about something you yourself are saying is "very rare" and yet appear to want us all to talk about to the exclusion of the actual, non-rare issues. And, since I was clearly too allusive beforehand, I think it would be good if this ended.
posted by running order squabble fest at 5:42 PM on August 23, 2012 [4 favorites]

I would also strongly agree with koeselitz's point that most anti-male sexism is anti-female sexism in disguise.

Ironically, that was my point first and koeselitz said, "Deoridhe explained above why this hurts women", so even if you skipped my post you would have seen my name.

This is part of another pattern - a woman makes a response, a man echoes it and even references it, and the disagreeing man ignores the woman and engages with the man.
posted by Deoridhe at 5:45 PM on August 23, 2012 [13 favorites]

Fwiw I've no idea who is male or female on here. Surely some people check profiles before posting, but i do not. You're falsely accusing me of deliberately passing over a female opinion to engage a male one. Please don't do that unless you have a little more to go on.

And yes, this is beginning to feel like bullying.
posted by LordSludge at 9:02 PM on August 23, 2012 [5 favorites]

Male nurse? Ha! Oh sure male nurses exists, as well as female physicians. But the stories I vaguely recall are of male nurses getting teased (famously depicted in Meet the Fockers or something, right) and women getting disrespected as physicians.

Anecdatum to counter moviedatum: when I was in nursing school back in the 1990s, the proportion of males in my class was exactly the same as the proportion of nurses nationwide (10%), but they took over 75% of the end-of-year honors, including the ones that were entirely based on popularity. I liked the guys fine, but the attention and fawning they got was disproportionate. Maybe they took a ration of shit outside of school, but they all went into high-prestige jobs on graduation (in nursing, the higher the acuity and the higher the independence of the role, the higher the prestige, so basically the highest-status job you can get with a BSN is ICU, CCU, or ER at a high-profile hospital. Which every one of my male peers did. And most of them were given charge nurse duties by the end of their first year. Considering how many of my female peers wound up working night shift in long-term nursing facilities out in the boonies, it was pretty clear that the guys inspired more confidence in the hiring managers.)
posted by gingerest at 9:29 PM on August 23, 2012 [3 favorites]

gilrain: There is a difference between bullying and calling out an argument which, intentionally or not, serves as rape apology.

I am 100% against rape apologists, full stop. Maybe my comment was posted at an inopportune moment, but I have not even visited that Julian Assange thread, and it wasn't at all what I was talking about.

Much as Misha's "When you say that, it makes me think that you are going to bully, and pile on, and gang up, and I will fight you"

Wait, whoa, whoa, what?! I don't want to fight anyone! I'm just going to flag or call out bullying when I see it, full stop.

the young rope-rider: "Why don't you just, as you said upthread, flag and move on?

I do. So far, it hasn't had any effect, but I will continue to do so. And actually, I said there were TWO productive ways to go, either (1) explaining the problem with a comment, or (2) flagging/ignoring the comment. And that's what I try to do. I don't try to attack anyone personally, although other users seem to jump on my comments as if I am speaking specifically to them, so then I respond in kind.

Just off the top of my head, bullying tactics would include:

Deliberately misstating another user's position, especially by taking a few words out of context, and using that to paint the commenter in a negative light. I've seen that happen several times in this thread alone, to various users.

Accusing people who disagree with the basis for a specific argument you have made of disagreeing that sexism even exists or is a problem.

Accusing someone who disagrees with the way you have phrased something in particular as attempting to silence you completely.

Suggesting that other members should be banned because you don't like having 'people like that' around, they said stuff you didn't like years ago, calling their POV "bullshit", etc. Ironically, often done by the same people who complain others are trying to silence them.
posted by misha at 9:33 PM on August 23, 2012 [5 favorites]

(Misha: I think the vernacular "step up" bit you there. "So, if you are bullying someone, I'm going to step up, because I think that's the right thing to do." "Step up" is an invitation to fight, in some contexts - cf "You think you can take me? Step up, asshole." I can see you meant it more in the sense of stepping up to home plate to bat, or to a podium to give a speech, but I can also see where running order squabble fest got that.)
posted by gingerest at 9:47 PM on August 23, 2012 [1 favorite]

the part i have a problem with is when you ascribe intent to things you have no knowledge of - for instance - Deliberately misstating another user's position

from all sides there can be miscommunications and charging that you know someone is deliberately misstating, instead of misunderstanding or feeling honestly that was the meat of what was said, or even feeling like it was a small part that the responder felt they had to address - well, it seems like you're doing what you're upset about, guessing at the intentions of others and then blanket condemning them.

i wish people could find a different word - bullying has been co-opted and misused to the point of it being meaningless.
posted by nadawi at 10:02 PM on August 23, 2012

Lord Sludge: I apologize that quoting and responding to you feels like bullying. I shall cease to do so.
posted by Deoridhe at 10:03 PM on August 23, 2012 [2 favorites]

By all means somebody go ahead and come up with a perfectly unobjectionable gender-neutral alternative to "mansplaining" that is still readily comprehensible as a specific term for when a man is being a condescending know-it-all to a woman.
posted by prize bull octorok at 3:13 PM on August 21

Ok. I didn't come up with this example, but I'll construct a sentence using "a perfectly unobjectionable gender-neutral alternative", so you can see how it would look in context:

"This was one of those instances where a man is being a condescending know-it-all to a woman."

It is Just. That. Easy.
posted by Tuesday After Lunch at 11:16 PM on August 23, 2012

The thing with the nails is based on the notion that girls/women would be examining the current state of their fingernail polish, while boys/men would be examining their fingernails to see how much dirt was beneath their nails. I hadn't heard of the look at the sky thing, but apparently my partner and I have it reversed. I can't find the look at the soles of your feet test.

An even older test, attributed to Mark Twain (back before everything was attributed to Mark Twain), was a test to see if someone -- presumably a spy, or something -- in a dress was a woman, or a man disguised as a woman (or alternatively, to determine if someone wearing pants was a man, or a woman disguised as a man), was to drop or toss something in their lap. If they were a woman, they'd open their legs, because their lifelong habit would be to catch the object with their dress. If they were a man, they'd close their legs, so they'd catch the object in their lap.
posted by Tuesday After Lunch at 11:47 PM on August 23, 2012

"This was one of those instances where a man is being a condescending know-it-all to a woman."

Can you see how this usage is many more words than "here's another mansplanation" or "he just mansplained" or "she just got mansplained"? And that mansplain specifically means "like a man being a condescending know it all to a woman" usually with the addition of "without actually knowing more than her about the topic under discussion"?

I agree that it could be useful to come up with an alternative word that is less offensive to so many people. But the thing is, the goal posts in language shift. If another word is found, to refer to the same phenomenon, I suspect that we would have another round of recriminations. Otherwise, as someone said in this or the Solnit thread, why doesn't everyone object to the term "white power" groups? Do all white people seriously think they are being referred to, or that they bear responsibility for the actions of a white power group? I don't think so. I don't know why so many men are assuming that "mansplain" refers to all men.
posted by bardophile at 2:04 AM on August 24, 2012 [4 favorites]

Ok. I didn't come up with this example, but I'll construct a sentence using "a perfectly unobjectionable gender-neutral alternative", so you can see how it would look in context:

"This was one of those instances where a man is being a condescending know-it-all to a woman."

It is Just. That. Easy.

The patronizing tone there actually feels a little mansplainy, but I think it's more useful to note that this is wrong on two fairly important counts.

One, that isn't gender-neutral. How could one possibly believe that that is gender-neutral? It has two genders, right there in the sentence. I guess that if the response is - and it will be - "are you saying that all men are condescending", one can abort more quickly ("no, no! It just happened to be a man, and it just happened to be a woman"), but that isn't necessarily a feature rather than a bug.

Because, two, the whole point about "mansplain" as a verb is that it describes a particular behavior in a particular context - it isn't intended to be genderless. Demanding a "gender-neutral" substitute term is demanding that the concept not be advanced - the concept being that there is a specific behavior which fits into a broader inequality in the way men and women are societally conditioned to interact.

If you don't believe that, man up and say that, but don't try to fight a proxy war about how women just need to take your advice about how to use their words properly, and then men will listen to them.

The best argument against "mansplain", of course, is that it makes a particular kind of dude faint with such force that they will probably break your fainting couch, and those things cost money. Whether that fainting fit is sincere is not really at issue. I've had people very sincerely tell me that I must be a racist against white people because I've used the word WASP. To describe myself. There's always something that will give people who don't want to discuss the issues an escape hatch.
posted by running order squabble fest at 3:30 AM on August 24, 2012 [12 favorites]

(And, getting my own 'splain on, it isn't so much attributed to Mark Twain as written by him - The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, Chapter 11. Huck, believed dead, is disguised as a girl, and the fact that he catches a lead quoit that she drops into his lap by clapping his legs together, rather than spreading his skirt, is one of the ways Mrs Loftus works out that he is a boy.

Mrs Loftus actually fits quite nicely into this discussion - she is someone who is clearly kind and well-meaning, but arguably doesn't really have a sense of the extent of her (in this case white) privilege. She relates the story of Huck's alleged murder, and how his father was originally suspected, but as soon as Jim (the slave) ran away it was immediately placed on him, and Finn pere got the town to fund an expedition to hunt Jim down. After a period of silence from Finn pere, many think that he killed Huck, and will come back in a year or so blaming it on robbers, and get the inheritance - but others are still hunting for Jim anyway, purely for the bounty. Personally, she doesn't agree that Jim is guilty, but she doesn't wholly make the connection that killing him would be unjust. His life is worth lesst han the $300 bounty.

Although there's a subversive reading that suggests that she understands not just that Huck is a boy, but that Huck is Huck, and she is giving him the tools, deniably, to get himself and Jim away safely...)
posted by running order squabble fest at 4:26 AM on August 24, 2012 [2 favorites]

Hey there's an entire AskMe about the "stupid gender test."

Was going to add the bit about Huck but running_order got there first and better. Nice reading of the scene.

I don't try to attack anyone personally, although other users seem to jump on my comments as if I am speaking specifically to them, so then I respond in kind.

Since all we can do here is read comments, respond to comments, and bring in our own ideas, people are going to have comments responded to. Being responded to - directly or indirectly - doesn't always amount to a personal attack. And responding in a specific way to contest or examine a specific assertion isn't always "jumping on." There's no way to further the discussion or work anything out if we all just talk to the wall in an unconnected way.

I endorse the demand "don't attack people unreasonably," but if I'm advancing a view and someone wants to argue with it, they might do that and still be entirely within the bounds of a respectful, non-bullying discussion.
posted by Miko at 5:39 AM on August 24, 2012 [1 favorite]

Misha: I think the vernacular "step up" bit you there. "So, if you are bullying someone, I'm going to step up, because I think that's the right thing to do." "Step up" is an invitation to fight, in some contexts - cf "You think you can take me? Step up, asshole." I can see you meant it more in the sense of stepping up to home plate to bat, or to a podium to give a speech, but I can also see where running order squabble fest got that.

This is the mistake I made, certainly - "step up" sounded confrontational, especially in the context. So, misunderstanding noted and corrected. But... there's a slightly deeper angle, which still applies, I think. Let me get my 'splain on again:

Narratives in which you and people who agree with you just happen to be doing the right thing in the right way - stepping up in the good sense - and in which people who disagree with you are, totally coincidentally, piling on, bullying et cet are, I think, dangerous. Because, cognitively, they creates a state where any statement expressive of a position you do not agree with can be by that token not just incorrect-wrong, but ethically-wrong.

So, an aggressive response just feels like speaking truth to power, and power which is being abused.

(So, for example, is Doing. The. Period. After. Every. Word. To. Show. You. Are. Talking. To. A. Simpleton. Thing bullying? And, elsewhere, the responses LordSludge is getting feel like bullying, to LordSludge. Are they bullying? Or just feedback? Depends who you ask, I suspect.)

Broader beefs with specific users I don't feel competent to judge, but... hincandenza brings up his past behavior, and how it has been received, in an early post to the thread. It's problematic to suggest that somebody else is, unprompted, digging this up to throw in his face. He also made specific allegations:

I completely agree with OP's premise that this place does seem to have a strong anti-male stance- or to put it another way, a fierce wind blowing against even hinting that somewhere, any man might actually suffer or not have a perfect "privileged" life because of his testicles. If you were foolish enough to suggest that, you'd be shouted down by a cadre of MeFites accusing you of "making it all about men", "mansplaining", etc, and whose script clearly states that all women suffer impossibly, and all men are triumphant and living high on the hog because patriarchy, oh and also, poverty, and income inequality, and also enforced gender roles in third world countries that none of us have ever even visited.

Again, I'd say that saying that all dissenting opinions are being read from a script, and that nobody on MetaFilter has ever been to a "third world country" feels like denying the experience of women in those personal stories we are supposed to be encouraging - like infini, who lives and works in Africa. That does feel like denying the validity of the reported experience of other members of MetaFilter, and could be seen as some form of according-to-Hoyle silencing, although "silencing" in the context of a message board is as hard to pin down as "bullying".

To be honest, the word "bullying" is problematic in general, because it can be used by pretty much anyone of any behavior: it's useful for telling us how its user is _feeling_, but not for telling us reliably about what is actually _happening_.
posted by running order squabble fest at 5:54 AM on August 24, 2012 [8 favorites]

> Ok. I didn't come up with this example, but I'll construct a sentence using "a perfectly unobjectionable gender-neutral alternative", so you can see how it would look in context:

"This was one of those instances where a man is being a condescending know-it-all to a woman."

It is Just. That. Easy.

Ridiculous. That "alternative" removes everything that makes "mansplain" effective; it pretends that the incident in question just happens to be one of those instances where a man is being a condescending know-it-all to a woman, just one random item from a vast pool of instances where people of various genders are being condescending know-it-alls to people of various genders, sometimes their own, sometimes not—it's a big, variegated world! Whereas "mansplain" tells it like it is: men overwhelmingly do this to women, it is a specifically gendered phenomenon. Men made uncomfortable by the term should be made uncomfortable by the thing itself, and should realize that objecting to the term is misplaced defensiveness that detracts from the struggle against the thing itself.

And that Each. Word. Followed. By. A. Period thing? Don't do that.
posted by languagehat at 6:14 AM on August 24, 2012 [17 favorites]

you'd be shouted down by a cadre of MeFites accusing you of "making it all about men",

Since we are speaking linguistically, one of the things that I have been noticing is the use of words like "cadre" and "mob" in the anti-mansplaining comments. Words like that set up a very particular mental image of a group willing to do violence, either organized (cadre) or not (mob), against which the critic represents order and respectability.

Like the repugnant reframing of, for example, anti homophobic remarks as "hatred" and anti misogyny as "bullying," this is a linguistic device that doesn't, shall we say, promote calm and considered discussion.

It's certainly not something you'd want to ban, even if you could, but it's something to notice here, and absolutely mirrors how the far right has been deliberately reframing political debates in effective but unpleasant ways.
posted by Forktine at 6:31 AM on August 24, 2012 [10 favorites]

"I don't want to hire a man for this job because men are bull-headed, agressive, and dumb."... Never said it was a common problem. I was answering the question posed to me, "Explain to me what it would mean for a man to be "sexist" to another man." -- the subtext of that question being that ALL anti-male sexism is actually anti-female sexism in disguise, and actual anti-male sexism is impossible. So there's an example of man-on-man sexism. Enjoy.

No, sorry, not sexism.

It is discriminatory (so is the fact that in my field we deliberately try to hire a certain number of men) but it isn't sexism - not in anything but the absolutely loosest, farthest from the source sense where the word begins to resemble other words like general prejudice on an individual level.

No, it is straight up sexism.

One aspect of discrimination - any discrimination, from sexism to racism to ableism to classism - is that it is systematic and culturally reinforced lack of power and access to rights and opportunities. There are stereotypes about men being "dumb" and "aggressive" and "bull-headed", but usually men benefit from these stereotypes

Didn't the example above restrict the rights of potential male employees? Did those people benefit from the stereotype? Just because it wasn't happening to lots of men systematically all across the world doesn't lessen the impact on those people.

And you can say 'aw boo hoo, poor men', they should try some REAL discrimination. But you are either in favour of equal rights for all or you aren't. It's a point of principle.

And if you're not, well then we can all pick and choose our occasions to be 'fair' and no one has to be fair to you.
posted by Summer at 6:34 AM on August 24, 2012 [1 favorite]

Or, you know, we can keep watching people getting angry and upset about an imaginary situation created as a hypothetical to try to win a debating point in the middle of people talking about how actual, real instances of not-imaginary sexism affect their lives.

That's also an option.
posted by running order squabble fest at 7:10 AM on August 24, 2012 [15 favorites]

Didn't the example above restrict the rights of potential male employees? Did those people benefit from the stereotype? Just because it wasn't happening to lots of men systematically all across the world doesn't lessen the impact on those people.

I think things like this affect individual men, but the point of the system is to help those men be part of the privileged aggregate. If the system could talk, it would tell the man not to apply for those jobs (because we want to keep the pay low and pay women low salaries), and instead that an executive position was open somewhere that they could fit into with minimal interviewing or experience needed.

an imaginary situation created as a hypothetical

I think it is more complex than that. I do think men lose opportunities behind sexism. I think the way it plays itself out is that men lose opportunities to occupy roles that challenge gender assumptions and assignments in American society. Women lose these same opportunities, but that, to me, is the focal point. The experience of men, losing opportunities, is a necessary part of a system that we're all (in here, at this point, I believe) working to dismantle.
posted by cashman at 7:16 AM on August 24, 2012 [4 favorites]

but that, to me, is the focal point

(Women losing opportunities is the focal point)
posted by cashman at 7:18 AM on August 24, 2012

This "men as victims of sexism" derail is wierd becuase it only started to try and disprove octobersurprise's claim that he couldn't have used a sexist term becuase he is a man and was insulting men.

But he managed to disprove that with his own cite of the OED so it really should have ended there.
posted by Reggie Knoble at 7:28 AM on August 24, 2012

Last comment on this track for me, I think, but sure, cashman - men are disadvantaged by sexism. Men don't get to be emotional without having to get past gender expectations, they don't get to experiment with their sense of gendered self without potentially significant implications, they get forced into expectation corners - always in control, always in charge, always eager for sex - which are often impossible to fulfil and then told they are not real men when they can't. And they get socialized and shamed out of certain careers and interests*. This is totally part of the struggle against sexism and for greater equality.

We've already covered all this above, however. And the derail does not say:

I do think men lose opportunities behind sexism. I think the way it plays itself out is that men lose opportunities to occupy roles that challenge gender assumptions and assignments in American society.

That's talking about sexism-against-men-for-exhibiting-non-masculine-traits.

The derail is attempting to win a debating point by imagining a hypothetical situation in which a man is not employed due to a sexist-against-men-for-exhibiting-masculine-traits perception of men as bull-headed. Which no doubt happens somewhere - hey, people don't get jobs because of crazy shit like the color of their skin or their sexuality. Sometimes, employers are tripping.

But it isn't testimony - it's a hypothetical. And it's derailing first with that imaginary man, and now with anger about that imaginary man's imaginary pain not being taken seriously enough. Which, oy.


*This is why male bronies are some of the bravest people out there, obvs.
posted by running order squabble fest at 7:45 AM on August 24, 2012 [2 favorites]

You guys. Honestly. It's a ridiculous display. So, to get right back to the crux of the issue, no. It is most certainly not a girl zone.
posted by h00py at 7:59 AM on August 24, 2012 [8 favorites]

I don't think that anyone here is going to challenge the idea that sexism hurts everybody. It does. It hurts all of us, some more than others, some more often than others, and some in different ways than others. Consequences for women on the whole, though, have much more severely impacted things as basic as their career choice and success, sexual and reproductive choices, self-image and expectations for appearance, access to education and training, and personal safety. That overwhelming fact is not really worth debating - it's just not a reasonable position to say "that's not the case."

It's good to talk about ways sexism hurts men. It really is. Men are disadvantaged in a lot of ways that aren't fair - the expectations running_order listed. Providing the largest proportion of warriors. And so on. But men also have more to lose than women do by ending sexism - more real, comfortable, helpful, accustomed advantages. Those would go away. It's fair to recognize that and not sugarcoat that some loss of advantage is implied in the goal of ending sexism. The hope, of course, is that it's an overall gain for humanity, and that eventually, a more egalitarian society will yield benefits that are difficult for us to even imagine right now, but certainly include greater freedom for men in choosing career, enjoying relationships, and doing activities which have been traditionally gendered female, without the punishing condemnation of other male gender police.
posted by Miko at 8:58 AM on August 24, 2012 [6 favorites]

So, right this very minute, there's a discussion going on over on a friend's blog (and on her facebook page, where there's a link to this particular blog post) - she writes about atheism, and she's been writing a lot lately about atheism and feminism. She's got a tag she uses that's "mencallmethings" when she writes about the gendered threats and hate male she receives, and in the current one, some not-tiny number of people are arguing that the tag is bad because it alienates men, because not *all* men call her things, and a second derail in which people are arguing that (I'm simplifying here) atheism doesn't have anything to do with feminism and anyway no real atheists are sexist, so why write about sexism in the atheist community.

I don't know how she does it.
posted by rtha at 2:34 PM on August 24, 2012 [10 favorites]

anyway no real atheists are sexist

lolwat
posted by Sticherbeast at 2:36 PM on August 24, 2012 [9 favorites]

Ha! I just noticed a hilarious Freudian typo (is that a thing? It should be a thing) I made in my last comment. My subconscious amuses me.
posted by rtha at 2:45 PM on August 24, 2012 [9 favorites]

Hate male, huh? :)

I used to belong to a scifi listserv that kept track of who was their most prolific subscriber: the Alpha Mail.
posted by zarq at 3:51 PM on August 24, 2012 [1 favorite]

Summer: No, it is straight up sexism.

Deoridhe: but it isn't sexism - not in anything but the absolutely loosest, farthest from the source sense where the word begins to resemble other words like general prejudice on an individual level.

Didn't the example above restrict the rights of potential male employees? Did those people benefit from the stereotype? Just because it wasn't happening to lots of men systematically all across the world doesn't lessen the impact on those people.

Potential employees in one job with one supervisor who we don't even have any evidence exists. As elucidated above, men in women-dominated fields tend to disproportionately be hired to advanced, high paying jobs and advance much more quickly in their jobs than equivalent women. This is a direct argument against the existence of anyone who discriminates against men based on their masculine traits - which was the claimed instance of "male on male sexism".

Summer:And you can say 'aw boo hoo, poor men', they should try some REAL discrimination. But you are either in favour of equal rights for all or you aren't. It's a point of principle.

And if you're not, well then we can all pick and choose our occasions to be 'fair' and no one has to be fair to you.

That was an awesome strawman. Five stars.

As I said in the post you are responding to:

One aspect of discrimination - any discrimination, from sexism to racism to ableism to classism - is that it is systematic and culturally reinforced lack of power and access to rights and opportunities. There are stereotypes about men being "dumb" and "aggressive" and "bull-headed", but usually men benefit from these stereotypes ("Women shouldn't show their bodies to men because men can't control themselves and then women cause themselves to be raped", "Men can't be left alone with children because they don't know how to take care of them," "Men can't do housework because they are bad at it") without it costing them much, if anything unless they are violating gender coded behavior (see: men who object to rape and rape apologia, men who take care of children, men who clean). The men who face insults, violence, and even just social stigmatization are those who align themselves with women, either through the stereotypes of things associated with women or by supporting women. The men who conform to it often have people try to explain their behavior as, "Well, you know how men are."

In regards to the characterization of my words as "boo hoo men" (a weirdly mocking statement for the population you claim to be defending):

I almost wrote that I didn't think this was a significant source of pain (due to the aforementioned advantages of being able to rape people, not have to engage in childcare, and not have to clean), but I don't even agree with that because I think the suffering of masculine-identified men is legitimate and valid, and their attempts to express it are hindered by the very stereotype (men are stoic and don't show emotions) that exists.

And then on to my main thesis, which you entirely ignored in favor of strawmanning me:

What I don't agree with is:

1) there is sytematic discrimination, loss of power, loss or rights, and violence against men for conforming to masculine stereotypes. I believe those stereotypes largely serve as excuses for unethical and cruel behavior and reinforcement of a superior male in-group. The individuals the stereotype injures are often those who don't want to be cruel but don't know another way to exist in the world.

2) that women should be the ones to fight these stereotypes through the created tools and wisdom of the study of sexism, feminism, and womanism (I am not a womanist, but I do my best to support womanists).

Now, if you have some evidence for systematic, culture-wide discrimination the way we do for discrimination against women, I am happy to rethink my position. If you're point is simply, "Life sucks sometimes for men", then I never argued that it didn't; I just argued that sexism, like all systematic discrimination, exists within a larger, structural context of pervasive large and small instances of discrimination.

Love the implied threat of "we can be unfair to you", though. Very rational, reasonable, and simply chock full of integrity.
posted by Deoridhe at 6:13 PM on August 24, 2012 [5 favorites]

Why the fuck are men pissed off about the phrase "mansplain"? It's not like the phrase's existing means it's being used on you, men. Maybe if some woman you knows accuses you of mansplaining and you don't think you were then you can protest. But your response to "men often do this to women" is "THATS SEXIST TOWARDS MEN WHY CANT WE ALL be GENDERBLIND"? Really?

people are arguing that (I'm simplifying here) atheism doesn't have anything to do with feminism and anyway no real atheists are sexist, so why write about sexism in the atheist community

What's funny about atheism becoming a big-name brand this decade is that now it's developing its own set of overconfidences and dogmas so that its members can justify their shitty behavior. Tee hee!
posted by Rory Marinich at 7:17 PM on August 24, 2012 [4 favorites]

But your response to "men often do this to women" is "THATS SEXIST TOWARDS MEN WHY CANT WE ALL be GENDERBLIND"? Really?

The discussion of the need for a "gender neutral" term reminds me of that early episode of The Office, "Diversity Day." Michael Scott (or David Brent--the script is virtually identical in both series, changing only the names and minor cultural details) claims to be "color blind," insisting that he "doesn't see race."

Of course, the whole point of the episode is to show that, in affecting this bogus neutrality, he actually holds the most offensively racist (and sexist) beliefs of anyone in the room. It's an exercise of his white (male) privilege, since no POC or ethnic/cultural/religious minority (or woman) could have the luxury of that kind of pretense. And of course, he makes an ass out of himself in the process.

Pretending that gender differences and power imbalances don't exist, or that we need to label them using neutral language to avoid stereotyping, is not the way to eradicate those imbalances. Better to increase awareness and understanding of their existence--even at the risk of offending those who get hung up on the term or rebel against potentially being seen as a label first, an individual second. The realization that no one is fully defined by a single label is the ultimate end game anyway, right?
posted by Superplin at 7:53 PM on August 24, 2012 [7 favorites]

Why the fuck are men pissed off about the phrase "mansplain"?

For the same reason Jews don't like the verb "jew" and Romani dislike the word "gyp". It diminishes us as human beings.
posted by Joe in Australia at 3:02 AM on August 25, 2012

I read this thread back when it was still addressing the original poster and thought it looked like it was pretty well in hand, and didn't realize it had become what it did until it was brought up in the Solnit thread. Between that thread, the Paul Ryan thread, and this one, it's taken me until now to finally catch up.

I, too, want to thank those who have been doing the heavy lifting and peeling back the layers to expose the many ways in which patriarchy/kyriarchy impact all of us, as well as how women are disproportionately affected because even those boundaries which harm men do so in service of prserving women's status as less-than.

It was one of these threads (the big 2007 boyzone thread) which finally prompted me to join the site after years of reading, because it was the first time I saw an indication that my contribution might be welcomed or valued in some way. These threads are so difficult but so important for setting the tone of the community, letting people know where they might be crossing a line, and making the environment less hostile to women's participation.

They're also important to me for another reason: MetaFilter is where I get to see men engaging on feminism in a general (not topic-specific) environment. I don't get to see that offline. I know exactly one man who I know identifies as feminist and engaging with him illustrates that he is. I do know some twenty-something men who are a lot less rigid about gender roles and expectations and who may, with some consciousness-raising about privilege, be feminists one day, but most of the men I know are either blind to their privilege or willfully exploit it.

It is so valuable to me to come here and see not just women speaking up about our experiences and feelings but also men listening, supporting, asking questions and engaging in good faith, deconstructing how they built their gender frameworks and how those have changed over time. Not everyone engages in good faith, and a lot (myself included) can have difficulty setting aside discomfort and defensiveness when confronted with their own privilege, but enough do that it feels overall constructive and instructive to me.

Six months ago I finally got to see the last of a man with whom I'd been obligated to work on a project for two and a half long years. It was a daily struggle for me to work alongside this man who actually said things like "Don't worry your pretty little head about it" and gendered things I'd never even considered could be gendered, like fonts and user interface elements, and dismissed my work and input day in and day out. It was incredibly stressful to me, and I'm thankful that the project manager was the one feminist man I know, because I don't think I could have stayed in my job otherwise.

It's heartening to me that there have been men who have said in this thread and the Solnit one that they are going to try to make changes in how they interact with others because these discussions have given them perspective they lacked. It makes me hopeful that the more of these conversations we have, the more impact it has in eroding sexism. It's water on rock, but eventually the effect can be seen.

So, thank you. Thank you for speaking up, for reflecting, for engaging in passionate discussion, for giving me hope.
posted by notashroom at 3:32 AM on August 25, 2012 [13 favorites]

Joe in Australia: "Why the fuck are men pissed off about the phrase "mansplain"?

For the same reason Jews don't like the verb "jew" and Romani dislike the word "gyp". It diminishes us as human beings."

yeah remember when the feminazis built all those camps for men?
posted by ShawnStruck at 4:13 AM on August 25, 2012 [13 favorites]

This mansplain stuff reminds me of Louis CK's bit about being a white man. "... I’m a man. How many advantages can one person have? I’m a white man, you can’t even hurt my feelings."
posted by monju_bosatsu at 5:58 AM on August 25, 2012 [6 favorites]

For the same reason Jews don't like the verb "jew" and Romani dislike the word "gyp". It diminishes us as human beings.

Dude, that's asinine. I'm embarrassed for you.
posted by Forktine at 6:00 AM on August 25, 2012 [23 favorites]

I'm more embarrassed that he's assuming that the blowhard in the Solnit piece must have had some disability. Why is it so hard to believe the guy was a smug and mistaken jerk?
posted by *s at 7:39 AM on August 25, 2012

Presumably, because guys tend to interpret other men's behaviour in the best possible light, but don't extend that same courtesy to women.
posted by peppermind at 7:49 AM on August 25, 2012 [8 favorites]

I'm astonished that you can't see the parallel. This isn't like saying, oh, that separate gym hours are bad because they infringe gender equality. This is saying that a gendered insult is not OK even though it's a convenient shorthand. Gendered (and racist and classist and whateverist) insults are intrinsically bad. They promote false consciousness. Surely this should be uncontroversial.
posted by Joe in Australia at 7:51 AM on August 25, 2012 [1 favorite]

Mansplaining isn't an insult directed at a person or group, it's a term that describes a behaviour that is much more frequent among one gender.
posted by peppermind at 8:05 AM on August 25, 2012

'kay. Once more, with feeling.

'Mansplain' is a convenient shorthand word for a gendered behavior: men condescendingly explaining things to women. You cannot take the gender out of the behavior, because it is part of the behavior.

The fact that so many women think "Oh, that!" when they learn the word does not mean that there is a massive Estrogen Conspiracy trying to insult men. It means that this happens to us a lot.

It would be a safe assumption that, no matter how much any particular man may dislike the word, women more strongly dislike the experience described by that word.

So, you know, deal. Or maybe help us get guys to stop performing that behavior so that we can retire the word.
posted by cmyk at 8:05 AM on August 25, 2012 [4 favorites]

I live (*checks Gooogle maps*) about 1500 feet as the crow flies from a hospital emergency room. Sometimes, I am awakened by ambulance sirens. It is damned inconvenient, and if I lose enough sleep, can impact the way I experience the next day. But I am lying comfy in my bed while whoever is the cause of my sleep disruption has had an emergency worthy of being taken to the emergency room in the middle of the night.

I have a right to be upset over lost sleep, but whoever is in the ambulance probably has a lot more to be upset about than I do. To me, this is somewhat like the men who complain about tone arguments in discussions on sexism. Yes, perhaps the tone may be upsetting, but they're not the ones living through the reasons the exchange is necessary.

Or, to quote a co-worker and myself from the Solnit thread yesterday, "If someone throws a handful of rocks through a window, are you going to worry about the rocks that got chipped or about the broken window?"
posted by notashroom at 8:13 AM on August 25, 2012 [6 favorites]

Like I said way above, there's a reasonable case for not using the term "mansplaining" and I'm happy to try to avoid it in these forums.
posted by Miko at 8:15 AM on August 25, 2012 [2 favorites]

Likewise. However we're not going to moderate it out of existence so it would be nice if, like other insults people don't really like but that aren't really slurs, they could just flag and move on and not turn it into the hill they want to die on in the interest of threads not becoming all about them and their own personal preferences about language.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 8:24 AM on August 25, 2012 [3 favorites]

Miko: From a pragmatic perspective, I agree. I'd really love to hear a term, or even a brief phrase, that manages to refer to the same phenomenon reasonably effectively, but does not alienate/offend such a large number of potential allies.

I've been moderating my own participation in both of these threads, simply because I start to get too angry to be able to engage respectfully, and I don't see the point of repeating, ad infinitum, what other people have already said. It certainly feels like one person after another wants to come up with any variety of increasingly implausible explanations for what a multitude of women experience as a common, recurring phenomenon in their lives.
posted by bardophile at 8:25 AM on August 25, 2012

"Sexist condescension" is more expressive and meaningful, I think. It doesn't cover all the bases, but "mansplaining" certainly doesn't either.
posted by koeselitz at 8:38 AM on August 25, 2012

(Maybe "patriarchal condescension," if you want to capture the fact that it's generally males who do it to females. I'm not sure.)
posted by koeselitz at 8:38 AM on August 25, 2012 [1 favorite]

Yeah, no, I'm not going to worry about offending you with "mansplaining," Joe, since you're in that thread trying to deny that it happens and make excuses for the dude in Solnit's anecdote — it makes your objections look disingenuous, and like another attempt to minimize and exculpate so that you can pretend this isn't a thing.

Likewise, your previous comment that echoed the form of feminist objections as a way to usurp the dialog. At a certain point, you're just going to have to suck it up and realize that your sensitivities on this issue are actively detrimental to your ability to get what's actually going on, and fixating on ridding the world of gendered insults at the cost of not objecting to sexist behavior is pretty much bullshit.
posted by klangklangston at 9:04 AM on August 25, 2012 [13 favorites]

"Sexist condescension" is more expressive and meaningful, I think. It doesn't cover all the bases, but "mansplaining" certainly doesn't either.

The problem with all these words is that they are shortcuts for describing very intricate processes, relationships, tendencies, behaviors and so on. In discussions that are likely to hurt feelings, and/or trigger differences not of opinion but of ethical outlook, more needs to be done than being "expressive and meaningful" through the use of single terms.
posted by Namlit at 9:10 AM on August 25, 2012 [1 favorite]

I think mansplain is a delicious turn of phrase. I love it. For me the term itself is a delightful attack on the typical way "man" is attached to something in an attempt to make it bad ass and hard core. Like man-cave, man-up, and there is another one I'm familiar with that I can't recall at the moment, but it's just something ludicrous like man-clean.

So I can almost view the people who loved that spate of MANMAN television shows that appeared last fall encountering the term and thinking YEAH! and then they learn what it means and they're like ...Oh.
posted by cashman at 9:21 AM on August 25, 2012 [10 favorites]

Gendered (and racist and classist and whateverist) insults are intrinsically bad. They promote false consciousness. Surely this should be uncontroversial.

Just because you can repeat a term often used by second-wave feminists doesn't mean that you are using it correctly, or that it automatically becomes a great zinger. Key distinction here: men are not a subordinate class, so false consciousness is not an applicable concept.

For example:

Members of a subordinate class (workers, peasants, serfs) suffer from false consciousness in that their mental representations of the social relations around them systematically conceal or obscure the realities of subordination, exploitation, and domination those relations embody.

False consciousness is a super problematic term that has been used to silence people and tell them that their understandings of their lived experiences are, well, false; I don't think it's the best piece to be borrowing from to support your argument.
posted by Forktine at 9:40 AM on August 25, 2012 [14 favorites]

I kind of like "igsplain" as a general term. I still have no objection to "mansplain" for the man-to-woman version.

(Also, Namlit, good point.)
posted by nangar at 10:27 AM on August 25, 2012

> Surely this should be uncontroversial.

And yet nobody agrees with you. You might want to think about that, if you can spare a moment from your deep empathy with men everywhere.
posted by languagehat at 11:24 AM on August 25, 2012 [5 favorites]

cashman: “I think mansplain is a delicious turn of phrase. I love it. For me the term itself is a delightful attack on the typical way ‘man’ is attached to something in an attempt to make it bad ass and hard core. Like man-cave, man-up, and there is another one I'm familiar with that I can't recall at the moment, but it's just something ludicrous like man-clean. So I can almost view the people who loved that spate of MANMAN television shows that appeared last fall encountering the term and thinking YEAH! and then they learn what it means and they're like ...Oh.”

It's weird; "mansplain" makes me uncomfortable for the same reason. I mean, "man" happens to be my gender. And then constantly I see it appropriated in this terrible sexist way, like in the gross term "manscaping" or the other ones you mention. I hate, hate, hate it when that happens. And here – well, it's like, I understand why feminists want to take it and lob that awful grenade of grossness right back to the other side, but it's like – can't the appropriation stop somewhere? Can't we get to a place where "man" isn't associated with shitty, awful things?

I mean, to underline the point – I don't even hear the term "mansplain" that much, and by now I know what it means, so it doesn't bother me as much. But every time somebody says "manscape" or "mancave" or "manpurse" or especially "man up" – ugh. Those are things that really bug me, and examples of some of the sexisms I encounter every day that piss me off the most. So I guess mostly I agree with you here. It's interesting that that agreement leads us to feel differently about the term "mansplaining."
posted by koeselitz at 4:18 PM on August 25, 2012 [2 favorites]

peppermind: guys tend to interpret other men's behaviour in the best possible light

bardophile: It certainly feels like one person after another wants to come up with any variety of increasingly implausible explanations for what a multitude of women experience as a common, recurring phenomenon in their lives.

Cutting and pasting from a previous thread:

"Shelly Tochluk's Witnessing Whiteness talks about a related phenomenon, but with race: the tendency of white people to play devil's advocate, after hearing a POC describe an experience of either deliberate or thoughtless racism ("Maybe that white person meant that remark in this innocent way, rather than in the racist way you think"). She observes that this can stem from putting themselves into the place of the white person in the story. They're thinking "If I were that person, I'd have meant it in this entirely non-racist way" and voicing it, projecting it, as "That person could have meant..." -- which while well-meaning, effectively leads to

never listening,

never considering that maybe the POC has had a tedious lifetime of experience distinguishing between racist and innocuous incidences, so maybe they'd be in a better position to evaluate than the person who only ever hears about 1. a teeny tiny fraction of the thousands of cuts that happen, and hears about that fraction 2. secondhand,

always thoughtlessly assuming that the POC didn't already second-guess and micro-analyze before coming to reluctant conclusions (or, that the POC is just too stupid or deluded or high on being a victim to have thought of alternative explanations?)."

Tochluk's words:

Without realizing it, I put myself in the psychological position of defending myself as I defend the white person in the situation. Not so subtly to the person of color, I engage in a battle to make sure that any discriminatory act experienced be provable . . . Regardless of intent, these two combined characteristics -- the devil's advocate position and the psychological defense of myself -- create an infuriating experience for the people of color trying to share their story . . . We can better recognize the problem with this if we take an example from our own experience.

"Whenever I start speaking about our need to work against racism, I invariably find a white person just itching to tell me the story of the one time when he or she was subject to a prejudicial act. . . . Not to diminish the pain of this individual [because it] is understandably distressing. Many of us might be able to reflect on some moments where our whiteness was used against us in some way. But we would do well to think about how often this has happened and the degree to which the impacts did or did not alter our life paths. . . . Imagine enduring consistent racist acts over a lifetime and throughout one's family history. . . .

"If we . . . continue to deny the experiences of people of color, dangerously pouring salt in already painful wounds . . . we will remain resistant to a fuller investigation, one that undertaken might just allow us to more consciously witness and name racism when it erupts."

posted by cybercoitus interruptus at 12:01 AM on August 26, 2012 [32 favorites]

koeseltz, I hope you don't feel targeted by this, but I had a thought related to your words.

I mean, to underline the point – I don't even hear the term "mansplain" that much, and by now I know what it means, so it doesn't bother me as much. But every time somebody says "manscape" or "mancave" or "manpurse" or especially "man up" – ugh.

The thing that really strongly struck me is that all of the examples you gave - except for mansplain - is a work-around for men to emphasize their masculine identification (and thus remain firmly Not Feminine) while engaging in a behavior which prior to the recent extreme polarization of masculine and feminine probably would have gone without gender marking but would have still been assumed to be masculine-only (think about the phenomena of messenger bags ten years ago, or the usage of dens before that, or the long history of men grooming themselves and at most being called "dandy").

In other words it's an expression of the pain masculine-identifying men have with trying to simply live their lives while being masculine-identified.

This is distinct from the growing movement of androgynous and feminine identified men who are pushing to broaden out the boundaries of what is male because it is specifically masculine-identified. In some ways it is even rarefying this increasingly narrow expression of "masculine" but there can be an ironic, humorous tilt to it as well.

It's also marketing, with all the shallow uselessness that marketing implies. Much light whitening our teeth, buying too much into marketing can cause a superficial beauty while actually causing damage by wearing away at what is solid and important. Part of me wonders if that aspect of it might be what bothers you about the other iterations of man-*.

It's possible, though you would be the best judge, that this valid (and I would argue Good) repugnance to both the rarefication of male and the marketing of male to manipulate men into buying things is both leeching off onto an entirely unrelated term from a different source - namely mansplain.

Mansplain is different in a lot of ways, but one of the major ones is that it is an insult from those at the receiving end of abuse toward those at the giving end. To mansplain is to be a person who is being an asshole in a very specific way which reinforces the inferiority of all women as well as the specific woman in front of him. Therefore, the experience of being offended by the term is a valid one (but I think if someone gets hung up here it is ultimately it's own punishment) but the source is very different as it is not meant to manipulate but rather to render inescapable the reality of a specific type of interaction between men and women where the man is recast always as the superior.

The offense of it toward men is a side effect to it's well... this may sound petty, but the laughing, pleasant shock of sudden awareness that many women experience once this phenomena - which had always been so difficult to focus on or figure out - is named. From many women's points of view it takes something uncomfortable and disagreeable and makes it into something funny, a sort of linguistic turning of the tables and reframing of something deeply unpleasant into something which induces giggles.
posted by Deoridhe at 2:29 PM on August 26, 2012 [8 favorites]

I am sure that some of the reason for the intensity of the reaction to the term "mansplain" is that it is linguistically reversed from similar terms. In most cases I can think of, a term gets named for the object, not the subject. For example, we use the term "gaybashing" rather than something like "homophobe-attack".

If "mansplaining" was constructed that way, it would be "womansplaining," to describe the phenomenon of a woman being explained to. But it isn't -- it is describing the phenomenon of a man doing the explaining.

It's an interesting reversal, and personally I like that it shifts the focus toward the perpetrator rather than the receiver. I am reminded of the outrage by some commenters at that poster that reversed the standard anti-rape advice from women to men.
posted by Forktine at 2:51 PM on August 26, 2012 [3 favorites]

Wow. Just wow. My negative-super-powers are really flaring up in full force; I really wish I'd stuck with my original view that this thread should have been closed within the first few hours, since folks seemed in near-unamious agreement at the time that the Askme thread was near exemplar of non-sexist advice. I don't know exactly what "GirlZone" would mean -- I can think of several different situations that someone might label "GirlZone (as usual, context matters), but I couldn't even comemake up a definition of "Girlzone" that could be force-fitted to the Askme.

As for "mansplain" -- well, it's certainly not a ditch I'd choose to die in, and I'm baffled by those who think it's a hill to rally 'round. There are several categories of reasons why I think it's a poor choice; in the first category, a great deal of heat and not a lot of light has been expended to either object to its use, or insist that it's absolutely necessary. Basically, it's divisive. And frankly, it's a bit of a dog whistle here -- certainly no where near the n-word, or the c-word, but damn close to several of the b-words. Like it or not, there are so many different ways to take (or use) it that unless you're absolutely sure everyone's on the same page, you're likely to offend someone you didn't mean to.

One of the reasons that I personally don't like the term in this forum is that it's intellectually lazy; it's the hallmark of a writer who doesn't care enough about either subject or reader to make an effort to be clear. So, unfortunately for the enthusiasts, when I see the term, it immediately deprecates whatever the writer has to say: They've already demonstrated that they're intellectually lazy; that they're more interested in rallying around a rather peculiar hill than actually engaging in any sort of solution.

That's kind of problematic for me, because now I have to work harder to try to understand whatever they're trying to say, and I have to work harder to take what they're trying to say seriously. (I'm lazy, too -- I just don't think it's fair to deliberately foist my laziness on a readership).

But the real problem with the term is that there is a wide variety of interpretations as to what is meant. Even within the narrow confines of this thread, it means:
-- a man condescendingly explaining something to a woman.
-- a man condescendingly explaining something to a woman where she knows more about the subject than he does.
-- a man condescendingly and contemptuously explaining something to a woman where she knows more about the subject than she does
-- and probably a bunch more

There is, of course, the problem that many take the above definitions to be an attack on them, but so much heat has been expended in this thread on that, that it doesn't seem worth belaboring.

Then there's the other problem of definition. Yes, someone found an online dictionary that supports whatever definition they thought applied, but as languagehat pointed out,

In the first place, pulling out a dictionary and claiming it trumps actual usage is wrong

Outside Metafilter, I've commonly heard "mansplain" to mean:
-- someone like the "Cliff Clavin" character on the the TV show "Cheers" -- a man that holds forth in an authoritative manner on any subject whatsoever, regardless of gender
-- Explaining something with great and enthusiastic vigor, in exquisite detail far beyond the interest of the explainee [eg. someone asks what time is it, and they launch into a exposition on how to build a watch]
-- Talking about something (say, one's personal life) at the level of reportable facts and events, vs. their reactions to those events
-- Explaining to a man how things work, or how things are, in a way that plays on what is largely held as a "male" way of communication.

There's a bunch more, but I'm tired of writing, and you're tired of reading.
posted by Tuesday After Lunch at 6:32 PM on August 26, 2012 [1 favorite]

Off the current subtopic of mansplaining, but relevant to the broader subject of the pervasive invisibility of rape culture, is this amazing piece of writing: Explicit Violence.
posted by Superplin at 9:18 PM on August 26, 2012 [3 favorites]

But the real problem with the term is that there is a wide variety of interpretations as to what is meant.

I think this is surmountable. The language still allows "cleave", even though it means both "to join together" and "to split apart". And "breast" meaning both "to climb over" and "to push against", for that matter... or "chop" meaning "to cut" and "to shift suddenly" (now generally used only of bodies of water).

In most cases "mansplain" can be similarly interpreted by context, and the three variants you give of the in-MeTa meaning are not wider than other verbs. One is not sure from "chop" whether the stroke is horizontal or vertical, but it doesn't invalidate the word.

I avoid it, generally, due to the fainting couch issue, but it's pretty clear that where it is being used here it is being used to mean "Explaining in a status-asserting way something which is not well understood by the speaker and/or something which is better understood by the other party in the conversation, in preference to seeking information or confessing ignorance".

It's worth remembering, however, that the fight about the word "mansplain" was itself a derail to draw attention away from the behavior, as described in an article which did not actually use the term.
posted by running order squabble fest at 3:08 AM on August 27, 2012 [8 favorites]

Burhanistan:
"I think it was a derail because people just like to quibble about terms."

Especially USians.
posted by charred husk at 8:44 AM on August 27, 2012 [1 favorite]

I wasn't selecting a hill to die on, honestly. I thought the contrast between the stated terms was really interesting, and I thought pointed to deeper aspects of gender - especially on the masculine-identified-men side of things (which is really unexamined).

I'm not a huge fan of dying on hills; I do my best to avoid it - at least the dying part. Standing on hills can be really fun.
posted by Deoridhe at 3:05 PM on August 27, 2012 [2 favorites]

Men, Who Needs Them?

the genus name for human beings, Homo, reflects an 18th-century masculine bias in science.

That bias, however, is becoming harder to sustain, as men become less relevant to both reproduction and parenting. Women aren’t just becoming men’s equals. It’s increasingly clear that “mankind” itself is a gross misnomer: an uninterrupted, intimate and essential maternal connection defines our species.
posted by Golden Eternity at 9:35 PM on August 29, 2012

Honestly, I don't think "biologically men are inferior and uneccessary" is any better than "biologically, women are inferior and unecessary" (the latter was a Greek idea; they believed women simply gestated male seed rather than having any biological connection with the children). The whole "doesn't bear a child -- no need as a parent" is likewise both unnecessary as rhetoric, and pretty offensive - as well as hugely under-valuing the simple fact that we are cognitive creatures, not instinctual ones. In addition, even in less cognitive species, like penguins, male animals can, do, and are valuable as caregivers who raise young (think male penguins), relieving overburdened heterosexual couples and/or adopting orphans. As important as bearing children is, raising children is the far more complicated, time consuming, and resource consuming practice. And there are some undercurrents the hurt adopted children and adoptive parents that can get ugly really quickly if you rarefy the process of carrying a child as somehow the end all and be all of reproduction.

Humans build complex social relationships which are, in and of themselves, valuable no matter what the genders involved are. Saying that a large portion of the population is somehow less valuable because they don't directly bear young is part and parcel of inaccurate biological assumptions about gender which directly and often negatively affect people of any gender. I'd argue, as I tend to, that women have it worse and have more catch-22s, but insulting the male part of the equation (and ignoring anyone outside of the binary) doesn't benefit women at all, it just reinforces an existing damaging worldview and set of assumptions.
posted by Deoridhe at 2:16 PM on August 30, 2012 [12 favorites]

Joe in Australia: It diminishes us as human beings.

Mansplaining diminishes women as human beings.
posted by stoneandstar at 3:52 PM on August 30, 2012 [2 favorites]

I just heard a man stop himself from mansplaining. He'd started in on an explanation and then paused and asked the woman he was talking to "Do you already know how to do this?" She said yes, she did, but she had a further question about it, which they then discussed. Hurray!
posted by The corpse in the library at 4:04 PM on August 30, 2012 [14 favorites]

About Golden Eternity's article: in the unlikely event that humans replace sexual reproduction with technology that mimics parthenogenesis, we won't be eliminating males, we'll be eliminating gender. In the absence of sexual reproduction, the sexual signifiers identifying femininity will vanish or vestigiate. But we won't do that anyway, because humping is cheaper and easier and will never disappear as a means to reproduce unless it stops working and it stops feeling good.
posted by gingerest at 4:35 PM on August 30, 2012

Actually, we could be eliminating males, if we opted to only reproduce females, and we wouldn't eliminate gender if society retained sexual categories and associated them with different social roles and modes of expression. It makes sense that these could look very different if biological sexual signifiers shifted substantially, but gender could continue to exist if society held on to the notion that sex should be linked to certain professions, modes of emotional expression, clothing, etc. Call me a crazed idealist, but I think there are better ways to address the problems of current gender regimes than reducing human sexual diversity.
posted by EvaDestruction at 8:01 AM on September 2, 2012

OK, I can't stand it any more, I have to quote my very favorite wild-eyed überfeminist, Valerie Solanas:

Life in this society being, at best, an utter bore and no aspect of society being at all relevant to women, there remains to civic-minded, responsible, thrill-seeking females only to overthrow the government, eliminate the money system, institute complete automation and destroy the male sex.

Now, that's what I call a manifesto! Er, should that be womanifesto? wymynifesta?
posted by languagehat at 9:02 AM on September 2, 2012 [1 favorite]

i'm all about the women fiestas
posted by twist my arm at 10:03 AM on September 2, 2012 [2 favorites]

i'm all about the women fiestas

Come on and sing my song
posted by The corpse in the library at 4:29 PM on September 2, 2012