Common response: "women should be able to do whatever they want. Saying that it's the women's faults is bullshit and victim-blamey. Men are responsible for controlling themselves, so stop going around talking about what women should and should not do."Passive women
Summary: "active women" is not the source of the problem, so stop talking about it.
Common response: "This perspective is victim blamey. Women should not go outside feeling afraid. They should not have to wear armor just to walk down the street. While some women may uphold the patriarchy, that doesn't mean the patriarchy is beneficial and desirous to women."Active men
Summary: "passive women" takes away agency and power from women. They are not powerless or weaker than men, so stop talking about it.
Common response: "some men are like that because there is something wrong with them, but it's not all men who are like that. You should not be turning this into a discussion about men and men's problems and men's unfulfilled needs."Passive men
Summary: "Active men" paints all men as evil, and takes the discussion away from women's problems. This is a conversation about women's problems, not men's problems, so stop talking about it.
Common response: "Men's upbringing does not excuse them for harassing women. Once again, we see a topic about women's problems turning into a discussion about men."As you can see, all four possible topics end with "Stop talking about it." I can draw a few different conclusions from this:
Summary: "Passive Men" takes the discussion away from women and focuses it on men. This is something they are doing that is bad, regardless of the cause, so stop mansplaining excuses for men and stop talking about it.
Pointing out that men are privileged in no way denies that bad things happen to men. Being privileged does not mean men are given everything in life for free; being privileged does not mean that men do not work hard, do not suffer. In many cases – from a boy being bullied in school, to a soldier dying in war – the sexist society that maintains male privilege also does great harm to boys and men.posted by scody at 10:46 PM on October 27, 2012 [8 favorites]
In the end, however, it is men and not women who make the most money; men and not women who dominate the government and the corporate boards; men and not women who dominate virtually all of the most powerful positions of society. And it is women and not men who suffer the most from intimate violence and rape; who are the most likely to be poor. [...]
An internet acquaintance of mine once wrote, "The first big privilege which whites, males, people in upper economic classes, the able bodied, the straight (I think one or two of those will cover most of us) can work to alleviate is the privilege to be oblivious to privilege." This checklist is, I hope, a step towards helping men to give up the "first big privilege."
you have to defend yourself against something you never said, never intended... if you don't, if you just let the falsely-attributed motives ride, you're tacitly admitting that, yeah, I have horrible motives that are indefensible so I'll just slink awayIf you imagine that these are the only two possible responses - you've been "attacked," so counterattack/go on the defensive, or admit your horrible motives - you probably would feel cornered and in a bind, and decide that the attack is the way to go.
stoneandstar: Not a single time did I find that the person lobbing the accusation was simply being hysterical and unfair; every single time it's been a good, if not necessary opportunity to think about what I was saying that was getting on their nerves, think about why I was saying it, and apologize in good faith.So nobody's really in a bind there. Even if you don't think one of these kinds of responses is exactly the one you'd choose, there are lots of possible response choices to make.
space cookie: Because I have a pretty big knowledge gap, the onus is on me to hang back in discussions about these issues and listen, pay attention, monitor my own fighty and defensive emotional reactions to the experiences being described (Hey! I'm not one of those clueless straight people, I'm on your side!) explore bibliographies etc.
The comment you made in the Simple Question thread that you reacted so strongly to was the kind of thing that sexists sometimes use to justify predatory behavior to women. [...] It might have been awful to hear that, but it's true. It is the kind of thing sexists offer at that point in discussions like those. [...] and when I said that essentially this was the kind of thing that someone would say to excuse bad behavior on the part of males, and this is why it's not a valid argument, you didn't respond very well.It doesn't seem like there's ultimately much distance to cover here, at least between the two of you, right?
poorly adjusted and sexist men ... sexist pigs ... they do not recognize that their perverted worldview is, in fact, a perverted worldview. ... too poorly adjusted to be both not sexist and not oppressed. ... offensive, idiotic, and pervertedThose are just from your first two comments in this thread. Does keeping such a list really seem like a healthy thing for the community? For anybody involved?
... socially awkward tech types ... concern trolling ... sexist. ... a bunch of socially awkward male geeks ... sexist ... maliciously sexist men on Metafilter ... creepy concern trolls. ... the same group of assholes
I do endorse the idea, expressed by OmieWise in this comment, that the assertion that there's a "mob" on MeFi who eagerly attack people for sexism when they've done nothing at all sexist is not supported. I agree with OmieWise that there are sometimes people on the site who use a stated concern about "misandry" or "false accusations of sexism" to try to maintain a space for subtly (or not) sexist comments to be excused as beyond challenge. And I agree with him that that's lousy.I think it's generally not supported, but that's exactly what's happened in this case.
Now, there are some complexities, which is why we're still here. Those people exist, but also existing are people who really do intend to align with feminists, and have at times or all the time or sometimes been allies, but are acting from unchecked privilege and don't recognize it (or perhaps accept it) when they've voiced an idea that is sexist, or has sexist implications, and are challenged on it or asked to reconsider it.Okay, all of this is talking in generalities. In the context of this thread, it could be construed as talking about me, in which case I heartily object and I'll need to go back and rebut, point by point. But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt (also, I'm exhausted and don't want to do this if not necessary) and assume that you were talking about sexist men in general. (It is a little vague, though, who the grammatical object is -- I'd have appreciated a "and I'm not talking about you here" or a "I see you as doing this".) I value your experience -- surely you've been in way more of these discussions than me.
Sometimes those people feel unduly attacked as a sexist person who is always outwardly or secretly a sexist, when in fact it's not the person, but the implications of that view that are being called sexist. That distinction is sometimes ignored.
I did point out that all of us sometimes blurt out sexist views even when we don't intend to ascribe to them, that it's hard not to when you've been raised in a society that teaches them. It is so possible to be a dedicated and wholehearted feminist and still occasionally espouse untested and unchallenged sexist views that many people, myself quite included, do that on occasion. To say that a view someone expressed is one that is or could be considered sexist is not to say that that person isn't a committed feminist or hasn't been a staunch ally on women's issues or doesn't consider themselves a person with a generally egalitarian mindset. The one doesn't follow the other incontrovertibly. But I (at least) believe that an important part of consistently fighting sexism is to call out sexist views when they're aired, by whomever they're aired. As I noted before, it happened to me in the coffee thread, so I know what it's like.
But when someone has their sexist idea/implication called out, and chooses to dig in and mount accusations against people who addressed that idea that they are wrong, overly hostile, have gone too far, are bullies (just for noting it), or make the site climate too narrow and boring, it really does begin to seem as though we're no longer talking about the implications of a sexist idea, but about how the feminists need to be quieter and stop calling out sexism at all, because their views and critiques aren't genuine, they're "fighting demons" that aren't present, and they're using those present as scapegoat.
And that can really only read as an attempt to control the dialogue, using shame or indictment to suggest that it's never fair to call these ideas out, or to even question the presumed passionate and obvious nonsexism of the person airing the view.
When you've had a sexist idea critiqued, it might seem like there's no other response possible than to make those accusations that people are reading sexism into something where it isn't present, and going beyond that as some (not all) do, make a habit of it and form "mobs" to bully people who did nothing wrong. For instance, LordSludge...Let's stop right there. Now you are plainly talking about me. Now I've been presumed to have promoted a "sexist idea", without you presenting said "sexist idea". It is the presumption of guilt here, the implicit accusation that I've been objecting to for half this thread. Your response has consistently been... wait, let me pull a quote...
Where do you see this?:blink: :blink: I never implied anything! No, not li'l ole me!
(In response to my assertion operating on the assumption that I am indeed a sexist)
For instance, LordSludge described the responses he could see available to him as:Ooor you could state, emphatically, that "I did not do that thing you said I did." This is what I've done. I've not attacked anyone. Show me where I have or retract the accusation, kthnx.
you have to defend yourself against something you never said, never intended... if you don't, if you just let the falsely-attributed motives ride, you're tacitly admitting that, yeah, I have horrible motives that are indefensible so I'll just slink away
If you imagine that these are the only two possible responses - you've been "attacked," so counterattack/go on the defensive, or admit your horrible motives - you probably would feel cornered and in a bind, and decide that the attack is the way to go.
But these aren't the only possible responses to someone saying "hey, you may not realize it, but the view you just aired has some sexist implications and here they are."And to this point you've not once mentioned WHAT view of mine has sexist implications. There's just a "view". A shibboleth. A strawman that does not exist.
Stoneandstar and space cookie wrote two great comments about the possible responses that are also available.Great comments indeed. Neither one relevant to my behavior, but great comments. See? It doesn't always have to be about me.
stoneandstar: Not a single time did I find that the person lobbing the accusation was simply being hysterical and unfair; every single time it's been a good, if not necessary opportunity to think about what I was saying that was getting on their nerves, think about why I was saying it, and apologize in good faith.
space cookie: Because I have a pretty big knowledge gap, the onus is on me to hang back in discussions about these issues and listen, pay attention, monitor my own fighty and defensive emotional reactions to the experiences being described (Hey! I'm not one of those clueless straight people, I'm on your side!) explore bibliographies etc.
So nobody's really in a bind there. Even if you don't think one of these kinds of responses is exactly the one you'd choose, there are lots of possible response choices to make.Nobody's in a bind except the person who did not make a sexist comment and is being accused of such. Worse, I don't even know what comment to defend, revise, or apologize for because YOU WON'T TELL ME. There's just a phantom "sexist comment", ethereal, immortal...
The comment I made that I think must have occasioned some of this, though it hasn't been linked, talked about why a view that was proffered is a tactic sometimes used by sexists but isn't entirely a valid argument. That doesn't mean it's immediately time to draw swords and call that an accusation of being a sexist, especially because I took care to handle that comment as if it were extremely fragile, and made sure I didn't call anybody sexist or even imply that they were. Instead, it's possible to not respond, or to respond "hm, well I don't see it that way," or "I'll think about it some more," or "I see your point sometimes but not these other times, what do you say to that" or "can you explain more" or "really, you surprise me, do other people see this the same way?" or "But I think you're overlooking a very real dynamic" or any of an enormous range of other responses, some of which include maybe reviewing your idea and its validity.So, again, I'll assume you're talking about a hypothetical person, not myself. Correct me if I'm wrong. I'm truly not being deliberately obtuse -- you're being quite oblique.
But if your choice instead is to go "people keep calling me sexist! Look at these terrible people calling me sexist when I air a view that leans toward or contributes to or apologizes for or covers up for or is often used to defend sexism!" it's hard to continue viewing the participation as good faith. When people choose not to use any of the other responses, but begin continually asserting that they're coming from "good faith" and are horrified and wronged by what they see as accusations of sexism, it's reasonable to wonder about that. Because when you're coming from good faith, responses like those above are the ones you more often try to choose. That's what good faith looks like. They're great demonstrations of good faith.How dare you lecture me on "good faith". How dare you, when you can't or won't even point out a single sexist comment of mine and just assume that it exists.
Digging in and holding a self-defensive position and taking negative interpretations of fair comments as further slights to prove those accusations of ill treatment are not really strong evidence of good faith -- though they are certainly very human reactions, especially when getting privilege called out is a relatively new experience.Also, they are "very human reactions" when being accused of something you didn't do.
The only other comment of OmieWise's which I took up directly were the two Snyder challenged. He seemed to be calling OmieWise's arguments empty rhetoric, and I didn't agree that OmieWise's comments were empty - I thought them substantive, in the way Deoridhe describes. Stripping the comments of the tone that may have angered Snyder, I listed three of the propositions OmieWise was actually making, to illustrate that they do in fact have substance that means something in my life. Women's opinions matter, apologizing for sexism contributes to its continuance and all the ill effects that result, and there is no "mob" tilting at windmills.Of course they do. And by rhetorically presenting these points as something that is challenged, when in fact nobody here disagrees with them, you are indeed constructing a strawman -- ironically, tilting at windmills yourself. I believe this completely fabricated implication is what angered Snyder, but it'd be better if they spoke for themselves. (Languagehat: Can we pppplease get a gender-neutral singular personal pronoun? You're the guy to see for that, right?)
I try not to get vociferous in my comments. One, because it's generally not my style, but two, because I know well that if I ever did indulge in direct attacks, I'd be called out for that tone issue, and then the seriousness of my points would not be heard. In other words, especially as a feminist woman, I can't afford the luxury of losing it most of the time, even when the situation warrants; once painted as a 'hothead' it would make it much more difficult not to be dismissed later, even when not acting angry. So I don't want my approach conflated with anyone else's, even when I agree with them in spirit, as I generally do with OmieWise.I appreciate that. I do. I'm well aware of the stereotype of the "angry feminist", which is just fucking stupid. Lets not go down that road.
I think you can talk with me about the points of OmieWise's I chose to pick up and isolate for discussion, because I do espouse those views, but if anyone is upset about his tone or the extent to which he was speaking to someone personally as an individual, that's something to take up with him, because I wasn't "carrying the ball" for that. I wanted to recognize the truth in what he was saying and talk about that, so that we didn't get stuck talking only about the appropriateness of the tone, and not about the issues named.For the last time, oh god a boy can dream, I object to the content of this statement:
I'm sorry this isn't a transparently easy place for you to keep making sexist comments.And that you accept, without question, that I made "sexist comments" -- based on a comment from a self-admitted ignorant poster with a misdirected axe to grind.
>In other words; if the problem with finding dates is that the guy's notSecond comment:
>good at talking to women, talking with women is the solution. Hitting on
>more women is not.
That'd be best, sure. (But hitting on women is better for a guy's social skills than avoiding them completely. Whether that's an assholish thing or not, well I'll leave that to your judgement.) Trouble is, for many, perhaps most, guys sex is kinda like air: If you're getting it regularly, it's no big deal. If you're not, it can become all-consuming. So meeting a new, attractive woman is more valued for the potential for sex than the potential to make a new friend.
This doesn't make awkwardly or rudely approaching women okay -- this thread (and common sense) makes it pretty obvious that its not. And it's pretty clear that your interaction will be, um, unpleasant if you awkwardly approach most any woman in this thread, as per Real Life. I'm just trying to explain part of what's going on here, as I see it, why a lot of guys behave like this. Certainly not excusing the behavior.
Also, not having sex can be hard on a guy's self-esteem. And to be blunt, I've found that, in general, the lower a person's self-esteem, the more of an asshole they are. So now you have a horny asshole that's hell-bent on getting laid. Not really a great frame of mind for meeting women.
Again, not excusing the behavior, just trying to explain it. Who knows, maybe telling these types of guys to re-examine their behavior will work. I'm skeptical, as I feel like there's some pretty deep-level emotional stuff going on here, but hey worth a shot.
And sure, there are women out there that do the same thing, it's just not as common and the power dynamics are different. But damn some of you women are sketch-y! We're all just people, after all, not so terribly different when it comes down to it. It's sad that we tend to focus on what makes us different rather than what makes us the same.
Aw, now I has a sad. Wait, here's kittens. Okay all better! =)
posted by LordSludge at 3:19 AM on October 25 [+] [!]
Which part did you want to discuss? Guessing this:And third:
>Of course there are cases where someone doesn't have as good control
>of themselves as they should - but their celibacy or sexual appetite
>should never, never be used as an excuse, or accepted as an excuse,
>because it just demeans all of us to do so.
I was pretty clear that it's not an excuse, but perhaps at least a partial explanation,** just as recognizing certain circumstances that may lead somebody to be a bully or criminal does not excuse the behavior.
With that in mind, I think we're in agreement here that horniness and low self-esteem does not make it okay to harass people.
** I thought I was a little over the top in stating and restating this!
posted by LordSludge at 1:32 PM on October 25 [+] [!]
>About the whole physical need for sex thing, I have something to say.So this all seems relevant to:
>Even if it were true (is it?), saying it's OK to harass women because
>of it is like saying poor people are entitled to harass you for money
Is anybody saying this? If you're referring to my comments, I explicitly say, at least three times, that harassing women due to sex drive is NOT OK. (This is the fourth, by my count.)
Where are you getting this? I really want to know. Either I'm missing something (totally possible - the thread is long and this coffee sucks) or you're making things up. And if so... Why? Why would you make this up? To what end? Or if you're just speaking in hypotheticals, I'll be glad to help you kick that strawman around some more if you want. But the phrasing sounds like you're responding to somebody here. And you're not the first to do that.
As to this "is it?" (whether or not sex is a physical need for men), it sorta depends on what you mean by "need". Guys won't die from no sex, so it's not a life-sustaining "need". Is sex a psychological need, necessary for a person's emotional well-being? I think one could argue that it is. I'm guessing the emotional need is similar for men as for women -- so you can look to yourself as to whether this is a real need or not -- but "emotional need" is damn difficult to quantify. I do think there's more societal pressure for men to have sex than for women, so that affects the psychology too. As for the need to ejaculate, well, yeah that's a very real thing, but porn and a little privacy can solve that problem quite nicely.
Again, though, harassing women to fulfill one's own needs is NOT OK. (Fifth time.) Just trying to help explain what I think drives men to this sort of problematic behavior.
posted by LordSludge at 11:17 AM on October 26 [+] [!]
The comment you made in the Simple Question thread that you reacted so strongly to was the kind of thing that sexists sometimes use to justify predatory behavior to women. I described that dynamic to you in a carefully worded and non-insulting comment that stayed general and illustrated why people see it as problematic and asked you to think about it again, and here we are. It might have been awful to hear that, but it's true. It is the kind of thing sexists offer at that point in discussions like those. If you didn't mean it to be sexist, I don't understand why you didn't respond "oops, let me clarify then, here's what I am really saying" or "oops, I never realized that, let me rethink and come back again with my new thought on the topic" or any of the other responses I and others have suggested as ways to deal with unintentional moments where we've stepped in a pile of unconscious prejudice.Again, emphasis mine.
It went off the rails, for me, when I offered a possible explanation of what's going on in a guy's head when he inappropriately hits on women -- the problematic behavior in question -- making very, very, VERY clear that this was in no way excusing the behavior. My idea was that if there is a bad behavior, its important to understand the psychology behind the behavior, so that it can more readily be modified. Went over like a brick balloon -- the response was, essentially "I can't believe you're excusing this behavior!!" (Paraphrasing, but I'll pull quotes if you like.)So there was never any need to provide specific examples since you knew what they were anyway; you'd provided them yourself, basically.
That'd be best, sure. (But hitting on women is better for a guy's social skills than avoiding them completely. Whether that's an assholish thing or not, well I'll leave that to your judgement.) Trouble is, for many, perhaps most, guys sex is kinda like air: If you're getting it regularly, it's no big deal. If you're not, it can become all-consuming. So meeting a new, attractive woman is more valued for the potential for sex than the potential to make a new friend.There are a few iffy things going on there, and since it seems like you're asking for these things to be pointed out, I thought I'd take a stab at drawing your attention to a couple.
This doesn't make awkwardly or rudely approaching women okay -- this thread (and common sense) makes it pretty obvious that its not. And it's pretty clear that your interaction will be, um, unpleasant if you awkwardly approach most any woman in this thread, as per Real Life. I'm just trying to explain part of what's going on here, as I see it, why a lot of guys behave like this. Certainly not excusing the behavior.
posted by restless_nomad (staff) at 1:28 PM on October 26, 2012 [2 favorites]