Joanna Schroeder wants people to hear and be heard. And it doesn’t always happen on Twitter.
It’s been an interesting few weeks for those of us who are deeply involved in The Good Men Project. We watched alongside all of you, and most of the gender theorists on the Internet, as a very important relationship tail-spinned and brightly fell to Earth, meteorically. Yes, I’m talking about what you’re all so sick of hearing: Hugo Schwyzer and Tom Matlack.
Just yesterday I told my friend Marcus Williams, a fellow writer and one of my co-moderators here at GMP, that I believe this Tom vs Hugo conversation was actually done. I said that if I were to have any editorial selectivity over this site (which I don’t), I’d put an end to any pieces regarding this battle. The world is sick of reading it, people’s points have been made. Mostly, I was just being complain-y because I’m tired of it.
Marcus disagreed with me, as he almost always does. All along I’ve been firmly entrenched with Hugo in the “Rape Culture Exists” camp, and Marcus has identified more with Tom. Because he’s a man and I’m a woman? Maybe. Probably not, though. Marcus is awfully open-minded to hearing me talk about feminism and has even said to me, “Feminists like you make me believe I could possibly someday be one,” (I swear you said it, Marcus!). He probably followed it with, “But not likely.” And then I’m sure we both laughed.
♦◊♦
And now what am I doing? I’m writing another Tom vs. Hugo piece. Throwing some gasoline onto a fire! What changed my mind? This:
This summarized for me exactly what I believe is wrong with gender politics and the debate over “Rape Culture” on the Internet: It’s the way we’re talking about it. Not the back-and-forth articles by Hugo and Tom in the special section Justin Cascio and I curated called The Presumption of Male Guilt. All the articles these two men exchanged were important. I agreed with Hugo, but I mostly agreed with Tom, too.
All well and good.
But then Amanda Marcotte, Jenn Pozner and a few others joined in this row with Tom and Hugo in a now-very-famous Twitter war where I believe a lot of people acted in ways that were not productive, or even healthy. No, I didn’t like what Tom said, but I believe he was asking an honest question.
Despite proudly calling myself a feminist, some of the feminists employed derailing, shaming tactics right back at Tom. I think that’s dirty, and I think our politics have stronger legs on which they can stand.
And Tom became defensive. I can’t blame him, as that type of “challenge” can bring out the worst in people. We often feel mocked when someone attempts to shame us instead of meeting us eye-to-eye on an issue. Shaming is a way of dismissing their point and shutting them up. It’s derailing. Above all, I believe Tom felt deeply not heard.
This is all speculation. Despite being a contributing editor and one of the mods of this site, I have never had a heart-to-heart with Tom Matlack. Yet I think I know his heart, his intentions. I think I know his goodness. And I actually have had heart-to-hearts with Hugo and I feel strongly that I know his heart, which is good, and his goodness runs deep. Both of these men are rich with goodness.
That’s why the December 31st Twitter exchange really made me sad. Sad enough to finally say something:
And sad enough to write to Hugo the next day and tell him I’m starting to hate Twitter. People, 140 characters is not enough space to explain your heart. It’s not enough to compassionately debate what is a very painful issue. Rape and guilt are just too big to be discussed this way. Some may say they’re just too big to be discussed at all, but most of us here at GMP disagree. We believe the discussion will heal us… Or at least start the process.
Men, friends, feminists, MRAs, humanists, whatever you call yourselves, Twitter is not the place for a true friendship like the one Tom and Hugo clearly had to be hashed out or even resolved. You guys—Tom and Hugo—are allies. You want equality for the sexes, you want to end rape and sexual abuse for both males and females, you want to expose the big issues and not be afraid of them. You both want men to be able to exist in a huge variety of sizes, shapes and flavors. You want men to speak their stories without shame.
You have the same long-term goal. Even if you’re on different paths to get there.
When we go into these conversations, the big ones, the painful ones, the ones where people are probably going to hurt when they read them, for any number of reasons, we need to enter with caution. We shouldn’t tiptoe around our points, we don’t need to muffle our voices, but we need to choose our words carefully. That’s our responsibility as writers.
Our responsibility as readers is a little different. We need to enter the conversation with a thin skin. Thin Skin? you ask? I think you mean thick. No I really do mean thin. Be permeable, be open, and hear what others are saying. You don’t have to give up your position, but you need to hear the human behind the argument. If your position is strong, it won’t be damaged by (truly) listening to someone who disagrees with it.
If you’re willing to hear the heart behind the words, you won’t be as hurt when you do disagree—as long as what they’ve written wasn’t intended to insult, shame, manipulate or embarrass you. I realize that’s subjective, but most of the time someone’s intention to do actual harm is apparent. We know it when we see it in the comments. People go from disagreeing to angry to hurtful to vengeful to even being downright cruel, and they often go there fast. And once that spiral starts, the message of the speaker is lost.
That brings me to our commenters here at GMP. For weeks we’ve been debating what to do with our beloved commenters (Yes! You guys are important!). Do we moderate every comment that comes in? Do we silence you? Do we let you have free reign over GMP and to define us with vitriol? None of the above. Lisa Hickey has led the way for us to take a new approach: we want to hear you. Just as Tom, in that original debate on Twitter, wanted his initial confusion to be heard and met eye-to-eye and not with snark or shaming, we want to hear our commenters with open hearts and minds.
Hugo wanted the same thing in his initial piece that started the fire we’re still trying to find a way to safely corral (not extinguish). Hugo was asking men to hear how women feel. He wasn’t asking men to be ashamed, though I understand how it may have seemed that way. More importantly, I understand how it may have felt that way. Hugo was asking men to realize that often times, women are afraid.
Now I know you guys are getting ready to jump down and comment! And I want you to—but in a minute! Don’t be hasty, hear me out. Hear my heart.
At Good Men Project we’re going to give you more than 140 characters. We hope you’ll return that favor with thin skin. With open minds. With respectful voices. We want to hear you. We want to understand. I want you to tell me how what Hugo wrote hurt you. I want you to tell me how what Tom wrote on Twitter to the feminists hurt you. It hurt me, I’ll tell you right now with an open heart that it did.
I want to tell you, and have you hear me, when I say that I was sad the other day as I watched Hugo and Tom try to explain how hurt they each were over this all. I was most hurt by the fact that the conflict ended badly, once again, and in my mind maybe even worse this time. Why? Because 140 characters is not enough to mend a relationship. You two are men, strong men, you two are capable of wading through your hurt and repairing this.
Funny thing is, that most recent Twitter debate made me much more sad than any outright attack I’ve endured, personally, as a writer or moderator for GMP. You can tell me that I’m a moron, you can call me just another dirty feminist, you can say that as a part of GMP I am back-stabbing feminists (or men, either one, I’ve heard both). You can even tell me you’d leave me in the snow to die. Go for it. But all that accomplishes is making me less likely to hear you.
You are saying important things. Don’t let them be muddied by wild extrapolations or nitpicking tiny elements of my position in order to discredit me.
Just talk to me. I want to hear you.
==
photo by tydence / flickr
About Joanna Schroeder
All I can say is DAMN STRAIGHT. Communication online is hard, communication in 140 characters is impossible. There’s little sense of tone, no space to give decent examples of what you mean and you simply can trigger people to assume the worst…especially if they’re already angry or just recently had 99 comments that were negative…
I am both impressed and saddened the debate still continues when Hugo and others criticizing Tom use generalizations….many of them do..maybe they can all watch what they say. Case closed, let’s debate something a lil more important.
I agree with you, Joanna. For all it’s virtues, twitter is just not a good forum for discussion/debate, and it’s important to keep in mind the size of the divisions within the community, both on the scale of a single website and the world at large. I’ve never been a huge fan of Hugo’s (we disagree on quite a few issues), but I’d anoint him as a saint over some other bloggers out there. Being able to keep the big picture in mind is something that people should always be doing more, and I’d hope that progressives of any color would be keeping that in the forefront of their minds.
That was his mistake. The conversation was supposed to be about listening to men, specifically listening to how men feel about being shamed and blamed for things that are not their fault or responsibility. However, instead of listening to men Schwyzer did the opposite in the most condescending way and then threw it in Matlack’s face when Matlack took issue with it.
I have seen this sort of thing happen enough to know that it is rarely accidental. The tone of Schwyzer’s article was intentional, the anger and hurt it provoked was intentional, and the way the twitterbeef went down was intentional. And it got the intended result: people stopped talking about men’s feelings and instead talked about feminism and women’s feelings. To this point, in the past few weeks the focus on GMP has been about feminism rather than talking about men’s issues and concerns.
I do not think the problem is a 140-character limit. I think the problem is that in many instances feminists do not want to listen to men, and what I mean by that is that many feminists, particularly those involved in the recent spat, do not want to look at things from men’s perspectives. Whatever may drive that, there is an utter unwillingness to see things as men, especially non-feminist men, see them that leads to this conflict.
To me, it is not enough to hear men. People, particularly feminists, need to listen to them. By that I mean setting aside the ideology and preconceived notions and understanding why men feel they way they do based solely on what those men say. That is what needs to happen, but I do not know if it can.
I am willing to give the benefit of the doubt to many feminists because most of the time you can get an idea that they are trying to understand your point. But I don’t to either hugo or Amanda marcotte. Every time i see those two debate or discuss it seems to me that they seem to be more about self promotion and being seen to be correct and winning the debate much more than about understanding and communicating to the other side. It isn’t something that has recently been my experience it has been that way for years. I honestly thought that Amanda marcotte might grow out of that, and i thought that Hugos pretentiousness would be obvious to most people. Which is why when looked at gmp for the first time I was staggered that people still took hugo and marcotte seriously.
If all that feminists can bring to the conversation is womens perspective, lies about abuse rates, feminism, manipulative behavior like shaming and guilting and hate speech.
We should stop feeding them with responses.
In the five years I’ve been in this debate I’ve learned that there is never any listening or progress on the part of feminists.
OK let me try reading that back to you. I am going to try and summarise what you said.
—————-
Tom and Hugo fighting – really sucks
I like both of them – how on earth did this happen?
Twitter sucks too – 140 characters – was it to blame?
How did this happen?
Why can’t we all just get along?
What is the foundation?
I come back to the basics — simple feelings – Tom is hurt – I am sad
Perhaps if people just listened and recognised those basics first instead of just planning their next gotcha comment before they’ve even finshed reading what the other person said…
Do I listen?
My name is Joanna and I am sad about the fighting
I will listen
Wow, that was actually hard for me to write. Tell me if that’s missing something important or just totally wrong.
I wonder about this communication thing too. That’s kind of why I decided to write that comment — you know the one — the other week. I’d been trying to get my perspective across and didn’t seem to be getting anywhere, but that sort of emotional language isn’t really my style. That particular approach didn’t seem to work. Now I’m thinking of another approach.
I have different ideas from you on how to approach the same concept – how to communicate better that is. However I do agree it seems like the best approach broadly would be to take a little more time and take an extra step to a little more in common, or a little more understanding of where the other guy (or gal) is coming from.
David, Thanks for this. I think?
Thing is, that thread taught me a lot. I’ll be honest, at first I laughed my ass off at your comment about leaving me in the snow. Then Archy came in and was repeating something similar to what you were saying, but in a different tone. Then I started to hear him, and Lisa encouraged me to think harder about what Archy was saying, and I did, and I could hear him.
Then I was sort of pissed at you. I thought, “this guy is trying to say something important and he’s doing it in a way that is actually really *mean* — almost cruel —- when I truly went into that piece with good intentions.” I know what I wrote to you, about being a human being and trying to make me human didn’t work, but I still mean it.
I was never trying to keep you guys down, truly. I was misunderstanding something. Some of it I still stand by, and I am still a feminist. But I feel strongly that this is a site for MEN and I feel strongly that men have gotten royally screwed by the double-bind of feminism giving us all these vehicles for advancement and you guys still being chained to the old ideals of “suck it up, be a man, nothing can hurt you” caveman thinking. How can you win? How can you find a way to peacefully exist in a world where women go around saying, “Men are dicks!” all the time, but expecting you to also not be dicks — not all women, I have NEVER said this, this is NOT my brand of feminism (PS I don’t think those are feminists who say that, I think those are straight-out catty b****es.) but I think you get what I am saying.
I get all that. And I deeply understand what Archy has taught me about abuse. Man, he changed me on that comment thread. Because Lisa told me to just listen to him, I softened. I mean, I REALLY softened and it wasn’t easy to do that when I had just been told I’d be left to die by someone
… It wasn’t easy but it was *good* and it was *important*.
So you and me, DB, we’re square. We’re going to go into this differently now and hopefully be an example of how we can heal and work together to make the world better, clearer, more open and safer for men. I’m still a feminist, so maybe none of you want my help. But I can (almost) guarantee that if you met me, you’d like me.
I am deeply honored I could help illustrate it, I am still amazed and completely shocked that I’ve “touched” people and “changed” them. Thank-you very much, it’s incredible that I can do that with a few words. Did you mean the thread on presumption of male guilt and the getting into car debate? Do you know which particular comment helped the most?
One of the most important things I saw with abuse is that it happened to us all, I gave shelter to a male friend who ran away from his flat since his sexually abusive dad was visiting (his brother was living there too so he I guess stayed), I’ve been up all night trying to find info to help abused female friends because I wanted to arm them with information, give them precisely the knowledge that no other seemed to so they can make the decision themselves of what was abusive.
When you see and hear the stories of all types of abuse, male male, male female, female female, female male, and go through it from both genders I think it really slaps you in the face with the realization that abuse affects us all. I’m not sure others see this if they only experience 1 version of abuse in their own life, or family and friends? With popular media you hear of male>female violence so much, especially in feminism, sometimes male>male, but rarely female>female and female>male from what I’ve seen and if this is true it could bias our views to assuming the male to female is the main and only concern.
It’s the feeling I get from most people actually, so I’m guessing it is hard to understand why we have men speaking up and being so annoyed by the anti-abuse industry which they feel has left them as “statistically irrelevant” as one person said so these men will probably lash our in DESPERATION to draw attention to their cause. I can’t blame them for being mad, I sure am after seeing CDC stats and others then having a campaign on one version of violence whilst ignoring the rest. Makes a man question if his life is valuable to feminists, or even society and this is probably the saddest thing of it all as males feel completely ignored by the industry designed to stop abuse. You can see it plain as day on any comment-thread around abuse, especially gendered ones where men are fighting and doing their “whataboutthemenz” in desperate attempts to cry out “We’re valuable too, why is there no attention on our pain, if you cut us do we not bleed?”.
It is feminists like you that stop me being pulled into the typical anti-feminist crowd because you prove that there are feminists willing to listen, to understand, and if all it takes is someone saying the same thing in the RIGHT tone of voice I think we all need to pay attention to that. I can’t thank you enough for understanding male abuse, I can’t thank Lisa enough for encouraging you to hear, it is experiences like that which will mend the bridges between everyone and the work can truly be done when we all listen. I personally, would like your help as a feminist and as a human, the more decent feminists who will listen the more others will realize that feminism is like any group, varies wildly with good and bad. Same needs to happen for masculists too.
I myself, don’t really like labels of what I am, maybe equalist is the best label, the labels seem to cause more fights and misunderstandings from peoples perceptions of what they are so quite frankly, I am a male, I am human, I bleed red if you cut me (though I’d rather fluoro green/yellow like predator:D).
Archy,
That made me really happy. And I hope no one ever cuts you. Unless you actually are an extra-terrestrial warrior, then it might be sorta cool to see the fluoro green/yellow blood.
(that is nerd humor, for those who are about to tell me i shouldn’t cut him even if he is an extra-terrestrial warrior)
Of course from that movie the best quote “I ain’t got time to bleed”
Well, I’m a funny guy
With due respect, I completely disagree with you. One hundred and forty characters are sufficient to get a idea across if the intentions are clear. Miscommunication is not the problem in the Twitter debate. The real problem was the bad attitude of Mr.Schwyzer. The surest way to fail is trying to please everybody. You cannot please everybody. I am really surprised how he could work with GMP for so long.
Joanne – I often agree with your comments and views, but here is a clear exception.
“And Tom became defensive. I can’t blame him, as that type of “challenge” can bring out the worst in people. ”
When subject to concerted attack and abuse, being “Defensive” and defending yourself is not bringing out the “WORST”. It is in fact the “BEST” and “CORRECT” course of action.”
Lets turn it round and see if it scans;
“”And “a feminist” became defensive. I can’t blame “her”, as that type of “challenge” can bring out the “Worst” in people. ”
If that was written here there would be flames! If a male writer said that a Female became defensive and it brought out the “worst” in her, I can see Twitter going into overdrive and the manoeuvring of armies and artillery.
As for the whole of “Twittergate” – I am on record as being very clear, it did not start with a few Twits, and if publicly accessible net content is studied – including GMP content – it is quite easy to see the Motivations, Manoeuvring and Machinations of some long before a certain date in December.
It’s even easier to see the Motivations, Manoeuvring and Machinations “since” Twittergate; who was seeking power over who.
There is one thing about “Twittergate” that is a revelation. It has made clear an odd Internet Phenomenon connected to the 140 character. It not only shortens discourse but the memories of those who seek to exploit the format. Those who are overly reliant on it, for what they twit as “Reasonable Discussion”, have a most irrational problem of remembering what has been written where there are far more characters available, and even revelation of character.
Twitter is about the Portrayal of ideas – and as with all such art there are those who seek an Impressionist Portrait of themselves – all fuzzy and well lighted with a hint of tranquillity – whilst attempting to portray others as an Abstract in harsh colours with three noses and ears in the wrong place.
As a “Meddling Rational Archivist” – and even now as an apparent “Ludicrous Meddling Rational Archivist”, it has been fascinating to trace what has been said, when and by who so as to analyse it for History, Accuracy and Content. Semantics and Semiotics are very revealing.
Under the circumstances I am very clear to me – Tom was most correct to be “Defensive” and it was the correct course of action. As written by Sun Tzu, ancient Chinese military general, strategist and philosopher and author of “The Art Of War” – “Keep Your Friends Close and Your Enemies Closer”.
He also cautioned against those who Fly False Colours and seek access and power by Publicly Deceptive ways. Sun Tzu also observed;
“There are five dangerous faults which may affect a general: (1) Recklessness, which leads to destruction; (2) cowardice, which leads to capture; (3) a hasty temper, which can be provoked by insults; (4) a delicacy of honor which is sensitive to shame; (5) over-solicitude for his men, which exposes him to worry and trouble.”
That don’t describe Tom – but
1) The Recklessness with which some have written has been the cause of their own destruction ,
2) The Cowardice they have shown when challenged has left them caught in their own Rhetoric ,
3) The Hasty Tempter they have displayed when they Don’t like reality let alone insults,
4) The Hubris and lack of “Delicacy of honor” that has been so absent when their actions have been shown to be shameful, and
5) The way they have been Solicitous of others and Rabble Roused in the hope of being unseen in the dust of the Rabble as they seek to cause confusion and even beat an overly hasty retreat when they recognise a loosing battle….
– well they know only too well who they are, and they suddenly lack thumbs and the capacity to show any character – let alone Twit about it and use 140 characters.
“Rape and guilt are just too big to be discussed this way.”
I whole heartedly agree that 140 characters is not a suitable format to discuss such matters where there is a need for Delicacy, Candour, Humanity and even Consideration Of Facts.
However, it is easy to use very few characters, in the 140 range, to dismiss such Delicacy, Candour, Humanity and Facts, and it is very easy to see who has done that and when, and exactly how often, even as they Fly False Colors and express such great concern over the whole subject!
Using such phrases as “.. as bear minimum” may sound reasonable and rational – except where it is over used, repeatedly, and reveals a mind that revels in “Thought Terminating Cliché” in an attempt to keep the False Colors Flying and attention away from the self.
Actually I did say that here — and not about just any feminist but about Amanda Marcotte. I don’t recall anyone flaming me for saying it. It was on the article she wrote that was published here in response to the twitter fight.
I’ve often been on the receiving end of a dozen feminists attacking me at once and it is hard to not go off the rails. It is justified, it is expected, it is understandable, but it is not best or correct. As a result of my own experiences I’m sympathetic with others going through the same thing and so I defended Marcotte on that basis.
David – a simply query – on the time line of that thread, did you post pre or post exit by Ms AM?
There was a shift in dynamics which occurred when she announced she would not longer take part because she was asked questions she did not wish to answer!
Forgive me if I seem “Pernickety”, but as they say, The Devil Is In The Detail.
It’s something you learn early as a “Meddling Rational Archivist” – opinion is not data, unless backed up by data that is rational and relevant! Ludicrous – isn’t it? P^)
[and another comment gets lost to this *insane* auto-refresh. Ever wonder how many commenters just give up when 20 mins of typing is lost and never come back?]
“Communication online is hard, communication in 140 characters is impossible”
This. Trying to have a serious debate on twitter is like trying to run a marathon in clown shoes. I don’t believe, pace Jacobtk, that there was ill will on either side of this, but it’s really tough not to let the presumption of it creep in (which quickly becomes self-fulfilling). Using an-overly terse and ambiguous medium means that the listener has to shoulder the responsibility of deciding what the speaker was trying to say whilst feeling hurt and defensive. Give people room to speak.
And Jacobtk, I think saying “the hurt was intentional” is unhelpful. Some feminists may not be interested in men’s perspectives, but I think that most are just concerned that men’s aren’t heard at the expense of women. Ultimately, an understanding of gender which ignores or belittles either sex is going to be unhelpful and deficient: listening to women’s voices helps us understand who we are as men. I don’t think that feminism as a whole (if there is such a thing) is trying to silence men’s voices – just to point out that there are ways of speaking that don’t invalidate or belittle women – and ways that do.
I think the comment is usually still there, just at the very bottom entry box instead of where you hit reply.
Chris, if you read some of the articles the feminists involved in the twitterbeef it becomes pretty obvious that there is a certain amount of ill will towards men who criticize feminist ideas.
I will grant you that some context is lost in the written word. The way we say things can change the meaning of what we say, and that does not come across in writing. However, for the most part the written word conveys our thoughts well, and we also have a great benefit that we lack in the spoken word: we change what we write before anyone sees it.
When something happens once, it could be accidental. When the same thing happens dozens of times with different people in the same situation, it is likely intentional. I think that is why so many feminists play the “men are invalidating and belittling women” card whenever men say something that feminists do not like. Listening to others is not about agreeing with them; it is about understanding them. I do not know how people can understand each other if they are only waiting for their turn to speak.
“Chris, if you read some of the articles the feminists involved in the twitterbeef it becomes pretty obvious that there is a certain amount of ill will towards men who criticize feminist ideas. ”
It’s also known as Back Ground and Subtext,
And Jacobtk, I think saying “the hurt was intentional” is unhelpful. Some feminists may not be interested in men’s perspectives, but I think that most are just concerned that men’s aren’t heard at the expense of women.
So when feminists shut men out at the first hint of trying to speak up? It seems to me that they are engaging in the very behavior that they say they want to prevent. And for as many times as feminists have made point to state when men, non-feminists, anti-femnists, MRAs have no intention of helping people but satisfying their own grudges I don’t think its real fair to act like intention doesn’t matter on their own part. (In fact Marcotte has a post or two here that are basically declarations that MRAs and PUAs are only interested in harming women and that that is their only intention. And Manboobz makes his bread and butter on that claim.)
Ultimately, an understanding of gender which ignores or belittles either sex is going to be unhelpful and deficient: listening to women’s voices helps us understand who we are as men.
Here’s the problem. As men a lot of us have been taught that when it comes to certain matters, namely emotional matters, we are supposed to value women’s voices over even our own. A major step in deprogramming that is get men to learn how to listen to themselves. Sure women have things to contribute to the development of men but first and foremost as men we need to listen to ourselves. Not just what the stereotypes tell us, but truly listen to ourselves. And frankly I think that some women (and feminists) can’t handle that.
I don’t think that feminism as a whole (if there is such a thing) is trying to silence men’s voices – just to point out that there are ways of speaking that don’t invalidate or belittle women – and ways that do.
If that’s the case then merely pointing out that males are sexually assaulted would not result in the type of treatment the likes of what Jacob, Tim, and other male victims have gone through. And it certainly doesn’t help that they seem to be able to put male victims through such experiences unchallenged.
re the bug: when the auto-refresh hits it moves my comment to the bottom and I can move it back by clicking on “reply” again. If that is not happening to you then I’d suggest reporting that as another bug with the browser version you observed it on.
Joanna
>All along I’ve been firmly entrenched with Hugo in the “Rape Culture Exists” camp
Everytime some like H S, A M or yourself promotes the female lie that abuse and rape is a one sided problem, every time you minimize and sweep female perpetrated abuse you promote rape, abuse child abuse and abuse culture and hate speech.
Feminism is promoting a rape, abuse and child abuse culture by lying about the nature of abuse , abuse stats. and excluding female abusers and their victims from services and the conversation. In this respect, you are the bad guys.
I think that you all should stop promoting feminist lies about abuse, rape etc. here. It upsets too many people.
May I ask, Tone, where you got the idea that I don’t think abuse of males is important, just as important as abuse of females?
I try not to presume, but here I’m going to presume you mean that because I do believe that rape culture exists, that I think that abuse of males isn’t EQUALLY as damaging, horrifying, or important as females.
I do, in fact believe that both abuses are real, and are equally as important. Please hear me. No abuse will end, until all abuse is made equally as important. I don’t think I actually disagree with Hugo on this, but I know Hugo personally so perhaps I know something that he didn’t adequately express in that piece.
What I do agree with, about Rape culture, is that women are *afraid*… We are. I don’t deserve anyone yelling at me or calling me a b**** because a guy said, “nice tits” and I ignored him. Seriously, that is a part of what Hugo was saying.
But I think it goes both ways. I don’t want you guys to have to be told to suck it up if someone sexually assaults or harasses you! I have two little boys, I don’t want that culture. I am SO GLAD you guys like Archy and David Byron are speaking up for that. I want to be a part of that.
However, that doesn’t diminish the fact that women do feel under threat. Just because I say that I feel that way, doesn’t mean I think you guys *don’t*.
>May I ask, Tone, where you got the idea that I don’t think abuse of males is important, just as important as abuse of females?
I already told that, when I said
“Joanna
>All along I’ve been firmly entrenched with Hugo in the “Rape Culture Exists” camp
Everytime someone like H S, A M or yourself promotes the female lie that abuse and rape is a one sided problem, every time you minimize and sweep female perpetrated abuse you promote rape, abuse child abuse and abuse culture and hate speech.”
The feminist position on abuse and rape, its to misrepresent it as being overwhelmingly one sided.
H S lies about abuse, he lied to cover up female perpetrated pedophilia here, you align with him …
You have aligned with well know manhaters in the gender debate circuit in this article.
You used a triggering phrase; “rape culture”. I know you think it means one thing, but you should be aware that to others it means something very different. Do you know what that phrase means to others?
Yes David, I know that it means one thing to earnest feminists, I also know that it has wider and applications and implications.
For example, rape culture rabble rousing, fear mongering and propagandizing is primarily done in US campus and run from FMF. America college men almost lost their right to the presumption of innocence on the strength of campus rape hysteria. Were it not for the mens movement mobilizating against it, these men would have lost a important civil right.
Do you know the origin of the term “rape culture” and how the originators of it were excluded from the conversation once the idea had been appropriated by privileged white america feminists?
I’m fairly well versed in Mary Dalys rape culture, because I’ve been in this debate for years, and the rape culture fear cult is central to mainstream feminism.
EDIT.
“Everytime some like H S, A M or yourself promotes the FEMINIST lie that abuse and rape is a one sided problem, every time you minimize and sweep female perpetrated abuse UNDER THE CARPET you promote rape, abuse child abuse and abuse culture and hate speech”
oooh. Important correction!
Okay, first. I do ally myself with Hugo, but I am not his press agent or his spokesperson, I am merely his friend and agree with much of his writing and his theories.
I wish I could be a better help in speaking for him as far as the numbers and statistics of female-on-male rape, but to be completely honest, I do not know enough on this subject to speak on behalf of him.
David Byron – I want to know what Rape Culture means to you guys, because you’re right, it could very well be that we are operating on two different definitions. To me, Rape Culture has NOTHING to do with sweeping the abuse of males under the rug or disregarding it.
Please give me the definition under which you work and we can address it further (though I’m stepping away from the computer to take my kids to the museum for the afternoon – please don’t think I’m ignoring you).
Joanne
Maybe one starting point is to return to the first use of the Term “Rape Culture” – where, when and how it was “Coined”.
I have written about it here http://goodmenproject.com/featured-content/i-cant-speak-for-men-and-i-shouldnt-have-to/comment-page-1/#comment-80341
I have kept delving and it’s origins are fascinating and controversial. The Earliest know use of the term that can be traced is “Rape Culture” (1975) – Documentary – Directors – Margaret Lazarus, Renner Wunderlich – Cambridge Documentary Films.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0156938/
Further details http://www.cambridgedocumentaryfilms.org/rapeculture.html
However, there is one omission from that web page which is most interesting – the subject of the film was Male Prisoners addressing male on male rape in prison – and articulating their none academic ideas of the mechanisms of rape both within Prison and without.
Margaret Lazarus – one of the directors – has been critical of the misinterpretation of the film, it’s interpretation and in particular the misuse of the the male Protagonists – male prisoners attempting to model and articulate their experiences of rape in prison.
There has been much concern as to how both what these males said has been misused, and also the representation of them all as rapists when only one was incarcerated for rape.
It would seem to many that the Term “Rape Culture” has been misused and misunderstood since at least 1975. As time progresses that misunderstanding has grown along with misuse, leading to the view that Rape Culture only applies to women and male perpetrators.
The Term “Rape Culture” is also very USA Centric and appears to be an American Cultural Artefact, and yet it keeps being discussed as a Global Issue – a tad of essentialist thinking and cultural privilege showing!
I have been aware of the Social Model of “Rape Culture” for some 20+ years, but only delved into it’s actual origins due to the way it is being used in a very USA centric fashion, and also seeking some form of examination as to why it has suddenly Exploded in USA centric Feminist blogging since the advent of Slutwalk.
From where I am sitting in a culture and society that is not labelled as an Actual “Rape Culture” by USA based feminists, I do have to say that there needs to be a close scrutiny of both where the term comes from, and how it has come to be used in 2011.
I say the above from the position of someone who as a HIV/AIDS activist, from before the time that disease even had a name, I was party to campaigning to provide condoms to all prisoners so that Prison Acquired HIV could be prevented – and that was back in the very early 1980′s.
I am also very concerned as to how the Social Model of “Rape Culture” that is being bandied about and used fails to address in any way the sexual abuse of children, disabled people, age related sexual abuse of the elderly, sexual abuse and rape in institutional settings of all kinds. It seems to be only about female students and campus politics!
And why if it is such an artefact of America Society and Culture will the US government at any level not use the term in any official documents, publications, reports or research addressing sexual abuse, rape in all forms from all perps, irrespective of sex/gender?
In Hamlet there is the immortal line “Something is rotten in the state of Denmark.”
It seems that the same applies to the Social Model of “Rape Culture” and how it is being used on a state wide basis – and it needs to be addressed.
The model is faulty – it does not address all rape, only a subset, and because the model is incomplete it is open to abuse and misuse. That is causing much gender based discord and abuse. That itself is the sign that the model is incomplete and failing!
This needs to be an article.
Well there you go J S
By your own admission your ally yourself with someone that lies to cover up abuse and is well know on the gender debate circuit for being misandrist. Yet you feel no need to distance yourself from this person, as you would an apologist or denier for male pedophiles, abusers or rapists and you present here as if you are a friend of men, there is some dissonance there isn’t there?
As for feminist rape culture discourse, rabble rousing and propaganda, it deliberately genders rape, as it does all forms of abuse, this sweeps victims and abusers that do not fit the feminist narrative under the carpet, so feminism, rape culture propaganda and feminist discourse on abuse, is by feminism’s own definitions – is a blatant and deliberate rape and abuse culture.
Its not really about stopping rape or abuse, if it was the focus would be where the majority of child abuse is happening, at the mothers hand in the home, but that never appears in feminist discourse on abuse, why is that, is there a problem there with the ideology?
Here is Murry Straus, an honest feminist researcher that feminists have spread all sorts of rumors about because he tell the truth, on the methods that feminism has used to cover up female perpetrated abuse for the last 20 years..
Processes Explaining the Concealment and Distortion
of Evidence on Gender Symmetry in Partner Violence
h tt p://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/V74-gender-symmetry-with-gramham-Kevan-Method%208-.pdf
There is lots more data available on that too
Do you really believe its about stopping abuse, if its about stopping abuse, why they covering it up when it doesn’t fit the man bad woman good narrative? There is a problem there isn’t there J S? A problem inside the ideology.
Tone
I am not fully convinced by the Strauss 2007 findings, not because I think they are false, but because by Strauss’ own admission the research work is incomplete.
On the other hand, I have been very much aware of the issues raised on a UK basis for some 20 years. The reason being, My sister did the seminal UK study that identified the Gender Symmetry in PV – and she’s now a professor of law on the back of the works he has done for the last 20 years.
She must have been doing something right! P^)
Mediahound
They aren’t exactly “findings”, Straus developed the CTS. He has been in the center of this and leading the research since it began. For example, feminists approached him looking for a “feminist version of a CTS” (a deliberatly flawed isntrument) to use on the widely cited NVAWS, it was him that pressurized them to put in a section for men.
Anyway, here is a more detained paper on the story by Straus.
ht t p://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/V75-Straus-09.pdf
Here is Linda Kellys paper that tells the same story
DISABUSING THE DEFINITION OF DOMESTIC
ABUSE: HOW WOMEN BATTER MEN AND THE
ROLE OF THE FEMINIST STATE
h tt p://law.fsu.edu/journals/lawreview/downloads/304/kelly.pdf
Donald Dutton has also written about it.
Tone
I’m familiarised with those works too!
As A “Meddling Rational Archivist” I’m very good at hunting down obscure and complex source data and findings! I even have the capacity to read them and understand them.
I don’t need to be convinced of the need for such data and opinion to be read and debated.
The issue is always getting others to consider the Archives – be Rational – and not Meddle with the reality – Ludicrous! P^)
I have even written here about how ignoring reality or even a sub set of it can be a cultural matter. It has cost people Nobel Prizes.
http://goodmenproject.com/featured-content/women-rape-boys-too/comment-page-1/#comment-69641
Oddly I wrote on the subject to help address the responses on the subject of “Women Rape Boys, Too” to address the repeated refusal so so many to even look at base data and findings before they dismissed the subject out of hand!
It is A True Story and readily verified!
I also wrote a similar comment addressing PTSD and major discoveries on that field on the same thread! Some read the stories and miss the message!
Also Mediahound
I know you like to fact check
Have a read of the second paper by Straus (your sisters paper likely gets a mention) and then go to Finally Feminism101′s domestic violence page and start fact checking and following their links, its a pack of deliberate lies and a work of propaganda from start to finish, its level of dishonesty is shocking even to me who knows what these people are like. These people know exactly what an abuse or rape culture is according to their definitions and they are deliberately engaging in it.
Other very blatant liars about abuse are NOMAS and XYZ online, pretty much any feminist information outlet you can find on abuse, is misinforming and misleading leading the reader with information that’s at odds with the findings of the genuine domestic violence research community.
Tone
I often find that when there are issues that need to be discussed and even re-evaluated, it is very useful to step into a parallel issue and see what the reality is there.
For example – in relation to Homophobia I have had people study racism. Not because they are parallel, but it allows people to consider how Frames Of Reference are constructed, used and even de-constructed. It is not about becoming an expert in the second area, but about grasping the nature of the subject and how views are developed and held.
Then when you return to the original subject, there is a greater plasticity to Frames of Reference and debate and even learning becomes more fluid and dynamic.
I have used the same technique in dealing with such matters as Disability and in particular Disability Hate Crime. It so not perfect by any means, but it has proved dividends time and time over. It also allows you to quickly identify those who lack the ability to use mental fluidity so that they can be targeted with extra assistance.
I remember at one point being told I was just being stupid and trying to compare differing issues in an attempt to make say Disability Hate Crime more important that race issues. You win some and you loose some – and some people leave the class with an “F”. P^)
Joanna
I don’t know what definition of “Rape Culture” you use, but the one I learned was that rape culture is the “systematic process in our culture by which all men maintain power over all women through intimidation threats, fearof and actual rape.” Now, that might not be the definition you have, and I’m willing to believe this is the case, but with that definition in mind can you not see how this idea that *all* men profit from the rape of women might affect men who have never raped anyone, find the very idea abhorrant, and might even be victims of rape themselves?
This is why the term “rape culture” is problematic to some.
I resent taking the time out to type that because I know feminists couldn’t give a flying [redacted] about how their movements lies about and abuse and hate speech and protection of female abusers hurts people.
But what are we supposed to do, its either not say anything and just let it happen, or object and just be ignored by these bigoted [redacted].
Joanna, bravo. I am disappointed with a lot of these comments. But not surprised. Any effort at reconciliation always seems to draw fire from those who seem to love their anger more than any hope for progress. So deeply disillusioning. You should have titled this post: “No Matter What I Write, Let’s Turn It Into Another Feminist Bashing Session.” God this sucks.
P.S. Did not check the little box. Will not get any antagonistic responses. Will spend my day in positive ways focused on productive things, and not derailed by this bs. But all of you who want to keep piling on with your unquenchable hate, have a party.
Have we had any articles recently on why they’re so angry with feminism? Might be a good idea to collect them and then try educate them that some feminists doesn’t equal ALL feminists. It feels like a lot is backlash from male-bashing articles, a knee-jerk retaliation but that cycle needs to be broken and not fear the “enemy” and actually see them as the friend (hate the bad ones all you want, just don’t hate the good ones along with it).
Agree Archy! Thanks!
Could there not be a situation where feminist content is limited to once a week. So that the magazine can be about men, feminists generally don’t get that its not all about them or their movement or that a lot of the information they are working off is political propaganda?
Have a bit of respect for your readership who do not want gynocentric feminist gender narcissism and slopism to be the central theme.
Eendereratic and GirlWritesWhat are the leading gender theorists pertaining to this mags. alleged goals. They would be far better suited here than this endless parroting of the party line and gender narcissism from feminists.
I second Lisa, Archy.
Archy
Many of the people here have been debating with mainstream feminists for years, they know more about feminist jurisprudence, falsehoods, misinformation, laws, hate speech and misandric attitudes that mainstream feminists monolithically support, than the mainstream feminists know themselves.
Its true to say that some feminists are not all feminists, there are dissident feminists and equity feminists. But the reality is that mainstream of feminism is problematic, they are a monolith. Independent feminists are also largely irrelevant because they are just followers.
For example, mainstream feminists monolithically support Mary Dalys rape culture ideology, which is no something of cult that involves misinformation about rape that hides the reality of it, and collective male culpability and guilt for men.
Mainstream feminists monolithically come out to support the openly vile and misandric gynocentric feminists, as you can see happening here.
I think the rape culture ideal is changing, there are some important lessons to understand with rape itself and the realization of male victimization is slowly coming into play. The CDC stats will play a large role if more people start to report them correctly and cut through the bias to the last 12 months stat, what we might see is less of the blame men and more of the blame the rapists and everyone to ensure they know what consent is.
I do hope to see more feminists call out the misandric feminists, simply due to them destroying the good feminism did. Joanna called out the double standard “feminists” which I wanna give her a high 5 on. I’ve seen others denounce the SCUM manifesto-lovers, and seen them love their men 100% and support them. Personally, I feel supported by some feminists on my own pain. These are the feminists I want to be surrounded by, who can see male pain and accept it, who can see males aren’t always privileged and some stuff really does put them worse off.
We also need the MRA/masculists to call out the misogynists, there’s no place for bigotry and hatred by either side. If you’re mad at feminism, you don’t need to attack women over it or use sexist language and likewise for those angry at masculism.
Already I’ve heard of feminists opening up simply by a CHANGE IN TONE!!!, T O N E, their views changed by simply saying the same thing in a non-hostile manner. If you speak with hostility, sexism, anger unrestricted (some anger is acceptable), you’ll trigger defensive attitudes in the other person and they will shutdown. If you generalize, they will probably shut down.
“But the reality is that mainstream of feminism is problematic,” These broad statements will probably shut down the listener, I suggest saying most, much, or it truly feels like x, and they’ll probably be more open to listening. I think also there will be a clash between the legitimate good feminism did, and the negatives that people associate with it, no use casting them all out the same door but praise the good and change/debate/whatever the bad. It’s hard to take people serious if they strive for equality whilst attacking the main equality movement of recent history, you have to specify.
I do agree there is issues with rape culture though, as my comments on the male guilt thread will tell you. But I do believe 100% that there is a culture of fear and rape is one of the big fears pushed onto women, a fear that quite frankly needs to die down a bit because too much fear is a bad thing.
“We also need the MRA/masculists to call out the misogynists, there’s no place for bigotry and hatred by either side. If you’re mad at feminism, you don’t need to attack women over it or use sexist language and likewise for those angry at masculism.”
There is a big difference, misogynists in the mrm are a fringe group that are the least influental.
In feminism, the center is extreme and gyocentric and the radicals, the most influential are the ones that are running the movement and changing the legal system. The fun feminists do little but parrot ideology and defend the extremists. Ever time someone tries to deal with the extremists, these fun feminists come along and protect them.
See how the feminists supposedly aren’ t like that are now gathering around to protect A M and H S who are well known misandrists, liars and problematic feminists on the gender debating scene.
I don’t know if I’m a “fun feminist” (have you seen my blog? I think I am…) but I have almost never defended Amanda Marcotte.
“For example, mainstream feminists monolithically support Mary Dalys rape culture ideology, which is no something of cult that involves misinformation about rape that hides the reality of it, and collective male culpability and guilt for men.”
I am fully expecting to be subject to Opprobrium for what I am about to say.
I am concerned about the model of USA centric Rape Culture, and it does in fact have the hallmarks of a Cult.
Analysis using Steve Hassan B.I.T.E. Model.
Behaviour – first women are told that they are subject to imminent rape and so must control their own behaviour and that of males to prevent rape.
Information – the vast majority of Rape Culture literature and information from all sources supports the Cult of Rape Culture, so framing all world views to support it. All basic information is based on the premise that Rape Culture exists and how it is made manifest and how Behaviour needs to be controlled to prevent rape and control rapists.
Thinking – because behaviour is controlled and modelled to address rape culture and all information supports it’s existence and how to behave and control the behaviour of others, it literally creates a self fulfilling prophecy and self perpetuating state which even leads to fear.
Emotions – once Behaviour, Information and Thinking are concretised around Rape Culture you have strong emotional affiliation to “Rape Culture” and it’s supposed manifestations which increases fear and creates a feed back loop to concretise more. This causes such things as Automatic “Thought Terminating Cliché” so any question as to the very nature of or even existence of Rape Culture is met with both psychological and emotional resistance and dismissal of the question – and should the question be pressed it can lead to multiple forms of aggression in defence of the held ideal and emotional attachment to “Rape Culture”.
It also becomes a controlling relationship where the person in the Cult Of Rape Culture, demands and requires that their world view and beliefs be accepted, else anyone who questions it is a bad person and to be treated as such – dismissed – shamed – subject to multiple forms of interpersonal abuse.
The pattern keeps being played out and has exploded via the net.
It is bizarre that when you ask what is the foundation of the belief in Rape Culture, Where did it come from – people in the Cult Of Rape Culture can not provide an answer.
They will tell you what the “belief” is, but can not explain or articulate where the belief has come from.
That is a factor of Cult Thinking and alarm bells ring!
Belief and the Origin of the Belief are not the same – and yet if that is challenged the person making the challenge is subjected to abuse and the use of “Thought Terminating Clichés” which is the emotional response and not rational.
That is a factor of Cult Thinking and alarm bells ring!
There has even been the development of “Thought Terminating Cliché” Propaganda. If a male asks what is Rape Culture and does not accept what he is told, he is most probably an MRA Troll, is to be told he is Misogynist and simply refused to listen to women – anything the person says is just further proof of Bias and hatred of “Rape Culture” and women – apply terms Apologist and worse – to protect the emotional base, thinking information and behaviour that has been adopted and is all proof of Rape Culture.
That is a factor of Cult Thinking and alarm bells ring!
So I have to wonder is Rape Culture real or has there been an explosion in the misuse of the Model of Rape Culture that quite literally is now a Cult in the US Feminist Psyche?
The matter seems to be so USA Centric as to need a very USA based assessment.
The Cult of Rape Culture is not Global, and seems to be linked to Slutwalk.
let the missiles descend! P^)
They should publish this as well
Mediahound, best comment I have read. Needs to be a comment of the day at least, or a separate article. The BITE model makes so much sense!
Archy – I have the same concerns from having been observing Penn State and the reactions there. The whole PSU mess and student reaction by some had the hallmarks of a Cult Collapse. The aggression was totally predicable, and I even suspect that some members of the media were only too aware of that and exploited it for news coverage.
I used the same B.I.T.E. model to look at PSU. It’s important to recognise that people who are involved in Cult thinking patterns are deeply involved emotionally – to them it is 100% real. It is how those emotions come about and how they interact with behaviour. information and thinking that are significant.
http://goodmenproject.com/guy-talk/bite-me-bite-me-2/
I’ve also been looking at language – it’s history and social contexts around Rape Culture on Nikki’s thread “Why Are So Many Good Men Accepting of Rape Culture?”
http://goodmenproject.com/gender-sexuality/why-are-so-many-good-men-accepting-of-rape-culture/comment-page-1/#comment-77318
The title is interesting and ambiguous. Does it mean that men are allowing rape and allowing Rape Culture to exist and flourish? Or does it mean that there is a question over the validity of the term Rape Culture and is it a good model of social structures and actions?
There seems to be a great deal of confusion as to frames as to the meaning “good man” – to some you can’t be a good man if you actually question the foundations upon which the model called Rape Culture is built – but that is not surprising as it a a feature of how cult thinking works. Memes can be highly resistant and self defending.
Frames of Reference are rather important in looking at and wondering what the question even means. If you are inside the frame you see it one way, and from the outside another. It is why I keep looking for the origins of the term so that frames can be mapped, if necessary over time as they change and even how the language used to create the frames has changed.
I do not know if this is directed at me, but I will say that my issue is this idea that nobody is at fault. That is nonsense. People need to take responsibility for the conflict they cause. In this case, feminists caused the conflict and those involved should take responsibility for that.
And I am not angry, although I am tired of hearing feminists say they are not with feminists they say they completely agree with.
Any effort at reconciliation always seems to draw fire from those who seem to love their anger more than any hope for progress. So deeply disillusioning. You should have titled this post: “No Matter What I Write, Let’s Turn It Into Another Feminist Bashing Session.” God this sucks.
Reconcilliation? More like attempts at sweeping criticism away with the old, “but they aren’t all like that” defense. I would love progress as much as anyone but it will be a long day coming as long as people keep wanting to reserve the right to their bad behavior while simutaneously calling foul on others for doing the exact same thing.
P.S. Did not check the little box. Will not get any antagonistic responses. Will spend my day in positive ways focused on productive things, and not derailed by this bs. But all of you who want to keep piling on with your unquenchable hate, have a party.
What was that you were saying about hope for progress and anger?
Lori I’ve enjoyed many of the articles you’ve written for this site… but this constant need to appear and leave a post about how you won’t be coming back (I’ve noticed it at least three times now, and I wasn’t even really paying attention) is rather tiresome.You don’t like the commenters. Fine. We get it. If you’re going to leave, then leave already. Frankly you’re starting to remind me of a little girl who leaves in a huff comes back with “And another thing…!” just so she’s able to leave in a huff again and slam the door even harder this time
Joanna, thanks for this piece. One thing that hits me about the Tweets you placed up at the top of the page between Tom and Hugo is that it seems like they haven’t had a sit down conversation on the phone or in person on skype or in real time.
I don’t know that that hasn’t happened and I certainly hope it has or will happen, but in my opinion that’s what should have happened, not more tweeting. Why keep arguing in the public sphere? Why not get private, talk, listen, make amends if possible and absorb the knowledge of what has passed?
One thing I hate about Twitter and Facebook is that it creates a world where we are our own PR agent and everything we do must be broadcast. And really, there is a great deal that I do that shouldn’t be broadcast, and there are other things that I do and think that should be dealt with in a personal forum. Twitter is great? FB is great? But I do worry about the level of narcissism it could develop in all of us.
Social media creates a sense of intimacy that I think in many cases is false. It feels like friends at the bar kickin’ back talking and joking. But real support and connection, I’m not so sure that exists. Others would argue that it does. I’ve rarely seen it.
All this to say, if this conversation/fight was happening at a magazine 30, possible even 20 years ago, Tom and Hugo would have had to talk it out, maybe they’d have written an article or two about it, there might have been two letters to the editor about the topic, but none of us would really know about the details and certainly there wouldn’t be hundreds if not thousands of comments on tens of articles rehashing the article, with the subsequent tweets on the articles spawning new articles in a never ending cycle of stuckness.
The internet and social media world is the Wild Wild West. I’m not sure it’s progress, really. But then again, maybe it is. Maybe the tweets and arguments get us someplace. Maybe there is a whole new paradigm of communication evolving due to the influence of social media and twitter. Still, I am not convinced the real closure or healing whathaveyou of peace and justice happens on tweets or comment threads. I think it happens in person where it is likely the scariest and I don’t think the play by play needs to be tweeted. It’s a moment for the two people in the argument, not me as an audience.
Julie, I appreciate this response, and agree with some of it, but a few counterpoints I want to make:
1) Tom and Hugo wouldn’t have met if it weren’t for social media. They met over a blog comment and a tweet. Sooo… does that mean their relationship wasn’t “real” because of that? Do you think that was the problem?
2) Actually, come to think of it, Tom and I met through social media.
3) There’s a theory, called Dunbar’s number, which says that the number of “close” relationships any one human can have, is, on average, 150. “Close” is defined as knowing enough about them to know how you met them, who is in their social circles, and how the connections between the people you know and the people they know work. Those of us who have been in social media for a while are almost all the exception to the rule. We have hundreds, if not thousands of people that fall into that description. People we might not talk to for days or months, or years, but when they come back into our lives, there is always great joy. THAT is the promise of social media.
And when the amount of connections you have increases exponentially *of course* there will be conflict. *Of course* there will be disagreement. Just by the sheer diversity of points of view. But isn’t the alternative to not be exposed to all those diverse viewpoints? To only really get to know those people who are close in proximity to you, either geographically, or in life story, or in viewpoints? That’s not the way I want to live my life.
4). I’ll remind you of how you and Marcus Williams met. Arguing in the comments section. I saw you two going at it, and assumed you hated each other. Then we had a conference call, and you both were on it. It was the first time I had ever talked to you. I actually held my breath while you spoke. And….you were not only civil, you laughed together. You talked. You shared ideas. Now…from all I can see…you two are actually good friends. You talk *all* the time — in multiple channels of communication.
5) I think we have to re-define conflict.
6) I also think you are right that when one form of communication doesn’t work — use another. Twitter works best — for me — when used as a way to share ideas, meet a lot of people quickly, and then move to a deeper platform for deeper levels of engagement. It’s like a virtual business card. And you wouldn’t have an argument with someone by writing your thoughts on the back of a business card and throwing them at the other person, would you? And yet that’s what this felt like.
7) We’re all learning as we go. But that IS progress.
As I said, I suppose communication is evolving as it always has since time began. The printing press caused a great bit of stir didn’t it?
And I’ve got hundreds of personal examples of how social media has brought people into my life. And hundreds of examples of how accidental conversations in parks and coffeeshops have too. Somtimes though I get tired of just staring at the letters appearing in front of me. Staring at a screen while there is life happening around me. But if I leave the screens, I miss what’s happening on the inside (which is actual the outside, but you know it’s all Matrixy).
I think point 6 is probably the thing I agree with most. Twitter is a business card, a first impression. My heart drops when I see people fight with it.
Also, I have no doubt that Tom and Hugo communicate on multiple levels, but I still am not entirely convinced that Twitter is the place to share the outcome. Just my thoughts on the matter.
It wasn’t until I actually spoke with Marcus in person and with Skype that the relationship blossomed. Because my voice provided tone. His voice provided context and clarity in a way that writing didn’t. I believe he became more and more real to me, yeah? And I became more and more real to him. Which is not to say that he was ever not real. But just it was a more two dimensional relationship. I find internet conversations limiting personally. I do not benefit the most from those conversations and my experience observing countless twitter fights and thread wars is that there simply are limits which in person conversations (even on the phone or by skype) can surpass.
I’m going to look at Dunbar’s number. That’s interesting and I think it may be the theory I was looking for when I was speaking of empathy overload. I’m interested in how far those connections reach, both outward in terms of spokes on a wheel and webs of connections, but also internally. How many people can we truly feel empathy for. Trust.
What does close mean? Those are rhetorical questions, fyi, not asking directly. I would say I have a relatively large web of connections, but close friends? Really close? Definitely under 150. But we may be using different definitions.
Julie wrote:
I agree. I think social media can supplement real connection, or lead to it when it’s the first point of contact, but I think a connection that depends primarily on social media is largely illusory. Someone can follow the hell out of someone on social media and feel all buddy-buddy, but the same can be said of the kind of connection one might feel to a movie star after watching all their movies, following news about them, and writing fan letters. Even if they post and tweet back, that doesn’t mean the person on the other end is paying attention. (I swear, it’s almost as if Steve Martin doesn’t even know I exist, even though I’ve replied to a couple of his tweets.)
I have made many friends on the Internet, both here at GMP and elsewhere, but I don’t attribute a single one of those relationships to having started or flourished through social media. Maybe it’s a quibble over definitions, because I don’t consider comment threads, emails, chats, and discussion boards to be “social media”. Those are just different ways of communicating over the internet. To me, “social media” describes a much more recent form of communicating on the ‘net, which is primarily short form (not thoughtful compositions), and typically broadcast from one to many. The two biggest examples of the moment are Facebook and Twitter, but there are others.
Lisa, I know you like to point out examples of how social media is responsible for some of the connections that doubters like me have made, so here’s my pre-emptive rebuttal. (I say with a smile, as you probably know since you’ve heard me talk and seen my face.)
I met you first as a reader, then as a commenter, then email (or maybe gchat was first), then phone, then Skype. Facebook and Twitter came in there somewhere, but have not been central to the connection, at least for me. I met Joanna and Julie first in comments, later by gchat, emails, phone, and Skype. Again, FB and Twitter are afterthoughts to those friendships. The three of you have quickly become what I consider friends, even good friends.
I know Tom mainly as a reader, and since I’m active at GMP and talk to you (Lisa) a lot, I feel like I have some sense of the kind of person he is. I’ve exchanged a smattering of emails with him. I certainly feel friendly toward him, and like we could become friends if we interacted more, but Twitter and Facebook have not put me over the edge into feeling like we’re buddies, because that’s just watching him interact with others, not interacting with him myself. Sure, I *could*, but if it’s friendship I’m interested in, I know I’m too slow, long-winded, and private to choose FB or Twitter as my preferred medium to connect.
Hugo is in roughly the same category as Tom (as far as the ways I’ve known him), with the exception that we haven’t exchanged emails so every point of contact has been either publishing (his articles or mine) or social media. We know who each other are (at least, I think he knows me), we’ve had some lighthearted exchanges on his FB wall, and I’ve made one or two comments that seemed to piss off everyone else in his FB comment threads. I would consider us shallowly connected, and it’s possible we’d be fast friends if we met in person or communicated through other media, but social media wasn’t our first intro to each other, and has not by itself created an intimate bond.
To bring this back around…I agree with Joanna’s point that Twitter sucks. (I’m paraphrasing.) There’s no denying people can connect through it, or organize in ways that were previously impossible (see Egypt or OWS, for example), but for thoughtful discussion of weighty issues, or getting to know someone intimately, or hashing out painful disagreements, it sucks. FB is only marginally better. Both are anathema to people who take their privacy seriously, which tends to exclude them from potential or existing friends who say, “Just follow me on FB, it’s easier to keep up with me that way.” I worry that social media not only sucks for real connection, but that it is crowding out the modes that do lead to that kind of connection, because the rush and convenience of “staying connected” entices people away from the modes that create or sustain deep connection. Ever had lunch where one person is completely present and their companion repeatedly takes breaks to tweet and “stay connected”? The old kinds of friends and followers are getting replaced by the new kind, and I’m not sure people notice or care, especially the people growing up only with the new kind. (Man, I sound old. Get off my lawn, you hooligans and hippies! Twittlegans and Faceniks?)
Agreed. Twitter to me as a multi year user is the worst for discourse/dialogue and perhaps a good place to start, but as we’ve seen it’s soooooo easy to just snip and snipe rather than ask, Hey can you clarify? Will you email me? Etc.
Anyway, I don’t really use it much, not nearly as strategically as I’m sure I should.
Thanks Joanna. Couldn’t agree more. To be honest after your last tweet Hugo and I have been communicating via email, where we probably should have started.
Yeah, the battle wasn’t a lot of fun for me but having had a bit of time to think about it, like all things I actually believe it was helpful/important. Not because everyone behaved perfectly, myself obviously included, but because it lay bare for all to see important issues that were just under the surface and not being talked about.
Lisa and I have gone back and forth about this discussion, along with a handful of others that at some level we would like to recoil from as too ugly, too nasty, too hard. But to Lisa’s great credit she has always said the whole point is to tackle the hardest topics involving manhood, the stuff no one else will touch with a ten foot pole. If we are going to truly live up to our potential we have to be able withstand the kind of collective challenge that the last few weeks presents, and come out the other side of it stronger, smarter, and further along in a conversation about male goodness than we started.
You have given us an important insight in how we might accomplish that goal.
Thank you.
Can we have the AVM article that details H S’s published supplicating admiration for FactCheckMe – a feminist that is very involved in a feminist group that advocates for coercive eugenics to wipe out men /or masculinity and mass murder “as last resort”.
So that these fun feminists here will know what sort of people that they are coming out in support of.
And the behaviour on Twitter, were it non feminist men that were behaving like that, these mainstream feminists would be singing different tune altogether. This is their “equality”.
Joanne
I have been watching this tread unfold, and I wonder why some have not taken you at your word. You have said:
“We want to understand. I want you to tell me how what Hugo wrote hurt you. I want you to tell me how what Tom wrote on Twitter to the feminists hurt you. It hurt me, I’ll tell you right now with an open heart that it did.”
You have also stated that you are a personal friend of Hugo’s and speak to him often, so maybe you will be able to obtain some answers which other’s would welcome.
I will start with what Hugo has said publicly here.
In the thread titled “Women Rape Boys, Too” Hugo dismissed out of hand what had been written and stated:
“Hugo Schwyzer says:
November 21, 2011 at 5:51 pm
It is true that men are victimized by women. But to conflate physical abuse statistics with sexual abuse statistics is disingenuous at best, which is what Jacob does here with the stats from Childline.”
The Childline stats he refers to are titled ““Children talking to ChildLine about sexual abuse” – November 2009
That can be checked here – http://www.nspcc.org.uk/Inform/publications/casenotes/childline_casenotes_wda47964.html
Yet – Hugo states that someone is “Conflating” that document with “physical abuse” and even intimates that it is a common and even permanent activity by that person.
Hugo even uses that well know “Euphemism” “..disingenuous at best..” to indicate his view of the person is that they are worse than disingenuous – meaning “lacking in frankness, candor, or sincerity; falsely or hypocritically ingenuous; insincere”.
It is a well known piece of stopping language and a “Thought Terminating Cliché”. It’s use to misguide the unwary is well known and recognised.
Hugo’s error was pointed out to him many times, and he has been asked to address it, and yet some 42 days latter it still has not been addressed.
I even wrote to Hugo quite specifically asking him to address his errors, and even notified him privately of the request, and that request here on GMP still remains unanswered. You can view it on this link.
MediaHound says:
November 24, 2011 at 8:14 am
http://goodmenproject.com/featured-content/women-rape-boys-too/comment-page-2/#comment-69443
Hugo has been asked for it to be addressed, and yet it would appear that either noone was listening or a deaf ear was deliberately turned.
So why would anyone be hurt?
Maybe, Lack of courtesy – lack of Dignity – being accused of actions that have not occurred – being told that you are “lacking in frankness, candor, or sincerity; falsely or hypocritically ingenuous; insincere:” – having hours of work and research dismissed out of hand – people who have been victims of abuse being disrespected and dismissed – those who have spent time clarifying errors and providing corrections being treated with equal disinterest and disrespect….
It’s only 168 characters long – almost a tweet – and yet it has been very wounding and unpleasant for so many, and the lack of response to the corrections most disturbing!
If similar disrespect had been shown to the issue of female rape there would have been outcry, and yet it seems that ignoring one group and dismissing them is acceptable, and even voices that say please address this just get ignored?
If we start there I can follow up with so many other examples, and we can progress them one at a time.
You did state you wanted to hear what has been said and even done and why it has been hurtful. You want to hear people.
You did not say that you would respond or what would happen after the hearing had occured!
There has been an ongoing post mortem of Twittergate, and yet matters that predate it deserve equal attention – else all we have here is the Tom show and running commentary of what Tom is getting right or wrong. It stops being a Project and just becomes Cyber Theatre.
So we will have to wait and see if being heard is the same as being respected and errors and injustice actually being addressed?
Sorry Joanna, but I vehemently disagree!
In this case, 140 characters is way more than enough to say what needed to be said. As as matter of fact 52 characters is plenty.
It is NEVER acceptable to assume ALL men are guilty. I repeat! It is NEVER acceptable to assume ALL men are guilty.
That HUGO article has the sentiment of something posted to stormfront.org minus the juxtaposition of race.
It is NOT OK that way too many feminists can’t tell the difference between rational fear and paranoia. Seriously, do all of them clutch their purses at the sight of a minority male walking their direction? My question is not rhetorical. I really want to know that answer.
Ms. Magazine:
“The Good Men Project takes on the daunting task of introducing, unlocking and dismantling the so-called Men’s Rights Movement”
Tom Matlack = good cop
Well first… Ms. Magazine may have said that but I have never once heard Tom or Lisa say anything even close to this.
I’d love to ask Tom about this quote if he has never addressed it… Or Lisa Hickey?
Thank you Joanna!
Articles like yours are the reason why I love the GMP so much!
Regarding Twitter… I’m sure you know the famous Marshall McLuhan’s sentence “The media is the message”.
Well, in case of severely limited media like Twitter, I think we can say that
“The media wrecks the message!”
To those people believing that 140 characters are enough: they would be, if (and only if) the reader would get exactly what the writer meant.
And that doesn’t happen LOTS of times.
Communication is bloody hard, even when is face to face: just look at all the married couples bickering!
The first reason is: we don’t get exactly what the other means, but we get instead our interpretation of it. The less the data available (voice, tone, facial expression, body language, etc.), the easier that interpretation is wrong.
Yep, you right. That’s why we create Share Longer http://shlonger.com that helps easily and fast share large message on Twitter without any other registration. And you will get beautiful design and all for free.