Joanna Schroeder and David Byron thought they’d never get past their differences as commenters. Now, as friendly allies, they discuss how they got there.
JS: So, David, you and I have a pretty interesting history, don’t we?
DB: I have talked with feminists on-line for years, and been thrown off hundreds of feminist sites. I am always looking for someone I can talk to, but I didn’t think you were a good prospect at first.
JS: Yeah, maybe I wasn’t at first. I have always been open-minded, but I started off pretty righteous.
As far as I remember it, you and I first met online at The Good Men Project in the comments section of a piece I wrote called The (Quiet) FeministRevolution. I was pretty sure I had written something so deeply based in common sense, that the whole world would read it and say, “Oh wow, now I get it!”. I was truly flabbergasted at the reaction I received.
It was very naive and short-sighted of me.
My basic assertions in the piece were that people do acts of feminism which counter Rape Culture every day, probably without knowing it. I used two examples, one which was of my father explaining to me why he would’ve been cautious asking the woman whom we’d just seen on the side of the road in a snowstorm if she needed help, had I not been with him. And he told me not to get into cars with men I didn’t know.
DB: The article continued a discussion about women’s fear of men that had been going on at the Good Men Project for a little while and perhaps dating back to a flap in the atheist community on-line over “Elevatorgate”. Elevatorgate was a discussion about an incident where a woman was approached by a man in an elevator at an atheist conference.
It became a discussion about whether it is legitimate for women to treat the strange men they meet as if they were “potential rapists.” Although the Men’s Rights Movement usually talks about legal rights and not emotional issues, I have always seen the fear and suspicion levelled at men as a huge burden. Even if it is private feelings, it is profiling to think, “I know who the dangerous people are — they are the men”.
JS: At first you leveled some pretty strong opinions toward me and my piece, including “This piece should come with a warning: Not all women are like this!” And I basically totally ignored you and every other commenter who was saying anything negative. I wasn’t in a place yet in my development to hear past the anger to your issues.
Finally, you said something that truly shocked me. At first I laughed, and even posted it on my Facebook wall. Then I was confused and offended, and wondered, Even if you disagree, why would you throw so much hate at me?
This was it:
DavidByron: “…I come away from reading this very angry indeed at women. And it isn’t their fault. It’s not all women who are this disgusting and sexist. You know what? If it was me in the car and Joanna was the one stuck in the snow going to freeze to death I think I’d tell her. “Oh what? There’s no nice woman to save you today? You want to get rescued by the potential rapist do you? Oh I am sorry but I couldn’t possibly put you through that risk. No, no, you can stay out here waiting for a woman. I wouldn’t want to contribute to the rape culture.”
And then drive off.”
JS: So, tell us what happened there, David?
DB: I got angry with someone on the Internet. I didn’t know you and I didn’t respect you. Just another feminist attacking men. When trust falls below a bare minimum, there’s no give in the conversation. There’s no more energy to be patient. I don’t mean trust you with my bank account. I mean trust you to be a genuine participant in the conversation.
You replied asking, “Don’t you realize that you are talking to a human being?” But that was just what I had been trying to say to you. Just as you disliked being on the receiving end of anger, men don’t like being on the receiving end of fear. Even when you know it’s completely unwarranted, it can still stab at you.
JS: I think I understand that now, but your anger (and very loud distaste for me) overwhelmed my ability to take you seriously, which now I really regret.
And then something interesting happened in those comments… I was asked by my editor, Lisa Hickey, to pay attention to one man’s statement, a guy named Archy who was also royally peeved with me.
DB: I do recall thinking about Archy’s piece, “Well at least my explosion made everyone ELSE look moderate and sane. Maybe people will be able to get it from what he says.”
JS: Yeah, and it was when you said this that I started to pay attention:
DavidByron: “You think I LIKE beating up on people? It makes me feel like shit actually. But I know if I don’t do it nobody will. You could have said all that same stuff and you could have done it much nicer because it would have been from you. Instead it was left to me so I had to be the “asshole” (which is also in part because a man “attacking” a woman always looks like an asshole).
You think it’s easy to go around telling people they SUCK all the time?”
JS: And suddenly I was able to see the man behind what I saw as senseless rage. It took me a while, I had to read it through a few times and maybe I still thought you were a little overwhelming, but most importantly, what you were saying was no longer senseless. When you softened, I became able to hear you. Even though I still disagreed. It seemed very sad that you felt you had to revert to that.
DB: THAT was the comment you liked? That was awful. If there had been a delete button that would have gone. I guess it can help to take a step back sometimes and say who you are… that’s not always worked well for me. In the past that has got me called creepy.
JS: I didn’t think it was creepy. I thought it was very real. Yeah, it was intense, and sorta sad, but I guess it showed me that you weren’t a jerk, you were a guy who just wanted to be heard.
So, the thing I’ve been really curious about lately, and what I hope you can help me with, is looking the nature of human beings and our need to get others to agree with us, even when we intellectually may recognize that the ideological chasm is probably too large to bridge. Have you felt that?
The thing I’ve been really curious about lately is looking the nature of human beings and our need to get others to agree with us, even when we intellectually may recognize that the ideological chasm is probably too large to bridge.
|
DB: Of course. I spent years and years talking to feminists! At some point you start thinking about what’s going on underneath it all. You start trying to see patterns.
♦◊♦
JS: How do you now combat the fatigue that comes from engaging in a conversation with someone whom you know may never agree, like me? Do you still hold out hope that I will denounce feminism and find a new label to call myself?
DB: It was never about that to begin with. It started with wanting to really know what the other side to the story was. I don’t think you can have an assurance of your own views without understanding your opponents. But the conversations are gladiatorial. Everyone wants to “win.” I know a lot of people shrink from that but I think it is fun and a really good way to advance your knowledge.
For me it stops being fun when you lose respect for the other person. So sometimes I am hardest on the people I think the best of.
JS: Is there a part of you that still wants to leave me in the snow to freeze to death? 😉
DB: There never was. My subconscious offers up some weird stuff. Hey boss, what about this idea? Normally that sort of idea gets sent back. On that day I thought, “maybe that could work”. Uh…as a rhetorical device. But yeah, I was pretty angry.
♦◊♦
JS: Correct me if I’m wrong, but you don’t identify as a Men’s Rights Activist, right? Is there any label you’re more comfortable with?
DB: Anti-feminist. I studied the facts about feminism, and came to be a critic from the left after seeing sexism in the movement. MRAs have a more pragmatic angle. They often have specific issues affecting those near them. They see a common enemy in feminism.
JS: Do you see any way in which feminists can move forward with guys who are against feminism, like you?
DB: I think most feminists don’t want to move forward with their critics. It’s an odd experience for me to feel like most of the feminists here do. Maybe it is because the web site is about men.
JS: Yeah, so we are more likely to be Pro-man feminists at the Good Men Project because otherwise we’d be off with others who hold exactly the same beliefs and never question us. But I don’t think that’s how anything changes. Things change when your opponents start to hear your voice, and you hear theirs.
DB: Also, this feminist founded men’s site is ‘neutral territory’. When I talk to feminists on a regular feminist site they see me as an invading enemy. That’s not a good way to start a conversation.
JS: Definitely not. And I know that some men think feminists like myself are on GMP just to attack them, and sometimes no matter what I do, I feel I cannot bridge that chasm between me and them. Every once in a while that really bums me out, but most of the time I think of the greater good we’re doing and I’m reassured that even if my individual voice doesn’t make a difference, our project as a whole does.
For instance, I wish you guys could’ve heard the good stuff I was saying about men in my piece. I wished you could’ve heard me say that every day men respect me, and that combats Rape Culture, and teaches me to trust men. I used my new friend Jacob, who was once a stranger in a restaurant, as an example.
DB: See, you said “rape culture” and everyone went into fight mode. Well I know I did. You were writing a non-combative piece so you thought, but from the other point of view you were sneaking in a big argument about male guilt. If you’d actually had ten lines going on about male guilt in that article you’d have seen it and said “that bit feels wrong there”, but because it’s just a short phrase you don’t see it.
JS: Do you think that I’m totally off-base in wishing people were more able to hear the complexities of human discussion, even from their adversaries? Is it impossible?
DB: Feminists and MRAs often have two different goals in the same conversation. The feminists want to move forward with the “greater good” as you say. MRAs do too but there’s a problem. They don’t trust you. Now both sides have given a little to get here. Any feminist becoming a regular at a site about men has split away from the “whatabouttehmenz” and “mansplaining” attitude. Any MRA who comes here is taking a risk in supporting a feminist founded web site.
But the trust isn’t a symmetrical problem. The feminists seem to think, “Well we’re talking about men’s issues here not women’s — doesn’t that show I’m one of the good guys? Why can’t the MRAs quit being so contentious and, well, … can’t we all just get along?”
JS: Yeah, why are they so quick to hate us?
DB: The MRAs have to move more slowly because they see that the feminists have a lot of baggage. Wait a second, they say, we need to talk about that baggage first. You want to talk about helping men? That’s fine but from our point of view the biggest single problem facing men is feminism itself. Now here you are saying you want to help, but also saying you’re a feminist. So how are we supposed to react to that?
JS: Why can’t we be both?
DB: This is where the disconnect happens. The feminists don’t recognise themselves in that image. As you say they don’t see any contradiction between helping men and their feminism. They either deny there is a bad feminism or say it is not important. “Oh no! You’re just wrong! Feminism means equality!”
Dismissing concerns doesn’t build trust. The concerns are still there but now you’ve shown that you won’t take them seriously. The MRAs are trying to figure out if you really are different so they are looking for the usual signs. And you are giving off those signs because there’s a lot of jargon within the feminist movement. Words like “patriarchy” and “male privilege” that trigger responses.
Dismissing concerns doesn’t build trust. The concerns are still there but now you’ve shown that you won’t take them seriously. The MRAs are trying to figure out if you really are different so they are looking for the usual signs. And you are giving off those signs because there’s a lot of jargon within the feminist movement. Words like “patriarchy” and “male privilege” that trigger responses.
|
JS: But those are just words, and you can say they trigger the MRAs into thinking we are all the same, but as far as I can tell, there isn’t another good way to convey the idea of privilege without using the term. If I made up a word for it… Say… Shit that’s hard to do… Say, we call it Natural Havey-ness (one of the dumber things I have ever said and it took me ten minutes to think of, good lord), it still means the same thing. But maybe not the “jargon” that sets people off?
Why can’t so many people discuss their Havey-ness? Do they really think there is no way, in any way, that society favors them? Isn’t everyone favored by some group in some way? If we take out the term, does it make it easier to discuss it?
DB: Well if you want to talk “politics” and have an argument about the merits of feminism then go for it. You’ll be sure to find people willing to debate. I’d say it is still a good idea to get rid of jargon, because it helps to clear your thoughts if you have to explain what you mean.
But for the discussions that you don’t want turned into a fight, using a piece of jargon or a feminist slogan like “women earn less than men”, is like a debate argument compacted into a couple of words. It might be only a couple of words to you, but you are making very specific claims and shouldn’t be surprised if the other side says, well we get to argue back now, right? You started it.
JS: So what you’re saying is that when we make statements that we think reflect given “truths” like “white male privilege” or “rape culture”, we’re actually raising entire arguments with just a couple words?
I never thought of it that way. I can see now why it triggers whole attacks. To others, these aren’t simple truths.
DB: The feminists feel under attack by a lot of angry sounding people. They think, this is exhausting. I am really trying here, and I never get any credit. This is hopeless. The MRAs react with, See? We were right to be suspicious. You say you are different but you sound just the same to us.
JS: And this is because of that jargon? I hate to say “trigger words” but they do seem to function like that.
DB: I think they are a big part of the problem. More than compact arguments, they are familiar patterns in our brains. The brain says, I recognize this situation. Seen it before many times. This is an argument about X. I should say Y. People can get extremely good about seeing one side of the story. I think that’s fine in a debate. I want to hear the best argument from the other side. I want you to be an expert on your point of view. But if you don’t want to argue politics that triggering gets in the way.
JS: And anti-feminists need to stay away from saying things about “all feminists” because that frustrates us just the same way.
DB: Fair enough.
There’s a flip side to the MRAs caution about trust. They need to give credit when it is due. It is really tough to be accused all the time. To constantly have to prove you’re not one of the bad feminists. At some point you have to say, OK well we still disagree on a LOT. But I respect you. I trust you. And yes, that goes both ways but it’s much more important for the MRAs to say it. They are the ones starting from, I don’t trust you. You have to prove yourself to me before we can really talk.
You and I managed to get to that point (although I wouldn’t recommend the path we took).
JS: So what does this all come down to? I mean, is it really as simple as respecting one another and being willing to be challenged?
DB: What? You think I know the answers? 🙂
—
photo: mikemol / flickr
Really great conversation. Frankly I’m amazed and dumbfounded by the things that feminists say on here.
“I never thought of it that way. I can see now why it triggers whole attacks. To others, these aren’t simple truths.”
Correct. As a feminist you hold many things as self-evident truths that we don’t believe exist at all based on factual data.
What I see happening a lot on GMP and other places where there are debates about gender is a struggle to monopolize a representative position, like people fighting over who gets to carry the flag or use the name _____. Insert whatever word you want into the blank: feminist, men’s rights activist, good father, good mother, real man, average woman. There’s this constant bickering over who is really authentic or really representative and bickering over what counts and what doesn’t. As if carrying the flag is the most important role in a complex, fluid situation, as if the only reason… Read more »
I tend to think that the best way to arrive at the truth is to be as objective as possible. To be as objective as possible, I have to recognize that I could be wrong. I have to be willing to put my assertions to some kind of test, and the test has to have the theoretical possibility of having a “yes” or “no” or “maybe” outcome. I believe that’s called “falsifiability” – if I refuse to accept anything that would disprove my assertion, then I am not being rational or objective or seeking the truth collaboratively. If I say… Read more »
Funny, I was wrong once as well. I think it was in 2007, and I didn’t remember the new Daylight Savings Time dates had gone into effect, so I was off by an hour in telling someone the time. I hope neither of us disagrees with the other, because it may lead to catastrophe. I have an easy way out of this though: if you just agree now that I’m always right, we’ll both be right from here on out.
Also, to be a bit more precise, a falsifiable statement is one that can be shown to be true or – more importantly – false. I could, for example, make the claim that there is an invisible pink unicorn in my living room at this very moment, and that unicorn has properties such that it can’t be detected by any of our scientific methods. The only way you can perceive the invisible pink unicorn is by believing in its existence, at which point it will make its presence known to you. For most purposes, statements that aren’t falsifiable can be… Read more »
Joanna. I don’t have to be afraid of you suing me. If I see you by the side of the road, I’ll stop.
Hell’s bells. I waited for three hours in a blizzard with a woman in the car. Three mortal hours while the infjury accidents were taken care of and the wrecker and the cop could get to us. At night. Fortunately, my wife was with me/us.
For you, I’ll make an exception. I might, anyway. But if I do, I’ll be taking a risk.
Lisa:
Joanna never meant to imply YOU had used those words, I’ve just been called that (and plenty of other things) publicly — all for helping to start a conversation about “good” and “men”. It’s been eye-opening.
Oh I’m certain she didn’t mean me specifically. Its just that she was talking about pain and anger in that comment I thought it a good chance to comment on it but I didn’t want to just cut that part out so I figured I needed to say something towards it.
Julie. I do help people, the woman in the rain being the first exception I can think of. Had my wife been with me, I’d have stopped. The time I didn’t have witnesses was sort of an accident. I stopped to help a woman with a flat tire. Found the nice, new, shiny, unused spare had large holes in it. Soft plugs in the sidewall. You don’t put soft plugs in the sidewall. Took it and her to a service station to see if the thing would hold air. Blew the soft plugs all over. Took her to a cut-rate… Read more »
“Women can stop false rape”????
Nah, not gonna happen!
Interesting that you said you’d stop if your wife were in the car. It is so evocative of my story about my father stopping because I was in the car. DB doesn’t want people being unjustly afraid, well neither do I? Why do you get to discriminate and I don’t? You don’t have to be afraid of me suing you if you let me in your car when I need help. So don’t assume I will. That’s FEAR CULTURE and we should rename it all, maybe. Fear of being raped, fear of being physically hurt, fear of being sued, fear… Read more »
And no, “Women can stop false rape” but the false claims of rape lead to disbelief of actual real rape victims. I think that may be what bothers people when it comes to feminists talking about false rape claims. While false rape claims do in fact lead to a desbelief of actual claims of rape there seems to be a skipping over other victims with that line of thought. When talking about the victims of crimes most people talk about the actual victims of crimes. But when it comes to false claims of rape, a crime in itself, instead of… Read more »
I have to agree with Danny here. When talking about false rape, I’ve seen some feminists simply cry victim again and try derail the conversation by saying well “if we stop rape we’ll stop false rape claims”, or real rape is more important to deal with, laws punishing false-rape accusers will scare off real victims, etc. If a law to punish false-accusers was brought in, even real victims who may not get justice in court should not be punished by that law. But which is better, potentially scare off a victim or actually put in place measures to discourage false… Read more »
Archy: …laws punishing false-rape accusers will scare off real victims, etc. Which is an odd belief. What other crime is there were people would advocate to not punish false accusers under the idea that punishing them would scare off victims of the crime said person is being falsely accused of? Do we stop criminalizing insurance fraud because people would be scared to enact their insurance poilicies when they really need it? … if they are guilty then go all out, name n shame them. And maybe this is the revenge in my talking but when that happens and its later… Read more »
Actually falsely accusing someone of rape isn’t a crime is it? At best – and its really REALLY rare this happens – someone might be charged with wasting police time which is pretty much a slap on the wrist. Since the effects of false rape accusations are far worse than actual rape that’s a bit messed up.
You could easily sue the person who accused you for defamation of character or for slander/libel. Thing is, imagine the evidence they’d have to have to charge you with an actual crime for false accusation… Which is GOOD because there are probably many cases where you can’t prove rape, but that doesn’t mean it was a false accusation. If that immediately became a crime, there would be a lot of women in jail for not being able to “prove” it. Having to show evidence that there was an actual intent to commit a crime against a person by falsely accusing… Read more »
“You could easily sue the person who accused you for defamation of character or for slander/libel. ” Hard to do that from prison. There are men in prison right now for the crime of rape that they did not commit. The False Rape Society documents new cases on a regular basis. Week after week. Month after month. Year after year. Civil suits don’t seem to be much of a factor. Maybe you should learn something before making assumptions? What’s more, in prison there is a ranking, a hierarchy of prisoners. Guess what group ranks very, very low? Rapists. What do… Read more »
I don’t believe Joanna was talking about wrongfully convicted people falsely accused of rape bringing a civil action; I believe she was talking about an allegation that was shown to be false (not merely unsuccessfully prosecuted) exposing the accuser to civil suit in addition to criminal charges of filing a false police report.
“I believe she was talking about an allegation that was shown to be false (not merely unsuccessfully prosecuted) exposing the accuser to civil suit in addition to criminal charges of filing a false police report.” It might be possible in theory. But it will never happen. The majority of false rape accusations are not even charged in criminal court with filing a false police report. Of course, filing a false police report is a misdemeanor at most anyway. So a woman who is angry, or jealous, or bored, or for some other reason runs essentially no risk in a deliberately… Read more »
It might be possible in theory. But it will never happen. Not true. It happened to my brother, his (ex) wife went to jail for it. The majority of false rape accusations are not even charged in criminal court with filing a false police report. Possibly true, but I suspect this is conjecture on your part. Of course, filing a false police report is a misdemeanor at most anyway. Also not true – the severity of the charge often matches the nature of the false report and the extent to which it hindered the peace officer. If you file a… Read more »
Go to the False Rape Society and see for yourself how many cases there are, and what kinds of wrist slaps false rape accusers receive as “punishment”, if they receive any punishment at all. I offer support for my claims. Feminists have no problem with false rape, therefore they have no problem with innocent men in prison. There is no difference. You can pretend there is, but there is no difference. Therefore feminism supports the rape of men. Given the way feminists have dehumanized men for 30 or 40 years, I suppose it should not be a surprise. But do… Read more »
Why don’t you give some more details about your brother’s ex-wife.
I don’t want to give too many details (it’s not my story to tell) but it seems like an all too famliar story of divorce and a custody battle. She called police one day and said he beat and raped her. He was arrested and spent the next two days in jail, but his alibi was solid (wasn’t even in the state at the time). The judge and police were not amused. She got 5 years, served 3.
Feminists have no problem with false rape, therefore they have no problem with innocent men in prison. There is no difference. You can pretend there is, but there is no difference. Therefore feminism supports the rape of men. This is the allegation you haven’t supported – that feminists have no problem with false rape claims. It may not be their issue, but that’s not saying the same thing as they are fine with it. I must admit, it’s tiring to engage with claims that are both repugnant and logically incoherent. I don’t know where all of your pain and anger… Read more »
Of course it varies by country, state, and locality but it is a crime. Usually the charge is “filing a false police report,” although there are other statutes that can be brought to bear. Because it’s a false report the accuser is also exposed to civil action by the accused in most jurisdictions.
Please explain what you mean when you say the effects of a false report are far worse than those of actual rape. What effects do you mean, and how are the qualitatively or quantitatively worse?
Me? If I said that, about the false report being worse than rape, I mis spoke, but I think you’re talking about someone else… just not seeing it now. Very little is worse than rape. Even false accusation, though that has horrible fall-outs. I know most of you aren’t fans of Hugo Schwyzer but he’s going through HELL and being called a rapist based upon that article “The Accidental Rapist” (you can find it here, I believe) where he admitted something I think most of us would NOT call rape. His whole career is being yanked from him… That movement… Read more »
No, I was replying to DB, as were you it appears, only your reply beat mine by 3 minutes. DB makes the following claim that I would request he clarify: Since the effects of false rape accusations are far worse than actual rape that’s a bit messed up. Does he mean a false rape accusation that is prosecuted successfully (i.e. an innocent person is in prison) or a false rape accusation that was exposed as a falsehood but nonetheless has had terrible consequences for the accused. Are these “effects” worse for the individual who was falsely accused, for men and/or… Read more »
I meant just being accused even without the police getting involved, let alone being convicted. Obviously if the false accusation leads to a conviction that is thousands of times worse than a rape. No I just meant the usual false rape accusation case which doesn’t even get to the police (and therefore is no sort of crime at all, even in theory). Some girl spreading it about that a guy raped her. Why worse? Well the immediate emotional and traumatic impact seems much the same as with rape. There’s the same potential for violence to the victim but in rape… Read more »
Hugo is going through the same thing that thousands of other men have gone through, going back over 25 years. Go to the False Rape Society and see for yourself. This is feminism at work. If you call yourself a feminist, then you are part of the machine that is grinding up Hugo. You don’t like that, obviously, but that is the reality. The laws that are being brought to bear on him were passed by feminists just like you, with support of feminists just like you. You can say “Oh, I didn’t mean for this to happen” but that… Read more »
I really don’t like comparing crimes, rape is bad, false rape accusations are bad, psychological abuse is bad, physical abuse is bad. There’s no black and white with violent crimes, they are horrible to commit but I object when people try to paint rape as the worst thing in existence, I’m sure the torture prisoners of war faced is extremely damaging and quite a few other crimes are. A violent beating will most likely have a severe impact on your life, a rape will most likely have a severe impact on your life, being screwed over in a divorce can… Read more »
@ archy “Why do we need to paint one worse than the other? Is a gun held to your head and someone is saying “choose the violence that will be inflicted on you” and no one chooses rape but instead a beating? ” It is interesting when people attempt to use “Thought Experiments” with none linear – none mechanistic systems. Einstein was able to use “Thought Experiments” in looking at light and relativity, because the systems were fixed and easy to explain – they are linear and mechanistic. When you attempt to apply the same rational ways to none linear… Read more »
“Why do we need to paint one worse than the other?”
Because we were discussing sentencing.
Joanna – it is not a single article or net post that have caused many to question the conduct, attitudes and history of one person.
There are many incidents, many issues, many articles, the ways matters have been and are viewed by that person, many revisions to change what has been said by that person, many versions and narrations of that person’s life, many omissions, many additions, many disclosures of other people’s lives and privacy by that person….
And many voices asking on point questions about all the issues that are not feminist.
A false accusation of any crime is equal to the actual crime committed. Accusing someone of murder is just as bad as murdering someone. Accusing someone of rape is just as bad as raping them. Because then they face the punishment equal to a crime they did not commit, by your hand.
To claim that falsely accusing someone of rape isn’t as bad as raping someone is selfish and shortsighted. It doesn’t take into account the punishment that someone will endure based on your false allegation. It assumes that punishment isn’t equal to the crime.
@ Joanna – The “YOU Can Stop Rape” slogan is infinitely better than “Men Can Stop Rape” and beyond infinitely better than “Only Men Can Stop Rape”. Unfortunately, due to mismanagement of message, advertising and bad slogan writing by what I would charitably refer to as well meaning amateurs, the “YOU Can Stop Rape” message was damaged before it was even adopted. If it had arrived first, as It unquestionably should have done, it would not have engendered a Gender Polarity, which anyone with any concept of basic advertising and marketing knows is a high value and fixed USP –… Read more »
Yes it’s about the same from the point of view of the offender. It’s different from the point of view of the victim because of the volume of incidents. Just about no man is going around thinking like Richard, and none are told to. It seems like most women seem to think that way and it is a position that is promoted. While you could argue that false rape accusations are bad for prosecuting rape, the feminist movement has embraced exactly the opposite strategy of never ever admitting that false rapes happen or that they are a significant issue. Not… Read more »
David – it’s not even that false rape claims are not addressed, it’s that Situational False Rape Claims are not addressed, but then again that would be the thin edge of the wedge on some of the Tropes being reduced or debunked. I still find the whole US focus around rape quite bizzare. It’s the “Rape Is Rape” banner being applied even when people have admitted that they made false report in an attempt to avoid other Social Pressures and Conditions. But then, again when emotions are involved reason does go out of the window and both deafness and irrationality… Read more »
It’s nice that JS and DB have started to communicate. But that’s an issue internal to the Project. What about leaving somebody to freeze? That’s the point. I’ve helped women in various circumstances and, now that I think about it, there have always been witnesses, except in one case where I was so charged up with adrenalin–God bless the age of all balls and no judgment–that i didn’t and didn’t think about it until later. I have, recently, left a woman walking down the road in sheeting rain in a business suit. Didn’t even slow down. Saw my life and… Read more »
I’m replying to you Richard, but this comment isn’t really directed at you, if that makes sense. It’s general. I don’t suppose anyone is required to help a stuck person on the side of the road, though some states do have Good Samaritan laws on the books. And many of us pass people by every day that we see on the side of the road. I suppose the middle ground would be to call the police and alert them that a person is broken down, in trouble etc and will need a tow. That way one doesn’t have to risk… Read more »
YES Julie! The other day my husband and two little boys and I were walking through the Target parking lot. Two girls, probably 17 or 19 were struggling to change a flat. I said, “We should help them.” Which of course meant *he* should help them and I would stand around and make jokes and observations about society as a whole, as is my role in this relationship 😉 … Anyway so my husband was helping and teaching my kids what he was doing and everything. It was just so NOT a big deal. He would’ve done it even if… Read more »
It appears we’ve convinced ourselves we have more control than we actually have. I think that illusion of control is really just another manifestation of fear; a belief that through small behaviors we can drastically change our exposure to harm. In turn, that leads us to be distrustful of each other, and to treat each other as potential threats. This might seem like the right decision for ourselves, and for our families. I suspect that it actually does much more harm and undermines our goals for security. It creates a mentality of “us vs. the world” and prevents us from… Read more »
Joanna: I hope that they are assessing situations based upon all factors, sex being just a small one (if any at all), because a woman who seemed unstable or shifty could’ve been way worse, out to rob them, hurt them, and/or steal their car. And to trust the woman over this man with a family would be stupid. Unfortunately people do just that. And this is now you end up with: 1. Male criminials that have female accomplices sometimes for the express purpose of lowering the defenses of potential victims. 2. People literally think that women simply cannot commit certain… Read more »
I thought the point Richard made was that men should avoid helping women because of the risk of them subsequently suffering from some sort of false accusation of sexual misconduct.
I am yet to come across a single characteristic that distinguishes feminists from non-feminists.
Why some people take the label of feminism? What does it mean to them?
An interest in women’s rights is common to all feminists. Whether they’re willing to fight for men’s rights or not is another question.
Sometimes I feel that even women’s rights are not common to all feminists, they are just trying to create some feminist utopia.
Rapses, what does this “feminist utopia” look like in your conjecture?
@Joanna To further my argument on feminist’s complete contempt for women’s rights and attempt to create a feminist utopia, I would like to highlight a famous quote by very prominent feminist Simone de Beauvoir. “No woman should be authorized to stay at home to raise her children. Society should be totally different. Women should not have that choice, precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one.” Examining the closely the words used in this quote, it hardly seems to be advocating for more choices for women. The tone of this quote is rather… Read more »
Lol. I am familiar with that quote as well. It’s very damning and is impossible to spin though feminists try anyway.
She was a reactionary. I’ve never said, “Yes! I agree with de Beauvoir!” it’s almost an historical text at this point. Has almost no relevance in the movement except as history now.
The MRM is young, still, and there will be people in a generation or two who denounce what the earliest founders were doing. Hell, there are people denouncing what the founders are doing NOW. That doesn’t discredit a movement.
@Joanna
If I try a bit harder I can cite hundreds of quotes from several prominent feminist leaders and theorists which are not only anti-men but also hostile to women and children, oxymoron and nonsensical. Probably, you would disagree with them and still stick with feminism. Therefore, I request you to kindly provide me with a clear and definite boundary separating feminism and non-feminism.
“The MRM is young, still, and there will be people in a generation or two who denounce what the earliest founders were doing. Hell, there are people denouncing what the founders are doing NOW. That doesn’t discredit a movement.”
Tell that to that “boobs” guy
‘JS: And anti-feminists need to stay away from saying things about “all feminists” because that frustrates us just the same way.’
David said ‘fair enough’ to that point.
But I don’t think it is fair enough. I am an anti-feminist because I disagree with the whole of feminism. If I didn’t, I would call myself a feminist and just explain what kind. So if I disagree with the whole of feminism I also disagree with ‘all feminists’ and feel able to generalise about them and their views.
There’s the thing though, Warren Farrell calls himself a feminist, do you disagree with all of his arguments? Alot of them are the same as yours. I know (a few) feminists who absolutely accept male oppression and female privilege. Presumably you don’t disagree with them?
Feminist has become such an ambiguous term that it can mean anything and anybody can start calling herself/himself a feminist which muddles the discussion over feminism.
I don’t think Farrell identifies as a feminist anymore. I’d be surprised if he did. If he does then I am still not a feminist I think he is misguided to use that term in the name of gender equality and men’s ‘rights’
QRG:
What “whole” of feminism do you disagree with?
What’s so funny about being online is that I feel I must qualify this question by saying “I”m seriously asking, not leading”…
But I am genuinely curious.
I disagree that women’s ‘rights’ need to be prioritised over men’s. So I disagree with the ‘fem’ prefix to ‘feminism’.
I disagree that there is such a thing as ‘patriarchy’
I disagree that women suffer more violence in society than men.
I disagree that the gender pay gap, what’s left of it, is the result of sexism any more than people’s individual choices in life.
I disagree that men need to always be answerable to feminism’s version of them.
That is a good list and really interesting. And I totally agree about the gap in hiring and the way that people’s choices are now affecting outcomes. I do believe there is still a patriarchal system in place that impacts women now, but I think that is changing and will change even more, until Patriarchy is extinct. And soon. Due to feminism. I agree that men’s rights shouldn’t be deprioritized. I think the violence numbers are very complicated, probably beyond our understanding. All issues of violence need to be addressed equally, but one reason women can speak about battering and… Read more »
Should be both/and as different cancers behave/are caused by/develop in different ways.
Similar to different oppressions.
I think “patriarchy” is a bad term but if you mean by that the Victorian era gender roles then IMO feminism isn’t and never did try to eliminate them but instead used them and enhanced them to achieve its goals. As a result I would say feminism has become the face of “patriarchy” as you put it. Again it’s a terrible term.
I think patriarchy was a useful term that has since become dilute to the point of being nearly meaningless. But if we narrow its scope a bit to describe a society organized around the principle of men (specifically white, land-holding men) holding power to the near exclusion of all others, I do think it apropos. Over time that power imbalance has shrunk (due in no small part to the efforts of early feminists), and comparatively the privileges men have today are but shadows of what they once were. While some privileges remain, most that do appear to be largely due… Read more »
What “privileges remain”?
You understand how insulting that is to keep up with that?
The word “patriarchy” is a good way to spread hatred and division between men and women, which presumably is why it is in use by feminists so much, but if you want equality and peace you’d never use it because it’s a taunt at men and an invitation towards women to hate men.
As with many terms that come out of academia, their colloquial use becomes problematic. Things like “patriarchy” and “male gaze” have specific and valid meanings in a gender theory class, but become weaponized when used in civil discourse. Instead of discussing the ways societies might be organized, and how our own has changed, the terms are often used to shut down an argument and dismiss the other’s point of view. “Check your privilege” is just a shorter way of saying, “fuck you, I’m not interested in understanding your point of view or helping you understand mine.” Do you deny that… Read more »
“patriarchy” doesn’t exist and never did exist. It’s like saying to me surely you must agree that the Jews run Hollywood? Well no I don’t agree and as I find it very offensive. It’s a term of hate created by feminists. Now you claimed that men had privileges so what are they? You claim society is organised around the needs of men and you keep making offensive remarks like that constantly so put up or shut up. I’m a man. Where’s my privilege? And don’t pull that rubbish about “oh patriarchy hurts men too”. A law like the one you… Read more »
I’m really not sure what Joanna likes about you, because I don’t see any good faith effort on your part to engage in dialog; all I see is you angrily asking me to defend something I didn’t write. Where did I say “patriarchy hurts men too?” Where did I say you have privilege? Quote my words back at me please. I’m trying to agree with you that the discourse is all wrong and you’re too busy erecting straw men to see it. Here’s what I did say. I said western civilization (that would be Europe and the US) was (past… Read more »
Okay men. First, I like you both very much. Nick, you’ve been blowing my mind lately with comments and this one is no exception. Second, I don’t always agree with David and in this case I deeply disagree about patriarchy. YES patriarchy exists! You can’t say it doesn’t exist, even if it just exists in one family or in other cultures, it is REAL! There are matriarchies, too. To call out patriarchy as never having existed is being extremist and not realistic. Oppression exists, this form of oppression did exist. No one’s saying women didn’t benefit from it to some… Read more »
Very nice list.
I kind of explained better what I meant by that in reply to the first comment on this article. I absolutely agree that you can characterise feminism as a movement. What’s more, feminists do it all the time. Every time they say feminism is about equality. But the other thing that’s going on here is that it is really hard to not take it personally. It’s really hard to NOT think “well if they think feminism is X then they are saying that I am X”. And it’s harder because, yes, there is some personal culpability, and yes, people are… Read more »
Two of the memories I had of my youth was watching a fragment of a seminar and reading an interview. One thing they had in common was that the person conducting the seminar was a woman as was the person being interviewed. The other thing they had in common was that they both brought up the concept of courage. They didn’t preach the false courage that my friends and I practiced. We often got into fights where we were significantly numerically disadvantaged. We were kick boxing, weight lifters. We knew we would win and usually did. We never lost as… Read more »
Wow, I love that point John!
“Dialogue starts with trust and trust starts with courage.”
Awesomeness:
“To this day, it irritates me to have forgotten about the guy behind me.” Something I felt from your comment is a sense of male competition, that drive to win ALWAYS, never lose, that losers are seen as weak and winners are seen as great. It’s a side note of course but it does illustrate that drive men face (women may face it too but I only know the male experience mostly) and how troubling it can be. That false sense of courage lands you getting into fights to prove your courage, am I right? That desire to prove yourself… Read more »
This was an excellent discussion. Congratulations to both participants, and especially to Joanna for recognizing and acknowledging that some assumptions are ‘baked into’ seemingly obvious and accepted “truths” which actually should be challenged and re-examined.
When I meet people who say “This is truth. If you don’t accept it, I cannot converse with you,” I feel that person doesn’t want a discussion, they just want a billboard to advertise their beliefs. If I believe something is true, I can hear everything David says and think about it. I’m not scared to think about it. Sometimes David’s right, and I think, “Man, I think David Byron is right!” and it’s a little scary. Other times I think, “I really disagree with David here.” But I still like him and respect him. He said the same thing,… Read more »
I find it interesting that there has been a tacit admission of what is referred to as Trigger words phrases exist and get used – which in fact are “Thought Terminating Clichés”. A thought-terminating cliché is a short, definitive-sounding expression thrown into a debate to end all discussion or thought about the topic of that debate. It is used in totalitarian societies to quell dissent and more generally to mask the fact that the person using it cannot mount an effective argument or effectively address the counter-argument. Some examples that play out on GMP … there is overwhelming evidence… …… Read more »
“The answer is easy – because it’s BIAS and PREJUDICE. I refer to those as Logical Vampires – the only way to deal with them involves Stakes, Crucifixes, Garlic – and best of all Very Bright Sunlight that turns it into Irredeemable Dust.”
Unfortunately some of the new breed merely sparkle in strong sunlight.
“Unfortunately some of the new breed merely sparkle in strong sunlight.”
You mean they have been allowed to breed – Damn!
Just when you think it’s safe to go back on the net….
Joanna and David, thanks for this, it was extraordinarily helpful to hear the back and forth between two people who started out as opposed to each others views. David, I remember when you first commented on my piece “When women fear men” — I was truly taken aback, almost startled by what seemed to me like viciousness. But once I calmed down, I realized you were just challenging me to think through my argument more coherently, and I deserved to be challenged. And then I had a turning point when you left the following comment: —- from DavidBryon This is… Read more »
I think there are a number of ways to challenge each other without being vicious. In any learning environment there are various ways to push, question, and disagree. Sometimes, a guns blazin’ kind of approach works for shock value. Sometimes it just shuts people down. Now, of course it depends on who you are trying to reach and who you are working with, but I don’t find the style easy to navigate. And I’m not saying anything here that I haven’t said to David myself. I don’t react well to snark. For various reasons, most of them entirely personal and… Read more »
Btw Julie, could you say something about your experience with using the experimental “NO HOSTILITY” flag that you were the first to use on your essay about sex the other week: https://goodmenproject.com/featured-content/where-are-the-lines-between-sex-and-rape/comment-page-1/#comments So basically my view here is that you were trying to have an article where folks would discuss a pretty loaded concept (“when does sex become rape”) , a concept that tends to be a triggering one, but you wanted to do so without triggering a big feminist / anti-feminist fight. At the time the thread started it seemed like a number of comments were going off the… Read more »
Well, except I don’t think selfish sex is the same thing as rape at all, but I get your meaning. I’d put “selfish” sex as one of the points on the continuum from Great Sex to Horrible Rape. Anyway, the no hostility tag was a new thing we’d come up with and it had been used prior to my piece I believe only without so much fanfare. Maybe no one noticed on the other pieces. I wanted to use it to see how it would work, to allow people to share stories about gray area sex without fear, and to… Read more »
Well Jargon does get in the way – but it can be managed! It just needs re-framing! P^)
Julie, David and I talked a bit about how your piece was derailed… And it was a bummer because both he and I thought it was an important piece. (Speaking for you again, DB, sorry for that). It’s just so hard when you have passionate commenters to keep the core issues out and just look at one aspect. But that one aspect, taken out of the context of oppression or “rape culture” or triggering words or jargon, is IMPORTANT for everyone, men and women, het, cis, LGBT, it doesn’t matter. This is the conversation that will change things, I think.… Read more »
I believe DB’s snark came from dealing with some feminists, various popular feminist sites are absolutely chock full of snark, even feminists I’ve seen comment here and other places drop in the snark. 1 side snarks another, they react. On a facebook group for feminism the majority of comments were a few serious discussions, quite a few trolls but worse was a hell of a lot of snarkyness by the feminists, they literally encouraged trolls, threw out privilege and whataboutthemenz, I found their attitude worse than the trolls because they were acting serious whist the trolls simply wanted to stir… Read more »
“I wonder if even the word “rape” itself has become so loaded down with meaning in the feminist debate that its worth avoiding.”
Oh, big time. Especially when it comes down to the “this is rape” “this is not rape” end of things. No matter where you draw the line in the gray area between sex and sexual assault you’re going to be alienating someone. Whether by denying someone’s victimhood or making false comparisons.
@Peter – words and their uses and how people react to them are just a symptom of conflict.
Conflict Comes In A Box Marked Handle With Care !
All you need is the right labelling – though round here, it may need to be multilingual and in a dozen dialects P^)
Joanna says in the article isn’t it a bit silly just avoiding one word for another, but I think it might help even if it was a direct substitute of “don’t say rape” and say something like “when does sex go from consensual to coercive”. That’s especially true of the date rape stuff Julie was talking about.
“Sexual violence” seems like a good term to me. The word “rape” implies to me, and I think most people, a certain level of severity that somehow doesn’t apply to more general words like “violence”: If you get beaten to a pulp and I get slapped in the face, we can both accurately say that we’ve experienced violence, and saying that doesn’t imply that one experience was the same as the other. Rape, on the other hand, only exists at one end of the scale. It feels a bit wrong to describe being pinched on the bum in a supermarket… Read more »
But — question. So in the comment David left for me, above, would that be one you said was “heated” or “snarky” or “argumentative”? Is there a different way he could have worded it and still be as effective? To me, the reason it worked was because he very clearly said to me, personally (he even called me out as “author”) “You are sexist.” And, according to our commenting policy, that’s not even allowed. But I don’t think I would have gotten the insight I did if wasn’t so clear about it. On the other hand — I tried to… Read more »
@ lisa – “If it was love, you sure have a funny way of showing it.”
I think that looking for Luv is a bit to much to ask. P^)
Respect comes first, then friendship and after that Luv can have it’s way and play!
Well — sort of. But that was the joke. (Of course, if you have to explain the joke, it’s never as funny.)
Truly though, MediaHound? — I like living my life love first. I just do. People can criticize me all they want, but I would rather love first than any other order of things.
@ Lisa – Oh Lisa I did get the Joke!
Did you get mine! Maybe it’s that Trans-Atlantic translation issue getting in the way! P^)
A common language that divides – but then again, I do remember witnessing a conversation between a New Yorker and an Angelino. I was thinking of contacting NASA – it just seemed so extra-terrestrial!
Language is so situational and environmental – and it can also create both too! P^)
As we say on this side of the pond “More Tea Vicar?”.
Actually, MediaHound, you’re one of the funniest people I know. 🙂
And yes, Lisa, how can you dialogue in an environment where people are amped up to hate you?
Joanna – there are specific and well known techniques to achieve just that. Lisa seems to follow them naturally which is a great asset. It may not be easy, but I keep seeing her walk the walk!
…It may be through fire – but then again, nothing is perfect! P^)
That’s a hard thing. I know I have been struggling with it lately. I want to communicate and collaborate, but I see the same conversations (even with the same people) over and over again in threads. As if, if I post once, I have to continue to post disclaimers and caveats prior to getting to my point. It takes a toll, on me at least.
What if there was just one disclaimer?
What do you mean? If I just said it once? I’d love to be known enough so that I could say it once. But it never seems to work that way. I should put it my sig line with a link to my personal mission statement 😉
Nah – your thinking too legalisticly and not practically!
Besides – having to start each post with a disclaimer and telling all readers they have to read your personal mission statement before reading and responding …..Imagine that at a Dinner Party or other social interaction?
Hell – you would only have masochists turning up and they would still bitch over the menu! P^)
Your idea would just stifle communication and not re-frame it!
Think Advertising and Impact!
Julie, I simply walk away from a conversation that I do not feel invited to. Why would you try to continue it if it is taking a toll? (I am asking that seriously and respectfully.)
“Julie, I simply walk away from a conversation that I do not feel invited to. Why would you try to continue it if it is taking a toll? (I am asking that seriously and respectfully.)”
That’s probably the exact same feeling men feel in feminist areas, just wanted to point that out to help understanding. I felt like that 99% of the time when on feminist sites.
Lisa, you do realized that you can be seen as making a joke about their FEELINGS toward the site, which makes them feel invalidated or that you don’t care, and looks like snark? Of course I don’t know the context around the comment, but it’s possibly what they would see. Sarcasm online can be real hit n miss, joking about feelings can end up in people really disliking you heaps, “whataboutthemenz” is a joke on a persons feelings and tries to invalidate their feelings, it’s why I find it extremely offensive and lost respect for people when it’s used. I… Read more »
Archy — I did realize that afterwards, but at the time I was just looking for ANY way into the conversation that I could find. I thought if I could just reflect the very words they were saying, and to make a point that I was OK with all that, that I had still shown up to the conversation, that maybe I would be invited in. And later, Paul Elam came on and said the exact same thing about the MRA’s losing trust, and so I apologized, as clearly as I could. We hadn’t framed that initial conversation right. But… Read more »
Thank-you, I had a similar experience and though most MRA’s were woman’hatin misogynistic assholes and then I got to know them more and saw most are individuals trying to fix the world’s wrongs against men, same with my initial experiences of feminism, thought they were man’hatin misandrist assholes and then got to know feminism more and saw most are individuals trying to fix the world’s wrongs against women! It’s terrible what some people say under the the banner of their movement and if you aren’t exposed to the good in that movement then many people would question that movement AS… Read more »
Exactly, Lisa, I thought DB’s comment about you only *seeing* sexism against women wasn’t mean or anything… It was just very specific and pointed. And I thought calling you “author” actually depersonalized it enough for you to see yourself outside yourself. That’s just me, though. And YES about feeling like a pinata! Now we know we need to think about those pile-ons and try to find a way to keep people engaged. As David says, if you don’t have anyone listening to you (for various reasons) then you’re just talking to people whom already agree with you. And that’s what… Read more »
Joanna – what David did was simply place the communication in a totally different “Frame Of Reference”.
He’s very good at it and it’s why I admire him so much!
There is an easy way to achieve that more consistently and directly!
Sometimes (verbal, online) battering is done for the benefit of the batterer? Because there is pain and anger and it needs to be released? Or its a point scoring thing. I hate it no matter what site I’m on.
I think this is where things wind up being filtered through our personal role at the site, frame of reference, and personal history. Because this “I felt as if David Byron wasn’t judging me as a person, and wasn’t judging our intentions here on GMP, but simply wanted me to see the world differently. And I’m always game to do that.” Didn’t always ring true from me from David. Mostly because the tone I read (meaning he might not have been mad or angry, I don’t know) read that way to me and I immediately didn’t see/hear the question “Will… Read more »
Yeah, and no matter how much I like DB now, there are moments when I am thinking, “dude, settle down”… Here’s the thing about our conversation above… He says the same thing. That’s the thing for me now, I hear him saying that, saying that he knows those moments are anger-propelled moments and even recently I’ve seen him say, “That came out 40% meaner than I meant it” (or some such). Sorry I’m talking about you like you’re not listening, DB. I just have to choose 3rd or 2nd person and run with it 😉 Also, that thing about making… Read more »
That’s fine. You’re really talking about me-the -GMP-commentator anyway. So as me-the-GMP-meta-analyzer I’m fine with that of course. That David Byron can sure be a bit of an ass sometimes! Still he can make good points……. 😉
Yeah – he can make some good points, can’t he?
He made a great one once about asses! P^)
Hahaha. Can’t help but like ya, DB.
Joanna, that’s exactly why I use the word curious so much, I genuinely am curious and don’t want to appear like a troll and get ignored. I’m here to learn, I spend quite a few hours a week here learning and building on my knowledge of humanity but between the groups even simple questions can be seen as trolling.
I do like you Archy. Not just for that, but because you do what you say, fella. I dig it.
Thank-you, it took a mental breakdown of epic proportions during the teenager to adult merge over to make me understand it all, the process of healing meant to question everything and learn all you can, drop past bitterness and have an open mind. I am utterly ashamed of what I did when younger, in school I was racist like most people here even though I had black friends and thought of them as 2 different groups (weird I know). I was sexist even though I had female friends, because I never questioned anything. I just believed what others said and… Read more »
Julie, thank you for giving us all that context. It is actually really important. I appreciate your being frank about the words being manipulative — trying to make other people think it was *their fault* for causing the anger. That was an important thing for me to hear, not just in this case, but I can see that I haven’t always understood *how* people can be emotionally manipulative. I’m sure I’ve done it myself. The way I was looking at it was different — I have been in jobs where I’ve been almost fired for being “too nice” (I’ve heard… Read more »
That’s a great point and I can see the point of a boss who needs that particular clarity. I prefer to find a path towards that because I am attuned to the manipulation around the anger (or what I feel is manipulation) but that is a great way for me to frame things. The thing about family of origin work is that it’s not just that “anger” per say is the (forgive me for this word) trigger. It’s possibly too long for me to go into here, but see…Media Hound has never tripped my switch. He says things all the… Read more »
Thing is, in life, we all have those “family of origin” triggers. My triggers are really weird – and are somewhat gender-based – I have a problem with men who dominate conversations and ignore social cues of when to stop talking and let others speak. It drives me INSANE. It makes me rageful. I have a trigger about women who do the exact same thing, but for some reason I’m very skilled at shutting women down when they do that. I realize this is a *sexist* thing, to react differently to a man than a woman, but our gut emotional… Read more »
“gut emotional reactions are not intellectual or highly developed” Oh hell yes. And it isn’t rational. Why men, why not women? Why race, why class? Because it’s all this mobile, mosaic four dimensional house of mirrors our little inner consciousness has developed. It takes time to untangle.
Such a profoundly important post and comment thread here. These contexts ARE our stories, they make us who we are, and they are quite possibly built into our guts and emotions, yeah?
Amazing stuff.
Yes, it is healing to recognize the shit we carry into every room we walk into. I remember being so afraid of saying, “this is my shit and it probably has nothing to do with you.” I’m still a little afraid of it. Our guts are so powerful, so primal. We need to listen to them and also question them. That is why so many times with commenters, I just want to say, “I know you’re angry, but you’re not angry at -me- so stop f’ing taking your hurt and anger out on me!”. But to be that wounded that… Read more »
But to be that wounded that you want to call someone like Lisa “lying feminist scum” in such a public forum speaks to an immense amount of pain within him. If a person can’t recognize that pain is the root of their anger, I can’t dialogue with them. While I’ve never called anyone “lying feminist scum” I will say that such hurtful remarks (public or private) do hint to a lot of pain. But recognizing that pain is not an easy process, especially if one had already given in to the hatred that pain can breed. And even after recognizing… Read more »
That post sounds great Danny, and very important.
Joanna never meant to imply YOU had used those words, I’ve just been called that (and plenty of other things) publicly — all for helping to start a conversation about “good” and “men”. It’s been eye-opening.
“I have a problem with men who dominate conversations and ignore social cues of when to stop talking and let others speak.” PLLLEASSEEE remember this: Not all humans have a good grasp of social cues. I don’t talk to people face to face much so I personally didn’t get much practice on social cues, I am learning much of it in my 20’s. It might appear as though I want to dominate the convo, but I have no desire to. I also grew up around sicilians who the rule seems to be, whoever speaks loudest get’s to speak at times,… Read more »
Just a funny story about MediaHound — MediaHound, you here? I’m talking about you. 🙂 MediaHound and I didn’t get off to such a great start. I ran a comment of his as a post, he called me out on some edits I had made, we had a back and forth of emails that quickly disintegrated into bad vibes on both sides. At that time, everyone was talking about how bad our commenters were, someone else raised a flag about MH, and all of a sudden I found myself saying “All hands on deck! Block MediaHound from the site!” It… Read more »
@ Lisa – what now? P^/ Can’t a Ludicrous Meddling Rational Archivist have even 20 minutes peace to dissect yet another study – check sample sizes – run all the stats through an already over worked server – and then call the fire services as me poor server expires in flames and frustration? P^) And – I have to say my favourite Voice Recognition Faux Pas was picked up by David – and it still makes me laugh! I still look at it and think “Serendipity”! https://goodmenproject.com/featured-content/patriarchy-messes-with-all-of-us/comment-page-1/#comment-95669 And me care about getting it right? 8^0 I remember Tom asking why… Read more »
Another difference is that I made a criticism about the text of your article and they were making criticism about the Good Men Project.
Good point David. I’m fine if someone attacks my ideas (nothing is lost by either holding onto ideas or letting go of them.) But The Good Men Project? That is something I value an extraordinary amount, and will fight for as hard as I can when needed.
Just to say, I don’t get behind this at all, and if I’ve done it to you I’m sorry. I’ve also definitely been there with feminist friends of mine.
I really value the contributions of yourself, Julie and Joanna. Its always intelligent discussion with a genuine desire to learn. So bloody rare in gender debates 🙂
I have always loved talking with you Peter. That’s the thing. Even in all the difficult conversation, I’ve found great value in you and David and Mediahound and others. I’ve learned about myself and about you all and men. That’s the goal.
Amen to that, Lisa, Julia, and Joanna (in no particular order, you all get the medal), are the 3 women here I consistently find engage in thoughtful and intelligent debate, and are actually willing to listen.
Damn straight. And they actually manage to do it without condescending remarks and then crying foul when they get a taste of the same.
Peter — you’ve been great! No worries!
This comment you quoted from David, above, Lisa, is such a great example of how we can talk to one another that allows for real growth.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vo9AH4vG2wA
GMP camping trip anyone?
… I’m having flash backs of wet canvas – no matches – and 2 weeks of rain at scout camp!
You really should warn people before putting such YouTube horrors on here! P^)
DB: Well if you want to talk “politics” and have an argument about the merits of feminism then go for it. You’ll be sure to find people willing to debate. I’d say it is still a good idea to get rid of jargon, because it helps to clear your thoughts if you have to explain what you mean. Yes the jargon can be very damaging and can get in the way of otherwise useful conversation. About a week ago I was talking to Renee from Womanist Musings. It was a long conversation on many subjects and at some point we… Read more »
She is of the mind that when it comes to sexism instituational power is a part of the very definition of it and from there makes the distinction that due to a lack of institutional power for women there is no such thing as female against male sexism Whenever you have to redefine a word to make a point, you’ve lost the argument. Sexism, like racism, is a form of prejudice. It involves pre-judging a person or group of people about something unrelated to their gender. Therefore it is entirely possible for a woman to be sexist, just as it… Read more »
After all the interactions with feminists both online and offline, and referring to dictionaries, I have come to the conclusion that feminism is simply doctrine that advocates for women and associating it with egalitarianism is just a camouflage. The central theme of feminism is to secure all rights and immunity for women at the cost of the others i.e. men. In past, when women had fewer legal rights in certain areas than men, feminism seemed like a struggle for equality, but with changed legal landscape where equality can be taken for granted, feminism is working to get women all advantages… Read more »
And I have a worse assessment of feminism than you do, but that is the movement as a whole. The problem is individual people in it seem to be good people and pretty naive about all that. And so how do you react to that? I know my first reaction is, “Really? You really don’t know anything about the dark side? Really???” I’m very suspicious. But I guess the way that works from the other side is a feminist who genuinely supports men comes here and gets whacked on the head with all that suspicion. So how do you handle… Read more »
No company is better than bad company.
If tomorrow I come to know that my friends were part of a criminal gang, I would immediately dissociate myself with them. Our responsibility is only to inform the good individuals in the movement about its dark and ugly side. After that whether they want to remain associated with the movement or not is their personal choice. In case they choose to remain associated with the movement, then they are part of the problem and not solution.
I’m not talking about the feminists who are “whatabouttehmen”, but the ones who (after some discussion) seem genuinely pro-male. You reach an impasse. They don’t want to drop the label “feminist” and you don’t want to concede anything to that label that might empower it. But what about on the personal level?
I appreciate individuals like Joanna and Julie (though we don’t agree on anything) who are trying to understand the male POV on feminism, but feminism is what it is. I am completely against the feminist doctrine which is based on false assumptions and lies.
Notice how they’re trying to understand the male POV only with regard to femenism as opposed to trying to understand the male POV intrinsically, as something independent of femenism.
Still it’s better than complete indifference towards the male POV altogether, something I’ve become quite used to from femenists and women in general. It’s as if they’re incapable of grasping that a male POV exists in the first place without seeing it in relation to something else.
This also underscores how hard it is to get the male POV on the table in feminist publications, this one is supposed to be about men, yet it is still a shit fight to get basic truths through the layers of feminist mythology, misandry and gender slopism.
Good post and wonderful comments, good wedding site.
Loved this, it explains the problems between the 2 quite good. When I read DB’s angry piece, I felt a similar anger at being prejudiced over being male, I could understand that anger but also realized that the anger itself triggered a response that kills the credibility as not many people will read past the snark. I’ve seen great arguments in a comment, but to see it I have to ignore misogyny, misandry, hatred n bitterness, just totally throw away the generalizing language they use and think of it in a case where SOME women do this, SOME men do… Read more »
There is an easy answer to those two – too! P^)
https://goodmenproject.com/ethics-values/heresy-rape-statistics-and-getting-away-from-the-poles/comment-page-1/#comment-93033
I’ve never seen a feminist become aware that their ideology might not be infallible truth like that.
I defend the generalizing of feminists.
For example, I can say all feminists support excluding male abuse victims and misandric ideology, and most feminists will think I’m generalizing and wrong, but ask the same feminists if they support VAWA and rape culture ideology, and they will generally say that they do.
Excellent example of a negative generalisation about feminists that can be backed up with evidence. I use it all the time. I point out that in the 90s I could find only one feminist web site on the net opposed to VAWA and that belonged to Wendy McElroy of Fox News, a dissident feminist that most feminists would say was no feminist at all. And that’s a fine thing to say in a debate / argument on the merits of feminism. But I think the point in the article is that if you are NOT having that sort of argument… Read more »
There is an easy answer to that!
https://goodmenproject.com/ethics-values/heresy-rape-statistics-and-getting-away-from-the-poles/comment-page-1/#comment-93033