Hugo Schwyzer wants us to have a good-faith discussion, and points out a place he thinks we could have done better.
The Twitter discussion in response to Tom Matlack’s Being a Dude is a Good Thing has been fascinating. Much of it is archived here, summarized in the unhelpfully titled “The Wrath of the Feminists.”
As a regular writer for Good Men Project (as well as editor of the Sex & Gender section), I’m in the difficult position of disagreeing profoundly with the founder of this site. That’s not new; I disagreed with Tom about his views on feminism before, even before I joined GMP. But this Twitter latest exchange he’s had with some great feminist writers (Jennifer Pozner and Amanda Marcotte) troubled me a great deal.
Even before this discussion, there’s been a lot of writing here (and elsewhere) about a “gender war.” The idea that men are “under attack” by women, feminists in particular, has been repeated uncritically. Even the title “the wrath of the feminists” reinforces the tired old trope of women’s rights activists as humorless harridans attacking well-meaning men. A familiar tack develops: man says something patently offensive, woman pushes back, man throws up his hands and feigns dismay at her “tone”, wondering what he did wrong “this time.”
I joined GMP knowing that it was not an explicitly feminist site. From the start, the writing here has reflected a wide variety of ideological views, some of which border on the reactionary and many on the overtly anti-feminist. That’s fine; I’m genuinely proud of what Tom Matlack and publisher Lisa Hickey have done to foster an open platform for a variety of views about masculinity. That willingness to present so many divergent voices is one of our greatest strengths.
But I don’t think there’s any room for dismissing or belittling one’s interlocutors, which is what I think has been done quite explicitly with the title “The Wrath of the Feminists.” There’s a long tradition in men’s writing of trying to defuse women’s anger. Legitimate criticism is called “man-bashing”, even though in real life there are no incidences of feminists physically assaulting anti-feminist men. The goal, intentional or not, seems to be to marginalize anyone who dares take what men say seriously enough to push back against it. You don’t want to be one of those scary feminists, do you?
I’m angry that a serious discussion got framed as “the wrath of the feminists,” a convenient way of absolving Tom of any responsibility for stoking this conflict. Obviously, in this discussion, I’m with Jenn Pozner, Shira Tarrant and Amanda Marcotte, long-time friends and allies in the struggle for gender justice. But even if I weren’t, I’d be frustrated at the way in which their thoughtful criticisms get dismissed as typical feminist overreaction.
We can and should disagree about what makes a “good man.” But I think we all have an obligation to take criticism seriously. One of the most pernicious aspects of the “myth of male weakness” is that men can’t handle being confronted with women’s anger. We either run away literally or figuratively, disconnecting with the television, the bottle, the computer screen. But we’re not little boys who will physically lash out in rage when challenged, nor can we be so fearful that we avoid the discussion by mocking those with whom we disagree.
“The Wrath of the Feminists” is a deeply unfair framing of good-faith discussion, and as a writer and editor for GMP, I want to publicly disassociate myself from it.
–
Image: uniraneal / Flickr
About Hugo Schwyzer
Well I am impressed. A couple of my posts have gone into moderation despite being just one-line comments because I used some “taking the word back” approach to a nasty feminist attack.
example: I ironically applauded one comment by saying it was a great piece of “mansplaining”
again: I just applauded Quiet Riot Girl for being a “gender traitor” (she was doing some great “mansplaining” too!)
Now can we add “rape culture” and “male privilege” to the list?
I’m definitely going to appropriate “rape culture” because if there’s one group that genuinely has a rape culture it is feminism. eg. Applauding what Lorena Bobbitt did was applauding sexual assault.
The great irony is that I was approving that comment to QRG just as you were claiming we were modding them. Sigh.
I have no idea why things wind up in mod, other than use of super rough language (c$nt, b$tch, @a@@hole, $fukc) but so long as they aren’t direct ad hominems I try to approve what I can when I’m online. If I’m not online….well if they wind up in mod, I guess I don’t have any recourse.
So, I’m offering you the chance to relax a little. I am not shutting you down. I wouldn’t know who was. I’ve seen loads of your comments over the past few days.
So basically I just have to suck up to you?
Alrighty then.
You’re a very smart woman and … Oh are those shoes new?
Hahahaha! I see I missed a great deal tonight! I may never get any sleep! Yes, I love these boots! So punk rock!
Why is anyone taking hugo seriously?
He constantly loses arguments his statistics are refuted, he clearly doesn’t have an ethical standing on which to argue since his past behaviour is clearly unethical. All the while claiming men are terrible and somehow all men are somehow to blame which seems to be more about absolving himself of his own bad behaviour than any unique insight.
He makes feminists look bad. Seriously he is constantly making feminists look bad why haven’t feminists tried to silence him i don’t know. The only people who agree with him seem to have this almost religious affirmation about him. Some feminists hate men as a group or class. He appears to be tolerated because he confirms that belief in there eyes. If my only views of men as a gender were gleaned from hugo’s writing i would hate men too.
At some point you just have to say Hugo you are wrong shut up and go away. You aren’t helping.
“Some feminists hate men as a group or class.” I know a lot of feminists, I know none of whom this is true. Most of us are married to, dating, or spend a lot of time around men, and we don’t hate them.
The whole point of most of feminism is to transcend this idea that to be feminine is to be one way and to be masculine is to be another. We are all just individuals and we should be allowed to experience our lives beyond the gender lines that were drawn in the dirt by previous generations.
So because those feminists date and marry men or spend a lot of time around them means they don’t hate men?
Will you be expanding this to say misogynists?
There are many men who feminists would call misogynists and they are also married and dating and spending a lot of time around women. Just because you don’t know them or notice them doesn’t mean they aren’t there. And i am not concluding that the feminists you know aren’t haters of men i am just suggesting they might be.
“The whole point of most of feminism i”
You don’t get to define all of feminism and neither do i. I suggested some feminists do hate men. Not all of them. The idea that feminism is so narrowly defined and restricted that it would be impossible for a feminist to hate men and retain the feminist description is absurd. Feminism is a broad church. There are many views that are often conflicting and they happen within feminism.
leta,
You’re a breathe of fresh air on an otherwise dull site that’s littered with dullards and evil propagandists. If the owners of this site have any brains they’ll make you an editor.
Don’t worry about the likes of Shinobi. Her ilk think their intellect and charisma isso high that they can fool people into believing their lies about feminism. They try to achieve this by writing grandiosely verbose fulminations and “manifestos” that are meant to bore and and confuse the viewer into thinking they must be right because they use big words and seem articulate. What they don’t know is that people like you and I aren’t fooled by it because we are well-read on the history of feminism, men and women. We can see through their nonsense because there is no substance to their propaganda. They just trot out the same old lies and myths without offering a shred of evidence to back them up. Their tactic might work on the regular lazy dolt who doesn’t know the truth, but it won’t work on you and I. That’s why they try to have people like you and I silence.
When a feminist gives out her definition of feminism she’s just diverting attention away from the fact that feminism has become the most evil, destructive hate movement since National Socialism was quashed in 1945.
Shinobi, if the basis of your your argument about heterosexual feminists is to be accepted, leta is 100% accurate. Feminists cannot claim a man is a misogynist (no matter what he says or does that suggest that he is) if he is heterosexual and happens to have ever dated women.
I believe that misandry and misogyny dqn only be established based on what a person says, does, and believes, not whether they are heterosexual or not.
The word “hate” has two meanings. One is the emotion and the other is the political attitude that you see in phrases like “hate group” or “hate crime”. Political hatred is a group action really. It takes a movement or cult or group. At the level of the individual the emotion that goes on is not usualy actual emotional hatred. That’s a real tough emotion to keep going for any length of time.
I would say the emotion most closely associated with political hate is contempt.
So “feminists [as a group] hate men” means “an individual feminist is likely to feel contempt towards men”.
However there is another point here which is that political hate is mostly an abstract attitude that is often not reflected in personal relationships. Often forming a close relationship with a member of the hated group is the way to break away from the hate group.
Here hugo says “One of the most pernicious aspects of the “myth of male weakness” is that men can’t handle being confronted with women’s anger. ”
Women were angry? So angry women and you were disagreeing with tom and somehow wrath is an inappropriate description?
Look hugo you might have trouble arguing with women, I don’t you know why? I tend to see them as equals. But if you are suggesting I can’t tolerate “angry women” I think that is ridiculous. I don’t argue with anyone who is angry. I expect both women and men who i disagree with to be rational, objective and in control. Women are capable of doing that because they are equal. The idea that we should tolerate female anger suggests women aren’t in control, that they can’t be rational and objective. Its silly and patronising. I refuse to lower the standard of debate because they happen to be women. Despite what you suggest just because a woman is angry doesn’t mean its justifiable or not. Women can be wrong or right. They are in the end just human.
I love arguing with angry women.
Where’s Julie?
Hi David! I was at rehearsal where I made dirty jokes and improvised being on a Victorian Steampunk Airship! Totally not angry!
“I made dirty jokes and improvised being on a Victorian Steampunk Airship!”
I hope it’s on YouTube! P^)
I’m quite sure some of it will be! I have the most delightful corset and bustle at the moment! I’ll write up a post about it on my own website. A very good time!
Corsets as well?
Ooh Hope you can breath! I used one once for Am Dram – Charlie’s Aunt. Absolute Hell!
My mind is still boggled at the image of a “Victorian Steampunk Airship”!
Charlie’s Aunt!!! LOVE!
We improvised longform narratives. We just did a Nancy Drew show, set in a school where mystery books come to life. This one is a steampunk serialized piece. 8 shows, one long improvised story set in an alternative US in the late 1800′s. The corset is so so pretty! I play a Duchess (of course).
Boggled squared!
>P^)
If you don’t mind me emailing you, I”ll send you links at some point when the photos are approved.
As with all things electronic I deal with them as inclination and whim decide!
E-myther© away! P^)
…and I do have to wonder what all this has to do with “Serious Discussion is Not “Wrath of Feminists”?
Boggling indeed!
Leta-
I’m afraid you have been totally misreading Hugo Schwyzer’s writing. His stance has always, ALWAYS been that it is not that Women Are this way, or Men Are that way, but that it is inaccurate and harmful societal/gender stereotypes and roles that have always told us, erroneously, that we are.
It is within, and because of, these gender roles that we criticize each other, name-call, and of course point fingers at All Men for being rapists. Schwyzer has never maintained that men are naturally bad, or naturally rapists. Where does he say that “men are terrible and somehow all men are somehow to blame”?? On the contrary, he criticizes society’s messages that tell us this. In the broad topic of street harassment, and how it enables violence and sexual assault, he holds men accountable, but not in a punitive or shaming way. He maintains that men, as humans, are better than the bro-dude gender roles that tell them that they are cavemen and may run the spectrum between cat-calling and sexually assaulting with impunity, because “boys will be boys.” He is CRITICIZING this type of thinking. Men are not horrible, terrible beings collectively to blame- they are adults and humans who are better than this.
There are contextual clues that you’re missing, even in the very lines that you cite. You say that “here hugo says “One of the most pernicious aspects of the “myth of male weakness” is that men can’t handle being confronted with women’s anger.”
You then go on to say that “women were angry? So angry women and you were disagreeing with tom and somehow wrath is an inappropriate description? Look hugo you might have trouble arguing with women, I don’t you (sic) know why? I tend to see them as equals.”
Here, Hugo is not saying that if a woman is criticizing harmful gender roles, and men who act according to them, she must be an angry feminist or a hen-pecking nag. He is saying that women and men are indeed rational beings, and both ought to be seen as such. He is criticizing the “angry feminist” stereotype, not engaging that stereotype. He is also saying that it is a myth that men can’t handle being confronted with criticism, not a reality. He is saying that adult men are perfectly capable of (and generally do) engaging in discussion and receiving criticism. He is saying that it is flawed messages of “proper gender behavior” that tell us that they can’t. Again, he is criticizing this.
No one can tell you that his past unethical behavior should or should not color the way you interpret his publications. Since he has never tried to hide it and seems to be fully accountable for it, I am inclined not to care. But regardless of that, I argue respectfully that you are indeed putting words in his mouth, and missing the point.
“ere, Hugo is not saying that if a woman is criticizing harmful gender roles, and men who act according to them, she must be an angry feminist or a hen-pecking nag. He is saying that women and men are indeed rational beings, and both ought to be seen as such. ”
No he is suggesting that the women were angry or were perceived to be angry and saying that men can handle women being angry (because men aren’t weak) so it should be tolerated. Which is why he is objecting to “wrath” as a description. He is saying that women being angry shouldn’t make a difference.
quote “The goal, intentional or not, seems to be to marginalise anyone who dares take what men say seriously enough to push back against it. You don’t want to be one of those scary feminists, do you?”
He is saying the anger in the feminist objectors was simply a push back against what “men” say. Men here have the original sin it seems.
this sentence says it well “man says something patently offensive, woman pushes back, man throws up his hands and feigns dismay at her “tone”, wondering what he did wrong “this time.””
His contention is that tom said something patently offensive, thus the feminist response was appropriate and shouldn’t count as inappropriately angry. Tom has objected to this and says what he said was not objectively offensive and the attacks he has received were disproportionate.
The idea is that his theory of “the myth of male weakness” suggests that the only reason people objected to women being angry is because men might react to them in anger as well and become uncontrollable. He is suggesting tom is simply saying “they are angry i can’t do anything i win”. The idea that the feminist response was disproportionate never enters hugos thoughts.
“There’s a long tradition in men’s writing of trying to defuse women’s anger. Legitimate criticism is called “man-bashing”, even though in real life there are no incidences of feminists physically assaulting anti-feminist men. ”
The assumption that hugo is a complete moreon interpretation is he is suggesting that when men say feminists are “man-bashing” they are meaning it literally.
The other meaning which i think is more likely to be his, is to downplay any anger that feminists have so it never can be consider inappropriate. See no matter how angry you think feminists are they never actually reach actual violence. As opposed to anti-feminists?
My opinion is that both men and women shouldn’t be getting angry. Objections should be at least at first mentioned in good faith.
“Schwyzer has never maintained that men are naturally bad, ”
No he says men are unnaturally bad and any problem men face is actually the fault of patriarchy which privileges men over women. So his great empathy he has whenever a women is hurt or discriminated against disappears completely whenever ever the victim is male. Men don’t do well in education? couldn’t possibly be gender roles … oh no its because men are lazy even if it is gender roles hurting men women have it worse because its patriarchy so it benefits men over women so who cares?
He doesn’t say all men are to blame exactly he says all men are responsible. The ethical point here would be to say only people who are rapists should be considered guilty. Hugo makes all “men” responsible for rape. Blame exactly no. Treating men exactly the same as if he did blame men? sure.
It’s good to see that you know the truth, leta.
It makes me laugh when I see people listening to Hugo’s self-serving drivel.
Hugo does not publicise facts. His opinion is not based on life experience. Everything he says is a bunch of pretentious drivel that is meant to appease old feminist nuts and young chicks who are looking for a daddy figure.
What I’d like to know is why Hugo hasn’t tried to pull of a large-scale scam that’ll make him rich! Probably because he’s neither talented enough nor brave enough to do that.
Elizabeth,
I used to believe as you did, that was actually what brought me to the GMP, I read Hugo’s blog for about a year before I began reading this site regularly after he linked to it.
Unfortunately, after regularly reading his work (and listening to his lectures that were posted online) I’ve come to the conclusion that either: a) Hugo is openly dishonest about his view of men, or b) that he is somehow blind to his own writings.
Contrast the viewpoint (which he claims to espouse) that men and women do not have any fundamental differences with his lectures on “male anti-intellectualism” wherein he explains that men, apparently of their own accord, are electing to play video games instead of going to college.
This is particularly frustrating to me because it directly contradicts all available empirical evidence, including forthcoming economic studies, that I am intimately familiar with. Men actually stop going to college only when a viable alternative pops up, in the past 2 decades this alternative was high-paying construction jobs that have unfortunately disappeared, this trend was first identified by the Nevada Department of Education, and later confirmed to be the case in Europe by Aparicio Fenoll at Universitat Pompeu Fabra, a similar forthcoming study will be available in the US within the next year (the statistical data takes a year to become available).
Yet Hugo is not concerned with this. I very highly doubt he has ever read ANYTHING by an economist. Instead he just goes around lecturing about how men are apparently anti-intellectual and lazy. And yes, in his lectures he literally uses the word “lazy.”
It’s irresponsible, and it’s wrong. He is either dishonest as an academic, or he is dishonest about his personal views, but there’s no question in my mind that there is dishonesty there.
Perhaps, in time, your eyes will also open, I know it took close to a year before I realized the truth.
Mate, I knew the truth about Hugo when I first came across his self-serving drivel. I knew right there and then that he’s just a morally-deprvaed dullard who has just enough smarts to fool old feminist nuts and young chicks who want a daddy figure.
The bloke is a lousy debater. I recall Glenn Sacks making an absolute fool out of the dullard back in 2005.
He either has a very poor knowledge of history or is very selective in what says. Either way, he is unfit to discuss gender issues. I feel sorry for the people who are silly enough to take him seriously.
Elizabeth,
I’m afraid you live in a fantasy world.
Legitimate criticism isn’t called “man-bashing”, insulting the entire male gender because of the actions of a few is.
There are feminist who don’t have men or woman’s interest in mind and are unfairly attacking men, simply branding oneself a feminist shouldn’t absolve you from criticism.
“The Wrath of the Feminists” is a deeply unfair framing of good-faith discussion, and as a writer and editor for GMP, I want to publicly disassociate myself from it.
You know for as many times as I’ve had feminists say I was acting “butt hurt” when pointing out the lack of good faith in their arguments I find it almost hypocritical for one to turn around and cry foul when they get a taste of the same.
Hugo I’ve crossed paths with you before and the few times I’ve asked you a direct question you either didn’t answer it (which I can let go as simply being you can’t be expected to answer everything that comes your way) to giving an answer that leads me to think you didn’t read the question.
I would very much like to end the hostilities but that will never happen as long as people go around acting like they and they alone should be the only ones allowed to talk to people any kind of way they want to while still demanding fair treatment and respect.
I believe the core of Hugo’s “problem” with TGMP is that it is, in fact, a site devoted to MEN’s issues… and Hugo is always, always, about WOMEN’s issues first and foremost.
The thought that men might discuss something that matters to men, without consulting women, is quite troubling to him. The thought that something might be discussed that does NOT revolve around women is downright alarming.
But unfortunately, that’s kinda the point of this site. Step out of your comfort zone, Hugo, and learn how to wrench your focus away from women’s issues for a change.
I don’t think Hugo gives a damn about women’s issues. He just says the sort of things that the insecure ones are looking for. The guy isn’t happy unless he’s able to fool old feminist nuts and impressionable young chicks into trusting him. He’s a player. Nothing more and nothing less.
The guy would make a great salesman.
the fact that you’re using the words “old feminist nuts” is rather revealing in and of itself. check your ableist, ageist language.
“even though in real life there are no incidences of feminists physically assaulting anti-feminist men.”
Oh really?
http://www.shrink4men.com/2011/12/08/now-lawyer-and-vawa-defender-lisalyn-r-jacobs-charged-with-assaulting-ben-vonderheide-aka-daddy-justice/
The Norwegian guy who killed 90 or so young liberals was physically assaulted by a feminist for merely disagreeing with her. I think she might have been his brother’s girlfirend. He mentioned it in his publication.
I can’t help but feel that tone really is a legitimate topic of discussion, especially with reference to feminist writing, and find it disheartening for this kind of discussion to be written off as: “A familiar tack develops: man says something patently offensive, woman pushes back, man throws up his hands and feigns dismay at her “tone”, wondering what he did wrong “this time.””
I chose to publish an article and received a similar (much smaller-scale) kick-back on campus from our feminist organisation – the thing is, a lot of the time there is no need for such strong language to be used on both sides, it descends into personal attacks far too quickly, and in these types of discussions it seems to be the case that people will resort to bitter sarcasm and flippant remarks rather than calmly laying out points I wrote an article about it here – http://shrillblog.co.uk/?p=295 – it is such a frequent phenomenon that I am glad there is this familiar tack.
If I am a troll, I deserve anger. Otherwise, I should not be blamed for being mistaken and my viewpoint should be respected enough to be gently dismantled. In an area of discussion where so few people have enough experience to realise why they are wrong, heavy-handing responses are of course going to cause people to recoil and wonder ‘how these feminists got so angry’.
Why is tHugo taken seriously?
He’s an attention-seeking troll who is trying to win women over by putting on a front. He does that by pretending to be some knight in shining armour who is here to save all women from all of those evil men.
The reality is he’s probably one of the worst men on this planet: he’s a sex-crazed liberal who has taken drugs and used his position as a teacher to bed students who wouldn’t have given him the time of day in any other setting. Hardly the sort of person I would want around my children. He realises that feminists and the young liberal-minded women who gravitate towards the “womens and homosexuality studies” classes that he seems to focus on are insecure and easy to manipulate. He says all the things they want hear.
And apparently he has resigned from this forum, to which his writing was ill suited, to go back to writing about and for feminism full-time. This is probably for the best; a forum on men’s issues is not well served by a writer who always goes on and on about women’s problems and complaints.
Why on Earth was he brought here in the first place?
He doesn’t know squat about gender issues. His writings are a rambling mess comprised of grandiose verbosity that lacks any validation. He never uses facts. He only promotes myths. This site will get no where if it keeps on bringing in windbags like Hugo.
This is the exact kind of divisive ad hominem attack that will convince nobody other than those who already agree with you.
I disagree with Hugo on a lot of issues, but comments like this force me to side with him. It is an exact example of the type of attack he was criticising in his article. If you think writing people off as “angry” is a good way of dealing with arguments that oppose your position, then fair enough, stridently disagree with the man, but making comments about the way he deals with relationships is hardly persuasive – good job.
“If you think writing people off as “angry” is a good way of dealing with arguments that oppose your position, then fair enough, stridently disagree with the man, but making comments about the way he deals with relationships is hardly persuasive – good job.”
Ummm….
I didn’t label Hugo and the women on here as angry, did I?
I might have said that about old feminists and insecure women in some of my other comments, but I didn’t say it in the one you’re responding to.
Besides, on what basis can you make such a weak argument?
Do I need to point out that the likes of Hugo and most of the feminist women who participated in the discussion on Twitter passed MRAs off as angry bitter men every day?
Maybe you should have a word with them?
Is it you have one rule for them and another for MRAs who don’t kowtow to feminists?
I think you would do yourself well to just sit back and listen to men when they talk about men’s issues and their experiences with feminism. If you’re only an undergraduate then you obviously don’t have the life experience and knowledge that is required to offer an in-depth analysis of men’s issues, feminism, and women’s issues.
You did not label Hugo angry; (though he admits in the article he was); also, I did not label Hugo angry. Tom labelled a bunch of feminists angry and wrote them off because of it. It was a silly thing to do because it does not amount to constructive criticism, that’s what my comment amounts to. If you agree that calling people angry is an illegitimate form of argumentation, then you agree with Hugo.
Next point. “Is it you have one rule for them and another for MRAs who don’t kowtow (sic) to feminists?” No – everybody who passes others off as angry in order to derail their argument is guilty. It’s not getting nyone anywhere constructive, it’s not reaching impartial conclusions. I also think those who get angry and let it creep into their tone and perspective are guilty too. I think calm, reasoned discussion is the best way to advance.
Also; I am a man. Also, I am regularly in conflict with feminists and MRAs, and have been subject to feminist anger on more than one occasion.
Finally, as a naive undergraduate of few experiences, I can only recommend you look up “logical fallacies”, in particular “ad hominem” attacks: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem. It may do you better to concentrate on the arguments I make than on the experiences I have, as you have no idea what kind of life I have lead; you cannot even correctly guess my gender from my writing, but what I have to say is clear for you to read.
ShrillBlog, thank you for this post. I have tried to keep an open mind reading all of the comments here but the ad hominem attacks and namecalling have distracted and detracted from the arguments being presented. It says far more about those who engage in these intellectually deficient modes of argument than it does about those they criticize.
To the rest, you’re really damaging your own cause by engaging in this type of behavior. Clearly if you read this site and participate in the discussions you have an interest in the concept of “good men” and what that means. One thing I’m fairly certain it doesn’t mean is engaging in character assassination. If you disagree with someone, attack their arguments with your own thoughtfully constructed arguments. Whipping out the vitriol and calling someone names may have been effective on the playground 20+ years ago, but here all it does is invalidate your points and cast affirmation on the points you attempt to argue.
Think about it.
A voice of reason in a sea of nastiness. Thank you. Hopefully, the comments left on this thread are not representative of good men and women.
“Tom labelled a bunch of feminists angry and wrote them off because of it.”
I see no evidence that he “wrote them off” but there is no disputing that they were angry.
As one of the most recent articles here noted (I think this is an exact quote): “The angry feminist is not a myth.”
Oddly enough, I wrote the article that you have just quoted.
I have been ambiguous, please let me clarify, you are of course right to point this out to me.
There are two levels. On the first, we object to something because the tone is wrong, and fail to delve into the arguments. This is clearly derailing. This is what Tom has been criticised for doing, and is to what I referred in the quote from my comment that you have given.
On the second level is the idea that pointing out when anger is unreasonable or unfair in a way that does not derail the argument is justifiable when the author of the criticism goes on to raise constructive points.
This is confusing because I do take it to be true that the anger in feminism makes it difficult to be involved in (a problem of involvement/inclusiveness/interest), but at the same time object to people using this anger as a way of criticising the substantive points made (a problem of argumentation/substantive/constructive criticism.)
Instead, the natural reactions that people have to these topics should be accepted and largely left out of the debate. Anger and subsequent bewilderment are natural reactions, neither of which advance the debate, but both of which must be accepted as honestly as possible before the debate must continue.
This is as far as my train of thought has taken me so far. I’m not sure if it makes full sense, I welcome your thoughts on the matter
Ok — we’ve been talking about this a lot on other threads, and I’d be really interested in figuring this out. Exactly when is anger “unreasonable”? Always? Never? When is “anger” actually just challenging the other person, arguing passionately that your beliefs are are different than their own? If we assume that it is ok for people to have different beliefs — then what exactly is the place where challenging those beliefs turns into anger? Using “angry words” like “wrath” and “hate”? Calling the other person names “you idiot” “you c*nt”? Or something else entirely?
I guess what I’m most unclear on is “what anger is inappropriate and what does that look like?”
this seems really important to figure out together. http://goodmenproject.com/wp-admin/edit-comments.php#comments-form
I want to move towards the idea that it is never unreasonable to express anger, but to direct anger at somebody who appears to have good intentions does always seem unreasonable.
I would distinguish that from expressing anger at somebody who is clearly trying to be provocative/insulting, which is usually reasonable.
The problem is distinguishing between the naive and the trolls.
Separate from this is the condemnation of an outbreak of anger:
When I express dismay at being rough-handled by angry feminists – this is a debate about tone, and should not be labelled “derailing” so long as it does not imply anything about the content of the argument (you are angry, therefore wrong).
When I express dismay about being rough-handled by feminists, and proceed to conclude that this is why feminism is useless, I am guilty of derailing.
So it was right that Tom express dismay at the tone of his attackers, but wrong to stop at this (if indeed we can conclude that this is what he did, of which I am unsure).
I’m not sure if this is clearer than my previous attempts at explaining how I feel about this issue..
Great comment
Lisa, I found something that may help understand the sources of hostility on comment threads, it was in an essay by Rawls, who was very much concerned with reconciling seemingly impossible moral and attitudinal conflicts, the quote is below:
“First, the political discussion aims to reach reasonable agreement,
and hence so far as possible it should be conducted to serve that aim. We
should not readily accuse one another of self- or group-interest, prejudice
or bias, and of such deeply entrenched errors as ideological blindness and
delusion. Such accusations arouse resentment and hostility, and block
the way to reasonable agreement. The disposition to make such accusations
without compelling grounds is plainly unreasonable, and often a
declaration of intellectual war.” (Rawls, 1989, pg. 238)
I think the observations made and the conclusion drawn are a perfect description of tendency in discussions about gender topics to anger and hostility, and I am unsure as to how far this can be avoided, or whether it is simply an inevitability in discussions which involve “deeply entrenched” viewpoints which, from either perspective, always seem to be in error. It also sheds light on what reasonable discussion might involve.
Anger is unreasonable due to being selfish and out of touch with reality when a highly privileged group is angry over not having even more privilege, and claiming that a oppressed groups are really the ones with the privilege.
As I have said here and elsewhere, considering the data, information collected and provided by government agencies, educated white women are the most highly privileged demographic there is, with the possible exception of well educated white men.
Hence, feminist anger is unreasonable because western feminists tend to be some of the most highly privileged individuals on the planet, educated white women. Yes, there are feminists of color but they are a small minority.
Feminists tend to be well educated white women. That demographic has the lowest unemployment rate any group, is the least likely to be victims of violent crime, leastly likely to be murdered, least likely to be in gangs, commit suicide, be incarcerated, are most likely to have managerial jobs, and most likely to graduate from high school and college, and lives the longest. Yet, this is the group that is angry about their plight.
If western feminists focused on the plight of women in who were truly oppressed, their anger about THAT would be reasonable but western white feminist anger is ridiculous and clearly not based on reality.
You can find plenty of evidence in his articles that are still here. Schwyzer supports and excuses cuckolding, cheating your husband, abuse of male victims by women (or claims that its the victims’ goddamn fault), spouts nonsense like “in rape culture all men are guilty until proven innocent” ad nausea.
To be honest nothing encourages me more to oppose feminism in my country than reading articles like that (that are considered moderate here in America !).
It is good to hear that Hugo decided not to show up anymore. I will not miss him at all.
The ‘GMP’ Good Men Project for sure is more trustworthy for most men without Hugo’s pro-feminist articles.
There are plenty of pro-feminist websites, including his own blog.
I do not see any reason, why even websites claiming to consider men and their issues must be filled up with articles about women as victims and men as the bad guys.
I miss Hugo and wish he was still writing for GMP.
There has been less divisiveness and anti-male rhetoric. For those of us who prefer it that way.
This is up to Hugo to decide – he was recently banned from a certain online-publication, but the GMP is open to him. He can submit his articles anytime.
I personally do not miss his articles, which all were solely about how to please women and blaming men for all and everything.
The problem with Hugo is that he wants MRAs to be banned from the GMP, and this is obviously not acceptable for the GMP.
It is good to see that this GMP did not turn out as a one-way only publication serving solely feminism.