Danny agrees with Ill Doctrine’s Jay Smooth about standing up against the attacks on Anita Sarkeesian. He just wishes the message hadn’t been delivered in a way that dismissed men’s issues as “blah blah blah.”
In case you haven’t heard, there has been a major dustup over a Kickstarter project Anita Sarkeesian was using to gain funding for for the examination of women in video games (you can read about it here). It would seem that a rather large number of gamers have viciously attacked Sarkeesian and her project. In response Jay Smooth (the main brain behind Ill Doctrine) made a response video to those attackers.
What I want to look at is a small portion of the video above.
At about 2:54 he says the following:
”And you should recognize that that harassment is wrong and that’s what matters right now regardless of your political position on “misandry” and men’s rights and blah blah blah blah.”
I’m going to try to not dwell on exactly why Jay mentioned MRAs and misandry in such a dismissive manner. I’ll even bet he didn’t mean it but I’ve heard “intent doesn’t matter” way too many times to just let this go.
What I do want to talk about is how that 4-6 second portion could turn off people who would otherwise support the other 3:45 of what he is saying.
When I was listening to that video this bit of it gave me pause and I don’t even identify as MRA. Referencing something like misandry in air quotes and then following up mention of men’s rights with several uses of the word “blah” tell me that Jay doesn’t take these things very seriously. Sure someone may say he meant those words in a“That’s not what we’re talking about right now” way (and those are basically the words he uses).
But even then would it have really hurt to actually mention those things in a way that didn’t belie disregard, if not disgust?
It’s not how he meant it, but it may be how the people he’s talking about take it. And frankly I’d be inclined to not hold it against them if they felt dismissed.
How serious do you expect someone to take you when they see that you don’t think they matter?
Let me clarify. I’m not trying to say that this small portion should distract from Jay’s overall message. Sarkeesian has been horribly mistreated throughout all of this and it treatment should not be allowed to stand. To ensure that it is not allowed to stand, those of us who disagree with her treatment have to stand up and make our voices loud and clear. And those voices need to proclaim that no one, absolutely no one, should have to put up with this treatment and that it doesn’t represent us as gamers or as men.
That being said, how well will certain people receive that message when they are being told that their identity and the stuff they are concerned about simply don’t matter?
For more on this issue, please read Noah Brand’s Video Game critic Draws Hateful Misogynistic Abuse
About Danny
What I took away from that (and perhaps this is simply my own projection) is that his basic message is to say there are some who want to frame everything through the lens of mens rights and we should only do so where appropriate; in this moment of standing up for Anita Sarkeesian now is not the time.
It’s difficult when you’re passionate about an issue not to see everything through that lens.
That’s my take on it too. He says as much.
Yeah, I don’t disagree with either of you at all, but I do think we have to be careful not to be dismissive… It’s hard, and I think all three of us agree that it’s frustrating to talk about an issue about women and have it completely derailed in “Men too!” barrages. And I know that’s what he’s saying.
But I worry that the dismissiveness created an environment where MRAs and other men’s issues activists felt alienated.
Regardless, I’m glad Danny got the message and supports Sarkeesian and is calling for other guys to, as well.
Joanna, I like this:
“it’s frustrating to talk about an issue about women and have it completely derailed in “Men too!” barrages.”
It reminds me of the “white people too!!!” barrage on the Adidas shackle-sneaker post a few days ago…oh, and anywhere else on the internet, any time racism is mentioned.
Right?! Big lesson – just because one issue is being talked about does NOT MEAN that the speaker is ignoring other issues.
Annoying.
But I worry that the dismissiveness created an environment where MRAs and other men’s issues activists felt alienated.
That’s because even in contexts when they are correct they are still dismissed.
I just find it a bit odd to tell someone that they need to start showing some support and compassion for others in a way that tells them that they don’t matter.
It’s also ironic that it’s a video. The only person who could derail him was him and he did an admirable job of it.
@ Joanna,
I agree with you. Frankly, I don’t believe that it’s a men’s rights issue and he shouldn’t have included it, but if he’s going to mention it because other people are arguing it, he should have presented his arguments instead of being dismissive.
It is terrible what is happening to her.
I agree with that you say Nick. But if you mention someone else’s lens in such a dismissive tone how does that contribute to trying to tell them that now is not the time for that lens. You say that is how you took and that’s fine. But that doesn’t make it alright to bring up that lens the way he did.
He speaks passionately for over 3min. about supporting Sarkeesian and then mentions men’s rights in air quotes and in a mumbling tone that sounds like just got out of bed.
People complain about MRAs dismissing other concerns. Does that justify dismissing them in return?
I think there is an audience and a context for the dismissiveness. The audience is those who thought it was more important to opine about how “men have it bad too” instead of calling out the bullies and trolls. The context is the attacks over Anita’s work.
But of course there are plenty of people who are going to see that video and ignore the context and the audience and read it as being dismissive of misandry and MRAs in general. But that’s exactly the type of myopia he’s calling out – we shouldn’t have to acknowledge misandry and how men have it bad too just when making an unrelated point, and we shouldn’t have to acknowledge misandry and mens rights when calling out those who are inappropriately demanding we do so.
There seems to be a view that Jay Smooth should want to get MRAs on his side, and in being dismissive he fails to do so. I think we could just as easily say the MRAs should want to get Jay Smooth on their side, and by ignoring the bullying and trolling to say, “but what about teh menz?” they haven’t done their cause any favors.
Rather than taking offense at having their ill-timed and ill-placed arguments dismissed, shouldn’t MRAs be trying to time and craft their message to attract more supporters?
You have said what I wanted to say but couldn’t figure out…thanks.
But of course there are plenty of people who are going to see that video and ignore the context and the audience and read it as being dismissive of misandry and MRAs in general. But that’s exactly the type of myopia he’s calling out….
If you want to get them to care then it would help to not throw up air quotes and call them blah blahs.
….we shouldn’t have to acknowledge misandry and how men have it bad too just when making an unrelated point, and we shouldn’t have to acknowledge misandry and mens rights when calling out those who are inappropriately demanding we do so.
I didn’t say he had to acknowledge it. I’m saying that when you are going to say that “This is not what we are talking about right now” there are ways to do it. And that extra bit was not it.
There seems to be a view that Jay Smooth should want to get MRAs on his side, and in being dismissive he fails to do so. I think we could just as easily say the MRAs should want to get Jay Smooth on their side, and by ignoring the bullying and trolling to say, “but what about teh menz?” they haven’t done their cause any favors.
Exactly. So if when MRAs do the dismissing its wrong then why is it treated as okay when Jay does it?
Rather than taking offense at having their ill-timed and ill-placed arguments dismissed, shouldn’t MRAs be trying to time and craft their message to attract more supporters?
Their arguments weren’t being dismissed, they and misandry as a whole was being dismissed.
So if MRAs should be trying to craft their message correctly isn’t it the least bit fair that others should be craft their messages correctly as well?
People keep calling for empathy but then turn around and act like its okay to talk to others in a dismissive manner.
Danny, society isn’t going to make it easy for you. If the MRM wants allies, it’s going to have to fight for those allies. It’s going to have to craft a message that people identify with, and work on bringing a broad and diverse group into the fold. It’s also going to have to ignore perceived slights such as this one, and take a charitable reading of the intent behind it. We all agree about who he was talking about. Where we disagree is how he chose to call them out. But remember he’s not part of the MRM – and his experience with them (like many) is the rather “active” elements who have taken to derailing threads and discussions with shouts of “misandry! but men hurt too! prison rape!” Those are all important things, but think about the context in which we encounter them. If you’re not a frequent visitor to the corner of the internet consumed with gender discussion and men’s rights, it’s likely you’ve encountered those arguments where they’re tangential at best.
Instead of calling Jay Smooth out as being dismissive of the MRM, we can instead take the position that he’s being dismissive of a particular segment: those who would rather say, “but men hurt too!” than call out the bullies and trolls.
It’s not up to Jay Smooth to try to appease the MRM, lest they feel slighted and retaliate in holy war. It’s up to the MRM to appease Jay Smooth, to win him over as an ally, and have him championing the message. Winning allies means being empathetic even when others are not.
We are all Jay Smooth for somebody’s cause.
It’s also going to have to ignore perceived slights such as this one…
Didn’t I say that I don’t want them to get distracted by that?
Winning allies means being empathetic even when others are not.
But that only applies to certain people right?
It’s up to the MRM to appease Jay Smooth, to win him over as an ally, and have him championing the message.
And its going to be a hard go of wanting to appease him when he comes off at them like this. MRAs have to work with other people but that doesn’t give others a blank check to insult them. Or at least it doesn’t when it comes to other groups.
It applies to anyone who wants to make friends and influence people. It’s their choice whether they want to score points or win allies. Scoring points make your fans happy, but doesn’t do much to increase the size of your fan-base.
@ Nick, Mostly
“I think there is an audience and a context for the dismissiveness.”
So what audience and context could I be dismissive of female rape victims and not be deserving of criticism or is it only men that can be dismissed as irrelevant? He shouldn’t have brought it up at all or he should have attacked their arguments. It was a video. No one could derail him, but himself.
Their arguments were irrelevant to the discussion and that was what he was dismissing. He wasn’t derailed; that was the whole point of him bringing it up.
And it’s not comparable to being dismissive about rape victims. Do you think what they were saying, and what he was dismissing, was on par with rape?
“Do you think what they were saying, and what he was dismissing, was on par with rape? Do you think what they were saying, and what he was dismissing, was on par with rape?”
That depends on what “men’s rights” he’s talking about. The problem might be because I’m only slightly familiar with the story. Maybe he’s referencing only the rights which were mentioned or simply just the ones that he saw referenced (I’m not sure what “right” would actually apply) or he could be referring to a man’s right not to be raped in prison, in society, or by a female perpetrator. That’s why it’s important to either not reference them at all or be specific with what you’re referencing, refute it or support it and call it a derailing tactic inappropriate to the discussion.
@ Nick, Nostly
“I think there is an audience and a context for the dismissiveness. The audience is those who thought it was more important to opine about how “men have it bad too” instead of calling out the bullies and trolls. The context is the attacks over Anita’s work.”
When you put something on the internet, the audience is everybody. Put that in context.
Im fully aware of the words that came out of his mouth. But at the same time there are ways to say “that’s not what we are talking about now” without sounding so dismissive about it. In fact he even uses such words and actually says them in a such a way.
Honestly if that section wasn’t in there I’d have no problem with the video. But it is in there.
I agree that this should be a time for supporting Sarkeesian but as I ask is it really fair to expect support from people when you mumble about them under your breath in a half hearted manner?
I have to say, this post and some of your responses is a good it example of why I often find it so hard to take “mens rights” positions seriously. Look – we have a really nasty case of blatant misogynist behaviour, a case so clear cut – and yet you manage to find this little bitsy corner to hang on to and say “but men are treated just as bad”.
They may be. But not here. It’s not the time. This is not about you. There *are* cases where there’s a serious and important position to be made for men in gender discussion, and those positions should be made. But by trying to make it here, you’re just – dramatically – weakening your case.
and yet you manage to find this little bitsy corner to hang on to and say “but men are treated just as bad”.
Where did I say that? I’m asking that if we want them to take the treatment of women serious is it really a good idea to tell them that they don’t matter? “You don’t matter but you need to support this.”
But by trying to make it here, you’re just – dramatically – weakening your case.
So it’s weak to try to take a moment to build the bridges that Jay is calling for by trying to do it on some other way that to speak dismissively about their cause?
@ Lars Fletcher
I have to say, this post and some of your responses is a good it example of why I often find it so hard to take “mens rights” positions seriously”
“There *are* cases where there’s a serious and important position to be made for men in gender discussion,”
This is why I have difficulty taking feminist positions seriously. Reality shifts to suit their positions.
Where did I say that? I’m asking that if we want them to take the treatment of women serious is it really a good idea to tell them that they don’t matter? “You don’t matter but you need to support this.”
Context matters. If you think he’s saying “men don’t matter”, or even “MRA does matter”, you’re completely ignoring context. He’s responding to a long string of really abusive posts. Posts that hold up “mens rights” as a straw man for their abuse. That’s the context of the “blah blah blah”.
By ignoring that context, by taking his “blah blah” out of it’s context, you *are* making this about men, which it is not. And that’s not helping the case for mens rights one bit.
There are much better battles to pick.
Context matters. If you think he’s saying “men don’t matter”, or even “MRA does matter”, you’re completely ignoring context. He’s responding to a long string of really abusive posts. Posts that hold up “mens rights” as a straw man for their abuse. That’s the context of the “blah blah blah”.
Not ignoring it at all. I clearly said that I bet he didn’t mean it that way but then talked about those who would.
And I even said to not let that distract from the rest of Jay’s message.
By ignoring that context, by taking his “blah blah” out of it’s context, you *are* making this about men, which it is not. And that’s not helping the case for mens rights one bit.
I suppose I am. I’m trying to get them to not be distracted by that small bit. Again I said to not let that distract.
There are much better battles to pick.
Then by all means go pick them. Maybe we’ll cross paths in the future.
Alright let me try to explain the context thing another way…
If someone was doing an article or project or something about military casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan, and then people kept trying to derail the conversation by talking about the U.S. policies of women in combat positions…it’s something similar. Then a response of “oh yes, women in combat, blah blah blah,” would be appropriate, actually. It’s not dismissive of the issues themselves, but dismissive of the language and attitude used to discuss those issues in the very specific context.
It’s not the time or place to raise that particular issue…thus the dismissive attitude toward those who do so.
Fair enough. But still treat them with a dismissive attitude while at the same time saying they need to support whatever the topic at hand is?
He’s calling them out. He’s shaming them. He’s saying, “guys, you’re not helping here and you’re making your cause look bad in the process.” Sure, he’d like their support, but I don’t think that’s his primary objective, just as his primary objective isn’t to win over the hard core trolls who think it’s okay to harass someone just for the lulz.
Perhaps his message is entertaining but ineffective, I can’t really comment on that. But I do believe his audience is well-targeted.
He’s saying, “guys, you’re not helping here and you’re making your cause look bad in the process.”
You know if he had said that instead of the air quoting and dismissive mumbling I’d be all for it.
Perhaps his message is entertaining but ineffective, I can’t really comment on that. But I do believe his audience is well-targeted.
If it’s ineffective does it really matter how targeted it is?
“You know if he had said that instead of the air quoting and dismissive mumbling I’d be all for it.”
Danny, you gotta look at the entirety of that video and the tone he’s taking. It’s relatively fast-paced, it’s snappy and it’s meant to grab attention. It’s a “hey you, listen to the annoyance and outrage in my voice,” type of tone. Again, it’s about context.
I have and again I’m talking about how some may take it that way.
Well sure, but look at my very level-headed article about feminism and manning up and how some people took that. Sometimes you just can’t please people for trying.
Sometimes the interpretation of people who read/watched a text is more important than was intended (like with me and the use of transgender and cisgender), and so it’s worth addressing. While trying to show how trans and cisgender are equal, I’d treated them unequally. That’s worth pointing out and worth fixing.
Sometimes the intended meaning is actually more valid, precisely because the context of the text (in this case that video) makes the intended meaning so obvious and apparent. You listen to this whole video and it’s fairly obvious what he means and what he’s being dismissive of.
Nick, I actually wish he’d said it like that instead of “blah blah blah” because one is challenging (which they need) and one is dismissing (which makes them just disregard the message).
I get what you’re saying, and what Danny’s saying…but again I think you gotta look at the tone and style he’s using in the whole video. It’s short and snappy and meant to push some buttons.
“but again I think you gotta look at the tone and style he’s using in the whole video. It’s short and snappy and meant to push some buttons.”
A Klan march through a Jewish area is intended to push some buttons too. That doesn’t make it right.
He wasn’t dismissive to them, or their positions…he was dismissive to their tactics, to the way they are derailing this particular conversation. I mean, kind of in the same way someone might get peeved at the way this article is shifting focus…instead of watching his video and discussing the very good points he made, you picked out one small sentence and locked on.
And I do not mean to be overly critical, Danny. I get what you’re saying and where you’re coming from…but as Lars said…now is not the time or the place or the context.
In that bit he brought up their political views. I wouldn’t blame someone for taking that to mean more than just that instance.
I mean, kind of in the same way someone might get peeved at the way this article is shifting focus…instead of watching his video and discussing the very good points he made, you picked out one small sentence and locked on….….and then I turned around and say to not let that small portion be a distraction
And I do not mean to be overly critical, Danny. I get what you’re saying and where you’re coming from…but as Lars said…now is not the time or the place or the context.
And as I said to Lars: “Then by all means go pick them. Maybe we’ll cross paths in the future.”
“and then I turned around and say to not let that small portion be a distraction”
I know, and that’s why I said I do not mean to be overly critical. But this, in itself…this discussion right now, even saying ‘don’t let it be a distraction,’ is sort of a distraction. That’s not your fault, really…it’s that talking about how we shouldn’t talk about something is, effectively, talking about that thing that we shouldn’t be talking about.
@ HeatherN
“And I do not mean to be overly critical, Danny. I get what you’re saying and where you’re coming from…but as Lars said…now is not the time or the place or the context.”
It seems we get that quite often from feminists. Fight for men’s rights. Yes, but this is not the time for that. What I think Danny is saying is that we shouldn’t be dismissive of someone else’s rights when fighting for our own.
Just look at how hard feminists are fighting to legitimize a single phrase in the conversation instead of saying that it was inappropriate and unhelpful. Now do you see the point Danny is making?
I like to say mine.
Sorry folks, but Danny has a point. I agree on the issue of trollism, I agree on the issue of topik of the video. BUUUUUUUUT the way how he dismisses mens issues ‘ bla bla bla…’ is not cool. Indifferently if that is in topik or not. There are better way to do it. There are some people who have thise topiks really at hearth. And I dont care whenever some trolls hate women, or some trolls pose as MRA, or whatever reason may be.
But this way of dismissal is rude and humiliating.
I was expecting better….much better.
Are you a troll or are you trying to be clever in making a point?
Thank you for your kindness Nick.
Ok, let’s get the facts straight. Sarkeesian asked for 6000$, she finally got 160000$ for her project. So apparently people voted with their wallets.
Apart from that, what Mr. Smooth says is that any discussion about Sarkeesian’s project is off limits because she got harassed. Yeah, that’s just wrong. It’s perfectly fine to believe that a) the harassment is bad and b) Sarkeesian’s project sucks. It’s a fallacy to assume that people who criticize her project agree with the methods of the hateful trolls. The harassment doesn’t make her immune to critique.
To be fair, the question “what about the menz?” is not always appropriate. Often it is used to derail discussion. On the other hand, online discussions get derailed all the time. This is not something which only happens in discussion about women’s issues. Also, everyone agreeing that bullying and harassment is bad is not a discussion. ( BTW, kicking puppies and throwing snowballs at old ladies is also bad.) There is very little controversy about that issue. So after the 100th “I agree” message the discussion gets derailed, because agreeing with stuff is rather boring.
“Apart from that, what Mr. Smooth says is that any discussion about Sarkeesian’s project is off limits because she got harassed.”
He’s not saying that, at all, on any level. He says: “If you want to debate Antia Sarkeesian’s debates of videogame culture, there’s plenty of time for that like, for example, after she’s made the critiques!”
He condones intellectual engagement and critique of the project, but he’s also saying that it might be more useful to reserve your critique until she actually makes the project, instead of critiquing your own assumptions about she may or may not say. Which sounds pretty sensible to me.
This reminds me of a discussion I had a few months back when the whole (fake) “war on women” began.
I’ve taken a lot of offense because I have many highly religious relatives (my mother first and foremost among them) who honestly believe that abortion is a form of murder, and they would really like to see it made illegal by whatever means possible.
Throughout the media, this position is purposefully misconstrued as a “war on women” and painted to look like a group of ignorant old white men who want women out of the workplace. This is a far cry from my 50-something corporate lawyer mother who just wants to stop an act she perceives to be murder.
So I asked some friends of mine, who had bought into the rhetoric, why they felt comfortable portraying it as a “way on women” when they knew that there were individuals like my mother in the mix who clearly had no interest in curtailing the civil rights of women.
The response I got was something like “Well, the other side has been calling us murderers for years, and frankly it’s time to strike back. Sure, there might be highly educated women with a high degree of moral integrity who want to see abortion curtailed, but we aren’t portrayed fairly by Fox news, so why should they be portrayed fairly by us?”
A response to Sarkeesian’s plight of “but there’s misandry too!” seems rife with the same problem.
The reality is that feminism and it’s academic arm, Gender Studies, has literally been mischaracterizing, insulting, and demonizing men ever since Andrea Dworkin learned how to use a pen.
Having sat through a university Gender Studies course (I believe in knowing the “face of the enemy”) I can say with 100% certainty that some feminists have been spewing hatred at men for the past four decades just as surely as some Christians have been spewing hatred at abortion clinics ever since Roe v. Wade.
As a result, I can completely understand the siren’s call to “strike back” and begin to mischaracterize feminism, and even women in general in a sort of “turnabout-is-fair-play” strategy.
But ultimately, Mr. Smooth is correct, and stooping to the level of our opponents will get us nowhere. Now is not the time to say “men are also misrepresented in video games.” Now is not the time to advance a “men’s rights” agenda. It’s not just a losing argument in this case, it also challenges the very integrity of the person making the argument.
What remains to be seen, however, is if Mr. Smooth himself is willing to call out his own side as readily as he is prepared to call out his opponents.
It’s easy to tell your opponents that they should police themselves. It’s hard to police your own side. I’ll happily do my part (I dislike MRAs at least as much as I dislike 2nd wave feminism), but I’ve yet to see Mr. Smooth do his. When he calls out feminists, I’ll take him more seriously.
OK, apparently I’m not nice enough to make it consistently past the moderator. Just one quick point as civil as possible. I think Jay Smooth is mischaracterizing the situation. The impression I got from watching the video is that Sarkeesian did not get much support against the trolls. In reality she collected almost 30 times the amount of money she initially asked for, many news outlets reported about the harassment and many people did speak up for her.
In this particular case people condemned the attacks. Others get much less support. If Smooth says we should stand up for them I totally agree with that and personally I’m far more concerned about them than about Sarkeesian.
This article is doing exactly what he is asking you not to do: detract from the issue, which is that Anita is getting serious threats and being harassed for having an opinion. Please don’t detract from it because someone supporting that argument didn’t annunciate his words in the way you wanted him to.