“One of [the] childish things adult men must put away is the need to deflect, belittle, or exaggerate women’s anger.”
EDITOR’S NOTE: This post was originally due to run on December 19. In fact, we posted it for a short while, pulled it down, and Hugo Schwyzer ultimately resigned when we couldn’t come to an agreement over his perceived censorship of this post and his role moving forward. The post first ran on his blog under the title “Why I Resigned From The Good Men Project.” We are publishing it now with Hugo’s knowledge and permission.
♦◊♦
One of the most popular articles of the year (and certainly one of the most-viewed here at GMP) is Yashar Ali’s now thoroughly viral Why Women Aren’t Crazy. Referencing an old film, Yashar coined the simple term “gaslighting” to describe the way in which men undermine women’s self-confidence through subtle (and not so subtle) insinuations that women’s feelings are unreasonable. I’ve thought about Yashar’s piece quite a bit as I’ve reflected on the recent Twitter blow-up between GMP founder Tom Matlack and a number of well-known feminist writers. (For more, see here, and here, and here.)
I’ve also remembered an incident from a women’s studies class of mine many years ago. It was a typical course: perhaps 30 women and 6 men. Most of the guys had been quiet all semester long. But one (there is often such a one) was a talker. “Kevin” liked to stir the proverbial pot; a member of the college’s forensics team, he was a skilled debater who liked to argue. Many of his female classmates argued back, not infrequently getting the better of him, which spurred Kevin to try even harder to instigate arguments.
One day, Kevin came to class with a duffel bag. I thought little of it, until—in the midst of a discussion about men and feminism—he reached into the duffle and pulled out a football helmet. “I know I’m gonna get killed for what I’m about to say,” he announced dramatically. “I brought some protection.” Kevin then strapped the helmet on as his classmates and I stared in shock. I told him to cut out the cheap theatrics, but not before he’d made a powerful point, though I’m confident it wasn’t the one he intended to make.
Kevin’s gag with the football helmet was designed to send a signal about women and anger. The message he wanted to send was, as he told me later, that “feminists take things too seriously and get too aggressive.” The message he actually sent was that men will go to great lengths to try and short-circuit women’s attempts at serious conversation. The helmet was an effort to label those attempts as “male-bashing” or “man-hating.” The hope was that it would shame uppity feminists into biting back their anger; of course, Kevin only ended up inflaming the situation. In less dramatic ways, I’ve seen men use this same tactic again and again.
♦◊♦
What bothered so many of us about the Twitter conversation about feminism was that Tom Matlack trotted out (as so many men do) that same tactic of attempting to silence women’s anger by suggesting that it poses a threat. Tom tweeted at Jenn Pozner that some men are afraid to speak up out of fear of female reprisals. Kind of being proven right here. Now Jennifer Pozner is a well-known feminist media critic, but she’s hardly in the position to carry out “reprisals” against anyone for speaking out, not that she would if she could. Nor was Jenn (or Kate Harding, or Amanda Marcotte) engaged in throwing stones, which didn’t stop Tom from describing the “pelting” he was taking from feminists.
A short while later, Tom tweeted I really thought the MRA guys were crazy until I engaged the wrath of the feminists. Insane. Though I doubt Tom thought this through clearly, this is the textbook “gaslighting” to which Yashar refers. No feminist had called Tom a name equivalent to the names he (and I) are regularly called by MRAs (“mangina” is the epithet of choice from the Basement Boys); it didn’t matter. Jennifer and Amanda were “insane.”
Seemingly innocuous words often have a profound charge depending on how and by whom they’re used. Tom knows, surely, how problematic it is to use the word “boy” to refer to an African-American. It’s not a curse word in most contexts, but when used by a white person to refer to an adult black male, it’s steeped in the long and painful history of racism in America. What many men fail to understand is that accusing a woman of being insane or of engaging in reprisals merely because she’s expressing forceful disagreement has an equivalent ugliness. If that seems hyperbolic, google the word “hysteria.”
All of this behavior reflects two things: men’s genuine fear of being challenged and confronted, and the persistence of the stereotype of feminists as being aggressive, wrathful, “man-bashers.” The painful thing about all this, of course, is that no man is in any real physical danger on the internet—or even in real life—from feminists. Women are regularly beaten and raped, but I know of no instance where a man found himself a victim of violence for making a sexist remark in a feminist setting! “Male-bashing” doesn’t literally happen, in other words, at least not as a result of arguments over feminism. But that doesn’t stop men from using (in jest or no) their own exaggerated fear of physical violence to make a subtle point about feminists.
♦◊♦
There’s a conscious purpose to this sort of behavior. Joking about getting pelted (or putting on the football helmet) sends a message to women in the classroom—and online: “Tone it down. Take care of the men and their feelings. Don’t scare them off, because too much impassioned feminism is scary for guys.” And you know, as exasperating as it is, this kind of silencing language almost always works. Time and again, I’ve seen it work to silence women in the classroom, or at least cause them to worry about how to phrase things “just right” so as to protect the guys and their feelings. It’s a key anti-feminist strategy, even if that isn’t the actual intent of the men doing it—it forces women to become conscious caretakers of their male peers by subduing their own frustration and anger. It reminds young women that they should strive to avoid being one of those “angry feminists” who (literally) scare men off and drive them away.
This doesn’t mean that a “good man” is always in the wrong when he’s arguing with a woman. It does mean that when men and women argue about gender justice, women are more likely to have insights that men have missed. Here’s the basic axiom: power conceals itself from those who possess it. And the corollary is that privilege is revealed more clearly to those who don’t have it. When a man and a woman are arguing about feminism—and the women involved happen to be feminists and the man happens to be an affluent white dude—the chances that he’s the one from whom the truth is more obscured is very high indeed. That’s as true for me as it is for Tom Matlack.
I’ll say it a thousand times. I respect and admire Tom Matlack for what he’s done to start this conversation, even as I disagree with him about the degree to which men and women are really different. I disagree with his take about being “attacked” by feminists, as I don’t see the evidence of animus towards him that that word implies. But the real disagreement we have is, I think, a bigger (though not necessarily insurmountable) one.
This is the Good Man Project, and as I’ve said a time or nine, I think the opposite of “man” is not “woman”, but “boy.” At the heart of the reason I joined GMP was because I believe we live in a culture where too few adult males assert the grown-up virtues of self-control, responsibility, and manifested empathy. Being “manly” is less about traditional machismo than it is about what the Apostle Paul calls the putting away of childish things. And one of those childish things adult men must put away is the need to deflect, belittle, or exaggerate women’s anger.
–
Read Justin Cascio’s interpretation of the events here:
“Can Founders Be Criticized on The Good Men Project?“
—Photo Self-portrait Girl/Flickr
About Hugo Schwyzer
The more literature I read the more I want to move towards gender segregation.
The more I read, the more I wonder if Fahrenheit 451 may not have had some valid points! P^)
With regard to the why this piece was initially pulled back, why Hugo resigned, and why it is now running I would like to add the following.
Hugo and I exchanged emails on the afternoon of December 19th about the difficulty of the exchanges that had transpired. I urged him to move on and write about other things having already written once about me and my perceived lack of understanding in “Serious Discussion is Not “Wrath of Feminists””. I didn’t feel we needed to continue the mud slinging any more since it was, in my view, personal about me and not about him, Amanda or any of the folks who so passionately disagreed with my views.
His response at the end of the exchange was:
“Fair enough, Tom. My next few pieces will NOT be on feminism, I promise…
A very Merry Christmas to you.
Hugo”
Five hours later, the piece “Words Are Not Fists: What the Twitter Blow-Up Tells Us About Men, Women, and Anger” showed up in which he equated me to a college student wearing a football helmet having a temper tantrum. To me those are not ideas, those are personally attacking my intellectual integrity. And they came on top of his promise to stand down and be constructive going forward. So I asked Lisa to take the piece down and talk to Hugo about his intentions. She tried and ultimately he refused and resigned. Now she has posted it after a cooling off period.
I stand by my belief that the language was demeaning and the fact that Hugo had told me he was done hours before posting another inflammatory piece dishonest.
That doesn’t take away from his right to a POV that at times is radically different from mine and our willingness to allow him to articulate that view. In fact my greatest critic Amanda Marcotte, was allowed to write and we published her very direct criticism on our pages, in which she pretty much says that her boyfriend is a much better guy than I will ever be. That’s fine. I am very willing to take one for the team but at some point we have to just step back and try to call out some rules of the road.
She sounds about as mature as any 5 year old. Any man that doesn’t self-flagellate is probably thought of as bad in her books.
And you sound as mature as a middle-school girl who talks about other girls behind their backs in order to gain brownie points with the group you’re currently surrounded by.
I’m going to take offense to calling someone immature and making hyperbolic comments about someone who is not here to defend herself and without any reference to specific comments that make you think that “any man that doesn’t self-flagellate is probably thought of as bad in her books.”
Artemis, at the time of writing I believe she was still an active author here and I fully believed she may have read that. I wanted her to defend it, and the assumption which may be a bit extreme was based on reading her articles here which I found to be dismissive of male issues, and from other stuff I’ve seen. There is a reason she is seen in a negative light by quite a few people (google her name and various sites talk about it), but I actually all but forgot about her in the last few months and even forgot this comment was here. Being that it’s been months, I’m unsure exactly what I was referring to so the mods can delete the comment and this if they wish as the moment for the discussion passed. I will try quote specific comments next time though to justify? the comment if I make them, thanks for pointing it out. I was most likely in a highly annoyed state as the whole situation was annoying the hell out of me, I remember there was something that bothered me but can’t remember exactly what it was. Hooray for bad memory recollection, so it’d be a great idea to post the quotes to know even for myself. The only thing I remember was something to do with self-flagellation and the tone of her articles, but that thought has long passed. It also could have been a major misunderstanding (which is why I wanted to provoke a rebuttal to find out, although I was acting like a 5 year old myself).
Apologies for the offense, wasn’t my best moment.
““But to say that men don’t experience sexism or its not significant enough to mention is ignorance and erasure.”
Cut and paste where I said that.”
You minimised and dismissed any claim that men experience sexism by suggesting that any mention of their sexism is the same white people complaining about racism.
“Hmm, not according to Dick Gregory, Alice Walker, and other Persons of Colour who have argued that it IS similar (but of course not identical, which I never said).”
I can mention plenty of POC who disagree as well.
“And comparing the experience of (MOST) white abled heterosexual MEN to that of ANY marginalised group (women, POCs, GLBT and disabled persons) is simply ludicrous and MRA propaganda.”
That is simple minimising and shame language to try and silence any discussion about sexism against men.
Well yes the irrational female anger is a threat.
Let me explain.
As long as the women continue to blame men for everything it’s implied we are guilty of it.
When men get silenced for speaking out,the changes that need to be made in the courts will never be made.
This monopolization of the conversation insures that the injustice is never corrected,shoring up misandrist law and female supremacy.
Men really need to talk MORE about false accusations and the lack of recourse in conversation and in the courts.
Otherwise we would be helpless.
That is the goal of those using anger and false hurt to shut down our voices.
Ya know what,we ain’t guilty,the voice will be purely male,get used to it.
Women can’t speak for men, they have no clue how it is to be a man.Team woman isn’t interested in getting a clue either,they just want to consolidate and lock in unjust power.
I do not know what life is like to be a man. I can only try to imagine. Yet, in the same ‘breath’, you tell me, as ‘Team Woman’ what I think, what my agendy in life is, and what I am out to get. Thereby, I feel I you have dismissed me outright, baby and bathwater. I would love to have a discourse about real issues with both sides choosing to put away the mudslinging and the sweeping accusations and dismissive generalizations. Humanity can hurt. Human excell at hurting other humans. Some hurts take place on larger, more systematic scale, some take place in small, dark closets. Hearing others. Listening. Choosing based on compassion rather than fear. That would be a wonderful miracle.
I so much agree with you AM (except for the bit about miracles
Freebird, to me that sounds like a misogynistic rant.
“Well yes the irrational female anger is a threat.”
Why is my anger irrational and yours is so rational?
Am I the only one, when discussing this concept of privilege left wondering. If I as a man is unable to see my own privilege. How is it that women are able to determine that women have no privilege?
It was once explained to me as “Mirror, Mirror, On The Wall, …” P^)
You can actually have your privilege pointed out to you. If you go through life never having a social sciences class or talking to people from different backgrounds, you won’t be aware of your privilege, but you can be made aware of it. Apparently, as a woman, I have privilege when it comes to keeping my children in a family court. I… Well, I guess that’s it.
Female privileges would probably extend to overall lower death-rate for violence (WHO 2004 Death statistics), possibly lower incidents of violence overall too although I haven’t got those stats handy and it also varieson type of violence. AFAIK most violence reported is usually stranger based attacks, which favours male-male conflict, females usually receive higher rates of violence amongst people they know. Although with recent stats on bullying, IPV, Sexual abuse, I’m completely unsure of who gets more violence and I’m learning towards more even numbers of victims with the potential for varying incidents per person.
ht tp://www.feministcritics.org/blog/2008/06/08/female-privilege/ that’s one article I’ve seen on female privileges. As for the idea of privilege it leaves me wondering where responsibility comes in, eg if I have privilege regarding pay then does the expectation to earn more than my partner overrule it? Are they privileges if they come with some terrible negatives? From what I have seen of racial privilege it’s far easier to understand, but gender privilege to me is much more murky and in discussions of privilege I have seen for some reason it feels like they take the negatives women get, compare it to the positives men get without also including the positives women get and the negatives men get.
It also becomes murky when men are at the top of some areas, but also the BOTTOM, eg Males dominating politics, or CEO positions but also the jail population. Does the negative of being more likely to be jailed offset the positive of the more likely to get a CEO position? Or are the privileges meant to just point out very focused areas such as problems in employment? Eg men are privileged in access to the top ranks of careers but women are privileged in avoiding (or being smaller in representation for) highly risky jobs?
Then there is the problem that some feminists use the male privilege line as a silencing tool to dismiss the opinion of a man, control his speech, shut him up and push him out of a discussion. It can be very much that the feminist line of thought is the only acceptable line of thought which causes major resentment amongst quite a few men and women in the feminist spaces, infact the majority of anti-feminist or just feminist-critic commentators I’ve seen will talk about this.
I myself am a critic but I am critical of both sides, I am a major fan of egalitarian feminists but I really dislike gynocentric feminism and androcentric masculism when they become so gender-focused that they ignore and dismiss the others concerns. I’ve tried talking in some feminist areas that I had THOUGHT were basically egalitarian, or both genders in focus, I raised serious concerns I had of men in our society and got blasted out. Apparently there is a major desire in a few feminists to have female-only spaces, but the space wasn’t clearly defined as such so when other feminists say they want to work on mens issues too then confusion sets in because people like me mistake (and reasonably so) what a feminist space is. I use to think it was just equalism, raising awareness for gender equality issues for both genders, racial, size, etc but they only use the word feminism which does indicate if it’s ok for men to talk, or not.
Not trying to be all feminism is bad, but wanted to explain how privilege can be used badly and how many men and women I’ve seen are confused as to the goal of feminism. Maybe internet feminism in part is causing problems for academic feminism as I’ve seen a few academic feminists show absolute shock when others tell them of their experience with feminism, women like Jasmine who assure us feminism is egalitarian in academia but many of us aren’t in academia, we read the websites with the expectation they know what they’re on about, we comment and get treated like shit with other feminists remaining painfully quiet to calling out the bad feminists. It’s resulted in the privilege term being an antagonistic word, instantly it causes defensiveness n anger, can easily make a decent article be dismissed over 1 word and I find that to be sad.
On gender based privilege, I am completely unsure on the level it exists, or if other privileges overpower it.
I originally posted this comment on a Facebook page but was persuaded that it might be better posted here:
An interesting discussion that seems to repeat itself far too often. I founded GenderAgenda in 1987 at Middlesex Poly and it was still active about 10 years later. But in my short experience of it, and in contributing to Carol Lee’s book The Blind Side of Eden, I noticed a great many similarities to arguments concerning race in my time as chair of the Black Employees Support Group in Watford: namely, that the more powerful groups, politically and socially, often feel as if they are being victimised by the very groups suffering from the abuses of that power. Members of GendaAgenda, all men, owned up to violence – verbal, physical and sexual and many of our stories were passed to the Middlesex Poly Womens’ Group for discussion. Yet, even as those stories unfolded, there was an extraordinary outpouring of resentment against the victims – as strong as the contrition and shame felt as perpetrators. Racist and sexist culture is so strong, so virile, so overwhelming and so entrenched in our culture, religions, society and economic forms that both victims and abusers can start to blame the victims. We have to show this for what it is and come to terms with our own complicity. Since reading bell hooks and Edward Said, many of these issues have come into focus for me but the essential message should be that every man and woman, black or white, is capable of further entrenching racist and sexist attitudes; that is one of the meanings (for example) of the phrase, ‘every man is a potential rapist’. For ‘new men’ to write about the wrath of feminists is to deny their own part in the prevailing culture of power and abuse. I am starting to get a handle on this but, men, realise we are just starting to address these issues while women have been dealing with them for centuries.
I can appreciate the “women have been doing this for ages” sentiment in fact on some fronts I have the same sentiment towards women. However that sentiment doesn’t excuse my holding hostility to women that are starting to get in on the issues that harm men. Isn’t the same true?
For ‘new men’ to write about the wrath of feminists is to deny their own part in the prevailing culture of power and abuse.
Which is why this does not hold. There is some wrath among feminists. I agree its not fair to try to paint the entire movement as such but trying to act as if writing about the wrath of feminists goes hand in hand with denying our own part in the culture of power and abuse is a cop out. Men having a part in the way the gender norms play out does not excuse the kind of negativity that some feminists have taken up (and that others give them a free pass on).
Danny, you say; “Men having a part in the way the gender norms play out does not excuse the kind of negativity that some feminists have taken up (and that others give them a free pass on).” But it is not necessary for the members of a victimised group to have excuses for their anger at their victimisation when they have, instead, good reason. We are not discussing whether or not one individual is rude to another, that should always be avoided when possible because civilised discourse requires restraint. We are discussing men and women not merely as individuals but as historical forces and political gender-positions. When I write ‘as a man’ I am thinking about the personification of the power-structures that support sexism. I am complicit in many, many ways and strive to be less so; yet making the political personal is not to confuse individual responsibility with historical perspective but to take responsibility for history in the making.
Are you also angry at the power structures that attempt to force you into self-sacrifice roles via selective service/draft (If you are from U.S.A)? Also society, culture play a very large role and many gender-roles would leave a man in a bad situation at times, do these get talked about in your group? You can’t talk about privileges without talking about the responsibilities behind them.
Archy, I’m not from the U.S.A. and have no military background. But, in the group I was in for a few years in the 1980s, we talked about all of those issues – particularly the place of class and gender in carrying out the dirty work: those issues are not mutually exclusive from seeing oneself as a political agent for either complacency or change. When I was growing up in rural England in the 1950s and 1960s, many family atlases still showed half the world in pink and the pressure to conform to the needs of Empire were very strong indeed. But, rather than think about the responsibility of priviledge, I found myself identifying with the victims; particularly after UDI in Rhodesia, Powell’s Rivers of Blood speech and reports of the Sharpville masacre.
But it is not necessary for the members of a victimised group to have excuses for their anger at their victimisation when they have, instead, good reason.
Even when that anger results in negative behavior? Even if it results in some of the very same behavior they are fighting against? There is a difference between a feminist getting angry over the concept of male privilege and a feminist getting angry over the concept of male privilege then setting out to actively deny the experiences of men that don’t line up with the concept of male privilege. Anger in and of itself isn’t the problem, its what is done with it.
We are not discussing whether or not one individual is rude to another, that should always be avoided when possible because civilised discourse requires restraint.
Agreed its more than rudeness and anger. Its about the courses of action that one engages in based on how they choose to use that anger. That’s what I meant by “negativity” above. A female feminist being angry over being sexually assaulted as a child and never getting justice is one thing. A female feminist being angry over being sexually assaulted as a child and never getting justice then moving on to basing theory on the idea that male children are not sexually assaulted or that male children that are sexually assaulted are hurt as bad female children that are assaulted or male children that are assaulted need to run some sort of privilege check before being “allowed” to talk about their experiences. That’s not just rudeness. That’s very counter-productive sexism.
Its going to take more than restraint and civility to deal with the attitude that sexism against men does not exist or that female privilege does not exist or that women who are raped have it worse than men who are raped.
There is no amount of good reasonable anger to justify doing stuff like that.
We are discussing men and women not merely as individuals but as historical forces and political gender-positions. When I write ‘as a man’ I am thinking about the personification of the power-structures that support sexism. I am complicit in many, many ways and strive to be less so; yet making the political personal is not to confuse individual responsibility with historical perspective but to take responsibility for history in the making.
But the problem is (as I say above) is that people try to twist those historic forces an political gender-positions in order to shut out individuals.
And if its not individual responsibility then why is individual responsibility held up as a barrier of entry into some feminist spaces? Why the expectation (borderline requirement) of a man to accept (notice that I didn’t say “pay fair consideration to…”, “open his mind to the possibility of…”, etc… no as in “if you don’t accept this then you are a part of the problem”) ideas that run contrary to his own experience?
Danny, I would agree that anyone, regardless of gender, can take extreme positions that make no sense. That can be infuriating. And as we all have our own positions on many issues there are bound to be bust-ups, inconsistencies and unecessary agression in heated discussions. Yet those confrontations are certainly not unique to discussions about gender issues and happen within single-sex groups all the time as well as between them. But I have to say, in 40 years discussing these issues I have never personally encountered a woman who has (for example) denied the suffering that male rape victims endure. In fact, after the recent revelations concerning the Catholic Church I would say the reverse is true. Here in the UK awareness of sexual assults against boys is pretty high. Nevertheless, if in some places some people are denying those issues all one can do is present the data and the testimony on an individual basis. I personally would always try and avoid phrases like ‘wrath of feminists’ (or similar) because such phrases are not representative of the majority and, in my view, tend to undermine some very considerable achievements by feminists on all our behalves.
Hi — I want to jump in here. The “Wrath of the Feminists” — when used as the title of the post — was first used by Jenn Pozner — one of the feminists in the Twitter discussion. We had simply reposted what she had posted — title and all. In fact, I had talked to her about reposting it and she had said, “make sure to put quotes around the title” (since it had first been used within the twitter conversation) and make sure to link back to her original post. Both of which I did.
It has been my experience that we can’t get to the root of these problems without being able to talk about them honestly. Regardless whether “the wrath of the feminists” is a statement that has truth or not, it it obviously a perception. If it is a perception that needs to be changed, then lets talk about it. But talking about these really important, really polarizing issues by saying “Don’t talk about it THAT way, you MUST talk about it THIS way” is — to me — not conducive to honest discussion and true change.
I’d love if someone who feels strongly about that could write another post on it, maybe one that gets it out of this particular example. Thanks all.
Lisa, I agree that “we can’t get to the root of these problems without being able to talk about them honestly.” It seems to me that that is what we are doing here. It is still my preference not to use phrases that apply to some people in contexts that allow the phrases to be perceived as representative of a much broader group. I think that’s a reasonable position. I don’t always succeed, but who does?
Danny, I would agree that anyone, regardless of gender, can take extreme positions that make no sense. That can be infuriating. And as we all have our own positions on many issues there are bound to be bust-ups, inconsistencies and unecessary agression in heated discussions.
Agreed.
Yet those confrontations are certainly not unique to discussions about gender issues and happen within single-sex groups all the time as well as between them.
Agreed. I think its just a matter that since most of the discussion in this space is about gender that’s why these confrontations happen around gender.
But I have to say, in 40 years discussing these issues I have never personally encountered a woman who has (for example) denied the suffering that male rape victims endure. In fact, after the recent revelations concerning the Catholic Church I would say the reverse is true. Here in the UK awareness of sexual assults against boys is pretty high. Nevertheless, if in some places some people are denying those issues all one can do is present the data and the testimony on an individual basis.
That’s your experience and I can’t say your experiences didn’t happen just because my own didn’t go the same way (in fact I’ve met plenty of women who take on the “he should be glad” mentality when it comes to males being sexually assaulted by females).
I personally would always try and avoid phrases like ‘wrath of feminists’ (or similar) because such phrases are not representative of the majority and, in my view, tend to undermine some very considerable achievements by feminists on all our behalves.
I know how titfortat this sounds but frankly if feminists would avoid that very same behavior then maybe they wouldn’t get it coming back at them as well. We know that the majoirty of men aren’t rapists but that doesn’t stop some of them from defending the “all men are rapists” or “all men are potential rapists” lines of thought. We know that the vast majority of men don’t enjoy the privileges of the ones at the top but time and time against its “men have the power and women don’t”.
Yes they have made considerabel strides but they are going to hit a dead end if they think they can get men to work with them while at the same time doing the very things to us that they wouldn’t dare stand for if men were doing such things to them.
For example how much support do you think I’d get from feminists if I were running around declaring that sexism against women doesn’t exist? Or that there is no such thing as male privilege? Or tried to hold young girls responsible when they are sexually assaulted? Wouldn’t get far with that would I? So why am I expected to put up with it from them?
(More than likely you do not engage in that behavior but please bear in mind you share a title with folks that do.)
What would you say to the male victims who their harm is minimized and treated like it is so rare it’s “statistically irrelevent” as one anti-rape campaigner put it I believe. It’s all well n good to say the ones who cause the pain feel a sense of victimization from the other, but what of the actual victims who get treated like dirt from the very people who scream how much they are for equality?
I think for women to take part in this wrath without listening to the other side shows quite an ignorance, and whilst Tom did say some stuff which can be taken many ways he did raise some good points in how a male feels after reading so much feminist media. Eg, talking bout the male perps, female victims so much and rarely if ever talking about male victims, female perps can leave people feeling blamed unfairly, especially with new stats showing both situations are now very common for abuse.
Although I have read several recent posts on this site, this is my first time to comment so please bear with my ignorance of the issues and personalities that are addressed in this post. I don’t belong to any feminist groups nor have I kept up with feminist ideology or personalities over the years, although I’m familiar with Naomi Wolf. I came of age in the 60s-70s and delivered my English high school thesis on Germaine Greer to a class of mainly, (excuse the term) “rednecks”, in a rural Texas community. You can imagine how the subject went over, given the time and place.
I’m not going to delve into the rights and wrongs about feminist issues in this comment, but will just make a few statements and ask a question.
“Gaslighting” is not a new term for what men, or women, do to other women (or men) to delegitimize their behavior, goals, speech, etc. In the 80’s, I remember thinking my ex was gaslighting me when I did something he didn’t approve of, like my supporting the ERA. I’ve since seen the term written about many times.
What bothers me most about gender differences and feminism in general today is that it appears that nothing has really changed and that we’re still arguing about who is right and who is wrong, who has been insulted and who hasn’t, who the angry male in the room is, who the hostile feminist in the room is, etc. This can go on into infinity.
So, I guess what I’m wondering is, is it possible to get beyond all this crap, and actually do something positive for others whether male or female, instead of feeling one has to prove their feminism, or lack thereof, by talking and writing about all the wonderfulness of some and the neanderthalness of others?
PS I was having trouble with commenting on the site and accidentally posted this same comment on the link that was given for gaslighting. Oh well.
No problem about the multiple comment, and thank you for joining in the conversation. I’m the publisher, and well aware of what seems like a bottleneck in terms of advancing the discussion.
We are looking at how — as a community — we can get beyond this. We all agree that the conversation is important, the issues need to be discussed and that some of us want to actually create social change. (Others simply want to tell stories or create art, and that is fine too.) A big part of the problem is that we are taking on polarizing issues and allowing both sides to contribute. Right now it’s feminism and men’s rights. Other times it’s race or class or education or prison. None of those topics is particularly easy to talk about. And we always have a mix of voices, some who are just getting into the conversation and some who have been talking about these issues.
So we could take the “only enlightened can speak” route but that’s not what we’re about. What we really want is for people to find their own voice. And together — as a community — figure out a way to work through the most polarizing of issues. Because if we can do it on a small scale, perhaps we can do it on a large scale.
“A big part of the problem is that we are taking on polarizing issues and allowing both sides to contribute. Right now it’s feminism and men’s rights. Other times it’s race or class or education or prison.”
If I may be so bold, what about the issue of sex worker rights? Because specifically, you ran an incredibly problematic piece on “human trafficking” a couple of weeks ago:
http://goodmenproject.com/good-feed-blog/sex-trafficking-on-google/
In this article, *all* prostitution was conflated with sex trafficking, and more or less the underlying idea that sites like Google should be pressured not to allow sex worker advertising of any kind. However, what was worse is that the article referred to the “good work” of International Justice Mission, an NGO that advocates *very* coercive rescue strategies in poor countries, and has been responsible for driving a policy of mass imprisonment and police brutality against sex workers in Cambodia.
As far as I could tell, the main reason you ran the article was that the author, Raymond Bechard, is a self proclaimed “Human Rights Advocate” (capital letters his) and therefore a “good man”. I think many people who are more aware of the issues at play are pretty offended you’d run an article like this, which is the equivalent about running an article about gay men written by somebody in the far religious right. What I find truly offensive, however, is that you’ve never offered equal time to sex worker rights advocates.
I’m hoping this is just an oversight, and that you would you take submissions by sex worker rights activists to balance this out.
Iamcuriousblue:
I would ask if you are yourself a sex worker asking this question about sex worker rights. And yes, the answer would create a different set of judgements for me.
I have known sex workers personally, not as a client, nor a counselor, nor a rescuer. Some of the sex workers I knew liked the work. Yet all of them abused themselves through drugs and other means of perceived self hate. All of them which I knew had been sexually abused as children. I personally didn’t see their sex work as one of choice as much as self abuse, allowing other people to continue their sexual exploitation and abuse in exchange for cash up front.
Are the a number of sex workers who are doing the job because they truly value it? I am sure there are. Are there many who are doing the work because they feel they have little choice? Sure. Are there plenty of nonsex workers who feel trapped in their current positions, jobs they hate, exploited wage slaves rather than empowered, dangerous jobs which can ruin their health and their self esteem? Absolutely.
Thus the issue at heart is about treatment of the human condition, not one particular subset being singled out. As has been evidenced in other sex worker rights situations, or any workers rights, regulation does not have the power to change working conditions in any particular degree. Only respect for other humans seems to have that affect. And, personally, I don’t think most people purchasing the services of sex workers respect them as people.
First, no I’m not a sex worker, I just try to be an ally of that movement (and I have to ask what your problem is with sex workers having non-sex worker allies), and more generally, of social movements from below that are steamrolled over by the kind of blindly class-privileged authoritarian do-gooderism represented in that article. I’ll also say that I could care less about your “set of judgements”, since I have no idea who you are or what puts you in any position to judge me.
I think sex workers exist in a huge variety of situations, interpersonally, socially, and in terms of social class and place in the world. And many of those situations are far from rosy. That said, the picture you paint – as “all” drug abusers, and especially “all” survivors of sexual abuse re-enacting that abuse – I think is a very harmful stereotype, even if true for a minority of sex workers. If you really want to address what motivates sex workers, I think we need to look beyond rote psychobabble – “empowerment” vs “exploitation” – and look to the socio-economic situations and motivation of those who do sex work. I think it’s clear when looked at from that point of view, the answer is in destigmatization and offering options rather than “rescue” and “recovery”.
Now nothing you’ve said so far addresses the main point of my comment above, which has yet to be addressed by Lisa Hickey or anybody else from GMP. Questions about editorial balance, and who gets to speak for marginalized groups. It’s a bit like having articles on racism that are written only by white people. And in the case of sex workers, the problem is even worse, because from the perspective of a certain kind of exclusionary middle-class “feminist” or “social justice” mindset, sex workers seem very much people to be talked about or talked over, and having them speak from their own perspective is actively condemned. A socially conservative, male, “rescuer” type like Raymond Bechard is treated as having more credibility on this issue than, say, a sex worker activist like Furrygirl or Melissa Gira. And the product of that mindset is invariably toxic, as was displayed clearly in Bechard’s article.
Hi iamcuriousblue,
We are a community site, which means that our “editorial balance” is created by what our community submits to us. Although some of what is sent in is just not right for us, we work with everyone who wants to be a contributor. So in terms of “who speaks for marginalized groups” — it’s anyone who wants to. If you, or Furrygirl, or Melissa Gira want to contribute, all you have to do is submit a post, either online, here, http://goodmenproject.submishmash.com/submit or to me by email lisa at goodmenproject dot com
I am saddened that you chose to attack my comments rather than read them. I said ‘judgements’ because I choose to own that the words I was going to say were not fact, nor commonly held, but were my own thoughts and conclusions. I also never used the word ‘all’, only that of the sex workers I knew, this was the case. I was offered the opportunity to be a sex worker. I was poor, and knew people who were working four days a week and making more money than I was, and was very tempted by the money and the circumstance. Yet, I chose to work three part time jobs rather than go that direction with my life. So, socio-economic arguements only go so far with someone who has been on that side of the street and decided the grass really was greener on the opposite. That was my choice. I blame no one, nor condemn anyone, even though your words seem to want to place me in the category of middle class ‘feminist.’ Which, I know a number of middle class people who became sex workers so ‘class’ is not a factor, and to indicate that insinuates that only poor people become sex workers and so need rescued from their plight. I have found that marginalized people speak quite well for themselves, when they are actually listened to. I do not claim to speak for anyone, only myself and my experiences.
I would say read your own comments back. You chose to lead it off with “set of judgements” and demands to know where I was coming from. In fact, I have no idea why what I initially wrote was so triggering to you.
As for the last paragraph, that was not directed at you and I suggest you go back and re-read that. That was directed at the editorial slant and class bias I saw at work in GMP’s choice of articles (though I do take Lisa Hickey’s point in good faith that GMP depends on uninvited submissions, and I will encourage sex worker activists I know to submit writing here), and more generally, a certain kind of activism that I see at work among all to many academic and NGO folks that is oriented to talking *about* marginalized people rather than helping give them a voice. (Getting back to the original topic of this thread, I would say elevating somebody like Hugo Schwyzer to the go-to expert on young women’s self esteem is very much part of that problem.) It’s a very real problem that I wish white/middle-class/otherwise-privileged social activists would take far more seriously than they do.
As to class issues, yes, of course there are middle-class sex workers, and in fact, the stereotype that all sex workers are the poorest of the poor, uneducated, etc is a stereotype that really needs to be fought. At the same time, I think when you look at much of what drives many of the problems within sex work, and the fact that poor people are disproportionately represented in sex work, I think looking at bread-and-butter socio-economic and structural issues is far more productive than the kind of psychoanalyzing/recovery-oriented approach we see so often in these discussions. In fact, I think the latter is often used aggressively to push stigmatization and as a way of silencing people, and that’s a real shame.
I find it revealing that you state that I demanded, when in fact I requested to know your relationship to the issue you had posed. Also, ‘I I have no idea why what I initially wrote was so triggering to you,’ appears to be a dismissive statement. I think these are good examples of the term ‘gaslighting’ in action. Gaslighting is not always as overt and can be used in more subtle ways to undermine another person’s credibility with whom one disagrees.
I acted in integrity by stating that I was having judgements, because I accept that I will create a judgement based on a person’s point of view rather than pretend to be completely open minded without acknowledging how human bias and personal history will influence the way I view issues and situations. To do otherwise is, to my mind, disingenuous and hypocritcal. I realize it makes me more vulnerable to attack than if I make a stand under the pretense of creating open dialogue when in fact I might have my own agenda, albeit one aobut which I am attempting to be honest with myself.
The last paragraph not being directed ‘at’ me does not preclude me from commenting on the content of that paragraph. Again, implying that I was out of bounds in discussing them. I think that women’s anger is not the only aspect of personhood which is often routinely dismissed. And I strongly agree that this dismissive attitude is far too common among both genders.
***Gaslighting***?? Oh, for fuck’s sake! I guess some people have learned a new word, and can self-servingly invoke it to paint themselves as some kind of victim when an argument isn’t going their way. If there wasn’t a general policy against inflammatory language, I’d tell you exactly what you can do with your cheap accusations. But needless to say, you are *way our of line* and this conversation ends here.
I agree that this conversation ends, but not because via your attempt to silence me. Via your own comments, you have revealed your nature.
correction to this comment from the OP: “Referencing an old film, Yashar coined the simple term “gaslighting” to describe…”
no, yashar ali did not coin this simple term. he even makes this clear in his original post. the term has been around since the 1970s. florence rush used the word in a book she wrote in 1980.
please make the correction – this is a pretty misleading error.
Thank you for also picking up on the repeated errors that keep on being passed about so freely!
He did not coin the word.
The word gaslighting was coined back in the 1940′s from the movie….just google y’all!
What Schwyzer doesn’t seem to realize (or refuses to admit, more likely) is that on the whole, men’s anger and women’s anger are quite different. I know this quite well myself, having been intimate with both men and women. Men’s anger is sharp, controlled, and directed. Women’s anger is loud, disorganized, and vicious. Case in point: Amanda Marcotte. Her knee-jerk reaction to Tom’s article (in which she attacked him for something that he not only didn’t say, but didn’t even imply) is a prime example of the feminist mindset of labeling anybody who disagrees with you as a misogynist. If in doubt, just look up a study in which the effects of testosterone on women were measured.
“Men’s anger is sharp, controlled, and directed. Women’s anger is loud, disorganized, and vicious.”
Thanks. Thanks for that. I’m sorry if my anger is too loud, disorganized, and vicious. It must be all that estrogen making me moody.
But I have deep respect for your controlled and directed anger.
Have you ever dated a woman? If not, then you have no idea what I’m talking about.
Explain how the anger differs more? I’ve seen both genders lash out uncontrollably, and both use quite directed anger with restraint.