When we have a conversation about gender, C.W. Nahumck writes, we are often set up to fail before we even begin.
In the back and forth about the “Wrath of the Feminists” there has been one small problem: discussions and debates tend to break down into arguments and name calling because of misunderstandings and problems with the nature of the debate in the first place. This is a stretch, but I would say that most, if not all, gender discussions between people of differing views will breakdown because of issues of power dynamics. It’s just not the power dynamics that one would first think of.
When I was in undergrad, ten years ago, philosophy club tended to have a knowable cycle. We would meet to discuss some topic of ethics or metaphysics or epistemology, only to have our discussion go absolutely no where because we argued and clarified definitions. One thing became clear to me then:
Whoever defines the terms is able to frame the debate in a way that sets them up with the advantage and ultimately the ability to “win.” When it comes to the debate on gender, in general, men are at a disadvantage, because feminism has started the debate and thus has been allowed to define its terms.
Is this a bad thing? Not necessarily. Feminism has brought to consciousness many things about society that should be challenged, addressed, corrected, highlighted, and embraced. That said, feminism is still an “ism,” and all “isms” miss details, make assumptions about reality, and tend to focus on trying to define the terms as they see them. Again, this is not any different from any other “ism,” from sexism, to progressivism, to conservatism, to patriotism, to racism. “Isms” by their very nature, exclude some and raise others up.
The issue is not who gets to speak, but what the rules are for speaking. When one group gets to determine what the definitions are before the discussion even happens, the game is rigged from the start. This is what is wrong with the discussion. When men and women say that men need a space to figure out what masculinity means to them, it does not mean that women are not allowed into the discussion. It does not mean that feminists are not allowed into the discussion. What it does mean is that the definitions that are developed must be agreed upon before the discussion begins.
When the term “Rape Culture” is used, arguing against it is impossible, because those who endorse it have accepted the definition as true, while those who find the (intentionally) jarring term troubling are at a loss. Feminists, both men and women, have been speaking intentionally about women, men, and equality for a lot longer and from a specific place for longer than men and women who may not want that same label applied to them.
Unfortunately my experience of the discussion, both here on the GMP and in my own conversations, have been one where I, as a man, need to conform to the definition of others.
Yet there are times, in articles or in comments, that one of the sides of the conversation tries to say that the other doesn’t “get it” because their experience doesn’t stack up to another’s. When we do that, we invalidate the particularities of the individual’s life, and all the things that make them who they are, as interesting human beings.
And this is happening, to a large extent, in the conversations that men who do not want to take on the feminist label, disagree with. Can we define what it means to be men, in our own particularity, without having to accept definitions of others? To put it another way, can I play in the sandbox and play by my own rules?
I hope so, because to do otherwise means that true discussion and learning and growth for all involved in the discussion is cut off. If we all have to agree to the terms of the negotiation before we negotiate, then why are we even talking?
—Photo apdk/Flickr
You’d rather have a “solution” that “solves” a situation that doesn’t actually exist?
Mmmm. Nah. Most if not all of the feminist terms are bunk (“the patriarchy”, “male privilege”, “rape culture”, “mansplaining”, “check your privilege”) but I’ve never felt the need to agree to their legitimacy for even one second. Considering the head start they don’t have much anyway. I could make up better stuff in my sleep. No, what stops discussions with feminists is that they simply have no motivation to talk to their opponents. It’s just a big lose lose for them. The only motivation they have is ego (thinking they can hold their own) and that doesn’t keep them going… Read more »
Quit yo’ mansplaining! “Mansplaining,” heh, thats a new one to me 🙂 Seriously though, the way you phrased that response really isn’t useful: the only ones who are going to agree with it are the ones who already do. If you read the following on a feminist site: “MRAs literally have no issues but have to constantly pretend they do. They have to pretend to be for equality while acting to do the exact opposite (again much like Obama). That sort of bind can be handled if you only speak in rigged press conferences but if you have to confront… Read more »
Great piece, C.W. Aligining oneself with an ISM of any sort usually leads to an extreme, one-sided view, lacking objectivity and reality. The articles and comments written from an ISM perspective clearly show that to be the case.
The issue is not who gets to speak, but what the rules are for speaking. When one group gets to determine what the definitions are before the discussion even happens, the game is rigged from the start. Isn’t that why feminists have a problem in the first place? The rules for speaking for so long favored masculine speakers? That the game was rigged from the start, for many generations, against women? That the definitions of, and expectations for, womanhood were/are coopted and created by people who were not women? That expectations, be them social, through policy making, religious ideals, etc… Read more »
Is it really possible that women, who raised most children and got first crack at instilling their kids biases had ZERO effect on society pre 1901? Control of fertility did more for western women than any other single advance. Men hadn’t rigged the game….biology did……human ingenuity has helped some overcome that hurdle, even if biological clocks add a new different hurdle for many.
“The Hand That Rocks The Cradle Is The Hand That Rules The World” – William Ross Wallace
What century are you talking about? Not this one.
Prior to the 20th century a small number of men monopolised the right to influence society in a small number of ways. As mentioned above, women have guided the entire childhoods of everyone for generations, While I agree that some definitions of womenhood were perpetuated by men, definitions of manhood were also perpetuated by women. Both roles were defined by necessity and biology.
Before feminism there was very little conversation on gender, people (men and women) reflected the world around them and the generations that preceeded them. The article gives credit to feminism for this fact.
I don’t think feminism changed much there. They just took the Victorian ideals of men as dastardly doers and women as pure and passive and simply emphasised the parts they liked — men became utterly evil and women angelic victims.
The men’s movement of the same period was far more consequential (unions, communism).
Jamesq, why?! “A fine article. feminists love the fog of words. ive noticed their definition trick too, which is not an attempt to clarify the meaning of a word, but instead a ruse of evasion and obscuration” Why start this already?? Seriously?? All of you–can you give it a rest?? Have you not had enough of this for the past week? Anybody? Anyone else SICK TO DEATH of this bullshit? Where did that wonderful, intelligent, informative, enjoyable site called The Good Men Project go? You know what? Beyond irritating, this broken record is BORING. Have at it, fellas. Have fun.… Read more »
Lori I hear your frustration and your concerns. I find it distressing when people feel oppressed by others. Sometimes that sensation of oppression is not valid, and yet at other times it is not only valid but does identify real oppression. I am not distressed without cause. I have been in the position of feeling and actually being subject oppressed due to a number of factors in my life which others believed and even still believe make me a lesser human. I wish we all had magic wands where we could make the world perfect. But if we did I… Read more »
You may not see this because you didn’t subscribe to updates, but I appreciate you calling others out on the B.S. Yesterday, after catching up on the “Wrath of Feminists” debacle, I considered “un-liking” GMP on Facebook (which is what directs me here most often, other than the Frisky) and just being done with it. The commenters were making this an environment that, if not hostile, was at least uninviting. Like walking into a bar in the middle of a brawl – I’d rather just leave than try to find a seat. In any case, I did not Unlike the… Read more »
Lori, I understand your frustration, and it is one of the reasons why I do not discuss my personal experiences here or in other feminist spaces. No person should have conditions on when or how they can talk about their experiences or their feelings, and no person should have to deal with people refusing to talk with them unless it is on the other person’s terms. I am not saying that is what you are doing. However, in my experience, that is what a lot feminists do when men and women do not want to run their experiences through a… Read more »
Agreed. How do we all of us stop it from turning into a fractured funhouse mirror with each side doing similar drive bys each saying they aren’t doing that but the other side is.
I can think of half a dozen different ways – some technical and some social. I would have to check which one’s would work on the technology underpinning the site. It would be funny to have each poster fitted with a “Faith-Omoter”. P^) The most basic is that all posters have to agree “Good Faith” – but that would need to be defined, and those who show persistent Bad Faith policed off the site! I suspect though that GMP is far more robust than some realize, and that in the near future the current patch of stormy seas will be… Read more »
The way that we stop this whole thing “from turning into a fractured funhouse mirror” is to have the conversation in a different way. We, all of us, from whether we come from a feminism lens or an anti-feminism lens or some other “ism” lens, need to stop arguing and start talking. It’s not about trying to be right, its about trying to be heard and understood. The conversation needs to become confessional. By that, I mean that we need to be in a place where we can say “This is how I see the world. This is what makes… Read more »
C.W. I agree with you BUT. There is always a But! P^) Your ideas are predicated on the view that all are equal and all have the same intent. Unfortunately, that is not so. I have seen these Internet halls of fractured mirrors before and it can be very destructive. It actual gets destructive, not just to the group level, but on a personal. There are people in this world who do not fit the Normal. They have radically different brain functional and social function to the normal. When they are active on the Internet they are referred to as… Read more »
Sociopaths. Monsters in human form.
Well for one you could quit pandering to the delusional feminists. You could start saying that it’s not legitimate to live in a fantasy world. It’s not appropriate to eg. pretend there’s “male privilege” and then be unable to even say what you mean by it. You could quit pandering to the abusive feminists. You could start saying it is not acceptable behaviour to post abusive sexist anti-male stuff all the time. eg stuff saying men are responsible for rape or that men should be treated worse than women. And you could quit pretending it’s both sides doing it. When… Read more »
“”A fine article. feminists love the fog of words. ive noticed their definition trick too, which is not an attempt to clarify the meaning of a word, but instead a ruse of evasion and obscuration’ Why start this already?? Seriously?? All of you–can you give it a rest??” Perhaps an example will help you understand. Feminists have been successful in how rapes cases are portrayed in media. The woman is always, during the trial, called the victim, when she is in fact the accuser. And if it turns out she made a false accusation, and the man is cleared, the… Read more »
Harsh but accurate, Neo. The irony of someone on a MEN”S ISSUES FORUM telling men to just shut up already and quit describing their problems and complaints is staggering.
I know, i agree Copy. Folks, complaining about my comments isnt going to stop me – im a man who wears fishnet tights in public. Be the change you want to see in this world. People should ‘be the change they want to see’. They should post more, on less contentious pieces like this one goodmenproject.com/holidays-love-or-hate/a-few-steaks-in-the-office/ Oh look, there i am, leaving a note to let the AW know that at that point, at least ONE person had read his work, and to encourage less contentious article writers to keep writing. I dont see the ‘peaceniks’ there encouraging him –… Read more »
I know, i agree Copy. Folks, complaining about my comments isnt going to stop me – im a man who wears fishnet tights in public. Be the change you want to see in this world. People should ‘be the change they want to see’. They should post more, on less contentious pieces like this one hhttps://goodmenproject.com/holidays-love-or-hate/a-few-steaks-in-the-office/ Oh look, there i am, leaving a note to let the AW know that at that point, at least ONE person had read his work, and to encourage less contentious article writers to keep writing. I dont see the ‘peaceniks’ there encouraging him –… Read more »
You know Lori I’m VERY tempted to just leave a “it doesn’t feel so great does it?” comment but I already know that it doesn’t.
I myself have recently been thinking on the cycle of hatred that happens with such feelings and despite knowing that its wrong and not just unproductive but counterproductive my attempts to escape it have only been short term. Always I would drift back into the dark.
The big money question is how can we get everyone to end the hatred.
Ignore them, the idiots are everywhere and they’re all against you. Try to just bask in the irony that they’re making one sided statements on an article about not being biased.
The issue is not who gets to speak, but what the rules are for speaking. When one group gets to determine what the definitions are before the discussion even happens, the game is rigged from the start.
A fine article. feminists love the fog of words. ive noticed their definition trick too, which is not an attempt to clarify the meaning of a word, but instead a ruse of evasion and obscuration
As is said one of the biggest barriers of communication in the gender discourse is the expectation of “if they don’t work from my definitions and assumptions then they are automatically wrong”. When you start off like that its no wonder that the different sides of the gender discourse have such a hard time communicating with each other.
And thus the never ending standoff continues.
I disagree that feminists have an advantage because feminists, by virtue of how they define things, are ignorant of men’s experiences. While they may have defined the terms they want to use, feminists are at a disadvantage because they work from assumptions. As for the impossibility of arguing against “rape culture,” by that logic it is impossible to argue against any term because those who endorse it have accepted the definition as true. Of course, that makes no logical sense because, as you noted, every “ism” has a built-in bias by virtue of focusing narrowly on one group. The easiest… Read more »
Agreed, Jacob. Feminists, as individuals, may indeed have something to contribute to a discussion of men’s issues. Feminism as a philosophy or point of view does not. In fact, it CANNOT, by definition, because it’s a female-centered perspective… and that’s worse than useless in discussing men’s issues.
Where’s that essay?
(“When I wrote my article about women’s sexual violence against boys”)
“feminists are at a disadvantage because they work from assumptions.”
Thats far far too broad to be confirmed or denied. Some people of any persuasion work from assumptions. Everyone works from assumptions some of the time. Alot of feminist thought has some very solid research behind it.
Also, the statement that this is true of feminism, whether you meant it or not, somewhat implies that this isn’t true, or is less true, of masculism.
There’s just no such symmetry.
I simply cannot imagine asking a MRA to name a men’s issue and they are unable to do it.
With feminists? 99% cannot.
If you can’t tell the difference between essentially a cult and a group that isn’t a cult then what are we playing at? It just isn’t that hard to tell the difference. Please name me this feminist “thought” that has research behind it.
I have to agree totally.
I have been asking people for terms of reference and they simply obstruct dialogue by not supplying them.
I have found one person who has even appreciated the dialogue around the matter, but that is 1 from so many. It does speak volumes.
I hope that others will read your words and get the message, but I fear that so many will not want to loosen any grip on the Privilege they hold by having their rule book and demanding everyone has to follow it.