Yes, but based on your response I’m starting to doubt that you did. Let’s review. The examples given in the column were
[ol]
[li]collecting unflattering things that guys had texted on a blog called Straight White Boys Texting[/li][li]collecting unflattering things that guys had said and done in a column called “Dear Men: This Is Why Women Have Every Right To Be Disgusted With Us”[/li][li]adoption of the neologisms “mansplaining,” “manspreading,” and “manterrupting”[/li][li]failing to respect the “manosphere” while allowing author Laurie Penny to hurt male feelings[/li][li]reviling the concept of “friend zone”[/li][li]writing a misleading headline about a study and[/li][li]internet-mocking a guy who had a problem with female ghostbusters.[/li][/ol]
So, despite the rather creative use of the term “straw man,” a reasonable person would conclude that items 1, 2, 5, and 7 can be avoided by not saying something stupid, 1 and 2 can also be avoided by not texting pictures of your genitalia to strangers, and 3 by not interrupting an expert in the field to voice your shallow understanding of her field of expertise.
I cannot summon the will to care deeply about number 4. As for number 6, please hand me my smelling salts.
I already addressed this earlier. I didn’t write that headline, nor did the author. Some editor did. Editors write headlines to be short and provocative, not fair. It’s an unfortunate headline and shouldn’t be used to represent my views or those contained in the article.
You’re right. You did answer it when you said “Mind you, this is not in any way to argue that specific instances of misandry or male-bashing shouldn’t be called out.” My apologies. I’m glad you agree.
If you sincerely would like to engage in discussion of the topic, then please explain your objections to these simplifications. You can pick one or two examples if you don’t want to run down the entire list.
But you chose to use it as the title of your thread. If you wanted to avoid such sweeping overgeneralizations, why didn’t you just call this thread “Some Examples of Anti-Male Prejudice” or some equivalent less hyperbolic description?
Especially since, as I noted, the article author actually misrepresented what Penny wrote. Her pro-singlehood article on the way that traditionally sexist culture stacks the relationship deck against women is very different from typical “MGTOW” overtly misogynistic complaining that women are now “ruined” because they refuse to conform to the gender roles prescribed by traditionally sexist culture.
:dubious: Dude, according to your very own acknowledgement in your very own post immediately before this one, that communication failure was in fact your fault:
But you WOULD say you’re not a racist. How is that different?
Who the hell are you to tell someone who says they are not racist that they actually are, based on no evidence? Who are you to say you know someone better than they know themselves?
But you reserve the right to say that someone who says they aren’t racist is racist, based on nothing more than them saying it a certain way - “I"m the least racist person” or whatever.
Jesus. What preposterous rubbish.
No, actually, you aren’t.
You can call me a racist if you think you see me say or do something racist. Otherwise, no.
Who the hell are you to tell me you understand racism better than I do? That is something that ALSO requires you to have some kind of evidence. You can’t just tell me that because I say I’m not racist, you know what I understand about racism. You know nothing about my understanding of racism whatsoever except what you have heard me say or seen me do.
Sure.
But I’m not wearing a white sheet.
This is more akin to me saying “I don’t wear white sheets” and you telling me you think I do because I don’t understand what wearing white sheets means.
But you just said that anyone who complains about anti-white racism is probably just trying to minimize racism, did you not? Now you just said anti-white racism is wrong.
Look, I’m glad you’ve dialed it back to “look askance.” Being skeptical is fine. Don’t go around telling people they’re racist just because they said they aren’t, or that they’re racist because they bring up anti-white racism. If you say you never did that in the first place, fine, I accept that and we can move on. Don’t tell me what I understand about anything unless you have a good reason to know what I understand, okay? I give you the same respect.
Agreed. I had read the Penny piece before and thought it was quite insightful. I’m not sure why Cathy Young included it in her examples unless she didn’t really read it for comprehension. Sadly, there’s a lot of that going around these days.
Yes, but he posted that before I posted that it was my fault, in this instance.
He, and you, were making a big deal out of a simple misunderstanding.
Maybe I’m an idiot who can’t read. Or maybe I’m smarter than all of you and five steps ahead of you and you’re the ones who don’t get it. Or maybe it’s both. Or maybe it’s just normal for people typing on a board - especially when one of them is getting comments from several others and once and trying to keep up - to have misunderstandings sometimes. Don’t get all arrogant about it and blame me for it all, please.
If you have new evidence to show that what she wrote about any of these is wrong or a mistake, that’s fine. I merely object to you summarizing them in a self-serving way.
I’m swamped with responses here and with real life. I will try to get back to you with one or two to discuss when I can. Can’t digest it all now.
No I wouldn’t. When did I ever say I’m not a racist?
What the hell are you talking about? Who did I call a racist?
These communication problems seem to be recurring. I have no idea what you’re responding to.
When the hell did I say this? Where do you get this stuff?
I’m not free to have an opinion about you or other people based on what you/they say?
That’s a new one.
When did I ever call you racist?
Please, please, please try to do a better job of reading the posts you are responding to.
Right – by what you say. If someone says they aren’t a racist, then that reveals to me that they don’t fully understand racism. I imagine that there’s a ton about racism that I don’t fully understand, and things I say probably reveal that sometimes. But one of the things I do understand is that no one really knows if they are or are not racist.
That’s my opinion. You’ve explained why you think it doesn’t mean this, and I disagree for the reasons I’ve already given.
Sorry if this pisses you off, but you’ve always asked for honest responses, and this is my honest response.
It’s just analyzing the history of an action – wearing white sheets, or complaining about anti-white racism. When someone does one of those things, I have a suspicion of why – not a final judgment, but a suspicion.
They don’t conflict. I’m just going by the math, of what the ultimately revealed motives of most people who try and start a conversation about anti-white racism. Not all people, but most, so it’s just a suspicion.
It was never “dialed up” past looking askance. I never called you or anyone else racist in the post you responded to.
Please try to read better. I went over my post again and I still can’t figure out where the hell you got this stuff from.
As to what you understand, I only make my opinion by what you say. I expect your opinion of me comes solely from what I say as well. And it’s just my opinion.
No, I was hoping you could provide a little more explanation as to why you thought my summary of the author’s evidence for her thesis was not accurate, so I might be able to understand your point of view.
Meh–I know I’m sometimes racist. I just got a reminder from Pandora that my weekend isn’t complete without a little of the “Americana Boys and Girls” station that I created, based on their “Americana” station (which was all male singers). Since I was also thinking about this thread, it occurred to me that when I customized the station to make it not just a bunch of white dudes representing American culture, I still left it as all white people. Didn’t even realize I was doing it.
Now, that ain’t the same as shooting a bunch of people because of their skin color. It’s about as trivial as you can get. But it’s still the kind of thing that a person should pay attention to, because when you equate American culture with white people culture, it’s a little bit racist.
I noticed that little thing. What haven’t I noticed?
It seems to me that the problem with some of those cases is the same problem people have with the title of the article. If “feminists treat men badly” should make it clear that it’s only about some feminists[sup]1[/sup], then shouldn’t an article about why women have every right to be disgusted with men make it clear that it’s only about some men? And no, I can’t avoid it by “not saying something stupid”. I’m tarred by that brush whether I’ve said anything or not.
I did not see if you, Barrett, specifically made that objection, but it has been asserted in this thread.
:dubious: