Ordinarily I’d just chalk this up to an exceedingly subtle whoosh and move on, but since this is a point worth making and I’ve invested a bit of effort already:
mansplaining: When a man explains something to a woman in a tone deemed condescending. i.e. “There is this enormous collection of electronic computers in a massive remote configuration, which we call the Cloud, and some of them are called Google, and those ones help you look up terms like this.”
tone policing: Criticizing the tone of a text without addressing its content (brought to you by the creators of mansplaining).
Suffice to say I’m on your side of this matter, but not without some reservations.
A big part of why I discuss things on the Dope instead of in real life (or on a non-anonymous site like Facebook) is because it has been made clear to me, by friends and acquaintances and strangers alike, that as a straight white male my input is not wanted. It’s not about “mansplaining”. It’s that I literally cannot say anything that has any validity to women or minorities.
These aren’t a few bad apples, or man-hating dykes, or militant gay men, or whatever. It’s likeable, reasonable, every day people that are nice to talk to about things like the weather or the baseball game, but god forbid the topic drifts towards politics or society.
It’s not like I’m some conservative Rush Limbaugh type. I consider myself a feminist, agree with most of my friends politically, and would simply like to offer my unique perspective during those conversations. But it has been made very clear, over and over, that simply by having a penis and white skin, my perspective has zero validity, and my opinion should be kept to myself.
That’s fine. I’ll get my political conversations elsewhere. I’m not going to whine about how straight white dudes don’t have a voice because that would be stupid and incorrect. But excluding people from the conversation based on gender, skin color or sexual orientation sure doesn’t seem very progressive. Just what exactly is the goal here?
Anyone doing that is a jerk. I don’t think that’s happening very often, but I’m open to the possibility that I’m wrong. I think a lot of white men are challenged or criticized when they interject themselves into a conversation on a topic that they have no experience with, and some may translate that to “my input is not wanted”, but I don’t think that’s the case.
Exactly. Your opinion’s status as the default “person”'s opinion doesn’t make it an opinion you aren’t entitled to have or express. It may make it seem to you as though you’re being told you can’t have an opinion when that default setting is questioned, though. “You cannot accurately opine on this because it is not your experience” isn’t taking anything away from you.
Start a thread about how feminists attack men: nobody says you can’t say that. They respond. But the responses, because they aren’t in accordance with lance armstrong’s doctrinal canon, are interpreted as attacks on his right to have an opinion. And at some future time, this thread itself will be used as evidence to support the initial premise.
I am a great believer that men and woman should be treated equally and both with the same respect. UNLESS some one goes on and on and on about their rights, then I become a bad boy and become a wind up merchant, the problem is that I am encouraged by ladies in the group who are as annoyed as me by these harpies and their sexist degradation of men, they do so much to hold back the advancement of woman in the work place.
As for racism the race card is waved far to often these days. I was canvassing to leave the EU when a white gentleman called me a racist, as though on cue a Nepalese friend came over to say hello and tell me about his holiday back to his village, we were then joined by two Caribbean friends of mine, Just as the white gentleman decided to leave a Chinese lady joined me to help give out leaflets.
I move in wide circles and very rarely meet real hard line racists, There is a perceived racism where people like myself are definitely not PC and do not watch every word they say. I was making a real arse of a job when my black friend called me a nigger because I was useless, when he tried to put the job right he made a bigger mess and yes I called him a nigger he called me white trash, we then had a beer. If our conversation had been overheard by one of the permanently offended there would have been cries of me being a racist, when all it was only two friends enjoying the British custom of insulting one another (banter)
This topic, more than nearly any other topic in society, is rife with confirmation bias.
Feminists tend to see good examples of feminism and dismiss the bad examples within their own camp.
MRAs tend to see bad examples of feminism and dismiss the good examples within the feminist camp.
I know plenty of good feminists. But I also have known feminists who willfully went around preaching ugly, hateful messages of the “Boys are stupid, men are pigs” variety.
In the end, with most debates regarding feminism, everyone sees and focuses on what they want to see and focus on. Debate is often futile - everyone goes home only further convinced that their side is right. The feminists go home even more feminist than before and the MRAs go home even more MRA-ish than before.
What would you guess is the ratio of “good” feminists you’ve encountered to preachers of “ugly, hateful” messages? Rough estimate?
Because for me, it’s easily 10:1 at least–and I live in the People’s Republic of Portland, surrounded in my professional life by *extremely *liberal and vocal people of the sort one might expect to be more preachy. Even in that environment the bad eggs are infrequent enough that it’s very easy to consider them a dismissible minority.
.
This. Or whatever bias it is that makes us think the loudest voices are the most prevalent. When we think “Feminist” we’re usually picturing an angry woman waving a provocatively worded placard, because we simply never hear from the other 90% who are quietly wishing for the same deal that men have. It’s hard to get attention without punching up the message a bit.
He was there. You weren’t. You can’t say that someone wasn’t telling him exactly what he said - that his opinion is unwelcome because of his sex and race, period.
What exactly is my “canonical doctrine?”
I don’t deny that there can be legitimate reasons for a feminist to attack a man. Duh. That’s obvious. I have spoken up against sexist men myself. But you should not deny that men have been subject to illegitimate, unfair, sexist attacks either, because that also happens.
Why can’t we just have both? Why can’t we agree that sexism is wrong, and that it’s wrong no matter who the victim is? Pretty simple.
A few of us at least strive to rise above bias, confirmation or otherwise, using rationality. In fact, overcoming bias with rationality is the goal of feminism and other social justice movements in the first place. It’s not easy, and I won’t claim I’ve always done it, but you at least have to try. The fact that I’m a feminist critiquing feminism should mean something in that regard.
For you, maybe, but maybe you just don’t get out enough or aren’t paying attention.
But the larger issue is this: why does the ratio matter? Nobody is saying the “good” feminists are tarnished by the bad ones. Do you agree that ugly, hateful message are both wrong and counterproductive? If so, there’s really nothing more to say about it. We agree. Let’s join together to condemn ugly, hateful messages by anyone against anyone any time we see them. Done.
Really. At least I’m not, and neither is the author of the article. We arent’ saying that sexist attacks from feminists (or anyone) against men somehow makes feminism wrong.
The disagreement is about what constitutes “sexist attacks from feminists”, and for those things that are agreed are sexist, the disagreement is about how prevalent they are.
Well, close enough. As for the subject I guess Gretchen Carlson was forced to become a Feminist…
The writer linked in the OP just plainly ignores what is going on, and excuses Trump out of all people as being a reaction against that radicalization of the feminists; in reality that is not what most feminists go about. And I would not be surprised that one factor of Carlson’s resignation was to avoid being part of the efforts from FOX news to carry water for the misogynist in chief.
I can’t think of a good justification for the opposite course of action (i.e., deliberately continuing to act or speak in a way that offends someone). If you’re trying to argue against feeling retroactively bad about it once you’re informed, or against refraining from ever doing whatever it is, I’m somewhat on board, but I can’t see how to defend not stopping doing it around the person going forward.
The alternative would be to say that there is an objective definition of “wronged” independent of how people feel. Sometimes we do say this; sometimes it is necessary to say this (e.g., in the law). But among people, casually, I’m not sure how someone can feel wronged without being wronged
Either your friends and acquaintances are assholes and you should look into dropping the friendships and acquaintanceships, or what they’re saying is not actually clear to you (presumably that as a straight white male your experiences of homophobia, institutional/societal racism, and misogyny are rather limited).
Of course, I’m not you, so it’s possible that people are actually saying the input of straight white men is not wanted. But, of course, you can still have such discussions anonymously on the Dope.
I think your perspective may not be as unique as you believe it is. In any event, I can understand why people who’ve experienced something might not be interested in the perspective of someone who’s heard about it.
Your confusion seems to stem from an assumption that everyone already has an equal voice, and that excluding the straight white male perspective from some conversations doesn’t open it up to other, different perspectives.
Sexism is wrong no matter who the victim is but who the victim is has bearing on whether, in context, a certain behavior is sexism.
You seem to be in favor of equality. But “equality” from what perspective? The “I hit everybody in the face” sort of equality? Treating individuals equally in a gender-blind way here and now but within (and not examining or addressing) the societal context? Or saying “what are the forces in society that, whether by design or otherwise, perpetuate sexism in the form of people of different genders having de facto different life options?” and then trying to neutralize those forces, even at the “cost” of taking gender into account and consequently treating individuals in ways that may not be, or at least may not look, equal?
