Damn right. What is going on with the term “misogynist”, just like racist, sexist, etc., is argument by false association. Everyone agrees that misogynism, racism, and sexism are bad, because the terms refer to genuinely bad things. But it is a fallacy to try to expand the meaning of those words beyond their original scope and exploit their negative connotations to bolster your argument against some other kind of behavior that you don’t like.
That’s not what I said at all. I didn’t say it’s stupid to try because it’s impossible. My point is that the implied question “why don’t we teach all men not to do this?” is sexist.
If these women would say “these men”, “those men”, “bad men”, “pig-like men”, or whatever, that would be okay. But you never hear that. It’s always “men”, in general. All men. Hence, the usual defensive response “not all men.” Sorry, if you’re going to make a poorly worded complaint that accuses me by implication, I am going to react defensively before actually pondering whether you might have a point when applied to other people. Is that “not listening?”
This thread is about the hashtag in the title. Could we have one thread one this board about gender issues without someone saying the men should sit at the feet of the women and absorb their wisdom?
As for the hashtag, the vast majority of contributions seem to be about how women fear violence, and worry about walking about alone at night and suchlike. These fears are ill-founded. Men are, after all, much more likely to be victims of violent crimes committed by unrelated adults. The hashtag is about as valid as #YesAllWhitePeople.
Yes, but my point was that #YesAllWomen is a rather poor rebuttal to #NotAllMen because it dismisses those experiences where “but not all men…” may be appropriate, while simultaneously decrying how their own experiences are dismissed.
Men trying to have a bit of input about how they are perceived as a whole is not the same as “Men telling women how to talk about the way men talk about women.”
If this is a thread about the effectiveness of #YesAllWomen, then what is said in that thread about men might be something some men might want to talk about, wouldn’t you say?
On the other hand, if this thread is about women’s experience with online violence, as you put forth, then what the term “online violence” actually means should definitely be discussed.
The first part of this sentence really isn’t really true, but let’s pretend it is. How do we then apply these terms to real-world behavior? There’s a lot to discuss there. It kind of sounds like you’re trying to do with sexism what a lot of people do with racism: insist that the word be avoided unless it’s the most cartoonish and vile expression of hatred possible. And if it’s anything else, we should bend over backward to call it something else for fear of hurting someone’s feelings. That’s foolish at best, and at worst, it’s a nauseating form of excuse-making that enables a lot of shitty behavior. No thanks.
What you’re describing is not a fallacy.
The question isn’t implied, though. And the fact that most of us don’t do this kind of bullshit proves that it’s not sexist to discuss.
In other words, whenever women discuss their experiences with sexism and similar mistreatment, their first consideration should be sparing your feelings even when they’re not talking about you. Got it.
Yes. The problem is that Absolute is insisting he’s being painted with a broad brush when nobody’s talking about him in the first place. There comes a point when that kind of need for … well, absolution … hijacks the discussion. I don’t feel targeted or brushed by any of this stuff, so I’m not going to demand any apologies or rewording or a signed form saying nobody’s talking about me. @emma_pins doesn’t say anything about men as a whole or assert that men are predisposed to objectify women. She’s saying the burden for “male attention” gets placed on women instead of men, and that that’s entirely unreasonable.
I suggest the word be interpreted according to the dictionary definition, to avoid confusion and miscommunication. Silly me. Surely it is better for everyone to just make up their own definitions for words.
Widget slumlords frazzled pigs. What do you make of that? Oh, you disagree? You racist!
Mea culpa. It is nevertheless something. Intellectually dishonest, perhaps?
From all the women on Twitter going off about “men”, I don’t get the sense they agree. Again, what if they were all ranting about “black men”? Would you still overlook the ridiculous over-generalization?
If you want to have a productive discussion, you have to avoid insulting half your audience through sloppy language and careless over-generalizations. Is that really so unreasonable?
If I started posting about “Why don’t we teach black men to stop dropping out of high school, dealing drugs and committing crimes?”, would you really tell all the protesting black people to shut up because “we don’t care about sparing your feelings, and don’t worry, we weren’t talking about you anyway?” Do you think one of our black posters would come in here and say “Well, I’ve never done any of those things, so I realize no one was referring to me and I’m not offended?” The idea is ludicrous.
Here is an article about “Not all men”. I don’t agree with all it says, but I think it should give some perspective as to why it is not a good argument to make.
I find that quickly becoming defensive shows insecurity and that the person who becomes defensive IS a bit of what they’re talking about. This apply to someone who say “Not all men” or “not all white”, or similar things. Because really, you can listen to the complains, and if it doesn’t apply to you you know it doesn’t, you don’t need to become defensive right away. You can argue without having to resort to that. You can ask and question and talk around it, without making a case that “you’re not like them”.
You understand that a dictionary is a guide to how words are used and not the final arbiter of their usage, right?
So far your examples don’t support that contention at all.
I think you need to reconsider whether you are actually being insulted. Because so far I’m not seeing the insults. And people who insist they’re being insulted when they’re not even being talked about aren’t being reasonable either.
The “online violence” thing is just a joke about the phrasing of the OP.
j666 meant that Twitter was being used to share opinions and experiences about gender-based violence, but the wording made it sound like people were talking about Twitter-based violence.
If I call someone a “bitch” and they get defensive, does that prove they really are a bit of a bitch? Of course not. Someone becoming defensive could mean that they recognize some truth in the accusation - or it could simply mean they don’t like being insulted.
#YesAllWomen serves a real purpose in bringing to light the various problems women face in our paternally leaning society…but a fast moving twitter account is next to useless when it comes to intelligent discourse. By the time you can compose a very short response to what someone has said you’re 50 posts behind.
But it’s different if they’re not being insulted or called names in the first place. The hashtag was huge for several days, so I’m sure it was attached to some insults and dumb comments as well as some insightful commentary. But the conversation itself is not in any way insulting, and nobody was insulted in the four examples posted here. I think that’s what KarlGrenze meant.
I feel that the real power and purpose of #YesAllWomen is to really illustrate how pervasive misogyny is. I think most men really do get that sexism is a thing, and that it’s bad, but I feel they might not always really get how often it crops up, and the myriad ways that the women they love, know, and care about are experiencing it.
To me, this should be an eye-opener for every man that proclaims to care about a woman somewhere. To take a moment to try to really understand what it’s like to live in a world where we are treated as inferior on a regular enough basis that there’s such a groundswell of this kind of movement. And even well-intentioned, educated, responsible, anti-sexist men and women participate in misogynistic behaviors.
I like #YesAllWomen because for once, it takes the focus off of proving what men are or aren’t doing, but just allows you to see through our eyes what we are experiencing. And I think that’s the first step to really doing something about the issue. Discussion and debate is not going to get anywhere if you can’t at least see someone else’s perspective.