Believe it or not, she's actually a villain. (c) Wizards of the Coast
At NSWATM, noahbrand has a post on “Social Justice 101″. I applaud him for attempting to make social justice more inclusive of men’s issues. Unfortunately, some of his comments remind me of why I have some problems with conventional ideas about “social justice.”
Sometimes, “social justice” don’t really seem “just” to me. In some cases, notions of “social justice” simply exchange one sort of injustice, oppression, or prejudice for another. Even when someone labels their views as “social justice,” their actions aren’t necessarily just, any more than all those “Democratic People’s Republics” are actually democratic.
Default human beings
Noah’s post starts well by pointing out people’s biases and egocentrism, and advocates understanding that “other people’s experiences of the world are not less real than your own.” But then he makes the curious observation that “it is particularly hard for straight white cis guys, in this culture, to get past” their natural egocentrism.
The only reasoning he provides is that heterosexual white cis men are over-represented in fiction, an observation that’s true, but which can be interpreted in multiple different ways.1
noahbrand continues in the comments:
That being said, the “default normal human” in most of our culture is still a straight white cis guy like me
This is a common feminist maxim… but is it actually true? Do we really want to base “Social Justice 101″ on such articles of faith?
In her book Love In America, feminist sociologist Francesca Cancian argues that “love” has become associated primarily with feminine ways of loving. In matters of love, women are the default human being, not men, if Cancian’s theory is correct.
Political science professor Adam Jones argues that in war, women are considered the “worthy” victims of wartime atrocities, while men’s victimization is effaced from humanitarian discourse. Perhaps we could say that “default victims” are gendered female. Survivors of sexual violence outside war are also gendered female.
Basing any social justice approach on a shaky foundation like “heterosexual white men are considered default” will create problems later down the line. Areas of society where women are considered default human beings would be erased (love, victimization, teaching and nursing professions?), so we would never be able to create social justice in those areas.
Social justice for me, but not for thee
The problem with conventional “social justice” perspectives is that they often have significant blindspots, and privilege the marginalization of some of people over the marginalization of others. They sometimes justify oppressing one group in order to aid another group. They operate in a distinct paradigm that has not been sufficiently examined (e.g. beliefs like “heterosexual white men are considered default”).
Only some groups “count” as oppressed. These groups are women, minorities, queer people, and (less consistently) trans people, disabled people, and non-neurotypical people. Yet I think I could make a case that, say, introverts are oppressed in many areas of society (e.g. parties and clubs are set up according to the preferences of extraverts). Short people and shy people are arguably also oppressed.
Yet social injustices towards men, introverts, short people, and shy people aren’t addressed under the “social justice” umbrella. Something is wrong with this picture.
Social Justice(TM)
I’m going to make a distinction between what I consider to be social justice, and “Social Justice(TM),” the current paradigm of social justice. I believe that most people involved with Social Justice(TM) are well-intentioned, and that they do a lot of social justice work that is worthy of the name. Unfortunately, there are some exceptions, and certain limitations to the Social Justice(TM) paradigm that inhibit the ability of its proponents to empathize with other groups.
Right now, Social Justice(TM) doesn’t include men’s issues. I’m very glad that noahbrand and the other bloggers at NSWATM are seeking to change that, by identifying as both feminists and masculists. But ask yourselves, if Social Justice(TM) left out men… what else is wrong with it? What horrible biases could have caused it to make that mistake?
Weaponizing oppression
What’s worse is that Social Justice(TM) can quickly become a justification of oppression. History is full of people who believed they were oppressed, yet quickly turned into oppressors once they got their hands on political power… or AK-47s. Many oppressive movements considered themselves anti-oppression movements. The Soviets believed they were oppressed by the bourgeoisie. The Nazis believed that they were oppressed by the Jews. Oppression, perceived and real, can also justify reciprocal violence: The Hutus and Tutsis in Rwanda massacred each other, and the Israelis and Palestinians have killed each other in large numbers.
Officially oppressed people are vulnerable to the sorts of egocentrism and biases that noahbrand mentioned, just as much as the people they believe to be oppressing them. People involved in Social Justice(TM) probably aren’t any more prejudiced and self-serving than anyone else. The problem is that they don’t get sufficiently called out on their prejudice and self-servingness by each other, or by progressives. Cissexual heterosexual white men do not deserve to get singled out for myopia.
When people espousing “social justice” are prejudiced and oppressive, it’s much more disappointing, because they of all people should know better. Without any checks, they will feel a strong incentive to weaponize their oppression and try to dominate political discourse. Every cause wants to become a cult.
Power corrupts, including political power gained by claims of injustice towards one’s identity group. When examining any movement claiming to be for social justice (whether on the left, right, or neither), we should ask ourselves: if we put these people in charge as a vanguard party, what would they do? Would they work for something we consider justice, or would they just become the new breed of oppressors, drunk with their new power? Would they know equality if it hit them in the face?
Knights Templar
In the language of TV Tropes, it’s really easy for advocates of Social Justice(TM) to become Knights Templar and Well-Intentioned Extremists. Yet light is not always good
Social Justice(TM) is like White cards from the card game Magic: The Gathering. White is the color of angels, priests, law, and community. Yet if you assume that White is always “good,” then creative director Mark Rosewater has a bone to pick with you:
Each color in Magic believes strongly in the thing it seeks. Therefore it sees itself as good and the enemies that oppose it as evil.
Many humans share some global beliefs (the taking of a human life is wrong, for example). Some of white’s tenets line up with some of these universal human beliefs. Therefore white is sometimes seen as the color of “good.” Ah, but white is neither inherently good nor evil. White, as well as every other color in Magic, will do things that can be labeled both “good” and “evil,” and even that might not be consistent from person to person. Preservation of life is very white. Most of you would probably classify that as “good.” Fascism is also very white. Most of you would probably classify that as “evil.”
[...]
White believes that morality is cut-and-dried. There is right and there is wrong. Individuals are morally obligated to do right. But white takes it even further. Individuals are also morally obligated to stop those that do wrong. White’s fervor in this area leads white to use religion.The second of white’s “tools” is civil laws. These are rules set up to make sure that the individual does not upset the greater good of the group. White believes that the good of society is more important than the rights of a single individual.
To me, social justice movements often look like White Cards Gone Wild. For an example from feminism, the Schrodinger’s Rapist post wants to protect the community by restricting the behavior of individuals. It dictates rules against men approaching women if they are reading, against men approaching if they are unbathed, and for men to make women feel “as safe as possible.” These rules are justified by the greater good of women’s comfort levels.
Even though this perspective is very White, it may or may not match your view of what is actually good and just once you sit down and consider the implications. Banning approaches to women who are reading might lead some women to miss out on wanted approaches without consulting them. Banning approaches by unbathed men would prohibit unbathed homeless men from approaching unbathed homeless women (potential classism). And making women feel “as safe as possible” would justify restricting men to the backs of the buses and to different water fountains.
Like any good White card from Magic, Social Justice(TM) believes that it is “good.” Yet in the case of this article, some of its advice seems good, and some of it seems oppressive to both men and women in my view.
Social Justice 101
noahbrand advocates “Social Justice 101.” Yet before teaching social justice to anyone, we have to make sure that it’s inclusive towards everyone. We should be skeptical of claims that the ends justify the means, where the concerns of one groups are privileged over another’s, where the group is privileged over the individual, or where fears are privileged over freedoms. And we shouldn’t assume that any one group has more to learn than another without some solid evidence.
Social Justice 101 should critically examine conventional paradigms of Social Justice(TM), figure out which ideas are really worthy of the name, and throw out the rest. We need to take apart “social justice” piece by piece and build it back up, or else “social justice” will become yet another empty slogan like Democratic People’s Republic.
Stop me when I go overboard
Just because people put rhetorical angel wings on themselves, it doesn’t mean that their views are actually just. If you’ve been reading this post carefully, you will have noticed that I’ve couched my argument in terms of political buzzwords, like “privilege”, “inclusiveness”, “prejudice”, “oppression”, “empathy”, “classism”, “justice”, and “freedom.” Countless drops of human blood have been shed over words like these.
Like any White creature in Magic, I believe that I am standing on the side of good, truth, and righteousness. Yet I will ask the reader to carefully scrutinize the use of such terms, even when they are being used by myself.
After seeing so many people use concepts of “social justice” in biased and self-serving ways, so many revolving doors of oppression, and so many ends justifying means, I don’t want to make the same mistakes. If you ever catch me becoming a well-intentioned extremist and knight Templar who is trying to start a Democratic People’s Republic, then please do me a favor and let me know.
This comment thread is the “No Hostility” thread. Please read this and this for the ground rules. The “Regular Parallel” thread can be found here.
- In the comments, typhonblue notes some research finding that both men and women prefer male protagonists, and suggests that white heterosexual cis men are not considered to have an identity separate from the audience, which hardly sounds like a privilege.[↩]
Great post Hugh.
I mostly like your post. I think the tendency to be tyrannical is something Social Justice (TM) has to watch out for– even if I would prefer men would stop following me down the street asking me to fuck them, that doesn’t mean it should be illegal, and it really doesn’t mean separate water fountains. However, I do have an argument to make with this section:
“People involved in Social Justice(TM) probably aren’t any more prejudiced and self-serving than anyone else. The problem is that they don’t get sufficiently called out on their prejudice and self-servingness by each other, or by progressives.”
Which is really not true. It’s called “feminist call-out culture,” and it’s obnoxious. In order to find a good example of it, look at pretty much any Feministe thread, which have an interesting tendency to get derailed into discussions about how one commenter shouldn’t use the word “idiot” because that is ableist. Now, they might not be calling out each other for the right things, which is definitely a problem, but there is definitely the culture of calling-out.
“Yet I think I could make a case that, say, introverts are oppressed in many areas of society (e.g. parties and clubs are set up according to the preferences of extraverts). Short people and shy people are arguably also oppressed. ”
As a shy person, I think any definition of oppression that includes us is too broad.
Not that it’s fun to be a shy person, but as far as I can tell there’s no gigantic hidden social machinery to put shy people down; I’ve never had the feeling anyone or anything was mistreating me because I was shy. But I have had the feeling (pretty explicitly) that people were mistreating me because I was an atheist*.
—-
Oh, also I totally agree with Ozy: if you don’t think social justice people call each other out you REALLY need to spend more time around social justice people. Maybe they’re not calling each other out about the things you want them to, but they CERTAINLY call each other out. Loudly and obnoxiously and probably to the detriment of their own movement.
From the Shakesville thread on the manboobz forums I strongly suspect that many social justice people hate Dan Savage more than Michelle Bachmann.
—-
*: First thing that comes to mind, if you’re interested: In high school, there was this crazy lady on the bus yelling about God to no one in particular. I’ve never heard a crazy lady yelling about being extroverted to no one in particular, and I think if I did I would find it too funny to be offended.
In some ways, I feel really violated at NSWATM after having espoused and revealed some of my experiences, particularly in the sensitive topic of mental illness.
Mainly because of shunning, alienating phrases like:
“Most Social Justice 101 writing assumes that you’ve absorbed this idea and are making the necessary corrections to your natural egocentrism. That’s an unfair assumption, I often think. Just because that insight came easily to some people doesn’t mean that others don’t struggle with it. Some folks make that mental leap as children, others have to wait longer. Some folks never do, they just go on believing that other people’s experiences should match up to their own existing notions.”
Not only does the author of the entry disparage works of fiction for children and teens just because the lead is a straight, white, cis male (which I’m sure J.K. Rowling will appreciate so much), they also think that people like me have it easy and cannot easily empahsise with other people’s experiences.
To which I add: BULL-FUCKING-SHIT!
Noahbrand’s responses to the blowback also reveal how gynocentric he really is, cheered on by BlackHumor (I’m not surprised since BlackHumor wouldn’t recognize misandric, snarky shunning if it came up and bit him on the face).
That’s twice now the site has screwed up royally in trying to be inclusive. I swear, if they make statements like that one more time, I’m never posting there again.
If that happens, then here is one straight, white cis male they’ve lost as a supporter.
And as far as Women’s Rights and concerns for women: They can kiss my rear end.
Actually I don’t object to it being illegal, so long as the law is not so overbroad that it oppresses, for example, homeless people
Hugh’s point, I think, is that the Social Justice movement that validates your experience of being oppressed by, for example, street harassment is the same one that has a complete hate-on at people like me.
Hugh’s not talking about that. He’s talking about outright bigotry directed those groups who are the acceptable targets of Social Justice (TM).
Eagle33:
I greatly sympathise with how you feel about Noah’s post, because I feel the same way.
But please tone down your rhetoric here. This is a no-hostility thread.
Well written post. I made a similar(not so eloquent) remark on the 101 post by noah. I think the problem lies more in our “need” to belong to a group. I think what happens after that is that we miss calling people out and instead call out groups(ideology).
“But I have had the feeling (pretty explicitly) that people were mistreating me because I was an atheist*.”
This seems to come with theocracies, and the US, as baggage.
Meaning that being atheist here, is as normal as having blue eyes, or 5 fingers per hand.
Sorry, Daran.
It’s just that I keep trusting sites like NSWATM only to find they just can’t seem to let go of their gynocentrism when claiming to welcome all viewpoints. Reminds me of how I was burned by feminists or people who were into women’s rights in the past.
And they say we white, male cis normatives lack empathy?
Edit: I want to make a correction. It appears I put in the wrong quote from the present article. It should be:
“It is particularly hard for straight white cis guys, in this culture, to get past that. We are constantly implicitly reassured that looking like us is normal, standard, what everyone is supposed to do. We’re at the center of almost every fictional narrative (It’s not Hermione Granger and the Deathly Hallows, is it?) and it’s generally much, much easier for us to never fully grasp that other people’s experiences are real. That’s not a moral failing or a weakness of character on our parts, it’s just how the rules of the game are set up right now.”
Like I said, they have the nerve to tell us white, cis males we lack understanding of other viewpoints/experiences?
Yes. Everyone lacks understanding of other people’s experiences. I disagree slightly with Noah here– I think that I, as a female-bodied person, also lack a lot of understanding of men’s experiences that can only come from being socialized as a man. And I certainly lack an understanding of what it’s like to be poor, non-white or disabled. I do think that, for instance, trans people have a better understanding of what it’s like to be cis than cis people have of what it’s like to be trans, simply because cis people generally are not forced to deal with transness the same way that trans people have to deal with cisness.
Daran, we’re in agreement about the social-justice-osphere tending to marginalize people– it’s a long and unillustruous tendency it has had back decades (a lot of feminists were created, for instance, when the New Left decided that the role of women in the movement was prone). However, I’m not sure about what that link you linked has to do with anything; I should think “being against people who defend rapists and/or think feminists are trying to carry nice guys off to concentration camps” is fairly uncontroversial. Could you explain?
BlackHumor: About the shyness… I would argue that there are degrees of marginalization (although this is a line of argument that you have to be kind of careful about so you don’t go all Oppression Olympics). For instance, there is a very meaningful sense in which vegans are marginalized (people give us tons of shit about our dietary habits– not to mention not being able to eat even side salads at a lot of restaurants). However, veganism is not marginalization to the same degree that a person who is trans or non-neurotypical is marginalized, and certainly not to the same degee that a homeless person is marginalized. I think the same thing applies to shyness (although all things considered shyness is probably more marginalizing than veganism). A person who is marginalized due to their shyness is not as marginalized as someone in a wheelchair, or even as an atheist, but it can still be painful– loneliness is one of the worst pains a human being can experience.
Here’s an example of how extreme “othering” can get:
http://evebitfirst.wordpress.c.....07/a-rant/
ozymandias said:
You’re right, there is a call-out culture. But it only applies to causes that are already under the protection of Social Justice(TM). There is no call-out for bigotry or “ends justify the means” arguments towards groups outside Social Justice(TM), or groups that Social Justice(TM) labels as oppressors.
That’s why it’s so easy for me to forget that social justice folks do call-outs. They do, but not always about the right things, in my opinion. Here is an article from Feministe criticizing Mary Daly for transphobia… yet her bigotry towards men is hardly mentioned.
BlackHumor,
I agree with Ozy about shyness and oppression.
Here are some shy people who feel they experience discrimination of various sorts:
http://chronicle.com/forums/in.....369.0;wap2
http://shyandquiet.com/2006/04.....imination/
http://www.socialphobiaworld.c.....elf-33298/
Clarence,
So kiuku was not a one-off? Didn’t think so.
What an entitled, pampered, sanctimonious little…. she is.And typingher self-righteous self-pity posing as righteous indignationon a machine invented by evil, useless men, and publishing it on a communications system invented by……(You are entitled to your opinion. You are not, however, entitled to post it to NoH threads on this blog — Daran)
Female Privilege raised to an art form. And all made possible only by the grace of the evil Patriarchy in which she moves and breathes and has her being.
Where do you find this stuff? Do you keep it in a reference folder on your browser?
Ozymandias:
See the discussion on TADA.
The derided poem is a twist on this. The implication is that it’s not meant to be taken as a literal defence of rapists (any more than the original was meant to be a defence of communism). It’s designed to illustrate how quickly a good cause can lose sight of the bigger picture and end up causing more harm than good. Something that might seem to be ‘defending rapists’ in one way could actually be more about standing up to the Social Justice ™ Knights Templar.
Achieving social justice is a complex and challenging goal that requires balancing many factors, and accepting the limits of human nature. It’s easy, in the face of a clear and significant danger (e.g. rape/communism), to assume that anything that stands against the danger is inherently good (and anything that stands against that as inherently bad). These assumptions need to be challenged at their root because of the harm they can cause when applied to other circumstances.
Clarence,
Jesus. You can rock me to sleep tonight. Reading that made my blood run cold.
Edit: On reflection, I think I’m even more disturbed the comments on it. The only thing worse than seeing a murderous rant like that is someone following up with “Finally, someone understands how I feel!”
I have to point out, in the interests of accuracy, that I have never seen Evebitfirst mentioned except in the context of someone saying “look, a self-identified feminist said a stupid thing,” and that she bears roughly the same relationship to feminism as, say, your average Spearhead commenter does to Feminist Critics.
Desipis: I do know the poem. Assume I’m at least a little intelligent.
But the implication of the original is that, even if you disagree with communists, you should stand up in defense of communists if they are being locked up on account of being communists. Logically, therefore, the revised poem seems to be suggesting that, even if you disagree with rapists, you should stand up in defense of rapists if they are being locked up on account of being rapists, which is a notion I am… fairly uncomfortable with.
ozymandias, I didn’t mean to imply people weren’t aware of it, I just wanted to talk about the specifics and figured a link was better than a large cut and paste (given I had to look it up to check the details).
It depends on how one interprets the term “Communism”. In one sense it means a revolutionary/agent/spy for the Russians, which is the reason why “Communists” were being locked up and is analogous to actual rapists. However, it was also a label applied to anyone who espoused (or was simply accused of espousing) ideals that seemed in any way favourable to Communism (e.g. political academics), who were also locked up because of a feared association with the ‘spy’ Communists. Defending “Communists” wasn’t about defending the actual spies but rather defending those accused and punished out of hypersensitive fear of Communism because there’s a fair chance they weren’t actually spies. It’s the “stop Communism at all costs, don’t even think about common sense or justice for the individuals” attitude that was the problem. That same attitude or reasoning can be applied to anything those in power decide they don’t like, not just Communism. It was accusation that people failed in their duty to stand up for justice against a popularist moral outrage because they weren’t the target of the injustice at the time.
It’s comparable to accusations of rape and rape culture. It’s not suggesting rape is defensible rather that defending those who are accused of rape or defending ideas that a claimed to be a part of “rape culture” is needed to achieve justice. Those who are hypersensitive about rape will not clearly distinguish these groups and see them all as fitting under the “rape” heading. Anyone who defends someone accused of rape is seen as “defending a rapist”. The implication is that we need to stand up for justice for those accused or rape, or defend cultural elements that are claimed to be part of rape culture even though we might be accused of “defending rapists” (or “rape apologist”). It’s a rejection of the “stop rape at all costs, don’t even think about common sense or justice for the individuals” attitude that is apparent in a significant amount of feminist writing.
I got into a discussion on manboobz last night that ended typically. So called proponents of social justice and equality engaging in blatant denial of abuse, in this case denying the abuse of children. No only that, it was a game, a bit of sport, yet to the contributors this behaviour is coded good. You see the same thing happening with a number of contributors over on nswatm, round and round it goes with then ideologically motivated abuse denial. I make a direct connection between that mindset and the mainstream celebration of the mutilation and torturing of a member of the “oppressor” group by a member of the “victim” group.
Ozymandias,
On TADA I suggest that perhaps the intention behind the first line might have been better expressed as “First they came for the Lacrosse Players…”.
We don’t know that this is what Collins meant, but it seems more plausible than that he was literally defending rapists. I think we should give him the benefit of the doubt.
While I would have expected you to know the poem, if you didn’t I would not attribute your lack of knowledge to lack of intelligence.
I recently discovered that one of the 12-year-old girls who comes to drumming had no idea whereabouts on a world map America was, nor that Texas was part of America. She thought Texas was somewhere near Poland.
I do not think she lacks intelligence.
Well, it looks like my opinion of the site has gone down again.
They want to keep talking about us Straight, White cis males having it easy and we’re always the default in storylines and media.
Meanwhile, I present the “Strong female lead at the expense of equal male characters in the same storyline” and yet you could hear circkets chirp.
Forget them for now.
“I have to point out, in the interests of accuracy, that I have never seen Evebitfirst mentioned except in the context of someone saying “look, a self-identified feminist said a stupid thing,” and that she bears roughly the same relationship to feminism as, say, your average Spearhead commenter does to Feminist Critics.”
BUt it’s worse than that; the spurious connection has damaged the reputation of feminism over the years. That kind of misandry is the main reason for the negative image feminism suffers under. That’s why it was important for Dr. Mindbeam to declare Mary Daly a non-feminist. Maybe that is premature as a statement of fact, it is important as a statement of doctrine that may in time become fact when a mjority of feminsts come over to that view.
@Ozy
The reality that Evebitfirst and company can write posts like that – and there is no site named “Woman Dicks” that highlights stupid things Feminists say is mostly the reason I fault NSWATM for featuring Man Boobz at all on the blogroll.
That the *weight* that Feminist ideology has gained is being used on the Man Boobz site to highlight the worst examples of a movement with a noble cause (yet poor execution) is felonious.
However, I enjoy that there is no “Woman Dicks” site – for it highlights that “gender egalitarian feminists” don’t care enough about men to risk bringing the massive weight of Feminist ideological power down on themselves.
Ozymandias and everyone:
I linked to that Eve Bit First hateful rant to use it as an example. It wasn’t meant to critique feminism, merely to show an example of “othering”. Obviously there are other examples from other political positions but that was the most recent example of extreme hatred I had seen so naturally I linked to it.
Ozymandias and desipis:
Here’s an example of how one can get accused of defending all rapists (and presumably rape culture or a “right to rape” or something) when all one is doing is defending a particular accused rapist.
http://www.feministe.us/blog/a.....ay-in-nyc/
Note that to commenters Rare Vos and PrettyAmiable that any position except total one hundred percent support and belief of an alleged victim regardless of evidence makes you an oppressor with a penis.
If he said “first they came for those falsely accused of rape,” my problem would merely be that it is incredibly tasteless to compare false rape accusations to the Holocaust, and that I highly doubt that feminists want to imprison players or Nice Guys or people who support rape culture. But he didn’t; he said “first they came for the rapists,” which is at best very poor writing if he meant to convey the other meaning.
I have to say, although perhaps I’ve missed it, I have never seen a major feminist blog (Feministe and Shakesville are the two I read) ask for any consequence for people who support rape culture beyond calling them out on it, which seems to me to be pretty much equivalent force. As someone who does believe in the existence of rape culture, I would instantly condemn anyone who thought it was a good idea to interfere with people’s free speech rights. (I oppose “speech codes” on campus for this reason.)
But I think all of this is getting off the main point. I agree that feminism has a hate-on for Nice Guys (using the Divalion definition here http://divalion.livejournal.com/163615.html ), mostly because (a) it is actually very annoying behavior and often is correlated with objectifying or misogynistic behavior and (b) many women, including me, tend to acquire that whole But He Is Nice So I Have To Date Him mentality that is rather toxic to relationships. However, I think it does marginalize socially awkward men who are too shy to work up the courage to ask someone out. How do you think feminists could improve discussion of this issue?
(Remember to precede any punctuation at the end of a URL with a space, to ensure that it linkifies correctly — Daran)
Catalogue: I was IN that thread, dude. People were not disagreeing with your stats that women are more likely to abuse children. People were saying that (a) that is because women spend more time around children and therefore have more opportunity for abuse, and (b) shared parenting is not necessarily the best default for children. Also, you called everything anyone cited that disagreed with you “advocacy research” even when they were citing studies and you were citing blogposts. It starts at the bottom of the first page for anyone who wants to confirm my thoughts: http://manboobz.com/2011/08/22...../#comments
“Noah’s post starts well by pointing out people’s biases and egocentrism, and advocates understanding that “other people’s experiences of the world are not less real than your own.””
A drug induced man’s ramblings are not less real than my own? A paranoid man who thinks that everyone is out to get him has an equivalent value? A child’s thoughts about the working of the world are worth the same as mine?
A movement that can’t even define itself after half a century of flailing around and destroying the society its contingent on, is somehow as good at reality as me?
It’s no problem to accept when a girl says “you don’t get it” and generalizes it on account of me being a man, the problem arises when the girl spins a yarn over it and becomes a best-seller. (and gets a separate department in the academia)
“Areas of society where women are considered default human beings would be erased”
lol no, cause then it will start resembling justice.
Ozymandias
It went further than that, “that’s because women spend more time with children” devolved into “mothers don’t abuse children more than fathers”.
As well as that there were the usual ridiculous claims about CTS and CTS2.
These people are not right and will dance around sarcastically minimizing abuse and waving feminist research as if it trumps the bulk of the genuine research and enjoying the reaction it gets.
Its like on your site, when its some form of dark comedy to go round and round in circles backing ideological, unsupportable positions and advocacy research that protect a certain belief system, protects certain abusers and minimizes certain victims. I think you can’t see the forest for the trees in the instance.
“advocacy research” even when they were citing studies and you were citing blogposts” This calim is false Ozy and typical of what happens at manboobz, flat out misrepresentation as matter of course. I cited papers, an article about exposing the real figures on child abuse in Aus via freedom inf information act while Bee posted the official gov versions, and I linked Mark Rosenthals “Breaking the Science” blog.
Catalogue, I linked to the thread. I think we can trust people to make up their own minds about who’s denying abuse.
Daran:
We don’t know that this is what Collins meant, but it seems more plausible than that he was literally defending rapists. I think we should give him the benefit of the doubt.
We may not know what he meant but apparently we’re supposed to know that he’s an MRA. (http://clarissasblog.com/2011/.....tes-write-
poetry/#comments).
Ozy:
If he said “first they came for those falsely accused of rape,” my problem would merely be that it is incredibly tasteless to compare false rape accusations to the Holocaust, and that I highly doubt that feminists want to imprison players or Nice Guys or people who support rape culture. But he didn’t; he said “first they came for the rapists,” which is at best very poor writing if he meant to convey the other meaning.
My feelings on what feminists think about men who are falsely accused aside I wonder. If this is a matter of that man improperly using the source poem does that have something to do with some of the negative reaction to it?
If that link to manboobz shows me anything it reminds me that only some sorts of nasty behavior are okay…
Here’s a few points that I think would improve the discussions:
Acknowledge that male points of view as just as valid and important as female points of view.
Acknowledge that there are social pressures on men that influence and limit the way they behave.
Acknowledge that the simple addition of ‘feminist’ social pressure on men may only make the situation worse.
Acknowledge that the reasons someone has to do/say things may be more justified than the reasons you don’t want them to do/say it, and that from an external perspective it may not be possible to fairly judge the reasonableness of things said or done.
Acknowledge that there are many, many more dimensions to the way humans differ than simply the superficial and flawed designations of race/gender/sexuality/etc, and that other dimensions are just as important in determining justice or outcomes.
Acknowledge that because of the above, justice at the individual level is more important than justice at a particular class level.
Acknowledge that people are not fundamentally rational beings, and that while adherence to a rational social justice position might seem simple and easy to some, it might in fact be emotionally challenging or burdensome to others.
Give favourable interpretations to actions or statements by men, in the same way they give favourable interpretations to actions or statements by women or people from other ‘chosen’ groups. See comments above about about how the use of the poem in an analogy was interpreted in just about every unfavourable way, rather than attempting to find a reasonable interpretation.
@desipis
I treat your rhetoric regarding trans women the way I do any feminist’s, any trans woman’s for that matter. Just because I think your position is superficial and disingenuous doesn’t mean I think that because you’re a man. I’d like if you didn’t discount the motives of honest criticism because of the source either.
Know how you can tell? Because I say it where you’re not looking too:
http://valeriekeefe.livejournal.com/37865.html
http://valeriekeefe.livejournal.com/29416.html
http://valeriekeefe.livejournal.com/16324.html
Valerie,
My comments weren’t directed specifically at the discussion about transgendered people and gender labels (or really the manner of discussions in general). I think that generally the discussions over at NSWATM is civil and reasonable, which is why I’m drawn into commenting there in the first place. However, consider the last point that I made in a more general manner (it’s something I’ve seen as a general issue, not one specific to feminism). There’s nothing in my comment that indicates it was directed at you or the discussions at NSWATM, yet it seems pretty clear to me you’ve interpreted in that way. Was there a more favourable way to interpret how I was targeting the commnts?
My comments are more about the content of the discussions. I’ll use the gender labels discussion as an example (and we need to translate my points from male/female to trans/cis). I’m open to the transgendered subjective view that being labelled in a way inconsistent with self identification is harmful/distressing. However, I see a lack of acceptance of a (cisgender) subjective view that being pressured to use gender labels in a way that conflicts with self identification is also harmful/distressing. It’s a view that’s being dismissed a ‘bigotry’ and assumed to be based in malicious intent.
@desipis
I’m a big fan of Hanlon’s razor myself and don’t assume malice. I don’t assume malice in most cissexism. I assume a level of intellectual incuriousness that follows one’s personal proclivities… same reason the wealthy tend to be more economically liberal… because their world experience, like others, suffers from selection bias.
valerie,
And yet, the poor will have their own word experience and bias, and tend to be less economically liberal. If rich people assume poor people form their views out of ‘intellectual incuriousnes’ and poor people assume the same about rich people, then there won’t be much chance of meaningful discussion. I think it’s more productive to acknowledge that the fault may be your own and see the discussion as collaborative exercise to identify the root cause of the disagreement.
It may turn out that the root cause is simply a difference in assumptions or a difference in values. If you’re going to claim a moral high ground of tollerance then you do need to be open to a reasonable range of values and assumptions that differ from your own.
This is why I bring evidence to an argument instead of well-meaning statements that theoretically bolster my own proclivities. I look at the relationship between changes in productivity per hour and real wages, when arguing that working-class people are underpaid. I look at the quantifiable discrimination that occurs against those people who refuse to identify as their coercively-assigned-sex, and I try to craft rules that accept that data, conditional of course, upon any new evidence.
Empiricism before theory.
Empiricism is important where it can be applied, however it doesn’t help in resolving ethical issues.
E.g. Even if we accept a utilitarian framework, I don’t see anyone with empirical evidence of what causes more harm: labelling people’s gender differently to their self identified gender, or having people label others differently to how they would instinctively chose to label. Or even proposing how we would actually measure the ‘harm’ of such situations.
@desipis and Valerie Keefe,
I’ve been finding your discussion at NSWATM very interesting. Your conversation in this thread is starting to sound like it would fit better there, so it might be best to keep everything in one thread, unless one of you feel it’s particularly on-topic here. Thanks!
@Ozy
I was able to immediately tell what I think he was going for, but I agree with you about the unfortunate implications of substituting rapists for oppressed groups. If think the poem hits on some important issues, but I think it’s much too badly written to create any productive dialogue with feminists.
Hugh:
If he’s going to come over here to complain that I’m rejecting his argument because of his gender, then I have been compelled to repetition so that I may offer a refutation.
And yeah, there’s a lot of generalization in this article, and it assumes:
1. A complete ignorance of the intersection of class by social justicey types
2. That all of us believe in a unidirectional gender power model…
I have no problem with people picking their own battles. For example, my ‘main issue’ is people who use the machinery of the state to impose their religion on the rest of us. If I had a dollar for every time someone told me “who cares!?!” I’d be rich. Gender issues was actually pretty low in my book but since I’ve becoming more aware I’ve become more interested.
Hugh said, “This is a common feminist maxim… but is it actually true? Do we really want to base “Social Justice 101″ on such articles of faith?”
And I 100% agree. I find that certain aspects of feminism, like feminist theory, is more of an ideology than it is a study in sociology. “Articles of faith” is an apt description. I’d just call it dogma.
In general, Hugh, comparing a group to Nazis is a really bad way to start a productive discussion with us.
Despis: The problem here is that I already try to do all of that.
Well, except for the last one; I tend to take a dim view of people who compare other people to Nazis, especially if they agree with me, because they make me look bad. 
I was wondering how Daran thought that feminism could better incorporate the concerns of socially awkward men, who are the most likely to fall into the Nice Guy trap, especially given that I am planning on writing some more posts on “creep” stigma later and would rather not have any more giant four-hundred-comment threads about how I suck.
I was wondering how Daran thought that feminism could better incorporate the concerns of socially awkward men, who are the most likely to fall into the Nice Guy trap, especially given that I am planning on writing some more posts on “creep” stigma later and would rather not have any more giant four-hundred-comment threads about how I suck.
I’m not Daran, but the problem I have with the Nice Guy narrative is that the label is applied way too broad. IME, it’s not so much that many men fall into Nice Guy trap it’s more that feminists use the term for a wide range of male behavior. Shy men, effeminate men, abusive men, romantically unsuccessful men, submissive men, altruistic men, misogynistic men, socially awkward men, etc. all get lumped together under the label.
The pure definition, I believe, is a man who enters a friendship with a woman solely to guilt-trip her into a relationship. But the term is used way broader in feminist circles. To me the Nice Guy narrative often feels like a feminist way to police traditional masculinity. The Nice Guy’s approach to dating strikes me as very female. I mean, you become friends and stick around until your love interest notices you and makes the first move. That sounds familiar. The feminist’s hate for Nice Guys might be internalized misogyny, which is funny in a tragic way.
Personally, I don’t believe the Nice Guy meme is helpful at all. Humans are complicated. Any attempt to reduce the wide variety of human behavior to a simplistic pattern must go wrong. But this is exactly what the Nice Guy meme does. The guy is too shy to make a move: Nice Guy. The guy starts a friendship with the intention to manipulate her into a relationship: Nice Guy. The guy starts to develop feelings for a platonic friend: Nice Guy. The guy prefers that she makes the first moves: Nice Guy.
Regarding advice not fall into the Nice Guy trap, given how broad feminists use the term. IMO, put your own needs over the needs of your love interest and you’ll be fine, though you might get called a jerk which is actually better. If she doesn’t meet your needs move on. A healthy dose of male entitlement protects you of getting called an entitled Nice Guy. Ironic, but sadly it’s true.
Ozy, I don’t think you suck. I think you don’t know understand your constituency well enough not to step on their sore bits every now and again, without even realising that you’re doing it, but that doesn’t mean you suck. It means you need to learn more about the ground you’re standing on.
As for Noah… Well, I was just about ready to write a post which would have blown the ‘No Hostility’ policy of this blog right out of the water, after his comments in this thread. But I calmed down, and wrote this response instead. What Noah needs to learn, is that when the response he’s getting indicates that he’s got his foot on someone’s knackers, that’s not the time to start grinding his heel.
I’m going away for a couple of days, and don’t have time to properly address your question about how feminism could discuss nice-guy issues better. One thing feminists should do, is stop talking about what Nice Guys (TM)’s mental states: what they think or feel, and what motivates them. Because feminists are utterly clueless on that topic.
I also agree with Thomas’ first paragraph. Except the bit about not being Daran. Because, you know, I actually am.
re “they came for the communists” often attributed to Gandhi.
The style of the quote itself probably began life in a union report as:
And, my friends, in this story you have a history of this entire movement. First they ignore you. Then they ridicule you. And then they attack you and want to burn you. And then they build monuments to you. And that, is what is going to happen to the Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America.
– General Executive Board Report and Proceedings [of The] Biennial Convention, Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, 1914.
ozymandias, I wasn’t trying to suggest you weren’t, but rather listing a few of the points of frustration that people who might be labelled Nice Guy ™ would have with the general way I’ve seen the issue handled by feminists.
I’ve been on both sides of the “Nice Guy” issue. I put more energy into a friendship than I might have otherwise because of a vain hope of it turning into something more. However, at no stage did I expect or believe the other person was obligated in anyway (other than to treat me fairly as a friend). Likewise, I’ve had others be friendly, even to the extent of becoming house mates with me, only to find out that they’d expected something more than friendship to come of it.
My take on the issue matches pretty close to what Thomas said above. I don’t see the behaviour as being specific to either gender (although a gendered culture will have an effect). I also don’t see that the emotional manipulation is limited to the person hopeful of something more than friendship; that person is also vulnerable to manipulation themselves. This is particularly apparent when considering the power dynamic in a friendship where one person is socially awkward and has additional motivation to please or keep the friendship going, and the other is potentially socially dominate (or at least competent).
My experiences made me realise that it’s difficult, if not impossible, to have an objective view point in such circumstance of emotional distress. What is genuine friendship with incidental feelings of attraction could easily be experienced as a deliberate attempt to guilt or pressure into a relationship when frustration or rejection cause confrontation of the issue. Equally, what is genuine friendship could easily be experienced as opportunistic manipulation in the light of rejection. It’s why I can’t agree more strongly with the point Daran makes above (although I’d extend it to anyone’s mental state):
It’s what I was trying to get at with some of the points in my list, and it ties back to the issue in the post about Social Justice(TM). If feminists preference views from or only have concerns for one side, even those of (apparent) victims, then they will end up with a very skewed vision of reality. For example, on the Schrodinger’s Rapist post (haven’t read the comments), you really only looked at things from the point of the view of the person experiencing fear (and from a risk averse point of view). If you’re going to do a post on labels such as Nice Guy or Creep, then I’d recommend you examine (or solicit) a range of motivations, benefits and harms of the labelled behaviour (and the labelling itself), and emphasise judgement based on details over superficial labelling.
Thomas,
That’s interesting; I often say that my problem is that they don’t use the label widely enough (with kind of the same justification you gave).
In my experience, a nice guy was always just any guy who was nice, while the capitalized and/or quoted term “Nice Guy” was reserved for the guy who was nice to women but had those women telling him “I wish I could find a nice guy to date,” with a very common thread of “I wish I could find guy to date who’s nice to me like you are.” Then, the term suddenly seemed to get co-opted to mean “only those Nice Guys who have underhanded or malicious motives” by women who either didn’t think these men existed or didn’t think their concerns were as important. (Oh hai there, theme of “Women telling men that their experiences aren’t real or that their concerns aren’t important.” Nice to see you again.)
(Fun coincidence: iTunes on random selected “Funny Honey” from Chicago for me to write a comment on Nice Guys to…)
Thomas: “The pure definition, I believe, is a man who enters a friendship with a woman solely to guilt-trip her into a relationship. But the term is used way broader in feminist circles. To me the Nice Guy narrative often feels like a feminist way to police traditional masculinity.”
I’d go so far as to say the term is used as a form of shaming. Whenever a man speaks up for himself and relays his difficulties in relationships with women, the customary reflex response from feminist circles is to attack his intentions and label the guy as being entitled to a relationship. So, in addition to Nice Guy tm, he’s labeled Entitled Nice Guy tm.
When this point is reached, I tend not to bother listening to these feminists anymore. They’re not interested in constructive dialogue nor into how to win over the other side. The only thing they’ll listen to, at that point in the discussion, is the sound of their own lecturing voice.
It’s doubly insulting if they present themselves as love gurus for dateless men.
“In general, Hugh, comparing a group to Nazis is a really bad way to start a productive discussion with us.”
Ozy, it might not happen quite as much if your moderators didn’t so often actually
act like Nazis; and here I’m thinking of Noah in particular, whipping up a crowd to engage in group ridicule of an undesirable:http://noseriouslywhataboutteh.....ment-10410
Shameful, to say the least; does it violate NOH to calmly point out the truth? Apologies to the extent (less than 100%, I think) that this is OT for this thread.
[I do have to strike comparing another blogger to a Nazi, so that other commenters understand what's appropriate in No Hostility threads. His conduct is egregious, but not so egregious as to start bringing out the Nazi comparisons. Apology accepted, because I understand where you are coming from. See also my reply below.--Hugh]
(accidental double post removed)
Eagle33: I’d go so far as to say the term is used as a form of shaming. Whenever a man speaks up for himself and relays his difficulties in relationships with women, the customary reflex response from feminist circles is to attack his intentions and label the guy as being entitled to a relationship. So, in addition to Nice Guy tm, he’s labeled Entitled Nice Guy tm.
When this point is reached, I tend not to bother listening to these feminists anymore. They’re not interested in constructive dialogue nor into how to win over the other side. The only thing they’ll listen to, at that point in the discussion, is the sound of their own lecturing voice.
Yes, I agree with this completely. The “Nice Guy TM” trope is, by far, used primarily as a club to beat any man who dares complain about women’s behavior, and so pre-empt or de-legitimize any criticism of women as a group. As used, it inhibits rather than enhancing any human understanding.
Uncalledfor,
I think there are enough uncomplimentary things to say about Noah’s recent conduct that we have no need of Nazi analogies. I do understand why you are frustrated. Noah’s recent behavior does seem more similar to the behavior of an ideological feminist blogger, rather than what I’m used to from bloggers at NSWATM, and that sort of personal demonization of opponents and inability to back down does seem related to the sort of Social Justice(TM) I am criticizing in this post.
Of course, getting down into the details of your interaction with him would make more sense on his blog.
Hugh Ristik: “Noah’s recent behavior does seem more similar to the behavior of an ideological feminist blogger, rather than what I’m used to from bloggers at NSWATM, and that sort of personal demonization of opponents and inability to back down does seem related to the sort of Social Justice(TM) I am criticizing in this post.
Which makes me wonder whether the people really intend for the site as support for male views or not because, let’s face it, feminism doesn’t come close to addressing the male point of view. It’s done from a skewed perspective and this plays into their content (The SR post, 101 101, etc).
I liken Noah’s recent comments to that of any devout feminist attempting to facilitate communication with the other side: There are so many things they’ve been taught and taught themselves from feminist theory that they just can’t seem to let it go since it doesn’t apply to the other side.
Even reactions pointing this out will get the usual “You should really examine what you say because that’s not what my comment meant” blah blah blah.
I do not think the bloggers’ intent is anything other than what they state. They do approach topics from a feminist perspective, and as a result some of their language will sound like the more typical feminist tropes. But that is hardly surprising because as feminists they are going to use the language and rhetoric most familiar to them. It is more akin to talking to someone who is very religious and very liberal, like Hugo Schwyzer. His religion comes into his posts, but he is by no means trying to convert anyone. It just part of language he uses to articulate his views.
@Ozy
Easiest way to improve the “nice guy” discourse? Don’t assume you know what a man’s motives are. Actually, this could greatly improve feminist discourse across the board. I’m so sick of being told that because I’m a man I automatically feel “entitled” to women’s X (time, body, sex, whatever)
As much as so many women are fond of telling men “you don’t know what it’s like to be women” the truth is, they haven’t a clue what it’s like to be a man either. The sooner feminists as a group begin to understand this, the better we’ll all be.
I’ll be the first to agree Paul that I have NO idea what it’s like to be a man… though I do know, however, what it’s like to be gender-policed under the assumption that I am one.
@Valerie
This is why I find the disconnect really weird when I see trans women going “eww, icky men” and espouse misandrist policies and dialogues.
It’s one thing to be sexist when you don’t know better, it’s another to reproduce the very kind you were victim of under false assumptions before.
And I’ve been beaten and bullied mainly by men, I just know it should NOT reflect badly on 50% of the population.
@Schala
I think it’s a bit of selection bias… being the kind of person who ran screaming from manhood and finally found some measure of peace, it’s a little easy to associate male presentation with pain and to project that association.
Also, being a lesbian helps.
I’ve lived with my father’s new girlfriend and her daughter for a while in 2002-2004. My father was also there, but it was her apartment.
I didn’t initially have my own room, so I would sleep on the floor of hers. Though on a few occasions I was permitted to sleep in the bed, when she was at some friend’s, or at her father’s for the night.
One time they said I could sleep in the bed while she was there sleeping in that bed, too, but not on the same sheet level.
Because my having a penis is a sure-fire way of telling I’m going to attempt sexual (consented to or not) contact. I was 19, she was 14, and I found the assumption horrible.
Oh yeah, and this was not long before I received “the talk” from my father about how it was okay to say I was gay (I was known to be virgin, and not dating or trying to).
Except I just wasn’t attracted to anyone. And ironically enough my step-sister came out as lesbian a little after I came out as trans (in 2005).
But *I* was suspected. And I was unable to stomach this, and I don’t think it should be the default. Sleep-overs are not safe havens because its “only girls”. Nor do they become orgies the moment boys enter the picture.
@Schala
Yeah, that’s a horrible kind of attitude to have to deal with. I haven’t been personally targeted, but I’ve been involved in some drama because of it. Maybe my second year in college, we all went to an anime convention. You know the drill, I’m sure… pile 15 people in the same hotel room, save money? Well, I went to a women’s college so the entire contingent was female, but some people were inviting other friends, and I and another of my college group had invited a mutual male acquaintance from out of state. Literally thinking nothing of it.
The minute he arrived at the hotel room, one (and only one) of the others started pitching a horrible fit about it. And no amount of pointing out that he would not ever be alone in the room with her, no amount of offering to sleep in shifts or make him sleep in the closet would assuage her. He was a guy, so no deal, and besides, “There are minors here!” Ugh. It was pretty horrible for everyone especially him, who had to find a new hotel room. (And fortunately, he found some people to stay with) I felt so guilty for offering to let him crash with us, but honestly I was blindsided by her reaction. I hadn’t remotely expected something like that to happen.
Schala: “Sleep-overs are not safe havens because its “only girls”. Nor do they become orgies the moment boys enter the picture.”
This had me thinking about the whole “No Girls Allowed” and “No Boys Allowed” signs. You know, especially when kids.
While I understand personal space, isn’t a little to explicit to exclude the other sex from things?
Because I can’t think of anything else that would justify these signs. Since parts of the human experience transcends gender, human struggle and interaction.
I don’t know. It’s just too explicit for me.
Sorry for the delayed answer.
@AllSaintsDay
That’s interesting; I often say that my problem is that they don’t use the label widely enough (with kind of the same justification you gave).
I think we actually agree, but use different definitions for Nice Guy. I use the term like feminists do, you use it in the way you described. That’s highlights the problem with the whole Nice Guy discussion. It’s way too easy to talk past each other.
@Eagle33
I’d go so far as to say the term is used as a form of shaming. Whenever a man speaks up for himself and relays his difficulties in relationships with women, the customary reflex response from feminist circles is to attack his intentions and label the guy as being entitled to a relationship.
Agreed, it’s inevitable that male entitlement is brought up. Though I wouldn’t say it happens every time a man speaks up it’s still very common. IMO, it’s connected to the traditional idea that men are not allowed to complain. That combined with a lack of male perspective and input on the issue leads to the reflex you described. It’s a toxic cycle, because men will not speak up on the issue, at least not in a civil manner, if they get constantly shut down. Which leads to even more speculation on their motives from the feminist side.
I’d perfer to see feminist critics interacting with the real mens movement more, and improving it because, it needs a visible academic wing … rather than putting time and energy into these reactionary pretenders and their misandrist doctrines, beliefs and stonewalling of the mens movement. Just saying.
@Cactaur
[quote]I felt so guilty for offering to let him crash with us, but honestly I was blindsided by her reaction.[/quote]
Did you consider telling _her_ to leave if she had such a problem with it?
I’m really beginning to dislike NoahBrand over at that blog.
http://noseriouslywhataboutteh.....e-culture/
It’s the same pattern: A whole collection of people call out and critique an article, Noah sees “attack on feminism and feminists” and snarkly responds.
It’s getting so bothersome.
I miss DrMindBeam. He was certainly more welcoming and accepting. I can’t believe they put Noah in place of DrMindBeam.
Yeah, I am getting close to the point that I have to consider whether NSWATM is a safe enough place for me to comment – at least on posts about male rape. Which is sad since that blog had promises and that is a topic I unfortunately have first hand experience with and felt I had a perspective the vast majority of female feminists by nature can’t have.
I’m okay with the fact that feminists are always going to present things from a feminist perspective. Even in places like NSWATM, it’s still run by feminists. So, yes, there’s going to be that angle.
So long as it welcomes other angles, like the male, non-feminist perspective. And it did, in the beginning. At least with DrMindBeam at the helm as a moderator and major contributor.
Now there’s been a stark change since Noah was appointed moderator and major contributor. We’ve had articles like what I linked before and the 101 debacle and now Noah seems to always revert to “Feminist Lecturer” when one-dimensional bias is called out.
The place is getting a bit toxic. I still comment but have to hold my breath whenever Noah comes in with denial periods and deflection of the issue.
Only difference is, it hasn’t resorted to strict moderation the likes of which have been seen by feministe and shakesville and jezebel. We can be thankful for that.
Now. whether it does so in the future, that’s a scary thought.
I … I’m not sure what to do.
I am personal friends with Ozy – and I know her heart’s in the right place with this – but the departure of DMB (which is a WHOLE OTHER ISSUE unrelated to the blog) has created a bit of an echo chamber – and it’s one I can’t second-guess for Ozy, as it is her blog.
I should say: I’ve been offered a position as contributor there and have turned it down for many reasons (not related to the direction of the blog.)
I am unsure how long I will continue to comment as long as Noah keeps up his “I’ve Got This Figured Out” shield up.
Why care what Noah thinks?
He’s only making himself look bad by totally refusing to downright even acknowledge real disagreements and not resort to adhoms and simplistic rephrasings of things. Eventually he’ll either get tired of getting kicked in the ass on his own threads and start to actually be a bit more respectful and fair minded in his response or he’ll get bored and leave. He’d also leave if people just ignored his threads.
I don’t hate the guy and I don’t think he’s wrong about everything or that none of his threads have been good. But my GOD – you have to wonder if the boy (since he’s around half my age i’ll be bit ageist) is on drugs or something the way he interacts in some of his threads. Snarky, mischaracterizing opponents, downright ignoring other people that show they partly agree with him OR that they are at least taking something he’s claiming hasn’t been factored in, into consideration after all – it’s like there is two Noahbrands. One Dr. Jeckyll, one Mr. Hyde.
He hasn’t went in for mass bans or censorship though, either. But I suppose if he did that would mean the end of his participation there. I do trust Ozy enough to think she knows that would mean the death of her project.
Clarence: “Why care what Noah thinks?”
Because somehow the people over there saw him as perfect moderator material and a valuable contributor to the site. Someone perfect to replace the eglitarian likes of DrMindBeam.
Clarence: “He’s only making himself look bad by totally refusing to downright even acknowledge real disagreements and not resort to adhoms and simplistic rephrasings of things. Eventually he’ll either get tired of getting kicked in the ass on his own threads and start to actually be a bit more respectful and fair minded in his response or he’ll get bored and leave”
And pigs will fly, hell will freeze over and the cows will come home. He’s been given a fair amount of chances to redeem himself and everytime he’d blow it further by piling on the snark and bias.
Listening to him is like listening to all the countless feminists who have dropped by here with equal levels of snark-ridden posts make outrageous claims without backing them up then crying out victim when called on it.
In a place like NSWATM that purports inclusiveness of the male, non-feminist perspective, having someone like that should’ve set alarm bells off at the level of counterproductiveness Noah adds with his “Arguments”.
As far as getting bored and leave? Good luck. You’d have to pry his moderation powers from his cold dead hands.
Tamen, Eagle33
NoahBrand sounds in my ears more and more like Hugo Schwyzer, everyone suffers, but somehow it is always mens’ fault and their responsibility to fix it. Sometimes I think that this new modern feminism that prides itself on allowing men a full spectrum of emotions affords men two emotions rage at other men, and shame, while traditional gender rules only allows man to feel rage.
@Newbreed
“Sometimes I think that this new modern feminism that prides itself on allowing men a full spectrum of emotions affords men two emotions rage at other men, and shame, while traditional gender rules only allows man to feel rage.”
I think you’re being a mite generous. Traditional masculinity allowed men rage at heathens and heretics and shame for being cursed with ‘the demon rod’.
Feminism allows men rage at ‘the bad man’ and shame at ‘the bad man within.’
I also have a beef with BlackHumor. He seems to always agree and cheer on NoahBrand and others with one-dimensional views.
Not to mention he doesn’t see misandry, even when presented to him with clear cut evidence. You could stamp “Misandrous” on a person’s forehead and he’d still say “Sorry, I don’t believe they’re misandrous”, not even if the person actually says something misandrous in plain view.
Again, I don’t want to be around people like them at the blog.
At the time? No, I didn’t. She was part of the “in group” and since everyone except my friend and I, while they weren’t agreeing with her, were just waiting for the chips to fall, I didn’t feel like I had support, especially since her threat to tell the school that my friend and I had ‘endangered minors’ was a credible one. We may know that’s ridiculous, but knowing the administration, you can believe the school would have wanted to do something by way of ass covering. So, I let myself be bullied. And I am sorry for that. I don’t know what else I can say at this point.
Mind you, I don’t think it would have actually worked, considering the situation, and the person in question, but I think I ought to have made the point on principle.
You’ve outdone yourself hugh, you really have. This is a masterpiece.
About the “nazis saw themselves as oppressed by Jews” – the same motivated me to write a short answer to a common trope given in answer to misandry.
Very often we see the following conversation play out:
A)deny misandry exists
B)evidence for misandry given
A)deny misandry exists
B)more evidence for misandry given
A)deny misandry exists
B)more evidence for misandry given
A)deny misandry exists
B)more evidence for misandry given
Finally
A) Ok ok ok, so what if we treat men like shit? I mean it’s only fair payback for centuries of opression.
Answer:
http://aleknovy.com/2011/08/09.....-argument/