Yeah, english is not my native language, it makes these discussions a lot harder for me to make a clear point
Practical Tools for Men to Further the Feminist Revolution
- Status
Vermillion
Banned
It required a lot of women and men, plus getting people to empathize with the point of view. Not a singular person, which is what I imagine he was getting at.
Devolution
Member
It's not just marching in the streets, congregating and lobbying. It starts with individual people recognizing the problem and THEN getting together. I'd say plenty of women are experts in their own discrimination. It comes with the territory. You don't start huge movements to gain rights unless you're an expert in having them denied to you. Right now it's harder because it's easy to codify a law that renders rights, it's much harder to police attitudes.
timetokill
Banned
yup.
Oh, were we talking about large-scale movements or practical tools in every day life?
I'm not at odds with the movement as a whole but I am at odds with individuals every day. There are feminists that argue that any penetrative sex is rape, or that a woman who chooses to stay at home is hurting the feminist cause, or radfems that argue that men should be ritually castrated, and so on. I've seen a flyer for a feminist group that said if you regret sex the next day, then it's rape.
On an individual level I do not give absolute, unthinking credence to everything other people say. I've had mechanics tell me they need to replace something that didn't need to be replaced. I'm not a mechanic, but it doesn't mean I need to agree with everything a mechanic says about cars.
Generally I will defer to an expert's judgment but I'm not going to agree with everything a woman says is sexist just because she's a woman. I'm going to think about it critically and with as open of a mind as I possibly can.
I don't know. It's awfully dangerous to believe what someone says because of their label. Not all scientists are the same. Some may be fringe scientists who require less evidence to feel they have eliminated the problems with their hypothesis. Others may have an agenda to push or a non-profit organization they want to build. Others are more interested in publicity from articles that are vehemently opposed by the scientific community
The overall point of listening to other perspectives is a good thing to consider, but the language presented suggests that people should concede to the arguments of someone because of their title with little consideration for case evidence. It's a generalization, which is often part of creating a guide, but I understand the objection to that request or prompt.
This whole discussion, again, is circling around the wording and brevity of the statement, rather than its meaning.
In the FAQ, the point gets clarified as:
Which clearly goes against what many are assuming here, of it being "X can argue Y, and you shouldn't apply any critical thinking", which is what is sending people into paranoia.
In the FAQ, the point gets clarified as:
Which clearly goes against what many are assuming here, of it being "X can argue Y, and you shouldn't apply any critical thinking", which is what is sending people into paranoia.
Devolution
Member
First of all experts in tons of fields don't always agree.
Secondly sexism is one of those things where it's constantly being updated to reflect the times.
Third, yes some people do in fact take it to extremes but these people are few and far between and always come up as some sort of excuse to handwave the very real and odious sexism that happens daily. Most women here on GAF have said "this is sexism", and it's been pretty clear solidarity from the onset. And you will still get a flood of disbelief, devil's advocate nonsense and a very dismissive attitude.
The reason that number even exists is because even the most basic fucking complaint we have, which is that we're not treated fairly in so many arenas, is met with accusations of hyperbole, "you're irrational" and "gosh stop whining."
And it happens here in each and every one of these threads. I'd say GAF women are experts on being shouted down, ignored and patronized to on the daily. That's why the damn statement is there to reiterate that dudes should just shut up and listen sometimes.
That's a better position to hold. Makes sense.
timetokill
Banned
Cool, so her FAQ point just contradicts her original post's point. Okay then.
I think it's probably a decent hint that if you need a FAQ to clarify your post you probably didn't make a very good post in the first place.
Her point goes from "If a woman says something is sexist, believe her" to "If a woman says something is sexist, don't necessarily believe her, just don't tell her she's wrong."
It's easy to understand why you don't tell a hurting person that their pain isn't real, especially at the time. But it's completely aside from whether something is actually sexist or not.
Agreed. That's part of the point I'm trying to make.
If the line was "shut up and listen sometimes" I would've preferred it, honestly. That's a statement that is more accurate and one I can get behind. But it doesn't really match what she was saying.
Like I said I think her original line was a poorly written sentence, and I think it contradicts what she probably actually meant. She went with brevity at the cost of clarity.
I feel like you're arguing that I'm saying that women in general are just bullshitting about sexism, and I am certainly not saying that. I've said time and again that I will give women the benefit of the doubt on these matters, including here on GAF. And yes, I've seen the women here shouted down or talked over, and it's deeply unfortunate. Hopefully I'm not doing that and I'd appreciate it if somebody told me if I was.
Funky Papa
FUNK-Y-PPA-4
It bothers me that you can't see why her tone is an issue.
One of the biggest challenges of feminism* is educating people on a position of privilege who simply cannot see what's wrong in their ways. In the end, this article is meant to educate those persons, to win them over. Flashing a bit of attitude at the people you are trying to change their behaviour is not going to accomplish anything. Worse, it may even make them more callous, as the intended public (privileged males) will focus on the slights instead of the main message, which is several orders of magnitude more important.
This is very basic psychology, and this is also why I think the original article from Jaimie Utt (again, thanks to Lesath for pointing it) is so much better: it lays the thoughts of the author and encourages the readers to improve their behaviour without indulging in comments that do nothing but hamper the message.
Just like privileged males need to think for a bit like a woman in order to see their wrongs, feminists need to put themselves in the skin of a privileged male to think about how they can reach them better. It's imperative to understand that those people think that feminists are out to get them or that equality has already been achieved since women can vote. Using snide and preaching to the choir will get you nowhere with them.
The tone is important. After all, this is about educating people who are having trouble accepting that they need to be educated.
*everything I mentioned in this post applies to other forms of bigotry and prejudice.
Vermillion
Banned
I suppose there's a distinction to be made when it comes to things you directly experience versus other things ("this film is sexist," etc.). I've seen women incorrectly claim that things were sexist within feminist spaces, then be corrected (edit: to be clear, on the latter type of sexism).
It's basically saying to empathize with her point of view and don't dismiss the opinion of someone that has more first hand experience than you on the subject.
It's also saying that you shouldn't play devil's advocate about something that is very personal to someone (seeing as how they are directly affected by it) just for the sake of your personal intellectual gratification, which circles back to the idea of empathizing with others.
I mean, even just looking at the title of the piece, I'm pretty sure that's not the intent here. The audience for "Practical Tools for Men to Further the Feminist Revolution" does not, I imagine, consist of people who need to be convinced that privilege exists.
Morrigan Stark
Arrogant Smirk
Or that people are too quick to jerk their knee and take the least charitable interpretation possible?
Like I said, if someone said, "If a person of a racial minority tells you something is racist, believe them", I would understand what they meant just fine, especially considering the context of the list.
timetokill
Banned
I feel like I understood what she was hopefully trying to say (and I'm giving her the benefit of the doubt on it, especially based on her FAQ revision) but again, the line doesn't actually say what you're saying. You are adding all sorts of intent into something that isn't in the sentence "If a woman tells you something is sexist, believe her."
Above, I posted what I think would've been a better thing to write. I've acknowledged that if the intent is to simply have men stop and consider that maybe a woman saying something is sexist is right instead of immediately dismissing it, then yes, absolutely, I agree. But it's poorly written and actually contradicts the idea that you should consider the statement. Instead it trades "be reflexively dismissive" for "be reflexively believing" and neither is appropriate, in my mind.
If you think what I wrote in earlier posts above is wrong, then feel free to discuss it with me. Again, I think that generally the list is good, but I have points of contention with it. As a "practical tools primer" I think this line in particular is counterproductive.
I addressed that in an earlier post as well. I'm not going to immediately believe everything a racial minority tells me is racist, either. I will listen, and give the benefit of the doubt if I'm not sure. But I won't reflexively believe.
I don't think I'm giving an uncharitable interpretation. It's a fairly explicit sentence and I think it's wrong. I think she sacrificed her original intent (based on her FAQ clarification) and clarity for the sake of brevity.
Funky Papa
FUNK-Y-PPA-4
It's obvious that the article is not aimed at the cave dwelling males, but at those who are aware of their privilege and would like to improve their attitude. From the tumblr itself:
That still requires to break some barriers, as privilege is ingrained in such way that it's almost organic to us. There's still a certain degree of resistance against "being told" that needs to be beat. I mean, I follow most of the points on that list, not because I'm a feminist, but because I believe that treating people as equals me a better person and in turn I help to make the world a bit better, yet some of the points still rubbed me like sandpaper.
Vermillion
Banned
Mm, good point. It's not a piece trying to convince you to be a feminist.
Brawndo Addict
Banned
But at a certain point you have to consider the flip side of it which is that accepting that kind of "educational requirement" basically means those with the privilege are not only in the position of power over you, but that their power extends so far as to dictate the very terms by which you are allowed to engage with them. The idea that you have to educate the racists/sexists/etc in a way that won't upset them puts all the burden on the party being wronged, instead of the other way around. It allows the privileged to abdicate responsibility for self-betterment and allows them to just blame you for not presenting the message in the way they want it. That method of educating can be very demeaning when you end up having to sugarcoat or play a role when trying to do race/sex education. And unless the audience is already going to be open or receptive to the message in the first place, there's only so much you can do to tailor the delivery anyway. Not everyone is willing to learn or listen. It's not a principle I disagree with per se, and it's important to try to do it, it's just that I feel it lets off the intended audience too much sometimes.
Funky Papa
FUNK-Y-PPA-4
Here's the thing: You don't have to sugarcoat anything. You just need not to be condescending. Be upfront. Be clear. Stick to the facts. Just don't patronize or make snide remarks, because the second you try to be cute or preach to the choir, they will focus on that and forget about the rest of the lesson. This is why I think the original "academic" article was heaps better than the one in the OP.
As for the people who outright refuse to listen to your points, that's something that will happen as long as humans exist. Their misery will probably embiggen as the world continues to advance. We have to live with the fact that not all people are willing to listen to even the smallest amount of common sense, but I believe most of the population do, even if reluctantly so, and this why the tone matters. Think of them as stubborn children you need to win over.
If your approach to trying to win over people is to immeidately chastise them to their face, you are going to get nowhere. This author has taken the initial article and done exactly what you suggested- "punching it up", and it caused problems.
Really appreciate Lesath/Papa highlighting the original article, it's a much better read and actually provides useful examples of things you might do that need to be course-corrected that you don't realize you do.
Devolution
Member
DerZuhälter;123715049 said:
Just a sample from today of why 6 is on the list.
Brawndo Addict
Banned
Most people don't have a problem with being rude or insulting. I don't find that particularly good advice as its such an easy bar to clear that I doubt the efficacy of something that can't do that. If someone is struggling with that, that's a problem that transcends the internal politics of whatever they're talking about and is more of a personal problem in being a jerk.
I'm talking more about issues in the mode of people knee-jerk refusing to accept other people's individual experiences or trying to find an 'out'. For example, if you speak in societal terms, "Women in America often feel...", that often makes people feel more comfortable then, "Women in your division feel insulted and demeaned when comments are made about their personal appearance". The former allows the audience to distance themselves from the issue and try to rationalize how 'their' situation is different. The latter usually puts the audience on the defensive and makes them upset because they feel like they're being attacked, even if we're just presenting the actual experience of women in that workplace and asking for validation from others. The fact that we can't get someone to validate that experience is itself harmful, and deciding not to include it is the kind of content shifting I take umbrage with.
I never once suggested or used the words "punching it up", or encouraged chastising people. I never said I think the modified article is an example of good material. I never said the original article was worse. I intended to speak more generally about the contrasting motivations between tailoring content in a way that is self-demeaning versus needing to get people to be receptive to it. Insults and patronizing language is not in the circle of what I'm talking about.
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
Oppressed groups obviously have more information and are therefore more accurate about what is bigotry, certainly. But it feels like you're searching for false equivalencies more than anything. EVERYONE is deluded about themselves and I'm pretty sure that was the point. There's a ton of accurate information that women can and have delivered about sexism and certainly more then men. But everyone suffers pretty dramatically from the self-serving bias so each claim of bigotry needs to be analyzed (respectfully, so without immediate contradiction), instead of just taken immediately.
I mean, the best possible example of this is the current Israel-Gaza conflict. The Jewish people have been persecuted relentless for thousands of years and their current enemies wish to kill every single person in their culture. They are obviously a group that has stronger information about antisemitism, so should we just believe Israeli claims about bigotry towards Jews? Should someone just believe a Jewish man or woman when they say that war crime allegations are antisemitic? Should someone just believe the claim that all Muslims/Palestinians are antisemitic and need to be killed to allow the Jews to finally live in peace? Of course not. A minority group has much stronger information about their plight and will be more accurate because of that, but the self-serving bias everyone has will still cause some inaccurate information about bigotry or bias as well.
Obviously the claims made by some Israeli government officials that I listed are far more extreme than the claims about sexism and I in no way compare feminist claims to some of those claims. It's just that knowledge about bigotry certainly doesn't guarantee accuracy about bigotry. It does improve the probability of accuracy.
Funky Papa
FUNK-Y-PPA-4
*godwin intensifies*
Dragonborn
Member
Just read that article and yeah, it's way better. Like seriously, there's nothing I don't agree with, and it's all laid out very well. Really great, thanks for linking. Guys, if disliked the this thread's article, definitely take some time to read the one linked above.
But you complained that it "let the audience off the hook" - and the problem is that it implies that you should be putting them ON the hook when speaking to them. I was merely using these two articles an example of how that can be problematic in terms of effective messaging.
Brawndo Addict
Banned
Ah I see, in that context I meant audience in terms of those with privilege in society as a whole, not the audience of the modified article. As in "I think those in a privileged position in our society don't accept enough responsibility for educating themselves". I should have noted that I was speaking generally and not about the article.
Even though I am a feminist, I feel slightly uncomfortable about self-identifying as a feminist as a male in some situations not because it's a "dirty" word mind you, but because it's been hi-jacked by douchebags who make a big deal about the fact they self-identify as a feminist that can be found on sites like Okcupid.
I don't think the analogy is very useful; no one thinks that Jews are a marginalized group in Israel. Palestinians, sure, and they're a pretty good example of how people in power are very bad at evaluating the extent to which marginalized groups are being wronged. In this case, as you point out, what often happens is that talk about whether this suffering group is being wronged is called antisemitic. This is basically just "reverse racism" talk, really. Your own example is of influential political groups in Israel who see nothing at all unreasonable about calling for genocide, so it seems to me that this shows that I'm right when I say that it's hugely problematic for people in power to set themselves up as arbiters of what's reasonable.
But obviously I'm not saying that every woman is guaranteed to be correct about what's sexist. Women could disagree, for one thing, so that just can't be true. What I'm saying is that women are in a much, much better situation to know what's true. They're not just slightly more likely to be right about sexism than men, and if you have a consensus of women they're almost certainly right about sexism, or at least their opinion is going to be more reliable than any other person or group's. I'm saying that it's setting too high a bar to say that the marginalized group needs to convince everyone else on the merits; everyone else needs to understand that their thinking is likely biased in really problematic ways and should defer to the judgment of people whose thinking is likely to be less biased. Typically, the reaction to claims of sexism on this forum, for example, is "I don't think this is sexism and I'll argue about that" - see Devo's post above - which is a huge failure to recognize the ways our thinking often goes wrong.
Me_Marcadet
Member
I want to discuss something with fellow feminists gaffers.
This one thing makes me really miserable. It really hurts me because where I live nearly 99% of people are oblivious of social justice movements, are generaly proudly ignorant, immature and very grounded so the only possible outcome for me is to be alone and never really be open about my opinions with others.
Even the most open minded people I see at work or in my sport team would get banned very quickly on this forum.
I'm glad neogaf exists because I can read some very interesting conversations between educated and intelligent people but I could never hope to have the same level of conversation in real life. I'm as much ostracized as possible in my daily life and I really can't do much more because I feel like I will be all alone if I should try to put sexism on the table every time I hear someone having very sexist comments. I have no authority, I'm a young white dude with a low paying job, no diploma, not many friends, never been in a relationship so who am I to tell other more "successfull male" to mind the issues encountered by women.
Do other gaffers suffer from the same issue and how should I tackle the problem because it can put me on the edge of depression when I think about it.
The only solution would be to change my life and go live elsewhere but aside from this I'm quite happy where I live and love my life. I'm sure I will find a social group where I would be comfortable someday but for the moment I must put up with sexists and ignorant calls because it's the only way to keep enjoying some very important things for me.
This one thing makes me really miserable. It really hurts me because where I live nearly 99% of people are oblivious of social justice movements, are generaly proudly ignorant, immature and very grounded so the only possible outcome for me is to be alone and never really be open about my opinions with others.
Even the most open minded people I see at work or in my sport team would get banned very quickly on this forum.
I'm glad neogaf exists because I can read some very interesting conversations between educated and intelligent people but I could never hope to have the same level of conversation in real life. I'm as much ostracized as possible in my daily life and I really can't do much more because I feel like I will be all alone if I should try to put sexism on the table every time I hear someone having very sexist comments. I have no authority, I'm a young white dude with a low paying job, no diploma, not many friends, never been in a relationship so who am I to tell other more "successfull male" to mind the issues encountered by women.
Do other gaffers suffer from the same issue and how should I tackle the problem because it can put me on the edge of depression when I think about it.
The only solution would be to change my life and go live elsewhere but aside from this I'm quite happy where I live and love my life. I'm sure I will find a social group where I would be comfortable someday but for the moment I must put up with sexists and ignorant calls because it's the only way to keep enjoying some very important things for me.
The Librarian
Banned
Walking around with any friend, male or female, does help make me feel safer, especially in new, unknown places.
YoYo Switch
Banned
no, you'll just have to believe me
cyclonekruse
Member
I find some of the list reasonable, some patronizing (even if the overall sentiment of the item is something I'd generally agree with), and some of the list I disagree with. About what I expected, I suppose. A couple in particular stood out:
I mean, how many times have you seen boys discouraged from displaying emotions (except anger)? How many times, when a boy is crying or feeling down, is he called a pussy or to hike up his skirt and get over it instead of actually receiving emotional support? How many male-male friendships are deeply supportive compared to female-female friendships?
It's easier to offer emotional support when you've consistently received it yourself rather than being mocked simply for asking for it. Granted, this isn't true for all men, but I think there is a large contingent for whom it is true. So expecting men to equally share the emotional support burden is a worthy goal, but the workload will be disproportionately greater for men because many of them actually have to learn how to be supportive first. They're starting the race from behind here.
I do think that sharing the emotional support burden equally is a noble goal (though asking for more than 50% is taking it too far for me). However, I also think it's important to note that, in general, that's going to be harder for men. Because men, either innately or through socialization (and my money is on the latter mostly here), men live in smaller emotional boxes. And so, we men lack the tools to provide emotional support.Pamela Clark said:
I mean, how many times have you seen boys discouraged from displaying emotions (except anger)? How many times, when a boy is crying or feeling down, is he called a pussy or to hike up his skirt and get over it instead of actually receiving emotional support? How many male-male friendships are deeply supportive compared to female-female friendships?
It's easier to offer emotional support when you've consistently received it yourself rather than being mocked simply for asking for it. Granted, this isn't true for all men, but I think there is a large contingent for whom it is true. So expecting men to equally share the emotional support burden is a worthy goal, but the workload will be disproportionately greater for men because many of them actually have to learn how to be supportive first. They're starting the race from behind here.
What gets me about this one is that men are actually in greater danger of being the victim of a violent crime. Men were about 40% more likely to be the victims of a serious violent crime then women in 2012 (in the US). And I'm pretty sure the difference widens when you only look at victimization caused by strangers (given that a large proportion of rape and of course domestic violence is done by nonstrangers). Yet I'm supposed to take special care not to exacerbate women's fears when I'm walking down the street? For starters, I don't think women are dainty little flowers that need that level of protection. Second, if I wouldn't do that for a male (who's in greater danger according to the numbers) then I don't see why I should go out of my way for a female.
I can explain why I'd jump on it. The society I live in have become increasingly self centered/individualistic and entitled where people get offended when things doesn't work out the way they expected. Since school we were taught as an universal rule that if someone feels offended then he/she is "objectively" offended/victim of infringement. I didn't get the grade I want in school? Teacher was obviously biased. Can't be a swedish teacher even though I'm an immigrant with poor swedish? Faculty head is obviously racist. Men aren't allowed to use womens bath room in public places? Obviously discrimination since the "victim" don't identify as any gender.
Yes all of these things have happened and caused decent people to lose jobs and be shamed publicly. In the mid 00's there was quite a lot of media coverage on the teachers college situation for example, where just getting accused would have you suspended from teaching/mentoring. This is only the tip of the iceberg though..it's like every time something insignificant happens people take it as a personal attack directed at them.
This doesn't mean I don't take other people's concerns seriously. If someone wants to talk to me about a person being sexist or awful in any other way I gladly hear them out but I won't hesitate to call people out for being ridiculous, self centered and self entitled if I think they are misinterpreting the situation or overreacting. So no I won't take anyone's word for anything unless I judge the persons character to be reliable or they manage to convince me, which sadly is a rare thing these days.
fallingseastar
Banned
Do you not think that there are men who would feel the same way walking down a dark alley at night? Men make up the majority of violent assault victims.
yeah this, I've been robbed and I constantly walk around watching over my shoulder keeping to walls and analyzing every person I come across as a potential threat.
Talking with my female friends, most of them aren't really more scared or frightened to walk alone at night than any male people I know. If alone at a bad place then sure they'd be a worried(which most males would be as well), but not this constant fear that some seem to talk about. Maybe it's different abroad. This is just my personal experience though so maybe I'm wrong.
HighAmperage
Member
Fully on board with this one after reading that list.
SteveWinwood
Member
world keeps on turning
Liu Kang Baking A Pie
Member
I'm loving how poorly some men here are reacting to being the ones getting slightly talked down to.
I do feel like some people may be idealising the male experience a bit. Most men get nervous often in public places and feel threatened quite regularly. Not to say it isn't weighted against females feeling secure, but I would suggest a large majority of men get nervous in public too.
I love how you seem to make so many of these posts in feminism threads. Come on you can do better than this one liner, group attack, shit, you make some great posts. Be specific. And everybody should respond poorly to getting spoken down to, male or female. It is not a productive response, even if the target is acting stupidly.
I love how you seem to make so many of these posts in feminism threads. Come on you can do better than this one liner, group attack, shit, you make some great posts. Be specific. And everybody should respond poorly to getting spoken down to, male or female. It is not a productive response, even if the target is acting stupidly.
Nealand Liquor
Member
I don't know, I thought we were in an age of actively trying to display equal respect for all people regardless of gender or race. I can understand why people who treat all with respect wouldn't enjoy being talked down to just because of their gender.
Maybe I am confused though, maybe it is ok to talk down to others just because of their gender?
KernelPanic
Member
It's a good article. I'd like to think I practice a lot of those.
She should probably try to incorporate some of the FAQ into the article to make it more clear.
Despite the article's goals I think some of those points are more idealistic and academic rather than practical. For example, expecting men to preach feminism at every turn won't accomplish much IMO.
Same with giving up 23% of your salary to social causes. Can't really see anyone doing that but props to those who do.
She should probably try to incorporate some of the FAQ into the article to make it more clear.
Despite the article's goals I think some of those points are more idealistic and academic rather than practical. For example, expecting men to preach feminism at every turn won't accomplish much IMO.
Same with giving up 23% of your salary to social causes. Can't really see anyone doing that but props to those who do.
Yeah, the brevity of some of the items really works against their points in a couple of them. I think the faqs should just have been included in the items themselves, it would have made for a more cohesive piece and left less avenues of attack that distract from the actual point they are making.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
Captain that would be a bingo
Liu Kang Baking A Pie
Member
I feel this list is fair, equal, and supports its arguments. Seeing men get upset at the slightly authoritarian tone is very silly to me considering how dudes are talking to the ladies in this thread.
- Status