Not trying to start another flame war — heavens forfend — but someone’s got me thinking.
Whoops — some images on this site may not be work-safe. Also, any comments on that post need to be on topic and civil. She raises some important points that I’m mulling,and I think some of my readers might appreciate.
I wish you had told me that was not work-safe before I clicked on the link. Not all of us are safely ensconsced in academia, ‘ya know.
Hi Hugo,
We haven’t met, but I am glad that you decided to engage with what I wrote and to mull it over. Not often I have this experience when I attempt to dialogue with politicized others. So, I’m growing and taking in information, too. :)
Well, if nothing else comes of this week, it’s that I’m reading lots of blogs I didn’t read before, and thinking about issues in new ways. The first rule of dialogue, for me, is to consider the possibility that I may be wrong about all of my previously held beliefs. I’ll be reading you regularly now, darkdaughta.
“Whoops — some images on this site may not be work-safe.”
Ha ha — ya think?
bmmg39
Men’s Rights = Women’s Rights = Human Rights
I had to read that sentence over a couple times before I got it. I kept thinking: “Is Hugo saying he has a few penises? Huh?! Wha?!”
Sigh. I’m slow.
“The first rule of dialogue, for me, is to consider the possibility that I may be wrong about all of my previously held beliefs.”
And this is what sets you apart from the bulk of bloggers and commenters on poilitical and religious topics. I recall reading about how the great Marcus Aurelius believed in listeneing to all of his subjects, no matter how humble, and yearned for new knowledge and understanding that might be gleaned from the wisdom of foreign conquered lands. But magnanimous, wise, and humble as he was, he understood that there was no reason to extend his goodwill as far as those pesky Christians. He and every other decent Roman knew this. There was no reason to listen to anything they had to say. The arena was made for such as they. Yet he could have learned from them.
Perhaps you will begin the process of silencing the voices that challenge beliefs that some hold to be too sacred for that to be tolerated. It’s a process that leads to polarization - not dialog and meetings of minds - and the forces pressing in that direction are frighteningly strong. They are a juggernaut that tries to crush everything in its path. If it cannot swallow you whole, it will try to take a piece. You may want to give it that - it’s only a little piece - thinking that perhaps it will be satisfied and will stop attacking you. It will not. Not until it has all of you.
And I will come back to visit and read, too.
Stanton, while I almost always disagree with you and the other MRAs that post here, I try to give you the benefit of the doubt because every person deserves it, especially on the internet where our own assumptions are so dangerous. If I find something I agree with in what you say or disagree with Hugo, you have responded with surprise that I could possibly be so “reasonable” (unlike all those “rabid extremists” or whatever). Don’t you see how condescending that is?
I know you have tried to read up on feminism and I think you do try to choose your language carefully most of the time, but I don’t see a whole lot of willingness “to consider the possibility that I may be wrong” coming from the MRAs. I don’t see much respect given from the MRAs to the feminists who post here regularly, people they should be able to give the benefit of the doubt to and try to understand. Right off I thik of people like evil fizz and mythago who debate with them regularly in a reasonable, very specific way. They aren’t ginmars and Q Grrls, insisting that anyone should be banned “that they don’t agree with.” Many of the interesting, courteous feminists that post here have gotten tired of being ignoring in these conversations. They don’t fuss at Hugo about it, they leave the conversation and maybe eventually the whole blog.
You guys (Gonz, Uzzah, Mr. Bad, bmmg39) have been talking about how much you love discussion and the “courtesy” that Hugo insists on. Some of you are better at this than others. But are you willing to consider how much truth there is in the claim that you frustrate many other readers by ignoring their points and redirecting the conversations?
Someone asked Gonz if he had learned anything from this blog while he’s been posting here, if he was willing to consider other people’s opinions the way he said others should consider his side. He brought up a random point about illegal immigrants and the catholic church, disingenuous at best, since he knew what kind of topics they were really asking about. So instead of harping on about the facist feminists that want to outlaw your free (courteous) speech on this blog, how about proving them wrong? How about listing something you’ve learned from the people/women/feminists who think differently than you on this blog? Someone not Hugo?
In the spirit of complete fair play and honesty, I think bmmg39 has almost always done a great job of listening and trying to contribute his perspective respectfully. Like most of us, his life experiences guide the way he sees issues and contributes to these conversations. I am glad he has been willing to be very open and honest about painful issues in his own life. I hope I’ve learned from what he’s shared about his struggles with abuse and his perspective on intimacy in relationships. He’s not the only male or the only person I’ve heard these things from, but his comments are a part of the way I see these issues now.
“I don’t see much respect given from the MRAs to the feminists who post here regularly, people they should be able to give the benefit of the doubt to and try to understand. Right off I thik of people like evil fizz and mythago who debate with them regularly in a reasonable, very specific way.”
I do like to think that I’m on a friendly basis — or at the very least a hospitable basis — with Mythago and Fizz.
Oh, and as far as “struggles with abuse” are concerned, I’d like to clarify that I’m not a victim, just someone who has an interest in the subject. Other than that, thank you for your kind words.
Well, damn. Nice to know that something got through to you. I was starting to wonder, as you seemed to come to a sort of bizarre nonconclusion on the issue.
(We seem to have met that Kevin guy at the same time for similarish reasons, btw.)
Vacula,
I ‘m not sure where you saw me ignoring anyone. I try to respond to anyone who addresses me - and you are quite right that I try to choose my words carefully. I have actually called evil_fizz a friend in private email, and I respect her very much, even though we have many points of disagreemnt - and I very much treasure that (I know I have not spoken to you in some time, evil, end I apoplogze for that!). Mythago and I have had our differences, for certain, but I believe I have always respected her as well.
I have learned a great deal in my time here. I have seen the flip side of my own concerns about fairness in family court and false accusations against fathers (which are legitimate), from women who fear that their legitimate cases will not be taken seriously - and some with stories of being presumed guilty of pressing false charges and losing children to true abusers. I believed them. All these concerns need to be taken seriously.
I have learned to look harder for the discrimination in each individual case - and sometimes it can be found. For example, I no longer believe that Warren Farrell has it spot on in his dismissal of the wage gap. I believe now that probably 15 - 20% of it is actually accounted for by gender discrimination. (Caveat: I still see plenty of male DISadvantage as well.)
I now see the louder, intemperate voices as coming from wounded individuals, and not simply hateful ones. Mind you, this does not make them less dangerous!
Anyway, that’s all I have time for now. I’m off to Colorado for my daughter’s wedding!
So instead of harping on about the facist feminists that want to outlaw your free (courteous) speech on this blog, how about proving them wrong? How about listing something you’ve learned from the people/women/feminists who think differently than you on this blog? Someone not Hugo?
Ahh.. time for a pop quiz eh?
A couple of mundane threads kindof stand out to me because after the comments, I modified my thoughts on the subject.
One was a thread about personal appearance of women, specifically it got into how dark haired women were treated worse in general than blonde women. It seemed to me at the time kind of petty but the comments from the women posters made me think about it differently. What brought it home to me is when I discussed the comments with my wife, who is dark haired. I asked her how it had affected her when younger, and she was damned near in tears when she “unloaded on me” with all the bullshit she went through with here peers when she was was young.
Another one, which also seemed petty at the time, was the “staring” thread. I was thinking how paranoid it was, and how it painted men with a broad brush of lechery. But the comments, many by feminists, some by women that were not feminists, really brought home the fact that women are afraid in this society. And people shouldn’t have to be afraid. They reminded me of being bullied when I was a kid, and that struck home with me. Now I am on the lookout for my own (unintended) behavior that could trigger this fear and try to modify that behavior.
Ok so its little things. But they did remind me that there are other ways of looking at things.
Even the bigger issues like the concept of patriarchy or workplace discrimination, or parenting issues. You got to remember that I came in with a pretty limited view of these issues, having gotten most of my information about them from MRA sites and the like and negatively reinforced by the information I read on sites like Pandagon or Ginmars. But some of the more patient women here, that didn’t immediately stonewall me, actually took the time to explain these issues from a non-rabid position and I understood the meaning, at least one I could accept. Do I agree with all of them? No. But more than you might think.
So most of the time, when I respond to a feminist issue, I’m just asking a question. How do you come to this conclusion when this other thing happens. How does taking this particular stand, have negative effects on women as a group. How do you support this conclusion when this data exists that seems to prove it wrong. Sometimes I might offer a comment that describes what I think the average guy is thinking about a particular issue. Maybe its my opinion or maybe not. Sometimes that is germane to the subject at hand and I think helpful. Maybe sometimes it’s me that is trying to get you to view something from a different view.
I admit though, that sometimes my comments get a little snarky when I hear some Feminist spout some blatantly sexist stereotype, and obvious textbook statement that is so insulting to men that I can’t help but comment. Perhaps I should hold my tongue (or typing fingers) but some of it is so misandrist that I got to say “wait a minute.” And I don’t see a problem with that. You would do the same if I was to toss out some crappy misogynist statement or some lame MRA dogma.
And I frequently see so much hypocrisy in the statements made that I have to call “Bullshit” and ask you to explain your position. I’m not trying to shout you down, or intimidate you or say you are a mean old (you supply the stereotype) Feminist. I am just trying to get you to look at your statement, in light of your actions and explain how you justify it. But more often than not, I get the “you’re a troll” or a misogynist or whatever name you want to apply, or the “I don’t have to explain myself to you” answer and then they dodge the question.
The thing is, I am genuinely interested in their answers. And I am not afraid to alter my positions if I am wrong. It seems at times, that many of the Feminists here are. The three guys you mention, myself, Gonzman and Mr. Bad are trying to be honest and civil with the Feminists here. But we are going to ask some uncomfortable questions. But they are not questions meant to troll. They are meant to contribute to civil conversation and the exchange of ideas.
I understand the problem with trolls. Their goal is to disrupt Hugo’s thread, whether it be by spouting some MRA dogma, or it’s some Feminist constantly complaining about MRA’s. Or whether it is either one trying to derail the threads with some kind of lame rhetoric or insult. I honestly don’t know what Hugo can do about that. He has a day job and apparently, a life. He has thousands of people viewing his blog every day. He can’t be here 24/7 policing this blog. People are just going to have to ignore it at times and try to conduct civil discourse around that.
I thought I would weigh in on this issue while this thread is still short. I haven’t skimmed the comments above, but I think what I have to say isn’t entirely relevant to what others have said, so that’s okay.
The idea of a safe space, a space where people can come together and share their experiences and ideas with like-minded and sympathetic folks, is an important one. That’s why domestic violence shelters are so important, and why blogs and message boards made up almost exclusively of feminists are so important. But that does not mean that everything has to be a safe space; it doesn’t even mean every feminist space has to be a feminist-only space. Hugo, I don’t see your blog as a discussion amongst feminists, and I don’t think you see it that way either. I think you want to create a Jeffersonian marketplace of ideas, where feminists and anti-feminists (and others, of course) can come together and share their point of view. I have to disagree with darkdaughta: being civil doesn’t mean jettisoning your emotions, it’s just a mode of self-expression that doesn’t presuppose your audience feels the same way. And I think civility is necessary if the goal is rational discussion and a free exchange of views; it probably isn’t necessary (or even desirable) if the goal is what we understand to be social justice, but that’s a different goal.
Perhaps you need a tighter moderation policy, and perhaps you need to consider whether you’ve practiced the equal treatment you believe in. But I don’t think you need to or ought to devote your time to chasing off every anti-feminist who pokes his head up here.
Wow, Uzzah basically summed up what I was going to say. I’m far from an MRA, but I’m not a feminist either. However, like he said, many of the things I thought as petty from some of the feminists here, I stopped to consider and asked the women in my life. Like Uzzah I was genuinely surprised that quite a few of these things were far from real and that they had to endure them on a daily basis. Honestly, I wouldn’t be surprised if it was because tolerance and openness Hugo has here that made it possible for these things to sneak in without the typical snark from both sides closing lines of communication.
I’m sure you guys have noticed that the feminists here alledge that the MRAs don’t approach this blog with the thought that they could be wrong but the other side says the exact same thing about them. We have to realize that the opposing side aren’t alien, but people with valid grievances. Lastly, bmmg39 is far from horrible, from the posts I’ve seen from him here and over on Happy’s blog.
I’ve tried to stay out of this…. But there is something I’d like to add to this thread.
When I first came upon Hugo’s blog, and read the comment section, I very honestly approached ‘discussions’ from the standpoint of taking ‘everyone’ there very seriously. I didn’t know what an MRA was, in fact. Never came across one before (yup, I’m not from around these parts). So I had absolutely no pre-concieved notions of these guys. The very first comment I left was responded to by a fella that immediately painted me with broad-brush strokes as (basically) a man-hating feminist and a post later someone refered to me (on the basis of my comment) as hysterical…..Now, I know myself pretty well and, I don’t get hysterical. Nor do I, nor have I ever, hated men. I was quite taken aback by this, because I hadn’t in anyway refered to myself as a feminist nor had I refered to men with any sort of broad brush stroke either.
Every subsequent visit after that led me finally to the distinct impression that MRA’s were basically and entirely organised to oppose feminism… Whereas the first mentions of this group had me thinking they were genuinely within a mens movement… One that embraces a positive future for men and women alike and is founded upon social change. What I learned from these fella’s (their comments) however, was that this group is rooted in the denial of rights and a throw back to another day and age as well as a denial of present day, real life, circumstances.
Now, could I be wrong about all of this.. At this point, I’m open, but doubt it. Based merely upon what the feedback ‘gave me’ to ‘go on’.
Due to the kind of derailing and circular, disassociated, and often offending (mr. bad?!) comments that some fella’s were responding with, I stopped coming by as often. In fact, it seemed to me that anything I or any other woman might ’say’ on these threads, that could even remotely be interpretted as feminist theory or language - was going to be discounted and put down on that premise alone. Not for the rationale of what was being offered, not for the sake of some other viewpoint for that matter - simply and only because it was “feminist”.
That said. Having come over here without any previous knowledge of the MRA + friends bunch, I was impressed by those whom seemed to comment less persistently, with intent to torture, in a single thread. These were folks who were simply ’speaking’ their mind and actually ‘listening’ to others do the same. I witnessed commentators taking another approach, bending their minds. What was unusual about this? The subjects at hand were contentious for them.
That’s discourse.
One or two (at least) MRA’s might take a deep breath every now and then and think about discourse, and how it is achieved and / or sustained. Otherwise, I simply don’t see the point to contributing. Unless of course, the objective really is simply to oppose feminists on principal.
One or two (at least) MRA’s might take a deep breath every now and then and think about discourse, and how it is achieved and / or sustained.
Is that street one-way, or two-way?
Gonzman,
Is that street one-way, or two-way?
The woman just wrote a long, courteous, and heartfelf post about how she came in asking innocent questions, without preconceived notions (does not consider herself a feminist, did not know what MRAs are, even says that she is still “open” about MRAs), asking not to be treated with hostility…
And your immediate respones is “well, you gotta be nice too!!”
She was “nice.” She did not attack anyone. She was not confrontational. In response she was called a “man hater” and “hysterical.” Do you see shy your question might seem petulant at best and confrontational at worst? She was already polite. You (general “you” - including mr. bad and some of the other more aggressive MRAs) weren’t. So why are you responding to her request with a demand that she do what she already has and you haven’t?
First, Tefnut, I wasn’t talking to you - if you chose to regard it as confrontational, that is your choice.
My respionse is most certainly NOT “you have to be nice.” What I want to see is a little logical and philosophical consistancy. I don’t respect mealy-mouthed “niceness.” That is one of the reasons many women get walked over every day. The alternative, however, is not the other extreme - being a flaming bitch. You can stick to your guns and stand by your principles without being a raving lunatic.
How “nice” anyone is happens to be irrelevant to the question: If you have two people on the opposite sides of an issue having a discussion, and neither one is persuaded by the other’s arguments, calling only one of them “unwilling to have discourse” - no. I call “Bullshit.” I don’t care what the issue is, or on whose side you fall. It’s no crime against civility or discourse to stick by your principles. I’ve had many a discussion here and other places with civil feminists who haven’t budged an inch and hardly feel ill-used. I respect that. And I respect them for doing so.
The question is both civil and eminently fair.
Gonzman,
Tefnut has a point (about answering a suggestion with a retort that masks a threat. like this: “i will/won’t, unless you do first”).
Geeesh. I’ve read the word “civil” and “civility” so much lately, I am afraid I might catch it.
Respect. Respect is a great word. It encompasses a lot. It doesn’t infer language choices all unto itself, as much as it denotes Intent. No one expects anyone else to tolerate disrespect… so on and so forth.
Anywaaaaaaay.
Well. I’ve never been called a flaming bitch (to my face, at least). That might amuse me, actually. Just ’cause it’s sooo “trying” to be insulting, and invokes a comic-book-like visual of a super-herione-on-fire. And I bet it would be tricky lock’n down the definition of a “bitch” in human-terms… among us all here. I’ve caught myself being an asshole every now and then, yep. Nonetheless.
I usually approach others in most any discussion with an assumed Respect for those I am engaging with. And go into it with an assumption that they too, will be respectful. I think any previous comments I’ve left on Hugo’s blog contest to that.
First, Tefnut, I wasn’t talking to you - if you chose to regard it as confrontational, that is your choice.
Then how, exactly, did you mean it? because as I mentioned, there was no need for your question. You asked for something that has already been given.
How “nice” anyone is happens to be irrelevant to the question
But…but…I thought the whole point of this discussion was civility and politeness!!! I remember seeing numerous MRAs calling for feminists to be “less aggressive” and “more polite” in their discourse.
Or did we just move the goalposts?
If you have two people on the opposite sides of an issue having a discussion, and neither one is persuaded by the other’s arguments,calling only one of them “unwilling to have discourse” - no. I call “Bullshit.”
And I call “strawman.” ricia_pd did not discuss being convinced. She discussed polite discourse, and recounted her experience wherein she attempted polite discourse, and in response to which she got attacked.
And when she asked that she receive the same politeness she deals…you said “you first.”
Care to elaborate?
I will elaborate - it’s a load of crap, and you are putting words in my mouth. Words which are manifestly not there, which make them a lie.
Your interpretation of them is your own responsibility.
There is an undercurrent of “MRA’s who are unpersuaded demonstrate they approach a discussion in bad faith” among many comments I have read here. It is not a stretch, a leap of intuitive thought, or an unreasonable conclusion to draw. So, since my uncertainty of it is *MY* responsibility, rather than accuse someone of it, I’m asking - I’m asking for a clarification. It is neither an attack no an accusation, it is a flat out, straight question, civil, and legitimate as the day is long. That’s what I seem to hear - is that what you meant?
As for her being called a manhater, et al - that is for her to deal with, with those who said it. Unless there is a double standard being applied, there has been a consistant refusal by feminists to be held accountable for extremist rhetoric, so I likewise claim that same privilege.
So.. You are saying that because there was a woman (or more) whom refused to be “accountable” for extremist rhetoric.. That you do the same? I don’t understand… Are you saying that you won’t be responsible for your own rhetoric or that you aren’t taking responsibility for someone elses?
We’re trying to comprehend your rhetoric. Not putting words in your mouth. Telling you straight out what we are ‘hearing’, that’s all. You are free to explain further, if we’ve misunderstood.
The clarification was indeed inherent in the story first told. But for clarities sake: YES. I am accountable for my part in discourse, and I suggested that others might take care to be as well. I specified this in regard to some MRA members / friends, as it seems that some of those members are less inclined to do so themselves - an observation that is based upon my past experiences at this blog. I specifically wrote the comment to exemplify the “broad brush” painting that happens in regard to feminists. Such as in this statement (though not nearly as extreme as the sort of comments I have encountered in the past):
“there has been a consistant refusal by feminists to be held accountable for extremist rhetoric”
Not sure what extremist rhetoric is.. Or what that has to do with discourse or derailing discourse (as I could claim MRA’s as holding extremist viewpoint and therefore discount the need for me to attempt being respectful from the onset). There are all sorts of feminists ‘out there’ Gonzman. These are merely people we’re talking about. I imagine the MRA is composed of a diverse number of individual men.. I imagine men in general can’t be lumped into one summed-up character either.
Gonzman,
Again, I will repeat what I said, and ask for an answer to what I said:
1. ricia_pd describes an incident in which she was civil, and MRAs were not
2. She asked for civility in return
3. You responded “you first”
4. I asked why you’re demanding civility from HER when she WAS civil and others (with whom you identify on this blog) were not
5. I asked why you demanded civility when she was civil and others were not, and you started discussing “logical consistency” which has nothing to do with the issues that ricia_pd and then myself brought up
Could you plesae respond to that? I promise that after you do, I will respond to each point you have made.
ricia_pd: Tell me to butt out if you want to have this conversation by yourself.
Gonzman, I fail to see how your approach proves the “other side” is wrong - you say “there has been a consistant refusal by feminists to be held accountable for extremist rhetoric, so I likewise claim that same privilege” after ricia_pd and I, in this thread at least, have been trying to point out that it is frustrating to try to consistently give y’all the benefit of the doubt and have our conversation derailed because some of you don’t listen to what we’re actually saying. Your response to this comment? “Feminists aren’t upholding any standards for rhetoric” - That’s not the point! Rhetoric can be extreme and still respectful of its audience - but this isn’t about “audience,” it’s about “conversation” and “dialog.” Which involve listening
“MRA’s who are unpersuaded demonstrate they approach a discussion in bad faith”
This isn’t about “conversion” - if you’re around here long enough and really listening to the conversations that happen in the comments, you should at very least be “persuaded” that, as Stanton says, “The louder, intemperate voices [come] from wounded individuals, and not simply hateful ones.” I think that’s still kind of condescending (Mr. Bad and Gonzman use “extreme rhetoric” and it’s just individual style - feminists use “extreme rhetoric” and they’re “wounded individuals”).
At least it shows he’s trying to get where the other person is coming from. And for people he’s had more conversations with, he’s really come to value their perspectives as friends. I would be very sorry to see MRAs who can do this excluded from these boards because I do enjoy discussing things with you.
But you still insist on painting everyone who disagrees with you with a broad brush. You’ve been here a lont time and (hopefully) seen that there is a lot of range in the people who post and the people who disagree with you. It would be nice to see you respond to the specifics of people’s posts without lumping what they’re saying in with your perception of a larger argument. That’s what I would call “listening”.
no tefnut, not at all. and vacula.. u obviously have a stake in the debate/conversation and i recognise the support
: )