This is, I think, an important post.
I’ve been thinking about men in women’s studies classes, and jokes about "male-bashing."
This semester’s women’s studies class is like most: overwhelmingly female. I’ve got 32 women and 6 men in the class. I met individually last Thursday with the women for "all-female day"; I met with my guys on Tuesday for "all-male day." This morning, we all got back together in the classroom for the first time as a full group in nine days.
Most of the guys hadn’t spoken in class all semester; today, all did. A number of the women in class were eager to ask questions and create dialogue; up until this week, mine has been the only consistent male voice in the classroom. The guys did a great job of sharing about many topics (we spent a lot of time on the "myth of male weakness") But two of the guys did something that I see over and over again from men in women’s studies classes. They prefaced their remarks by joking "I know I’m going to get killed for saying this, but…" One of them, even pretended to rise from his desk to position himself by the door, saying that "Once I say this, I know I’m going to have to make a run for it." Most of the women laughed indulgently, and I even found myself grinning along.
When men find themselves in feminist settings (like a women’s studies class) they are almost always in the minority. When I was taking women’s studies classes at Berkeley in the 1980s, I was usually one of only two or three men in the room. In my women’s history classes over the past decade, men average 10-20% of the students, never more. Even when they make up as much as a fifth of the class, they generally do less than a tenth of the talking. That isn’t surprising, given the subject matter — I was often fairly quiet in my own undergraduate days.
But one thing I remember from my own college days that I see played out over and over again is this male habit of making nervous jokes about being attacked by feminists. In my undergrad days, I often prefaced a comment by saying "I know I’ll catch hell for this". I’ve seen male students do as they did today and pretend to run; I’ve seen them deliberately sit near the door, and I once had one young man make an elaborate show (I kid you not) of putting on a football helmet before speaking up!
All of this behavior reflects two things: men’s genuine fear of being challenged and confronted, and the persistence of the stereotype of feminists as being aggressive "man-bashers." The painful thing about all this, of course, is that no man is in any real physical danger in the classroom — or even outside of it — from feminists. Name one incident where an irate women’s studies major physically assaulted a male classmate for something he said? Women are regularly beaten and raped — even on college campuses — but I know of no instance where a man found himself a victim of violence for making a sexist remark in a college feminist setting! "Male-bashing" doesn’t literally happen, in other words, at least not on campus. But that doesn’t stop men from using (usually half in jest) their own exaggerated fear of physical violence to make a subtle point about feminists.
There’s a conscious purpose to this sort of behavior. Joking about getting beaten up (or putting on the football helmet) sends a message to young women in the classroom: "Tone it down. Take care of the men and their feelings. Don’t scare them off, because too much impassioned feminism is scary for guys." And you know, as silly as it is, the joking about man-bashing almost always works! Time and again, I’ve seen it work to silence women in the classroom, or at least cause them to worry about how to phrase things "just right" so as to protect the guys and their feelings. It’s a key anti-feminist strategy, even if that isn’t the actual intent of the young man doing it — it forces women students to become conscious caretakers of their male peers by subduing their own frustration and anger. It reminds young women that they should strive to avoid being one of those "angry feminists" who (literally) scares men off and drives them away.
Here’s where I need to issue a big ol’ mea culpa. Until today, I don’t think I fully realized how common this strategy of joking about male-bashing really is. I didn’t realize how I, as a teacher, permit and thus encourage it. Too often, I’ve been so eager to make sure that my small minority of men feels "safe" in the classroom that I’ve allowed their insecurities to function to silence the female majority — in what is supposed to be a feminist setting! Though I haven’t made such remarks myself, I’ve laughed indulgently at them without stopping to consider their function.
Part of being a pro-feminist man, I’ve come to realize in recent years, is being willing to face the real anger of real women. Far too many men spend a great deal of time trying to talk women out of their anger, or by creating social pressures that remind women of the consequences of expressing that anger. Many men, frankly, are profoundly frightened by women who will directly challenge them. In a classroom, they don’t really fear being struck or hit. But by comparing a verbal attack on their own sexist attitudes towards physical violence, they hope to defuse the verbal expression of very real female pain and frustration. I know that it’s hard to be a young man in a feminist setting for the first time, and I know, (oh, how I know) how difficult it is to sit and listen to someone challenge you on your most basic beliefs about your identity, your sexuality, your behavior, and your beliefs about gender. It’s difficult to take the risk to speak up and push back a bit, and it’s scary to realize just how infuriating your views really are to other people, especially women.
The first task of the pro-feminist male in this situation is to accept the reality and the legitimacy of the frustration and disappointment and anger that so many women have with men, and to accept it without making light of it or trying to defuse it or trying to soothe it. Pro-feminist men must work to confront their own fears about being the target of those feelings. Above all, we cannot ever compare — even in jest — verbal expressions of strong emotion to actual physical violence or man-bashing.
After all, one of the pernicious aspects of the "myth of male weakness" is that men can’t handle being confronted with women’s anger. We either run away literally or figuratively, disconnecting with the television, the bottle, the computer screen. But we’re not little boys who will physically lash out in rage when challenged, nor can we be so fearful that we dodge and defuse and check out. That’s not what an adult does in the face of the very real emotion of another human being.
I’ve allowed this kind of joking and defusing to go on too long in my classes. It’s going to stop now.
UPDATE:
Please don’t get into thread drift here. This is not a forum to question the basic tenets of feminism, or issues of domestic violence and abuse, or why I’ve banned anyone in the past. I’m going to be much more careful about monitoring what is posted here. This is not a free speech zone, nor need it be. It’s my blog, and y’all have other forums for discussing gender issues.
Great post. It would be interesting to hear about your early experiences.
It’s my experience, rather, that far too many women know that they can get in the face of a man, thump fingers in their chests, slap, smack, kick and the like that would get their butts kicked if they were men - and often it is done deliberately to put men in the fight or flight mode, and since they are programmed to never, ever, hit a woman back, that they will run, or shut up and take it.
I’ve been teaching and counselling men for a long time that it is right to be offended at such things, and right to demand to not be subjected to disrespect and verbal bullying, even if it is by a woman; that to hide behind tears, or an expectation of deference based on sex is cowardly no matter who it comes from.
If I had a grievance with a woman I would be expected to become calm and rational, speak my piece in such tones, and to sit and listen to “her side” without becoming defensive or invalidating it. And - at least according to the rhetoric I hear - I would think it would be “anti-feminist” to hold women to a different standard - just because they are women.
Totally overlooked in your theory - and I used overlook because I don’t think it ever really hits the radar, not because it is purposefully ignored, mind you - is the application of Occam’s Razor: that these men may very well be leery about being shouted down without being heard , or having something chucked at them, or getting smacked - precisely because that has been their experience.
There’s no conscious purpose - there’s not a great male conspiracy to keep “da woman” down. There’s no fear of confrontation, there’s an exasperation at being drawn into yet another fruitless argument that is going to end in tears, and him looking like a big bully no matter what happens. Far to often are demands for “dialogue” code for “You shut up and let me talk” and demands for “growth” code for “You abandon your convictions and embrace mine.”
Let me posit something - if I took one of your classes, and participated in the class was good, but consisted of questioning a priori assumptions, if my papers were critical of the assigned reading, or reached a counter to accepted wisdom conclusion, if my essays took the “disagree” tack, and if at the end of the class I said “I am more convinced of my original POV now than I was when I started,” then what grade could I look forward to?
Well - *you* might still grade me well, I’ll give you that. But, what grade do you think the average women’s studies instructor would give me? And how many do you think would ask me to drop the class?
Yeah, I can hear it; “If you get insulting and refuse to grow…” As in, like I said, “Abandon my convictions and embrace someone elses?” And, why is it that “disagree” is automatically assumed I’d be hostile, unless, of course, the whole notion that I’d go somewhere else besides that same conclusion to be prima facie evidence of bad faith? And if that is why - who is it showing “bad faith?”
As usual, a provocative post. First, I have to apologize for offering comment knowing beforehand I don’t have the time to really do it justice. But I have to (at least partially) contest one of your premises:
“All of this behavior reflects two things: men’s genuine fear of being challenged and confronted, and the persistence of the stereotype of feminists as being aggressive “man-bashers.”
In my own college days, one of my classes included about 50% minority students, which was somewhat unusual in my field at that school. During one session in particular, discussion centered on opportunities and race. The discussion included a fair assessment of “reality”, as well as talk about sources of the current status of things and possible remedies. As a “suburban white boy” (TM), I found it difficult to comfortably join the discussion (especially when I disagreed with a statement made by a minority classmate) without prefacing my comment with something to lighten the tension.
I didn’t do this because I was a white man worried about being challenged or confronted. Rather I felt the need to do this to lessen the possiblity of my remarks seeming insensitive or bigoted when compared to the view of a minority student much closer to the topic at hand.
I use this example to suggest that the men in your class might have been using humor as a way to make themselves feel more comfortable joining in a class discussion where the subject matter and class ratio might tend to make things less comfortable.
I’ll second the “great post” comment, but I am not convinced that this sort of defusing is necessarily a bad thing. I think it’s fairly common — and extremely valuable — whenever people representing two opposing viewpoints are conversing and one side is numerically much larger than the other.
For instance, most of my family is religious, but not me; nevertheless we still frequently, and civilly, discuss religion and its impacts on society. I find myself often making little joking asides much like the men in your class do — “I have a feeling you all are going to kill me for this, but..” Of course they never do, and I never feel in actual danger.
But I think the ability to make such an aside has two salutory effects: (a) it makes me more comfortable raising something that I feel sure they are going to strongly disagree with, if I preface it by some acknowledgement that I know how much they are going to disagree with it; and (b) the joking air reminds people that we are in a civil, informative conversation; that what I say isn’t intended as an attack, and that whatever they say in response isn’t either. And because it’s joking and deliberately humorous, it makes people laugh and thus defuses any potential tension much more than just saying “I know you might disagree with this…” would.
I just worry that by prohibiting your guys from making these type of comments, you would stifle discussion and also create an environment where it’s harder to use levity as a tension-breaker.
Of course, your concerns are legitimate: perhaps you could discuss this with your classes and see what they think? I have a hunch that if you just raise the issue, people will still be able to use this sort of aside (and thus have all the good effects of it) but everyone will also be much more conscious of what negative messages it might be sending, each time (and thus you’ll mitigate the bad ones).
Maybe you could suggest to them a different phrase with which to convey their discomfort, desire for civility, willingness to accept disagreement, etc.. I don’t know what that might be, but they might feel more comfortable having a phrase they can confidently use.
I am grateful to Dr. Schwyzer, for providing an example (that I could link to in my own blog) of differential treatment by male feminists of ad hominem remarks by men and women.
I’m 50 and female. I don’t even know how to be angry; it was beaten out of me at an early age. The best I can do is cry when those feelings overcome me, so subsequently I have become very, very good at anger avoidance because tears only make one look foolish.
I don’t know who these women are that Gonzman is talking about, but I sure haven’t seen a lot of them in my lifetime (and yes, I’ve also worked in mental health for 20 years). I’m sure there are a few; there are far more men who not only don’t want to listen, they don’t want to hear anything that might disturb their view of the world.
Those men in Hugo’s class are simply doing what I (and many other women who are afraid to anger men) have done every day of my adult life.
I certainly have no intention of banning certain comments — I’m just going to be better about talking to the entire class about the whole red herring of “male bashing.”
Gonz, you’re conflating violence against men off campus with violence on it (and in the classroom). I’ll grant that women do physically assault men, just as I’ll grant that people sometimes bite their dogs. But as with dogs and biting, the reverse is far more common (and know, I’m setting the rule here, this is not a thread to revisit DV statistics). No male student could possibly have a reasonable expectation of physical violence for making a sexist statement in a women’s studies class.
I know I’ve used phrases like, “You all are going to jump all over me for saying this, but . . ” or “I hate to say this, but . . . .” Thinking back, I think I use them when I think that my opinion is going contrary to the vast majority of people that I’m conversing with. Following Rayven’s suggestion of an alternate phrase, for me, if I were going to be honest, it would be something like, “I’m worried about saying this because . . . ” or “I feel like this isn’t going to be a popular idea,” or “I feel like I’m the only person who thinks this, but . . .”
Now, what exactly I’m afraid is going to happen is a good question. I think it boils down to worry over what people will think about me if I say it. But I think the next time I feel the impulse to say it, I think I’ll ask myself, “What, exactly, am I afraid of?”
Good point, Carol, but I don’t think it’s simply a matter of being afraid for no good reason. (Which may or may not be what you meant; I’m using you as a springboard for a general comment).
Someone might legitimately be afraid of shutting down the discussion (by being misinterpreted as being antagonistic) or of accidentally giving offense (similar to what James said: if you hold a minority view but aren’t sure if it’s because you’re wrong about something or just different, it can be scary to speak up, especially if the consequences of being wrong could offend a lot of the people you are speaking to). The “don’t kill me but” phrase is very useful in both of those situations.
In short, I think sometimes there are good reasons to consider what other people will think: not because it’s important to have them like you, but because part of being in a conversation is doing your best as speaker to make sure you are interpreted as you intended, which involves getting in the listener’s heads and caring about their response to some extent.
Oh my.
Hugo, if you were teaching a men’s studies course with only 5-6 women attending and the rest men and the women prefaced their comments by saying something similar to what has been described in your post would you assume that their reasons for doing so were anti-masculine? Would you treat them in the same manner you plan to treat these young men? Would you say something like this:
switcheroo:
Too often, in this men’s studies class, I’ve been so eager to make sure that my small minority of women feels “safe” in the classroom that I’ve allowed their insecurities to function to silence the male majority — in what is supposed to be a masculinist setting!
or how about one like this:
It’s a key feminist strategy, even if that isn’t the actual intent of the young woman doing it — it forces male students to become conscious caretakers of their female peers by subduing their own frustration and anger. It reminds young men that they should strive to avoid being one of those “angry masculinists” who (literally) scares women off and drives them away.
Would you be telling the women that they really needed to listen attentively to men’s anger? Something tells me you wouldn’t be treating the ladies quite the same. I will be curious to hear your response.
Great post, Hugo. I could never really explain to my male friends who did this shit to me why it bothered me so much. I think you’ve hit the nail on the head on this issue.
Dr. E, men are not regularly the victims of rape and sexual assault outside of prison settings. Men are not socialized, as women are, to endlessly soothe and care-take the feelings of the other sex.
I don’t intend to rebuke anyone. I intend to call attention to the way that this joking reference to “getting killed” or “male-bashing” serves an anti-feminist purpose. We’re all on a journey together here.
Rayven, I do think we need to be attentive to how our words will be perceived. But joking about “getting killed” is clearly different than an honest admission that one is worried about how what one says will go over. At least, it seems so to me.
The preface happens a lot, and what it does is make a large segment of people apologetic for wanting to disagree and hurt the speaker’s feelings.
I think the thing to do is call people on this language. If they say “I know I’m going to get attacked for this, but…” then ask them why (a) they feel they’re going to be attacked; (b) they decide to say it anyway; and (c) they feel the need to tack on the disclaimer. I think that while some people who use this disclaimer may be actively trying to put their respondents on the defensive, most of them are just unconsciously falling back on conversational habits that have worked in the past.
Dr. E, men are not regularly the victims of rape and sexual assault outside of prison settings. Men are not socialized, as women are, to endlessly soothe and care-take the feelings of the other sex.
You’re right, we’re no socialized to soothe or anything like that - we are socialized to surrender, to give in, to apologize even when we are right whever there is an angry or upset woman. Be chivalrous. Ladies first. Let the girl win.
Occam’s Razor, again: The simplest explanation that fits all the facts is not that there is some great male conspiracy to put women down, to shame them, to silence them - it’s that these guys, from disparate and disconnected backgrounds acting the same way are doing so because their experience shows them that they will be ganged up on and verbally bullied, and if they resist at all, fault will be laid at their feet.
Point blank question: Does it even hit the radar that there might be a degree of that? That these guys do get jumped on by deviating from party line, that they are jumped on in an uncivil and disrespectful fashion, and that it is condoned? That they might feel that speaking their mind and defending their position, however civilly and rationally they do it will be rubricized as somehow being from a position of bad faith and mean-spiritedness, while all but the farthest extreme of the most uncivil attacks on them will be excused, justified, and rationalized away?
Or are they, again, just evil and broken males who need fixing, while the women are once again totally and completely justified, sugar and spice, etc. etc. etc.?
Rayven, I do think we need to be attentive to how our words will be perceived. But joking about “getting killed” is clearly different than an honest admission that one is worried about how what one says will go over. At least, it seems so to me.
I guess this is something where YMMV, then, cos I honestly don’t have the same impression — maybe if it were delivered in tones of fear, then yes; but when it’s deliberately exaggerated and caricatured for effect, part of what makes it funny is the realization by everyone in the room that the guys in question are in no actual danger. In other words, it’s only funny if male-bashing is not a real danger and everyone knows it. (By contrast, imagine the same scenario but for a woman in a roomful of men: if she pretended to don a football helmet and beat a path to the door it would be far less funny, and that’s because of the looming spectre of all those women who do get beaten for having contrary opinions).
But this might just be personal opinion, and we can be free to disagree here. I’m curious about what your students think when you broach the subject.
Well, one student who reads the blog constantly stopped me in the hall on the way off campus today to say she totally agrees. But she also thought that some of the guys might NOT see things the same way.
I agree, Rayven, that it is different when the guys do it — which is why I want to call them on it and ask the exact same question you do, which is what it would be like if a woman did it.
Gonz, I agree that men in a women’s studies class take a considerable risk when speaking up. And yes, I have heard some cruel remarks directed from female students to their male peers. Far be it from me to endorse the “sugar and spice”/”snips and snails” theory of gender relations! It is risky and scary to speak up. But it isn’t helpful to try and posit yourself as the potential victim when you’re a member of the dominant group.
I certainly don’t think most young men (I was in their shoes once) sit and think “I’m going to joke about male-bashing in order to disarm those who might find my remarks outrageous”. But that does seem to be, at least at times, the consequence, intended or not.
Rape and sexual assault, no. Every other category of violent crime, yes.
Maybe not on Planet Hugo, but just about everywhere else, hell yeah. That’s one of two reasons why we’re having this conversation about men in feminist classes, rather than vice-versa. The other is that “masculist” classes do not exist.
Men are not socialized, as women are, to endlessly soothe and care-take the feelings of the other sex.
Maybe not on Planet Hugo, but just about everywhere else, hell yeah.
My corner of the world is a heck of a lot more like Planet Hugo. The “don’t upset people,” “don’t rock the boat,” “don’t hurt other people’s feelings,” “be nice” sentiments are directed overwhelmingly at women vis a vis men *and* the group as a whole.
Dr. E, men are not regularly the victims of rape and sexual assault outside of prison settings. Men are not socialized, as women are, to endlessly soothe and care-take the feelings of the other sex.
Why would the location of a rape matter? As you have said men are also victims of rape. Gonzo has given you a good sampling of how men and boys are socialized to sacrifice for women and girls. Men have been dying by the hundreds of thousands in wars while women have sat safely at home. Yes there are women who die in wars but not even close to the number of men. Men have been deprived for decades of the loving experience of raising children due to societal expectations of being the sole breadwinner. Boys and girls, men and women have both had some hard knocks. One is not an oppressor and the other the oppressed. Treating one group as if they have been victims and the other as if they have been the perps is missing the mark by a long shot. All people deserve to be treated with dignity and respect and you seem to be saying that you feel it is okay to give women special treatment and not the men. This is called bigotry.
Second try at an approved post…. my earlier one must have experienced a technical glitch.
“But it isn’t helpful to try and posit yourself as the potential victim when you’re a member of the dominant group.”
I completely agree!
Women now constitute what — 57% of all college and university students?
And approximately 85% of women’s studies class enrollments?
Which group comprises the dominant voice in a women’s studies classroom?
Oh, I know…
Their situational power is suppressed by the ubiquitous Evil Patriarchy.
The argument continues to be at its most basically irrational — “women cannot experience power, because men still have some…. somewhere.”
Right?
Even women’s studies majors would be in hysterics about this silly reductionist notion of power.
So, to paraphrase Carol Gilligan –
When women “speak in a different voice,” does it possibly silence men who want to speak in their own?
X, I would welcome you to my courses on “Men, Masculinity, and the American Tradition.” Join me in Spring 2007…
UNPCDad and Dr. E I’m letting your recent comments stand. Your previous one was deleted for tenor and tone; this blog is for civil discussion of feminism and faith. Please be mindful that MRAs have countless forums (fora?), and while I welcome those who are willing to engage the specific issue, constantly telling me over and over again that I’m a mindless misandrist perpetuating a double standard that hurts men and boys is, frankly, getting old. Stand Your Ground is the place for you.
I agree! It’s a plea for undeserved sympathy. If you have something to say that you think is worthwhile saying, say it and stand behind it and let people respond to it how they will.
Hugo,
You might be intrigued to know that I have come to actually “listen” to you on more than a few occasions.
My deleted post was (perhaps poorly worded) about logic.
It was actually more about what I perceived as illogic.
It was about how women can claim that non-physical expressions are “violent” if performed by men.
While even “non-expressive expressions” by men (i.e. “ignoring her needs”) are currently grounds for arrest.
I will temper my language, if you will tolerate my veiled anger.
You already said you do it all the time in your classroom.
I wish I could enroll and pay full tuition! (I’m on the wrong coast…)
Then, you could not ban me, right?
Dr. Hugo, your friends may be in unlikely places.
Consider it….
I’m still blinking my eyes over how a meek “I hope I don’t get killed for this” is being construed as a misogynist, “keep the women quiet” sort of phrase. Isn’t it brutally obvious that saying “I hope I don’t get killed for this” is a sign that the SPEAKER is used to not having a say, of being in the minority, of having a tendency of being shouted down?
Do you think your classroom is the only one where someone will say, “I know I’ll catch hell for saying this, but…”? It’s a common introduction in any atmosphere in which a person perceives that (s)he is in the minority. A classroom full of women talking about the so-called “patriarchy” and holding men accountable for both the problems of women and the problems of men might just alienate a man just a tad, don’t you think?
No, I don’t find “male-bashing” to be a “cute” accusation, because male-bashing ITSELF isn’t cute: it’s pure, naked sexism, and that to me isn’t the least bit funny at all. If I call someone a male-basher, I’m not merely calling the person annoying and miserable; it’s a FAR more serious charge than that.
“Gonz, you’re conflating violence against men off campus with violence on it (and in the classroom). I’ll grant that women do physically assault men, just as I’ll grant that people sometimes bite their dogs. But as with dogs and biting, the reverse is far more common (and know, I’m setting the rule here, this is not a thread to revisit DV statistics).”
Just a tip: if you do not wish a topic to be discussed in a thread, it is unwise to bring it up, or else you appear as one who throws a rock and then hides behind a tree, declaring the war as over.
“(By contrast, imagine the same scenario but for a woman in a roomful of men: if she pretended to don a football helmet and beat a path to the door it would be far less funny, and that’s because of the looming spectre of all those women who DO get beaten for having contrary opinions).”
What classrooms have YOU been frequenting?
“But it isn’t helpful to try and posit yourself as the potential victim when you’re a member of the dominant group.”
You aren’t in the dominant group when there are six of you and 32 of the other.
“My corner of the world is a heck of a lot more like Planet Hugo. The ‘don’t upset people,’ ‘don’t rock the boat,’ ‘don’t hurt other people’s feelings,’ ‘be nice’ sentiments are directed overwhelmingly at women vis a vis men *and* the group as a whole.”
Count me among those who apparently have never visited the aforementioned Planet. I’ve seen the complete opposite: women encouraged to make their thoughts known (which is fine with me), while men are discouraged from arguing with a woman (for the sake of being “gentlemen”).
So some anger is worthy and some is to be banned? How can you tell the difference?
constantly telling me over and over again that I’m a mindless misandrist perpetuating a double standard that hurts men and boys is, frankly, getting old.
I said nothing of the sort. I simply said that what you are doing reminds me of bigotry. You seem to treat women and girls by one standard and men and boys with another.
Now what about mr bad? Can he be re-instated if the Duke accuser is proven to be a liar?
” …constantly telling me over and over again that I’m a mindless misandrist perpetuating a double standard that hurts men and boys is, frankly, getting old.”
Crap Dr. E!
I thought that was Hugo’s objection to MY post!
So now, we have to duel, right?
Who got most insulted by Hugo?
This is starting to read like SYG!
Just kidding….
Well, maybe…..
I’ve seen the complete opposite: women encouraged to make their thoughts known (which is fine with me), while men are discouraged from arguing with a woman (for the sake of being “gentlemen”).
A new phenomenon, to be sure. And women with strong opinions are still derided as bitchy and shrill because that’s unladylike. Also, Gonz refers to this “letting the girl win” mentality, which doesn’t strike me as telling me to be nice as much as it strikes me as telling men to be patronizing. I’m pretty sure we disagree on this point, but I tend to find that a lot of being gentlemanly/chivalrous and the associated rhetoric is about exactly that: patronization and this pretend shaking off of privilege. It’s not actual deference, just indulgence.
And man, am I bad at not getting sucked into the thread drift. A question for you Hugo: when you get such prefaced remarks, what tends to follow them? Views that are actually not popular in the class or just legitimately different ideas?
en garde unpcdad!
bmmg39 - Very nice post. Thank you for taking the time and effort to explain as you did.
I don’t know if this is at all similar, but I am very insecure in my knowledge of my chosen field. When I ask a question about why someone is doing something scientific, or if I proffer a suggustion, I tend to preface with with, “I know this is a dumb question/suggestion, but…” It’s a tactic designed to make the listener pre-judge the statement so that if I do say something dumb/ignorant/whatever, I’m not discounted as much because I’ve previously admitted my stupidity. No, it’s not a good idea, and yes, it probably doesn’t help. But it’s a defensive mechanism that I now use whenever I’m in a situation where I feel out of my league academically. And now I add it in without realizing that I’m doing it, which is worse.
So I can see that maybe the guys in your class are uncomfortable. Maybe they don’t think that they’re actually going to get hurt, just like I don’t actually think my comments are dumb. But they need to get a pre-emptive shield up, just in case.
Nicely said Technocracygirl. It is a common maneuver that comes from a “one down” position. When we feel unsure and intimidated. Assuming it is to control women is a huge and unsupported leap.
I think an opinion perceived by the speaker to be unpopular as opposed to uniformed is a bit different.
This is kind of long-winded, and it may be off-topic, so it’s perfectly okay to delete this.
From Gonzman:
It’s my experience, rather, that far too many women know that they can get in the face of a man, thump fingers in their chests, slap, smack, kick and the like that would get their butts kicked if they were men - and often it is done deliberately to put men in the fight or flight mode, and since they are programmed to never, ever, hit a woman back, that they will run, or shut up and take it.
I do live action role-playing, where you pretend to be someone and act it out with a bunch of other people. Think of it as improv theatre, only with long-term stories.
There was a new player who came into our game. He engaged in outrageously crass behaviour. Nothing he did was per se bad, but he knew how to manipulate his behaviour so as to make all the women there feel cowed and scared of him. I left for a while (only partially because of this person) because it took so much mental energy to not fall into my natural beta submission with him, I just didn’t want to deal with it.
I came back one night just to hang out with people and read the books I’d gotten that evening. I was sitting on the bench and chatting when this person came up to me and said, as if he actually wanted me to come back, “Hey, Technocracygirl! When are you going to stop being a dumbass and come back to game?”
I actually had to think, “That was not appropriate. You do not have to put up with that rude behaviour.” So, something like five or ten seconds after he said that, I swatted him very gently on the backside with my comic book and said, “I don’t appreciate that.”
Do you have any idea how much effort it took for me to stand up to someone who insulted me in the face? Do you have any idea how many mental blocks I had to wade through in order to engage in the small amount of chatisement that I did? Make no mistake, that was it — I simply didn’t talk to him after that comment that night, and he left the game shortly thereafter. But for me to tell a man that I hated very, very much that I didn’t appreciate him insulting me to my face took a lot of mental rearranging.
What is the point of this horrifically long post? I don’t know the women Gonzman hangs around with. I know that most of the people I hang around with are beta personalities who don’t particularly like alphas, so that may have something to do with it. But most of the women I know would never dream of getting into a man’s face, hitting him, slapping him, what have you. To do so takes a lot of mental rearranging, and most haven’t had the need for it. Maybe once you’ve rearranged your thinking so that it’s okay to hit the one guy who insults you, it’s okay to hit them all. But I don’t know. I just know that I know of a whole lot more anecdotal evidence of men as aggressors than as women as aggressors.
So, is this thread about mutual gender insecurities?
It started with Dr. Hugo’s honest concerns about dialogue in his women’s studies classes.
(He’s always honest. Even when he’s 100% wrong. That’s a really good quality in a feminist.)
The thread morphed into a broader chat about power and self-effacing strategies and the consequences that people experience when they become fodder in the gender wars.
It all began in Hugo’s classroom.
Much to be respected.
And feared?
Just my interpretation.
Probably marginal…..
(Dr. E.) — “en garde unpcdad!”
Oh, I’ve been there, done that, got the –
BANNED FROM SYG tee-shirt!
Silly man.
I have learned to RUN AWAY when it is appropriate!
Though I do miss the meaningless testosterone combat, and the occasional genius.
Yours, actually.
The “I know this is dumb, but” is a tactic used with expectancy violation. People tend to judge a person stronger (for good or ill) who violate their expectations. If you then say something dumb, it doesn’t violate their expectations, they judge you less strictly. If you say something brilliant, you’ll either get judged better(positive violation) or you’ll get judged worse (negative violation). Positive violation may be along the thought process of “Oh, look: s/he thought it was dumb, but it was actually GENIUS. Imagine what s/he will produce when it’s intelligent”. Negative violation may go along the lines of “Oh, s/he’s being patronizing: s/he insults my intelligence by thinking this is stupid when s/he really knows it’s brilliant, along with the implication that it should have been obvious”.
I see the same problem happening with the anger thing. They are trying to reduce expectation violation. But, what the problem is that they are assuming the mindset is to be angry. Expectation violation is only an effective communication tool if you can resonably acertain what a reaction is going to be, and I don’t think it’s fair to reasonably acertain that these women would attack anyone. But, I do think it’s fair to suggest that they think this will be helpful in controlling the outcome: this makes sure that they will be defensive.
Views that are actually not popular in the class or just legitimately different ideas?
Are unpopular views somehow illegitimate then?
There’s the rub. If someone states in a class that Holy Roman Emperor Joe’s Conflicts with Pope Fred were more a result of personal dislike than political vying for power, I don’t take it personal. But if I were to stand up in a feminist studies class and argue that I find, for instance, the whole “gender as a construct” premise to be faulty, and by extensions the conclusions a waste of time as they beg the question, I’d likely as not be considered “hostile” no matter how civil I was.
Hence, if I had to take another type of class like that (And as part of my studies when I was teaching, I did, in the name of “Diversity Training”) I’d do what I did there - shut up, not my head, regurgitate the expected responses, collect my “A” and move on.
Do you think your classroom is the only one where someone will say, “I know I’ll catch hell for saying this, but…”? It’s a common introduction in any atmosphere in which a person perceives that (s)he is in the minority.
bmmg: I’ve never heard this from any unprivileged minority - i.e., anyone who legitimately *could* catch hell for saying what they said. I’ve only heard it from privileged people who happen to be a numerical minority in the group they’re addressing.
When I ask a question about why someone is doing something scientific, or if I proffer a suggustion, I tend to preface with with, “I know this is a dumb question/suggestion, but…” It’s a tactic designed to make the listener pre-judge the statement so that if I do say something dumb/ignorant/whatever, I’m not discounted as much because I’ve previously admitted my stupidity.
Technocracygirl: I don’t think it’s quite the same thing, though it is similar. I see the self-effacing statement as a verbal hedge that works in the manner you described. The “I know I’ll catch hell for this” statement, on the other hand, is a preemptive strike against criticism. There’s a reason why that and not “This may sound dumb, but…” is used -
t is a common maneuver that comes from a “one down” position. When we feel unsure and intimidated. Assuming it is to control women is a huge and unsupported leap.
Dr E: I’m not sure I buy it. At best, it’s not consciously used to that effect - it’s just an easy habit to fall into since it works so well - but it *does* serve as a way to control women, and it’s used very often (and I’ve seen it a lot more often in discussions of feminism than in similar political discussions that aren’t as divided by gender). But I think that if these men *did* feel unsure and intimidated (and didn’t respond to that feeling by trying to dominate the discussion by any means) - they wouldn’t simply tack a preamble onto their statements. I know that when I feel unsure and intimidated in a discussion, I simply don’t say anything.
Curses, Gonz, I was rewriting that sentence several times and it clearly missed the final edit. My question is really are they saying stuff that is unquestionably unpopular or stuff that that’s just a bit different from the current discussion.
Technocracygirl: Fascinating post! I’ve never LARPed myself, I’m more of a PnP role-player.
I can relate to your opinion of identifying as a “beta” personality. I am avoidant, and with that comes a great reluctance to engage in forceful interaction with other people, even if it’s friendly in nature. I tend to let my friends, be they male or female, take the lead in interaction. I guess I’m just a follower at heart, not a leader. I wonder if Hugo’s male students, at least a few, aren’t the same way. I spent a lot of time in my undergraduate years second guessing myself when it came to classroom interaction. I had a tendancy to want to be a contrarian. Partially because I identified myself as a conservative in my collegiate years (which was definetly against the grain of both the faculty and student body) though I’ve since renounced that affiliation. Also, partially because I came from a much different socio-economic and family background than most of my classmates. I constantly felt the need to say, “No, that’s not necessarily the case…,” yet I also felt and urge to just be quiet and fade into the background.
Anyway, I was very reluctant to speak, even though I often felt a strong urge to dissent from what seemed to me to be the almost lockstep opinion of the rest of class. I admit to qualifying many of my more extreme pronouncements with variations of, “I know this won’t make me too popular around here, but…”. I just didn’t feel comfortable doing that felt like the equivalent of walking into uncharted territory. I was completely against my nature, even though I really wanted to contribute. It’s hard for many undergraduates, I think, to say things that might makes them unpopular with their peers. Everyone wants to be liked and many people are probably willing to either qualify their statements or simply go unheard rather than rock the boat.
I think it’s entirely possible that the male students in Hugo’s class are perhaps not the go-getter, alpha-male leadership types that men are often assumed to either be or aspire to be. It could very well be that they would rather just do I found myself doing in classes with less inspiring professors, which was just shut up, parrot what the professor wanted to hear and get a decent grade. I think it’s to your credit, Hugo, that your male students are willing to speak at all. It can be very intimidating to be in the minority and yet put a dissenting opinion out there, even though it might make one unpopular or even disrespected.
As a word of advice, Hugo, I would like to tell you about one of my favorite undergrad professors. I took an interdisciplinary course my freshman year at Hamilton that dealt with the history, physics, ethics and literature associated with the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I was also an ROTC cadet (the only one in my entire class year of about 400 students, though the class itself was less than 20) and also probably the only student who self-identifed as a supply-side conservative and lower-middle class. My professor, who taught comparative literature, really pushed me hard to speak my mind, even though we both knew that I was often the lone dissenter from the majority view. I related my reluctance to speak with him, as well as my feelings of being totally alone in class and he told me just how much he admired my courage to speak my mind, even when I was clearly the minority. Maybe, should you decide to crack down on the weasel-speak, you should try to speak to the male students one-on-one and let them know that you appreciate their input. It made a real difference to me.
What really moved me was when I happened to miss class one day. There was only one barber in town who could do a military-regulation high-and-tight haircut. There was a line that day and I didn’t make it back to campus until after class (I had my ROTC military science class later that evening, which was a 45 minute drive away in at Syracuse U., so I had no choice but to miss class for a mugh-needed haircut). Apparently, nothing happened in class. Nothing. The professor would plead with the other students to at least pretend to disagree, just for the sake of argument and no one would do it. The class was graded entirelty on papers and class participation, so it behooved everyone to at least try to argue about something. Yet no one did. He at one point lamented out loud, “Where the hell is Greg! This is so dull without him!”
I was really moved to hear that later. I didn’t feel like my contributions were valued until I knew that I was perhaps the one person who was willing to be a contrarian, if only to make things interesting!
The painful thing about all this, of course, is that no man is in any real physical danger in the classroom — or even outside of it — from feminists.
Of course, Hugo. They’re not cowering from any potential physical violence, they’re cowering from the angry verbal avalanche they will invoke. From women in their regular class. Who wants to get on the wrong side of people you mix with regularly? He can be ostracised - may even need to leave the course.
Now, you mention something interesting on your update that is entirely to do with why men don’t speak up:-
This is not a free speech zone, nor need it be.
This is precisely why men cannot speak up in your class. Feminism in itself prevents the free speech that your male students require in order to express themselves.
Hugo, how many messageboards on the internet do you know that are run by feminists? I know a handful. How many messageboards run by MRAs? Hundreds, thousands.
My point?
Feminism struggles in an open debate.
It regularly turns into a verbal fight whenever somebody counters a feminist statement. Tempers escalate. Debate is closed down. People are called all sorts of names. It’s ridiculous. If feminism has nothing to fear (i.e. have truth on its side), it should embrace and welcome open debate. Truth gets to ridicule falsehoods and kick them to the curb. What’s to fear? Feminism should be able to prevail in an open debate if truth is on its side.
I do live action role-playing, where you pretend to be someone and act it out with a bunch of other people. Think of it as improv theatre, only with long-term stories.
Yeah, I know LARP. Society for Creative Anachronism. Hi dere! BAck in the day when I was still performing at Ren Faires, I was playing the early version of Amtgard in the off season. What you doing now? World of Darkness appears the be the 800# gorilla in the LARP world last I checked, but I haven’t done any of that in years and years. (Yeah, Gonzo’s a D&D geek. And if you play to this day … you may even have some of my work….)
Anyway, at the risk of being flip, I will be succint: Not that I don’t feel for you, or don’t congratulate you for overcoming your block, it’s a very ancedotal story.
I know some mousey, milquetoast men. I know men who talk a hell of a tough guy stance, and are easily pushed around. And I know some very assertive women, split about half with real bitches who just shout louder than others to get their way, and some with genuine strength.
I don’t find beta and alpha connected to X and Y chromosomes. And we could trade stories al day long - and that’s the thing with such stories, I see that type of woman, the submissive one who gets all intimidated by men - and I also see the male version of it. I worked for a woman in a history department as a TA back when who was as soft spoken and indirect as they come. She phrased everything as a suggestion. God help you if you took it that way, though. The examples are countless.
Now I have never taken any of Hugo’s classes. I claim no clairvoyance. But I will say this: If Hugo runs a class where a man can dissent from the prevailing wisdom, and Hugo will move to halt any attacks on him, these guys with the helmets are assbags, and I would have been far less nice than him - I’d have felt personally insulted.
If the issue never came up - probably diffusing behavior, but I’d still invoke Occam’s razor - the simplest explanation of it isn’t conspiracy, but that it was their prior experience.
BUT - if there ever was uncivil behavior, and that behavior was excused or rationalized away, on gender lines - they were perfectly justified in breaking out the helmets - and there are no grounds for complaint about it.
Of course, Hugo. They’re not cowering from any potential physical violence, they’re cowering from the angry verbal avalanche they will invoke.
A good point. I witnessed what happened to one such guy who spoke up in a ideologically slanted class, and disagreed, and was brought up before the student senate on “intimidating speech” charges. I saw him have to drop/fail (That’s you drop the class, get an F, but can expnge it if you retake the class in the next year) and fall below the 12 credit hours required to keep his financioal aid, and ahost of other things.
It’s as effective a way to intimidate someone as a fat lip.
(And the “Itimidating speech” was a intemperate comment about another student’s mouth writing checks their brain couldn’t cash, which followed over a month of political and religious slurs against him, with the instructor piously claiming to “not be a referee.”)
Gonzman: Your last point strikes home. Many colleges have “judiciary boards” which are little more than the academic equivalent of star chambers and it does quite a bit to stifle discussion. It’s one thing to be afraid to speak your mind for fear of being seen as a jerk, it’s quite another to put your GPA or financial aid on the line for what you believe in. Many colleges and universities have adopted “speech codes” in which giving offense is considered to be a form of harassment. Just look around at the institutions that have “free-speech zones”, in lieu of the rest of the U.S., where being able to speak your mind is taken for granted. Even though you cannot be prosecuted for a criminal charge, you could be stuck with a disciplinary record, have your financial aid revoked or even expelled.
I’ve experienced first-hand the effects of becoming a red-headed step-child to a professor who has both tenure and an agenda. It’s not pleasant. It hurt my GPA, was tremendously intimidating and really put me off further class participation. It just wasn’t worth the risk, after awhile.
Curses, Gonz, I was rewriting that sentence several times and it clearly missed the final edit. My question is really are they saying stuff that is unquestionably unpopular or stuff that that’s just a bit different from the current discussion.
I had hoped so, it seemed uncharacteristic of you.
Still - what if I were in a class, and challenged what I felt were a priori assumptions?
Well, I might get killed here, but….
I sort of agree with Gonz, although perhaps for different reasons.
I understand your argument. It is similar in some ways to the argument that Daly made for female only classes. I also understand the entrenched cultural caretaking ideal.
On the other hand, I really think it cuts the intellectual legs out from under women to … well, to worry about their ability to handle this kind of verbal frippery, however loaded it may sound. Frankly, if a guy in a class said something like “I know I’m going to be killed here, but I think women are generally braindead morons”, the appropriate response is to prove otherwise. Or, dismiss the argument: no one asks a physics professor to prove basic number theory before accepting mechanics equations. If universities and colleges are where we sharpen our ability to do critical analysis, then my response to this sort of dynamic is to instruct around it if it’s a real issue, but let it play out.
In the real world, we’re going to run into that sort of statement. If we women are all shrinking wallflowers unable to handle the urge to caretake under such a challenge, then we’re probably not being intellectually rigorous enough; I would hope that a women’s studies class would provide a space for intellectually meeting these demons.
I’ve never really felt that therapy to deal with internalized misogyny or even straight up fear is really appropriate for the classroom. I’d be all for the statement of access to resources - women spaces on campus, theraputic services, and office hours - but in the *classroom*, my feeling is that intellect must prevail. I believe in the intellectual abilities of women and men equally (so very Platonic), but a rigorous education and the ability to *think* about an emotionally charged issue is incredibly important to that. If the girls are unable to think around their intimidation, what are they learning?
I believe women more capable then that: I believe women have the capable of being confrontational if necessary. But I *also* believe there’s not an inherent wrong in trying to come to middle ground or understanding (in short, caretaking).
You’re a very caretaking guy; I also often respond to challenge through finding the middle ground; there’s nothing wrong with that communicative style.
I took a Native Studies intensive course in my first year. Occasionally, white classmates had very serious questions which, to someone studying First Nations/First Contact seemed, well, frustrating. (”Why should we have to pay for the sins of our forefathers? Etc.)
The thing is, most everybody in the room could tell if the person was coming from genuine conflict or knee-jerk entitlement. You know? And the discussions almost always dealt with the first in a patient way and the second in a rhetorical beat-down. So it goes.
Anyway, it may make an interesting lecture point (if it fits) to ask if there’s a caretaking reaction or an intimidation in the women, and let various people examine their responses.
I suppose it doesn’t do much to me; I’d find it perfectly reasonable in someone obviously trying to build a bridge or discuss a different worldview, and an annoying rhetorical smokescreen in someone trying to pick a fight.
I enjoyed reading your post Hugo, and as I was reading it, it made a lot of sense to me, but reading the comments, I came to realise that the whole prefixing thing is something that I find myself doing an awful lot when trying to make a feminist point among people who don’t accept my feminism (and this is on pretty basic points, such as points about “no” meaing “no”– nothing radical). I wouldn’t say something like “I know I’m going to get killed here,” but I will say something that effectively apologises for my feminism, which is I think very similar to what these men in your class are doing in terms of their own biases.
I think perhaps the most effective course of action might be to simply ask your class, particularly the men in your class, WHY they react in this way, and analyse what it is about feminism that makes them feel threatened. As you’ve noticed, feminism can feel threatening to many men (and indeed to many women) simply because it requires them to reconsider their worldview. Perhaps the way to approach this is to get them to analyse the way in which they react to that “threat.”
I’m curious– you have in the past, I think, referred to female students of yours who do not come from a feminist perspective– do these women pre-fix any of their comments in a similar way?
Yet no one did. He at one point lamented out loud, “Where the hell is Greg! This is so dull without him!”
Yes. That sounds like a university environment. Wanting and seeking counterpoint to expand the discussion. Contrast that with Hugo interpreting mousey and obsequious behavior of the young men as injurious to women. God forbid these young men get loud and expressive! Feminism, as Gonz has pointed out, has a tough time existing in an open debate. It seems to need to hide and gather its strength among adherants.
I am certain that Hugo would not treat the young women in a similar manner if the situation were reversed. He would find a way to protect them and give them special treatment. Hugo doesn’t seem to treat males and females equally, he seems to try and protect the women from these evil males. This is just another form of chivalry. What Marc Rudov calls BS (benevolent sexism).
I for one don’t interpret it as “mousey and obsequious” at all. “I know I’m going to get killed for saying this, but (statement)” means that, in addition to addressing the original statement, I’m expected to reassure the speaker and respond to him in a way that couldn’t possibly, in any realm of discourse ever, be construed as an attack, both to not hurt the feelings of *this particular* individual, and in order to prove that my “group” (feminists, or Christians, or whatever) is not all mean and attacky. So, in effect, such a statement nudges me to the realm of obsequious and mousy, which is a terrain from which it’s harder to defend ideas. Not because my ideas are weaker–but because I’m working double-time trying to think of the most inoffensive way to phrase them.
It also frames the opposing opinion as the cool, maverick, rebellious, “un-PC” idea that you have to be very brave to say, and when you try to explain why you disagree, you’re “stamping out the discourse.”
But on the other hand, it IS a way to defuse tension with humor, and to acknowledge the groupthink that can, indeed, develop in classes with ideological foundations.
I don’t have a class to teach, or anything like that, but I’ve let myself be intimidated (without my even realizing it) by that kind of “poor me I disagree with you” act (which I don’t believe any of the people involved were consciously using as a debating tactic) and–I think the best I can do is to recognize what’s going on and not let myself be intimidated by it.
I’m finding that Hugo’s original post may act as a good indicator of his general attitudes. They seem to be “Treat men and boys like criminals and treat girls and women like children in need of protection.” Guess what? The men and boys are not criminals and the girls and women don’t need your protection. They are strong and capable and will handle dissention such as described with ease on their own without you having to protect them. In fact if you protect them it robs them of the opportunity to practice taking care of themselves.
As you’ve noticed, feminism can feel threatening to many men (and indeed to many women) simply because it requires them to reconsider their worldview.
Most non-feminists/’neutrals’ don’t need their worldview challenging because they’re already challenged by the media, the criminal courts and especially the family courts about the finer details of feminist thinking.
I’ve already stated a more compelling reason why many men are fearful of questioning feminism - the sheer grief they will get for it from feminists for daring to question their ideology. It raises hackles - debates get emotional, the “misogynist” labelling, the accusations of being “uncaring” - all the shaming tactics come out. Many people (women included) simply don’t want that kind of grief.
Challenging a feminist’s worldview is when the fireworks start. I’ve experienced this on many feminist messageboards over the last 5 years.
the sheer grief they will get for it from feminists for daring to question their ideology
Now, now, where are our resident MRAs to lecture us about the risibility of feminist arguments about ’silencing’ and how any good ideology ought to stand up to vigorous debate?
Hugo, I assume you make it clear in your classes that personal attacks and shouting people down are not to be tolerated. Seems to me that when one of these guys makes a ha-ha-shut-up-ladies sort of comment, the best response would be to blandly say “Tyler, as you know, I don’t permit personal attacks or incivility in my class–so why don’t you go ahead and say what you were going to say.”
There’s some serious reframing and diversion going on here.
The original point, as I read it, was that prefacing one’s remarks with a statement like “I know I’m going to catch hell for this” puts the respondent on the defensive - as Emily H said, the respondent has to show that he or she isn’t intolerant/man-hating/whatever the speaker implied they were.
And what are the responses to this? Mostly that they’re not doing this on purpose.
This, I believe, is usually true. From childhood, we learn that responding to authority, especially female authority figures (mothers, female teachers, etc.) in this way - with a “please don’t get mad at me” preface - is likely to avoid a negative response. We may even see this as a form of compromise.
The telling point, I think, is how people react when they are informed of the effects of this tactic. At that point, the “unintended consequences” defense doesn’t hold water; they know what their “disclaimer” does. Do they stop?
Anyway, at the risk of being flip, I will be succint: Not that I don’t feel for you, or don’t congratulate you for overcoming your block, it’s a very ancedotal story.
I don’t take your comments as flip. I thought you were quite polite.
And I’m glad you agree that it is an anecdotal story. So are your “far too many women” who physically get into men’s faces. You say you’re counseling men who deal with women like this, so yes, you’re going to have more anecdotes about those sorts of women. My mum teaches austic kids, and so have a secondhand impression that there are a lot more families with autistic kids running around than there actually are for the general population.
Maybe I’m wrong, and the sort of women you’re talking about are more of the general population than the sort of women I’m talking about. Based on my experiences, I don’t think so, but then I’m not living in your head and you’re not living in mine.
p>Beppie asks:
I’m curious– you have in the past, I think, referred to female students of yours who do not come from a feminist perspective– do these women pre-fix any of their comments in a similar way?
Not in the same way. I do have conservative, anti-feminist women students who will say things like "I know this is unpopular, but…" or "I know this will sound very un-feminist…" but I’ve never seen one pretend to bolt for the door or tease about expecting to be beaten!
Please understand that I want very badly to increase male participation in my women’s studies class. I’m not trying to run some sort of perverse classroom environment where all the women get to talk, a male professor runs the show, and male students are silenced! As I think about approaches to this, I like Mythago’s — and will likely use it. She suggests:
Seems to me that when one of these guys makes a ha-ha-shut-up-ladies sort of comment, the best response would be to blandly say "Tyler, as you know, I don’t permit personal attacks or incivility in my class–so why don’t you go ahead and say what you were going to say."
That ought to stop the "disarming", but also remind everyone, male and female alike, of the basic ground rules that keep folks safe.
The original point, as I read it, was that prefacing one’s remarks with a statement like “I know I’m going to catch hell for this” puts the respondent on the defensive - as Emily H said, the respondent has to show that he or she isn’t intolerant/man-hating/whatever the speaker implied they were.
Well, I do not think the preface necessarily implies that the respondent is intolerant or biased, just that the comment made may likely be taken the wrong way because of who the speaker is. As Gonz said, it is more likely that people use such prefaces because they have been shot down for making similar comments in the past. I saw a lot of that in many of my classes, even classes where open discussion was encouraged. Certain topics, because of the liberal nature of the school, always had such prefaces. Few students openly criticized liberal policies, openly supported religion (particularly Christianity) or voiced concern about the blatant racism against white students on campus without saying, “I know I’m going to get my ass bit for this.”
I would say such prefaces are in and of themselves defensive. I have to object to Hugo’s use of the word “challenge” in his comment, “…and I know, (oh, how I know) how difficult it is to sit and listen to someone challenge you on your most basic beliefs about your identity, your sexuality, your behavior, and your beliefs about gender.” Attack would be more accurate because there is no real way for young men to respond negatively to any of those assertions, particularly since the point of the comments are to deconstruct (i.e. destroy) male identity. In that context, the assumption that they will be attacked for disagreeing is not inaccurate.
And in a way, Hugo’s post validates that assumption. His male student’s comments are being perceived as a loosely veiled attack on women instead genuine concern that they cannot openly disagree. Those concerns are at least not being taken as seriously as non/anti-feminist women who also use such prefaces. I think this is partially because males tend to make light of themselves when making those comments by pretending to go for the door. It basically becomes a joke. However, I think it has more to do with their criticisms not carrying the same value because they are male in a feminist setting.
I also like Mythago’s suggestion, and I can identify with the fears that Glitch and the Gonzman raised about being punished for non-PC views - that was certainly my experience as a conservative woman in college in the 1990s. What’s ironic is that both sides on this discussion thread are partly right: in the real world, women are at greater risk of physical intimidation from men than vice versa, so the guys in Hugo’s class sound disingenuous. However, in academia, men (and women) with non-feminist views are at greater risk of suffering retaliation, career-wise, than the reverse, so at least some of Hugo’s guys are probably genuinely concerned about whether his classroom is a safe environment for dissent. Given the high cost of college and the uncertain job market, the danger faced by a dissenter is more than hurt feelings, it’s losing your future before it even begins. From what I’ve seen on this blog, Hugo’s class probably is safer than most, but that is unusual (and not just in women’s studies classes). Hugo’s talked a lot about “male privilege” and recognizing that even though he has good pro-feminist intentions, his very maleness may be intimidating or disempowering to some women because they exist in a broader context of patriarchy. Within the university, if not in the real world, I think there can be a “feminist privilege” that may be equally threatening to some men (and conservative women), so I encourage Hugo to find ways to put those guys at ease. As one of the commenters said, it should be pretty obvious who is genuinely exploring new ideas and who is just being a jerk. And besides, aren’t there students who take feminist and PC positions in order to be a jerk, to intimidate others? Why is it only the guys who are acting in bad faith? Though pretending to put on a football helmet is not the most helpful way to start a conversation….
Hugo said,
“All of this behavior reflects two things: men’s genuine fear of being challenged and confronted, and the persistence of the stereotype of feminists as being aggressive “man-bashers.” ”
Most people –whether male or female — wriggle anxiously when their beliefs are threatened with meaningful challenge, just as a child wriggles anxiously when he’s finally made to stop sucking his thumb. I think you may be right when you cite the “man-bashing” comments as a way to stop dialogue when it may be getting too close for comfort. On the other hand, as a man who talks a lot about gender issues with friends, I find that women tend to lay charges of moral inferiority on the men or accuse them of simply being frightened by “strong women” in order to shut them up. Pretty much when any discussion veers from the ideas at hand to characterizations of the personalities of the conversants, it’s a ploy to stop discussion.
Within the university, if not in the real world, I think there can be a “feminist privilege” that may be equally threatening to some men (and conservative women), so I encourage Hugo to find ways to put those guys at ease.
There is female privelege in the real world also : within the workplace, within the media, within the criminal court, within the family court.
Hugo said:
“After all, one of the pernicious aspects of the “myth of male weakness” is that men can’t handle being confronted with women’s anger. We either run away literally or figuratively, disconnecting with the television, the bottle, the computer screen. But we’re not little boys who will physically lash out in rage when challenged, nor can we be so fearful that we dodge and defuse and check out. That’s not what an adult does in the face of the very real emotion of another human being.”
I disagree with this perspective.
I think for a lot of men the escape is not an escape in response to challenge nor an escape in response to the emotion of another human being. One thing you’ll find is that if a man is in emotional need and reaches out to his male friends, those male friends don’t seek escape from his “very real emotion.” They help out as best they can. That’s been my experience anyway.
I think when faced with the “very real emotion” of women in their lives most men seek to escape because the virtual obscurity of men’s emotions when in relation to women’s emotions results in them becoming overwhelmed.
I guess what I’m trying to say is that when a man’s emotional experience tends to be nearly completely disregarded by women, he eventually disengages since it then has become a repeated affirmation that his feelings don’t matter.
“Not in the same way. I do have conservative, anti-feminist women students who will say things like ‘I know this is unpopular, but…’ or ‘I know this will sound very un-feminist…’ but I’ve never seen one pretend to bolt for the door or tease about expecting to be beaten!”
Some years ago, I was with a “co-ed” group of friends watching a Super Bowl. I made a joke about the Pittsburgh Steelers, and then immediately went into the fetal position, as there were many Steelers fans there. People took it for what it was — a joke — not some sort of attempt to stifle them or keep them from rooting for the Steelers in the future.
I see the “please don’t kill me” preface as one of pleading and admitted weakness (even if in a jocose manner) — quite the opposite of one intended to silence your “opponents.”
Hugo:
I’m not so sure this is only behavior that happens in this particular setting. I see it more of a tendancy in human behavior to make onesself submissive when stepping into uncharted territory and asking questions/making statements that may or may not be offensive. It’s a form of social ingratiation that we all do, at some time or another, in order to fit in and not be cast out of. We do it when we join a new club, start a new hobby, move to a new community. It’s a way of saying “I know I’m gonna sound stupid or offensive, but I really need to learn this from you, so be patient.”
Some years ago, I was with a “co-ed” group of friends watching a Super Bowl. I made a joke about the Pittsburgh Steelers, and then immediately went into the fetal position, as there were many Steelers fans there. People took it for what it was — a joke — not some sort of attempt to stifle them or keep them from rooting for the Steelers in the future.
I don’t think this is the same dynamic, because (a) you were among friends; (b) you were joking rather than trying to make a serious point; and (c) football fans haven’t been socialized to avoid conflict - in fact, “trash talking” and cheering louder than the other team’s fans is expected behavior.
In contrast, the preemptive defense is used in discussions with people who may not be one’s friends; it’s used to disarm criticism to serious statements; and it’s used against people who have been socialized to be the ones to avoid conflict and “make peace”.
Dang, I’ve said this before, and odds are I’ll say it again:
Where the HELL are all these “liberal colleges”? I go to UND: this college is conservative by ANYBODY’s standards.
I actually can relate to Gonz and others saying they are in the minority of classes, because I AM in the minority in my classes, and the one that gives the opposing viewpoint. I’m the one that catches hell when I say anything liberal or feminist. BUT I’m willing to put up with it because a) the teachers have never held being different from their political persuasion against me and b) because I try not to think about the dangers of irritating someone (the worst I’ve ever got was this guy who followed me across campus yelling “hairy-leg, hairy-leg”). That, and my major is fairly non-political: in commercial aviation the only “minority” political oppinion is that the FAA is glorious and noble.
Only one leg is hairy? lol…
Insightful post.
Another dynamic that I’ve noticed is that privilege insulates you from criticism. So when women say stuff like “I don’t think it’s ok for us to be raped” men who haven’t taken a good hard look at themselves hear “Let’s kill all the men”. Because they aren’t used to ever hearing any criticism of their views. Of course, I think of college as a truce zone, sort of. You can freely exchange your views about the lack of worth of women, or how people of color shouldn’t dare to exist in a small space at the same time someplace else. College is for learning. I can learn not to be offensive without having to have someone else take valuable time teaching me, and also, if I offend someone, I can take it.
I think that people should examine themselves. Why are people supposed not to be offended when you’re rude? If you preface your statement, you know somewhere that you’re being rude, so why not think for a few seconds about whether it’s worth being rude and offensive? I am a mix of alpha and beta. I’m alpha if I have to defend something important and beta the rest of the time. But I am able to use discernment, and common sense. The idea that not everyone should think before they speak is pretty sad.
I think going “hairy-legged” was too many syllables.
That ought to stop the “disarming”, but also remind everyone, male and female alike, of the basic ground rules that keep folks safe.
Exactly–because as you’ve pointed out the silliness of joking about violence, you’ve also reminded everyone of the standards of behavior you expect from them, so that if there were a female student who wanted to respond with a personal attack, you’ve just given her notice that’s inappropriate.
And besides, aren’t there students who take feminist and PC positions in order to be a jerk, to intimidate others?
Sure. There are also students who take a “politically incorrect” label as a pre-emptive strike: you can’t call them on their BS, see, because then you’d be “PC” and they’d be the poor, oppressed truth-speaker.