This post needed reprinting in light of yesterday’s response to Melissa McEwan. This post below originally appeared in September, 2006:
In my "letter to a young pro-feminist" post of September 6, 2006, I wrote:
Don’t be hurt or frustrated if you encounter people who are initially suspicious of your professed egalitarianism. In our deeply sexist culture, men are "guilty until proven innocent." That’s our own damned fault, frankly, and the sooner we cheerfully accept the burden of proving ourselves innocent, the better off we’re all going to be. (I’ve blogged about this before.)
I really can’t agree with you on "guilty until proven innocent". Males are not born sexists, homophobes, rapists, or what have you.
Sorry, but I’ve read far too many articles and reports about countries and cities in those countries where "guilty until proven innocent" is the default operating standard and it’s nothing short of hell.
And Jeremy replied, nicely:
Yes, the principle "innocent until proven guilty" is vital to a free society, but it only applies if you are in court being charged with a crime… you do *not* have the right to be assumed harmless. If I’m walking home late at night and a woman takes the trouble to keep her distance from me, well, it really sucks that she’s acting as though I’m a potential threat but guess what, I just have to deal with it. I *don’t* have the right to demand that a passing stranger treats me the way I would prefer them to.
The bold emphasis is mine, not Jeremy’s. It’s an important point he makes, and a good one.
I wrote a few years back about the frustration of the "good guy" who is judged by the actions of others. I wrote:
First of all, the obvious point is that women’s intuition, while not entirely the stuff of myth, is not so powerful that it can automatically separate "good guys" from the bad. No woman can walk down the street and as she passes a man, know with certainty that he isn’t a threat. Given the high incidence of rape and assault and harassment and other forms of mistreatment, a woman would be a fool to leave herself continually vulnerable. The old adage "Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me" seems to apply here. When a simple smile is so frequently misunderstood and construed as a sexual invitation, American women generally do have to operate on the assumption that men are guilty until proven innocent.
I stand by that today.
When I hear my brothers complaining that women don’t smile enough at them, or don’t respond to their "innocent hellos", I am reminded of my white friends who are bewildered and indignant when people of color point out their white privilege to them. Men who complain about being "guilty until proven innocent" are demanding to be seen as individuals, separate from their perceived sex and the history that goes with it.
While "innocent until proven guilty" is an excellent guideline for courtroom proceedings, it doesn’t translate nearly as effectively into public life and relations between the sexes. When men complain that women are suspicious of their intentions merely because they are men, they are forcing women into the role of the district attorney, the one shouldered with the burden of proving guilt. In a society where women, rather than men, are overwhelmingly the victims of harassment and assault, those who have suffered most are the ones being asked to lay aside their prior experience and knowledge and approach each new male in their lives with a blank slate, free from judgment. That’s a hell of a weight to ask women to carry, and a hell of a risk to ask them to take, again and again and again.
In our culture, where rape and harassment and abuse are so common, men have lost the right (if it ever existed) to insist that women should be able to differentiate (in a matter of seconds) between the harmless and the threatening. A man is entitled to a presumption of innocence from a jury in a courtroom, but not from his classmate with whom he tries to strike up what she ought to know is just an innocent conversation!
Is it frustrating to be viewed with suspicion merely because of one’s sex? Heck yes. (Is it frustrating to be viewed as a sexual object merely because one is young and female? Ask around.) Men ought to be angry that they need to "prove their harmlessness". Indeed, they ought to be enraged! But our anger is rightly directed not at women who have been the victims (individually and collectively) of predatory males, but at those men who have "poisoned the well" for everyone else. Rather than demand that women "smile more" or "trust more" or "just know that I’m a good guy", men need to channel their frustration at being "pre-judged" into a commitment to end what it is that causes women’s suspicion in the first place.
Holding other men accountable, challenging sexist and objectifying language and behavior in yourself and in other males (whether or not women are around) is the single most effective thing men can do to change the culture of "guilty until proven innocent." Rape, assault, and harassment are allowed to flourish not merely through the actions of a few "bad apples", but through the unwillingness of the "nice guys" to challenge other men. Silence is, in practical terms, tacit consent and approval.
There’s more to being a "good guy" than not raping women. Good guys hold themselves and other men accountable, in public and in private. That’s a high standard to meet, particularly for the young. But it’s only by meeting that standard that men can help to change the culture.
Hugo,
I’ll grant you the point that I don’t have the right not to be treated with suspicion by women, based on the blindingly-obvious point that I have neither the right, nor the means, to control others feelings. However, I remain free to conclude that any women that treats me with suspicion based solely on my gender is a bigot who should be avoided whenever possible.
“When a simple smile is so frequently misunderstood and construed as a sexual invitation, American women generally do have to operate on the assumption that men are guilty until proven innocent.”
I’m very fortunate to have never been sexually assaulted or even threatened. I was able to live on-campus for all four years of my college education feeling confident enough to walk myself home after dark from the library. The most uncomfortable I’ve ever felt walking around on my own was last year when living downtown in a city during the day, when some random man told me I should be smiling. (Or in another iteration, asked why I wasn’t smiling.) Even in middle school, I was annoyed when the school librarian (male) told me to smile.
“innocent hello”
Not so long ago, a man was not supposed to greet a woman met in public until she greeted him. That meant both strangers and acquaintances.
There were no “innocent hellos”. Some were menacing, and all were discourteous unless replying to the woman.
Manners, manners.
Sweating Through Fog -
However, I remain free to conclude that any women that treats me with suspicion based solely on my gender is a bigot who should be avoided whenever possible.
Oh, and black people who are distrustful of white people are racist, right? Right? Because having feelings based on a history of oppressive dynamics is just SO bigoted.
I think you just missed the point of where your anger and hurt feelings should be directed. I mean, godDAMN those women for reacting to systemic oppression like that! How dare they? When I can walk into a crowded campus bar and get my breasts fondled by a stranger with alarming regularity, surely I should know just by looking at you that you’re different and that you’d never grope me. Is it the gleam in your eye that I’m supposed to read? And nevermind those drunk breast fondlers, you have no reason to be pissed at them for acting like morons on behalf of men everywhere, right?
The idea that men deserve to be treated as predators by virtue of our maleness is only a few angstroms removed from the “ZOMG female to male transgendered folk in ladies’ washrooms will rape with reckless abandon!” excuse for wanting to exclude them.
Everyone is right to say “judge me by who I am, by what I do.” Now, it’s one thing to say “have empathy for why that might be hard for people.” Indeed, that shouldn’t be that hard (though it’s not automatic, certainly men aren’t trained to be as leary of strangers as women, even if we’re more likely to be assaulted by them). But I can’t realistically end all violence (or at least, the subset which’s men being violent towards women, which isn’t an insubstantial chunk), and to say “tough beans, it’s your fault, you deserve what you get for failing at that.” doesn’t fly.
@Brian:
Don’t you mean male to female transgendered folk? Female to male don’t want to use the women’s bathroom because they’re men. Male to female are the women.
Anyways, part of the problem /is/ what guys do. There are all of these little things, jokes, comments, staring (I have yet to meet one guy who can stare without me realizing, whether they think I know or not) that pretty much 99% of guys (including good guys, nice guys, guys who are feminist allies) do.
These things reduce the sense of safety that women have even around friends and loved ones and in turn lowers that trust. You aren’t just fighting actions by other guys, you have to fight your own social training too.
@recursiveparadox - yes, obviously I meant male to female. I’m not sure how I fucked that up.
I don’t mean to say that anybody is completely innocent (and indeed this applies across the board, nobody is completely innocent.) We’re all part of the problem, to our own extent. And I think framing it far more like that, around actions someone’s actually taken, is reasonable, but completely different from what Hugo’s doing.
I think it’s important to make a distinction here between bigotry and reasonable caution. I do by best to treat everyone fairly and to judge people only on the content of their character; I don’t have no distrust of my male friends, relatives and classmates. Some of them are great people, some are total jerks — just like their female cohorts.
But if I’m walking alone at night and have the choice between crossing paths with a shadowy stranger about my size, and a shadowy stranger who has six inches and 50 pounds on me, which chance should I take?
Whoops, double negative typo there. It should read “I have no distrst…” (remove the “don’t”).
“Because having feelings based on a history of oppressive dynamics is just SO bigoted.”
Well, yes. Having feelings towards particular individuals because of some historical grievances, or experiences with other particular individuals is indeed bigoted. There may be whole departments devoted to nursing and nurturing such feelings, but it is bigotry just the same.
“I think you just missed the point of where your anger and hurt feelings should be directed.”
I think it is pretty presumptuous of you to suppose, first of all that I have some unresolved anger and hurt feelings, and second of all, what the proper target of said feelings are. Talk about gender policing! Because of my gender I must have certain feelings, I must be clueless on their real source, and need your insight and guidance on how to effectively direct them.
“Surely I should know just by looking at you that you’re different and that you’d never grope me.”
No, and don’t call me Shirly! You are perfectly free to act towards me like you are prepared to fend off a grope at any minute. And I am perfectly free to note your reaction and make sure that that grope will never occur, because you’ll never see me again.
“Is it the gleam in your eye that I’m supposed to read?.” No, its the light of common humanity, but as Hugo says, I have no right to expect women to take account of that.
Daisy,
“But if I’m walking alone at night and have the choice between crossing paths with a shadowy stranger about my size, and a shadowy stranger who has six inches and 50 pounds on me, which chance should I take?”
That, to me, is reasonable and prudent caution. What I have a problem with is Hugo’s generalization that suspicion of men is warranted under any and all circumstances.
B
“Because having feelings based on a history of oppressive dynamics is just SO bigoted.”
Well, yes. Having feelings towards particular individuals because of some historical grievances, or experiences with other particular individuals is indeed bigoted. There may be whole departments devoted to nursing and nurturing such feelings, but it is bigotry just the same.
“I think you just missed the point of where your anger and hurt feelings should be directed.”
I think it is pretty presumptuous of you to suppose, first of all that I have some unresolved anger and hurt feelings, and second of all, what the proper target of said feelings are. Talk about gender policing! Because of my gender I must have certain feelings, I must be clueless on their real source, and need your insight and guidance on how to effectively direct them.
“Surely I should know just by looking at you that you’re different and that you’d never grope me.”
No, and don’t call me Shirly! You are perfectly free to act towards me like you are prepared to fend off a grope at any minute. And I am perfectly free to note your reaction and make sure that that grope will never occur, because you’ll never see me again.
“Is it the gleam in your eye that I’m supposed to read?.” No, its the light of common humanity, but as Hugo says, I have no right to expect women to take account of that.
B.: “Oh, and black people who are distrustful of white people are racist, right? Right? Because having feelings based on a history of oppressive dynamics is just SO bigoted.”
B., you do not have the right to be assumed a non-bigot.
Well, let’s see. I can assume that all men are trustworthy, and then if that trust is abused, it will be All My Fault for being a trusting dumbass and what did I expect? If I do not assume all men are trustworthy until I have enough information to reasonably conclude they are trustworthy, I’m a bigot.
STF,
That, to me, is reasonable and prudent caution. What I have a problem with is Hugo’s generalization that suspicion of men is warranted under any and all circumstances.
I completely agree that suspicion of men as men under any and all circumstances would be absurd and unfair, but I don’t think Hugo was actually endorsing that. As far as I can tell the post is referring to encounters with strangers, i.e. keeping one’s distance while walking at night, and the absurdity of the expectation that women (that anyone) should take on “the role of the district attorney, the one shouldered with the burden of proving guilt.” For me, that’s the crux of the issue: “innocent until proven guilty” is the appropriate standard for courtrooms, but we don’t live in courtrooms. None of us can afford to apply that standard in our daily lives.
When it comes to the law, there are tremendous, intolerable costs for convicting innocent people. Better that 100 guilty men should go free and all that. But on the ground, for ordinary people, the potential costs of wrongly presuming someone guilty (possibly annoy a stranger?) are negligible, while the costs of giving someone bad the benefit of the doubt (harassment at best, rape and death at the worst) are huge.
My friends and I were once followed for half a dozen blocks by a cursing man with a 10″ knife because we presumed him innocent. Just now I walked across the street and had a pregnant woman size me up and then suddenly reel in her young kids when I walked by. She them reeled them in again the second time I passed, so I’m reasonably sure it was a response to me(though I have no idea whether it was because I’m queer or if she thought I was a guy). I’m absolutely not a threat to women and children, and it stung a little to watch that happen. But you know what? It was not nearly as disturbing an experience as being followed by the guy with the knife. The woman misjudged me, but I would so much rather have her misjudge me and hurt my feelings than have her misjudge some bad person and get hurt.
In terms of the sexism element, women are smaller, and men commit most violent crimes. That’s all.
The idea that men deserve to be treated as predators
As Clint Eastwood so eloquently put it, “Deserve”’s got nothing to do with it.
Daisy Bond,
“I completely agree that suspicion of men as men under any and all circumstances would be absurd and unfair, but I don’t think Hugo was actually endorsing that”
Maybe, maybe not. When it comes to interactions with strangers everyone needs to have prudent ways of dealing with this. Women possibly more so than men because there clearly *is* more of a physical risk involved. You want to call that “guilty until proven innocent”? Fine. I have no problem with this - if she’s not interested in a conversation, her loss. There are plenty of fish in the sea.
BUT.
You know, when someone tells a woman to be “careful about not provoking men sexually” that’s usually be discussed as ex-ante victim-blaming and feminists usually claim to not hate men because they don’t “assume men are animals” that cannot control themselves.
So which one is it? If men don’t ever deserve the benefit of the doubt, if they aren’t innocent until proven, how is that different from *assuming* men can’t control themselves (until disproven).
The problem is that a generalized shaming of males as inherently (sexually) violent is, at least in my opinion, the actual discoursive result of much of feminist discourse in this vein. And that assumption is socially pervasive, don’t you think?
Daisy,
I base my claim that Hugo is indeed generalizing in the way I dexcribes because he said it was a reaction to yesterdays post about Melissa. Hugo quoted Melissa’s expression general distrust:
“My mistrust is not, as one might expect, primarily a result of the violent acts done on my body, nor the vicious humiliations done to my dignity. It is, instead, born of the multitude of mundane betrayals that mark my every relationship with a man.”
I’m not about to start even a casual relationship with someone who seems to expect betrayal from me right out of the gate. Why should I, when there are lots of people available that are willing to treat me as an individual?
Mythago,
“Well, let’s see. I can assume that all men are trustworthy, and then if that trust is abused, it will be All My Fault for being a trusting dumbass and what did I expect? If I do not assume all men are trustworthy until I have enough information to reasonably conclude they are trustworthy, I’m a bigot.”
I think you have that about right. You may have to bear the consequences of trusting too much in the wrong person, and you may also have to deal with the reaction you get from the people you distrust. What, you thought you had some magic wand you could wave that would make the waters part for you, allowing you alone to escape the travails of life on Earth?
SamSeaborn,
You know, when someone tells a woman to be “careful about not provoking men sexually” that’s usually be discussed as ex-ante victim-blaming and feminists usually claim to not hate men because they don’t “assume men are animals” that cannot control themselves.
But neither Hugo nor I is telling women to be careful about not provoking men. Hugo’s post aims to convince men that they shouldn’t be offended when women are cautious around them. The reason the former is victim-blaming is that is puts the responsibility for preventing rape on rape victims. Hugo’s idea 1) insists that perpetrators are responsible for their crimes, 2) emphasizes that men shouldn’t be bothered by women’s cautiousness, and 3) calls men to do a better job of opposing misogynist violence. That’s the opposite of the victim-blaming practice you mention.
So which one is it? If men don’t ever deserve the benefit of the doubt, if they aren’t innocent until proven, how is that different from *assuming* men can’t control themselves (until disproven).
Where did I say that men don’t ever deserve the benefit of the doubt? Note that everyone has maintained that “innocent until proven guilty” is, of course, the only appropriate standard for the courtroom.
My argument has exactly nothing to do with what men “deserve.” It has to do with the bet-hedging calculations we all need to make to ensure our safety. Most men are decent, law-abiding people — but that’s not the point. As I noted in my last comment, in individuals’ daily lives, the costs of wrongly presuming a stranger guilty are nil, while the costs wrongly presuming someone innocent are huge. I’ve wrongly presumed someone innocent and I’ve been wrongly presumed guilty and the two do not compare: having a woman hold her kid a little more tightly as I pass is just not in the same league as being threatened by an armed madman. Does that make sense? (By “presume guilty” I’m talking about stuff like crossing the street, avoiding eye-contact, etc., not having someone attacked or anything actually harmful or burdensome, per the scope of the post.)
The problem is that a generalized shaming of males as inherently (sexually) violent is, at least in my opinion, the actual discoursive result of much of feminist discourse in this vein. And that assumption is socially pervasive, don’t you think?
I agree that the assumption is socially pervasive, but I don’t know how you determined that feminist discourse is the cause — it’s an idea that long predates feminism, after all. I think it’s clear that many feminists have participated in sexism against men — feminists are people too — but then I also think feminists have done some considerable work in combatting sexism against men. The culture of male combatancy (as so thoroughly expounded by Daran) is an enormous ongoing problem, but IME feminists are considerably less likely to perpetuate it than non- and anti-feminists (though academic & institutional feminism is usually just silent on the matter). YMMV.
Seem to have had some link fail there; I was trying to point to Daran’s (and others’) blog: http://www.feministcritics.org/blog/
If I am walking down the street in my own world, wrapped up in my own thoughts, demonstrating neither an interest nor a willingness to talk to anyone and some man tries to talk to me…
If I am in a park, jogging with headphones…obviously in my own world without any interest in socializing with anyone, and some man tries to talk to me…
If I´m on the subway going home after work, dead tired and with headphones, obviously not interested in talking with anyone and some man tries to get my attention…
If I´m sitting in a park or on a bench in a plaza reading a book or writing in a journal, obviously NOT looking for someone to talk to, and some man sits next to me and tries to talk to me…
These men are invading my space. Their actions communicate that they are incredibly self involved because all that they are thinking about is their own desire to talk to me, harrass me, get me to smile, ask me out, sleep with me, whatever it is, it doesn´t matter. Their desire blinds them to the fact that I don´t want anything to do with them (or sometimes BECAUSE I don´t want anything to do with them, they insist).
I have every right in the world to avoid these men, tell them off or simply be suspicious because their actions are telling me that their desires are more important than mine (and this is right from the beginning…). Their intentions may not be bad. However, if they don´t want to be suspect, they shouldn´t invade my space. I am not a bigot for mistrusting men who from the very first interaction demonstrate that their own desire regarding me is more important than my desire to live my life in peace.
To be completely frank, I don’t trust anyone, man or woman, with, or about, anything, until I know them pretty well - and I see this as evidence of my maturity - as I would the same behaviour in a man. As a young woman who was eager to please, I put everyone before me, and trusted recklessly, to my great detriment (both men and women took advantage of my niave nature).
Men are about 99% more likely to rape me and about 50% more likely to be violent towards me than women are - and as a member of the physicaly weaker sex, I’m unlikely to be able to defend myself; those are survival issues, and are hence at the top of my beware list. So I absolutely would not trust a man I’d just met in the street - I may be polite to him, but my internal rape alarm would always be on red alert. I also have a stronger, survival, beware response towards most men I encounter at work and socially for these reasons, it’s just a practical, safety issue women have to e mindful of.
Matey.
Sounds like you have it just about right.
But that’s different from going about publicly insisting all men are potential rapists.
So is your argument really that any woman who does not put your delicate feelings ahead of her personal safety is a bigot? Or is it that you’re just so pissed off at the uppity bitches that a catch-22 appeals to you?
I can’t fathom any other reason to consider it “right” and appropriate to excoriate women as “bigots” for being suspicious of men they don’t know well on the one hand, and then to blame them for being rape-deserving idiots if they aren’t suspicious of men they don’t know well.
I don’t even know what the catty bit about the ‘magic wand’ is supposed to be about.
@Brian:
I think to a certain extent (and Hugo can correct me if he wishes) he’s actually pointing out the numbers game. I went over it here: http://recursiveparadox.dreamwidth.org/5046.html and did a guest crosspost on a friend’s blog.
In the end, all of you do this. None of you are immune, every single guy (or cis person, or white person including myself) has said things of a problematic nature, made jokes of a problematic nature or even done something of a problematic nature to women (or trans folk or POC). There is no innocent guys. Just as there is no innocent white people. We’ve, all of us, done these things to reduce trust.
And when you show that you are untrustworthy, when everyone shows that they are, are you really surprised that trust is no longer assumed?
And in the end, the numbers game applies to safety. If I don’t assume every man I meet is a threat until he shows he is trustworthy then I /will/ get raped, assaulted or killed. There is no maybe. There are enough predatory men out there and enough instances of attacks on women, that if I am not cautious, it /will/ happen.
I perceive you as a threat not because you’re a bad person but because doing so is safer for me and my survival. That’s the world we live in. It sucks, for all of us, you included. But you can’t expect me to put myself in danger to coddle your feelings.
The same thing applies to cis folk. A good number of my cis friends would be hurt that I didn’t trust them with the fact that I am trans. But considering how many trans women are murdered and assaulted by presumably decent cis folk, the numbers game raises it’s ugly head and shows me that if I give everyone the benefit of the doubt, I WILL die. Or be raped. Or be assaulted and hospitalized.
In the end, it comes down to a comparison between a guy feeling uncomfortable (”gosh, why doesn’t she trust me?”) and a woman being raped or murdered because she didn’t have the needed vigilance.
When it really comes down to it, I would say your comfort is less important than our safety, wouldn’t you agree?
recursiveparadox, I would be hurt if a trans friend did not feel safe trusting me with the fact that s/he was trans (I’m cis). I’d feel that we hadn’t managed to know each other well enough for the other person to realize yes this is safe, or that they were so beaten-down by prior hostility that even if they intellectually believed I was OK, emotionally they had to overprotect thesmselves. But I wouldn’t be angry or blame them for being a ‘bigot’ or ‘paranoid’. It’s “I’m sad that this is the situation,” not “how dare you”.
@recursiveparadox
I think the main point you ignore in Hugo’s argument is that men inherently deserve it due to our “man-ness”, or because we don’t control the actions of other men. This is (I think?) the only thing Hugo’s said that I’ve argued. When you say I perceive you as a threat not because you’re a bad person but because doing so is safer for me and my survival. That’s the world we live in. It sucks, for all of us, you included. you’re saying that we’re both victims (in some sense), but Hugo’s not saying this (whether he intends to or not, how can I know?) There’s an enormous gap between Hugo’s “you deserve this treatment, because you’ve earnt it” and your “you need to accept this treatment, because other things are more important.” - or not even really that. In the way you’ve framed our (mutual) situation, the solution to either of our problems is the solution to both of our problems, so it’s not even an “either-or” question anyhow.
The numbers game is fine, and I (probably) play it too; after all, as a man, I’m more likely to be assaulted or murdered (though less likely to be raped) by strange men than women are. But that doesn’t mean they deserve it because they failed to prevent me from being mugged, or whatever. The blame here rests squarely on the guys who mugged me.
When it really comes down to it, I would say your comfort is less important than our safety, wouldn’t you agree?
Sure. But I don’t think that’s the question being asked (overall) at all.
I’m not sure where you get “deserve” from, Brian. Certainly, as a white person, I didn’t take away the message that Hugo is saying I “deserve” suspicion from African-Americans - only that they have good reason for being cautious towards me, as an unknown white person, and that it’s not my job to demand that they conform their behavior to my desire to be perceived as a ‘nice person’.
Let me be clear that all of this is plain bigotry, pure and simple. Drawing conclusions about a person based on what other people of their gender, class, race etc do is bigotry. Now it may be understandable bigotry based on concerns about safety. It may well be the smarter course to take when dealing with strangers. It may be the easier course because you avoid hassles and unpleasantness. But it is bigotry just the same. It doesn’t make me angry - just determined to give people who hold a b
… just determined to give people who manifest bigotry towards me a wide berth.
Really? If I conclude that most Jews consider Yom Kippur to be a holy day, is that bigotry? ZOMG! Assumption about a large number of people based on their religion!
If it makes you feel smug to assume that women who are cautious around strange men are exactly like white people who say “I’m sick of those darkies and their lazy ways, taking our jobs,” then, you know, whatever gives you that warm, fuzzy glow inside, I guess.
Well, if we’re going with a strictly Bayesian argument:
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/race.htm
Does the same logic extend to, say, black people having no right to be assumed harmless by whites?
Just asking.
Okay, folks, this is headed for thread drift. Let’s stay off the race angle, and limit it to the topic on the table.
Mythago,
I think you would react negatively depending on why a person distrusted you. If it stemmed from the person’s justifiable distrust of women and feminists based on that person’s experiences and the social attitudes that caused and perpetuated the violence that person suffered, it is very likely you and many others on this thread would be angry and certainly likely to call the person a bigot or paranoid. For example, given that women (mostly feminists) committed the most violent, traumatizing acts against me (both while I was a child and as I tried to get help as a teenager), I would not allow you, a woman and a feminist, anywhere near my godson, siblings, foster siblings or any child for fear of what you may physically and sexually do to them. My caution has kept my brothers and cousins safe, kept me safe and it will keep my godson and foster siblings safe from the people statistically most likely to hurt and violate them.
Granted, while I agree that no one is entitled to trust, what STF says is accurate. The position I hold, regardless of its justifiable reasons, is bigoted and so is the position that males have earned women’s distrust. It is not a matter of anger, but a matter of understanding the impact of distrust. By its nature distrust demeans a person’s character. It in effect labels the people the things one distrusts them for. Any person who does not murder women will be bothered by someone insinuating otherwise. Likewise, any person who does not rape children will be bothered by someone insinuating otherwise. More so, I am fairly certain that my distrust of females in no way makes you inclined to change it and even remotely try to understand it.
If one does not wish to associate with the people one distrusts this poses no problem. However, if one does, what purpose would the distrust serve if those people can in no way earn one’s trust? What does one gain by vilifying and alienating the people one wishes to change?
Christina B.: “These men are invading my space.”
Okay, but what if a woman invaded your space in the same fashion? Should we all adopt the policy that anyone who begins a conversation with a stranger in a public place is intruding? If so, fine. I just don’t want to read, “Well, no, if a woman I didn’t know began asking me about my dog or the book I was reading, that would be fine.” I was once approached by a homeless woman; she was asking for money. I wish I had the time to go in with her and buy her a meal, rather than just giving her money that she would do who-knows-what with. Anyway, what if I were in a less-crowded area — a park, say — and were really hungry or had a big craving for one addiction or another, and what if she had a knife, and didn’t believe me when I said “I don’t have anything on me except a token for the El”?
Bringing up all these thin-air “statistics” (Note the Quotes) of “99%” and “50%” and whatever else sounds good to justify treating entire groups differently brings us closer to an argument about such numbers, and, hence, thread drift. I’m not a big or imposing guy, which might make me an easy mark for a passerby who wishes to cause trouble. Furthermore, when you walk down a busy street in the city, ANY one of the people you brush past could stab you in the chest or back because of her/his drug high or you look like someone who once did her/him wrong, so it’s a good idea to keep your distance no matter HOW strong you might be.
Mythago: “Really? If I conclude that most Jews consider Yom Kippur to be a holy day, is that bigotry?”
Mythago, are you really comparing a statement of “most Jews consider Yom Kippur to be a holy day” with one of “a man who says ‘hello’ to me likely wishes to do me harm”?
Richard Aubrey -
My point was that I don’t think it’s sensible to trust anyone until you know them very well, and that applies to men, including feminist men, as well as women. In a way all men are potentially rapists, just as all women are - we are all capable of terrible things, and that is why trust has to be earned, even by feminist men.
Since Daisy was kind enough to link to my blog, I thought I’d respond to some of her points:
Let’s look at Hugo’s actual words. The following was originally written in the context of men’s “professed egalitarianism” being doubted, but it’s clear from the way he quotes himself in this post that he thinks it applies to a “fear of street attack context” as well.
My bold.
Hugo attributes blame to “us”, i.e., to men with the clear implication that this includes innocent men. To the contrary, it is not the fault of the innocent that it may be hard to distinguish them from the guilty. It is the fault of the guilty that this is the case. Moreover this is one of the ways in which the guily victimise the innocent. Hugo is victim-blaming here.
Whether additional suspicion might be justifiable on the part of the woman, and whether it is oppressive to the man are largely independent. Additional suspicion directed at black people in areas where black muggers operate might be justifiable, but I suspect that if a white person were to tell an innocent black person that they “shouldn’t be blothered” by it, or worse, that they were to blame for it, then I would expect her to get a rather negative response.
The idea that men are baser and inherently more violent than women is an ancient one, which predates feminism. But if modern feminism adheres to these ancient (and unjust) gender norms, does that not position feminism as an anti-progressive and anti-egalitarian force?
The practice of shaming men, even non-violent ones, for the violence of other men is a modern feminist innovation, as far as I’m aware. Some of the early suffragists were among those handing out white feathers to men they perceived as being insufficiently willing to engage in warfare.
I agree that feminists are people too, and therefore fallible. I do not, however agree that the shoehorning of men, guilty and innocent alike, into the “violent perpetrator” role is simply a matter of feminists’ individual failings. It is rather more systematic than that.
As are popular and blogospheric feminists. I don’t know whether feminists are less likely to perpetuate it than non-feminists - I have no way of measuring either. I often see feminists referring to male-on-male violence as males attacking each other or, even more prejudicially males attacking themselves. Both wordings frame the issue as one of combat rather than as the violent victimisation of one person by another.
Even if you are correct, it seems a weak defense for a movement purportedly opposed to the perpetration of harmful gender norms, that it doesn’t do so as much as others.
“It” = the culture of male combatancy.
Mtyhago,
“So is your argument really that any woman who does not put your delicate feelings ahead of her personal safety is a bigot? Or is it that you’re just so pissed off at the uppity bitches that a catch-22 appeals to you?”
No my argument is that any person who considers me a threat to their safety based solely on my gender is manifesting bigotry toward me. You don’t need to dramatize it beyond that, as gratifying as that might be to you.
“I can’t fathom any other reason to consider it “right” and appropriate to excoriate women as “bigots” for being suspicious of men they don’t know well on the one hand, and then to blame them for being rape-deserving idiots if they aren’t suspicious of men they don’t know well.”
More drama. I didn’t excoriate anyone - that’s your job. I characterized the basis of their suspicion of me. “…blame them for rape deserving sluts…” Go ahead, Mythago, give that strawman a good thorough beating!! It’s about time someone broke new ground and called for an end to slut-shaming.
“Any person who does not murder women will be bothered by someone insinuating otherwise. Likewise, any person who does not rape children will be bothered by someone insinuating otherwise.”
TS,
When you say that you don’t trust females, it doesn’t offend me in the slightest. Especially given your apparent background of having a history of being a victim of violence at the hands of a female/s. Distrust is a common - and at least mostly rational - response to being victimized. This distrust becomes even more logical if they victimization takes place at the hands of multiple people of one gender. When victims of abuse learn that many other people have been the victim of that abuse, the victim is even more likely to believe that their distrust is valid. So, as someone who understands abuse victims, I accept your distrust of me as a valid response and honor it. All that Melissa is asking is that men understand that many women feel the same way about men due to their history and honor those feelings as well.
“What does one gain by vilifying and alienating the people one wishes to change?”
Perhaps you might wish to ask yourself the same question.
“Drama” is actually a pretty appropriate term for a head-tossing declaration that any woman who is fearful of male strangers is a BIGOT and UNFAIR and should be SHUNNED by decent society!!!!!! Your response to the observation that women who are trusting of strangers will be blamed for being trusting was a completely random comment about magic wands.
So yeah, given the choice between “fucking idiot who deserved to have gotten raped” and “thought to be a bigot by guys who don’t much like females in the first place”….gee, what a tough one. Let me get back to you on that.
bmmg - please point me to anyone who said “a man who says ‘hello’ to me likely wishes to do me harm”.
‘“Drama” is actually a pretty appropriate term for a head-tossing declaration that any woman who is fearful of male strangers is a BIGOT and UNFAIR and should be SHUNNED by decent society!!!!!! Your response to the observation that women who are trusting of strangers will be blamed for being trusting was a completely random comment about magic wands.’
Nonsense, Mythago. Go back and read my response to Daisy. Reread my response to you. I said you bear the consequences of mistrusting the wrong person, and have to deal with people’s reaction to your distrust. I never said I would blame anyone for anything, and I never called for anyone to blame anyone. I stated what my own reaction would be to mistrust based solely on my gender.
In addition to rereading what I wrote, I think you also should read some Feminism 101 stuff. We’re told all the time not to take it personally if we are told we are manifesting privilege or sexism or bias. Similarly you ought not to take it personally when I say that there are circumstances where I think women might be acting in a bigoted manner towards me.
The “magic wand” comment was a sarcastic reaction to your apparent desire that the world needs to be ordered in a fashion that you can never be blamed by anyone for anything you do. I’m surprised that you don’t get sarcasm, since you’re such a diligent and determined practitioner of it.
Ugh, please close the italics and fix the blockquote of the above comment (currently in moderation).
All that Melissa is asking is that men understand that many women feel the same way about men due to their history and honor those feelings as well.
Honoring those feelings is a fair request. However, the tone and presentation of Melissa’s and Hugo’s position is much more hostile than what you wrote above. They are not just asking men to honor the distrust. They are demanding that all men take responsibility for things only a handful of men have done while stating that men have collectively earned the distrust and have absolutely no right to feel angered or unfairly judged. Any objection to that gets treated as proof of their untrustworthiness.
That is not a very amicable position. What makes it worse is that men are not being judged by their individual actions against individual women, but that all men are being judged based on things that did not even happen to the people judging them. I think that is what is so frustrating and that is likely why terms like “bigot” popped up. There really is no other way to describe that type of suspicion against admittedly mostly good people.
I think if the remarks were limited to “these were my experiences and this is why I personally do not trust (X) and that may be the same reason why other (Y) do not trust (X)” no one would be in any place to object. However, by making the reasoning so broad it invites a defensive reaction. Treating those people who respond in that way poorly or hostilely only perpetuates the cycle.
Perhaps you might wish to ask yourself the same question.
As I stated before, if one does not wish to associate with the people one distrusts this poses no problem.
Hi Daran,
I agree. I’m against the “all men are powerful active architects of patriarchy/all women are helpless victims” school of feminism. Though I see the gender system as a system of (a minority of males’) male dominance, I think it’s nonetheless a complex cultural system participated in by all members of the culture. I was bothered by the sentence you quoted.
That’s a fair point; I agree that reasonableness and oppressiveness are independent.
However, in my earlier comments, I connected my personal tendency to distrust strange men more than strange women primarily to size and strength differences between the sexes, and I maintain that that is the primary factor for me and for the people know, all of whom, women and men both, are more wary of men. I think this bolstered by the fact that I, for one, am not especially wary of men and boys within range of my size (I’m a medium-sized woman, so while that group is a minority of men, it’s not negligible). I think this is significant because, while the condition of a disproportionately black criminals in some areas is a factor of racism (i.e., people of color are more likely to be poor), the condition of women having disproportionate fear of men relative to women is rational and is not necessarily the result of sexism (even in egalitarian utopia, men would still be bigger on average, and possibly also more violent — am I mistaken that men commit more crimes even across incomes and such? however this certainly might be a factor of sexism, which is why I say “possibly”).
Setting aside the question of who has it worse under the gender system, and assuming simply that both sexes are significantly burdened by it, I see a few possibilities for gender movements:
a) liberates everyone (obviously ideal)
b) liberates one sex while worsening the oppression of the other
c) liberates one sex while not substantially improving (but also not worsening) the status of the other
d) worsens the oppression of both sexes by reinforcing the gender system
(It’s really more nuanced that this, with shades of gray between, but this will do for now.)
I think feminism falls in the realm of C: greatly improving the status of women (though there’s more to do yet), while (IMO) modestly improving the status of men (though not going nearly far enough with men’s issues). You’re certainly free to disagree, but that’s my take. So:
I see feminism as an (insufficiently) progressive and (insufficiently) egalitarian force. “Progressive, but not progressive enough” is very different from anti-progressive.
IMO this gets into the rather vast topic of the feminism’s ongoing focus on women’s issues. I’ll just state again that I see feminism as a movement that’s made tremendous progress for women and limited progress for men, and that, though I do think feminism is opposed to all perpetration of harmful gender roles, I think a focus on women’s issues is acceptable. I would love to see a not-anti-feminist men’s movement to combat sexism against men; I’d be an ally to (and, as appropriate, participant in) such a movement in a heartbeat. (I hope this doesn’t ring hollow to you; FTR my politics have been very influenced by the work you and ballgame have done at FCB. And my ideas about gender have evolved a lot in the last six months or so, since switching to a masculine role/presentation; I’m still a feminist, but feminism is of decreasing relevance to me personally.)
Oddly, I’ve never heard “apparent” used as a synonym for “wholly fictional, but it’s convenient for my argument to pretend you said this”.
How do you manage to read an objection to victim-blaming as “you can never be blamed by anyone for anything you do”?
Speaking of blame, I’m really scratching my head about ‘responsibility’ and ‘blame’. I’m not responsible for racists who make people of color feel threatened. I am responsible for my own actions, though, and one of things I have a responsibility to do is not to insist “how dare any person of color ever be hesitant to be around me — that makes me uncomfortable!”
Mythago,
I’d respond, but I’ll honor Hugo’s ground rule that men keep race out of the discussion
Daisy:
(It’s really more nuanced that this, with shades of gray between, but this will do for now.)
It is more nuanced than that, and not only because of shades of grey between. Men (and women) are not borg, and do not have a single status. It’s quite possible for feminism to improve the situation of some members of a sex in some ways, while worsening it for the same or other members of the same sex in other ways.
If I robbed you, and gave the proceeds to Jane, I doubt you’d be impressed by my suggestion that on the whole, the pair of you were no worse or better off.
Yet there are some men (and a small number of women) saying “this is hurting us”. Feminism’s response ranges in general from dismissal and ignoring to attack and vilification. listening is rarely an option.
I did not mean to suggest that feminism is in all ways anti-progressive, merely in this respect so. In other ways it is progressive. Nuance, etc.
To be honest, I think a lot of us wouldn’t be so concerned about feminism if it would just focus on women, and shut up about the men. For a movement which objects to “what about the men” interventions, it’s remarkable that there really is never any objection to talking about the men, so long as what you’re saying is how privileged they are in every situation.
I don’t think it is.
Let me be clear that I know that just about every feminist will claim to opposed to all perpetration of harmful gender norms (a broader category which includes gender roles), and that claim is truthful in so far as feminists thimk of themselves as opposed to it. Yet feminist are significant perpetrators and enforcers of them. Hugo’s post is a good example. All men are rammed into the “complicit in oppressing women” role, regardless of anything they’ve actually done.
What exactly is a “woman’s issue”?
As you probably know, I do not identify as antifeminist, which label covers a range of positions, most of which I strongly disagree with. I do know know what you mean by it, so I can’t comment. I would say, though, that no such movement could be viable or effective if it didn’t feminist sexism against men as well as non-feminism.
You’d be welcome as an ally, but allies don’t get to dictate to the group to which they ally, what battles to fight and how.
I’m glad that someone has been listening.
I’ve been lurking. I find your essays fascinating and bewildering in about equal measure.
“They are demanding that all men take responsibility for things only a handful of men have done while stating that men have collectively earned the distrust and have absolutely no right to feel angered or unfairly judged.”
I feel quite confident in stating that the number of men who engage in oppressive, abusive, and/or violent behavior is far more than a handful.
I also understand how it can be frustrating to men who are not guilty of those crimes to be on the receiving end of women’s frustration and rage. I, however, think that frustration is misplaced when it is directed towards women. It is much more logical to direct that frustration towards men who are creating the reality in which so many women have such a very real fear and distrust of men. And like it or not, the most logical course of action for the men who are not guilty who wish to see a change in this reality is for those men to step up and take on the responsibility of helping to educate the men who are guilty - and step up to help educate young boys so that they don’t become those abusive/violent men in the first place. If the men who are innocent are not willing to do this, then, to be perfectly blunt, the least they can do is shut their mouths and stay out of the way of those of us - male or female - who are trying to create change.
Daran,
That’s a really good point. IMO the greatest and most persistent failing of feminism in the Western world is the focus on relatively wealthy white women to the exclusion of the women who are most oppressed — while simultaneously claiming to be a movement for all women.
And I think feminists would do well to listen more and more thoughtfully to their (our) critics. The problem is that, from my perspective anyway, when it comes to criticism of feminism’s treatment of and impact on men (as distinct from criticism regarding the treatment of women of color and other groups), it’s maybe 80% more or less religious reactionary fundamentalism (think Promise Keepers), 19% MRAism of the worst kind, and 1% thoughtful criticism that is grounded is progressive values and a commitment to equality. For many people it’s tricky to balance respect for that 1% (assuming they’ve even encountered it, or would know it if they did) with just trying to escape the sexist, inflammatory, and often hateful 99%. I do my best, but I know of exactly one blog (yours) that I’d put into that thoughtful minority, and exactly zero books, public figures, organizations, etc. (If you have any recommendations I’d welcome the links.)
Fair enough. I thought you were talking about an overall assessment of feminism as a cultural force.
Issues that specifically and disproportionately affect women, allowing for the ways such issues are affected or complicated by other social categories such as race and class.
I wasn’t trying to make a statement about you — I know you don’t identify as an anti-feminist, and I don’t consider you one. I just wanted to differentiate from the various men’s movements that have sprung up that are explicitly anti-feminist and emphasize men retaking the role of head of household, embodying traditional masculinity, etc (see the afore-mentioned Promise Keepers). I do not think such movements are addressing the harms of sexism to men. They’re just advocating the re-entrenchment of the same old gender system.
I know, but allies to get to decide to whom they give their allegiance, and mine sure as hell isn’t going to groups that center male dominance, oppose my right to marry, etc. That’s what I meant by “not anti-feminist”: not that the movement may never criticize or disagree with feminism, but that it would, I hope, be a progressive movement, an equality movement.
Bewildering how?
: )
Faith,
I doubt very seriously that you would direct your frustration with MRAs at the feminists who create the reality in which so many men have such a very real fear and distrust of feminists. Logically speaking, it makes no sense to direct anger at those who are not causing one direct harm. The most logical course of action would be to address those doing the direct harm, not those who may have harmed them. If the latter were the logical solution, then technically women should not be frustrated at abusive men, but with the people — women and men — who oppressed and abused those men. Again, I doubt that you would agree. Frankly speaking, we are all responsible for our own actions. We do not get to shift the blame to whoever hurt us when we start hurting other people and those people protest. Honestly, if a person were trying to build trust with people not inclined to believe a word coming out of that person’s mouth, telling those people to essentially shut up and prove they are not guilty will only reinforce the distrust. In context, the men who may have been willing to listen to feminists would no longer have any reason to.
Mythago: “bmmg - please point me to anyone who said ‘a man who says “hello” to me likely wishes to do me harm.’”
Well, what are we talking about on this thread, then? I was fairly certain that it was the idea that men have no right to be offended when women cross to the other side of the street when they approach. Someone suggested that women display bigotry when they draw conclusions about men they don’t know, and you went all reductio ad absurdum on our behinds by bringing up observant Jews and Yom Kippur.
Do you consider the word “likely” to be too strong? What would you choose?
I’ll second that and raise you this: the number of men in my life who haven’t been routinely oppressive, abusive, violent, dismissive, sexist, or flippant towards me and other women solely because of what we have (or are assumed to have) between our legs—and aren’t in a coma or under the age of five—can be counted on zero hands. That’s right, there hasn’t been a single man in my day-to-day life that hasn’t manifested signs of being raised in a patriarchy and internalizing the thought that men are better than women in various ways in my entire life.
Considering the number of times I almost strained by eyes rolling them up-thread from the so-called “feminist” men who demand that I treat them as bosom-buddies while they dismiss the constant state of defensive fear that women must live in as “oppressing men”, that goes doubly for the most of the men in this thread.
Jenny,
Well you’ve certainly found a welcoming home for your views here, since it is unlikely any feminist will criticize you for being too sweeping in your complaints about men, or distrustful of 6 year old boys because they are boys. Quite often, such sweeping distrust can lead to a principle of “get them before they get me”, and I’m sure that Hugo’s support of distrust by women indicates he would have no problem with preemptive attacks against the untrustworthy as a prudent defensive measure.
Hence, as I’ve said before, I keep my distance from people with bigoted attitudes towards me. Because I am a man, you seem to want nothing to do with me, since your experience is that no man, or boy, does not manifest bigotry.
I demand nothing of you. Your views are your own. But I wouldn’t for a moment follow Hugo’s general advice to men that they trust all women and expect no trust from any women. I do, as a Christian, require the redemptive experience of loving my enemies. If I were a Hugo-Christian, as a man I would need to seek my redemption from you. The needles-eye of your allowance for male decency would be my only gate to Heaven. Thankfully, that is not the case.
Well, what are we talking about on this thread, then? I was fairly certain that it was the idea that men have no right to be offended when women cross to the other side of the street when they approach.
If I meet men in the street, in certain situations, I’ll cross the street to avoid them. (In certain situations, meaning I’ll do it at times and places where I feel particularly defenseless if the man does turn out to mean me harm, but not, say, when wandering around my condo complex or walking to the local park, where I know there are people near me who would come to my aid or at least call help if necessary.)
Even in the situations where I’d be most likely to do that (strange territory, dark, I’m alone, etc.), I don’t actually believe that most men I meet are on the street are likely to attack me; I think the percentage of men saying hello to me who would wish to do me harm is way, way less than 50%. But it’s not so very small that I can ignore the possibility (depending on how vulnerable other circumstances make me). And I’m more likely to avoid strange men in such situations than strange women, for the simple reason that I can fight off most unarmed women, and can’t necessarily fight off most unarmed men (and also, though the vast majority of men haven’t been violent to me, the vast majority of people who have been violent to me have been male).
But, yes, I think “likely” is way too strong a word to describe the level of wariness I have of strange men.
“If I meet men in the street, in certain situations, I’ll cross the street to avoid them.”
– and, as I’ve mentioned before, I’ll do the same thing around strangers of either gender if it’s not a well-lit place or if it’s around crowds. You should never be 100% trustful of a crowd of strangers, regardless of their sex.
I don’t know exactly what you mean by “harassment” here, Hugo, but you’re wrong about assault. Men are about 20% more likely to be victims of violent assault (a category which includes rape but excludes murder and manslaughter) according to the National Crime Victimization Survey. Men are also about 300% more likely to be murdered than women.
As to the point of the OP, I don’t think it’s unreasonable for women to be more wary of potential male violence than female violence (though the rate of female violence is not zero). What is objectionable, though, is the notion that non-violent men are somehow responsible for the violent acts of other men, and the studied indifference to the dehumanizing way males are raised and treated which tends to positively reinforce violent male behavior and punish males who are victimized.
That’s very flattering to hear, Daisy B. Thanks.
Well, we’re starting off on the right foot by getting my name wrong.
It certainly didn’t take you long to rejoin with a straw feminist, did it? I don’t trust men to act as if they hadn’t been raised in a patriarchy, because none of them ever have. Even young boys can display a startling amount of misogyny. This is quite different from wholesale distrust, which I see you are wrongly conflating with my statement in order to pigeonhole me into that “shrill feminist” category in your mind where other people’s valid arguments go to die. Considering the amount of vitriol and abuse I’ve had directed against me and mine in my life, it’s a testament to my faith in humanity that I don’t manifestly distrust men with everything. I just distrust them when it comes to treating me like an equal human being. Do try to pay attention.
Ahoy slippery slope! If you would kindly point out where I said that I think “preemptive attacks” would be prudent, I would be much obliged. Otherwise, I’m sticking with the assumption that you’re twisting my words for your own gain, and directing your reply to some chimera you’ve constructed of me, rather that what I actually said.
It seems I have stumbled unto a quite horrible realm called “reality” in which the privileged group demands that the oppressed group kindly shut up about their oppression because it makes the privileged uncomfortable to reap even a fraction of what they have sown.
Again, thanks for the straw feminist. Where did I say I want “nothing to do with” men? I recall saying something contrary to that, when I prefaced a statement with the phrase “the men in my life”. Honestly, I must be up to some reality-defying shenanigans, or I just miserably fail at being a hopelessly paranoid feminist, because I seem to have somehow contracted the unpleasant condition known as “men in my life” while I try to “have nothing to do with” men. Either that, or you are drawing conclusions on me that are based on your own preconceptions of what “crazy” feminists are like, and how forsake even their male relations when their silly lady brains are poisoned by the realization of the fact that men treat them like lesser human beings.
Bullshit. Don’t be obtuse. You just implied that I’m a crazy man-hating feminist who lives in an all-female enclave of crazy paranoia. By “your views are your own,” you mean that my views are batshit, and you think them despicable. You also don’t “demand nothing”. If you didn’t want anything, you wouldn’t be here replying to me in veiled platitudes and bigoted assumptions that there’s something deeply wrong with my world-view. I’m neither stupid nor ignorant, and your statements are loaded with subtext. If it makes you happy that you can respond to the “crazy feminist” with polite head-patting dismissal, that doesn’t mean that I don’t know what you’re up to. You’re condescending, rude, and putting words in my mouth. You reveal far more about your own bigotry than you ever could about the bigotry you assume that I possess on your mistaken and twisted view of your self-entitlement.
Here you go, conflating distrust on specific things with manifest distrust on all things. Oh, and I spotted a straw man of what Hugo said. I like to pride myself on reading comprehension, and he never advised that men trust all women. You’re being deliberately obtuse.
Protip: when in a progressive space, not all the people you talk to are Christian or impressed by metaphors and references to salvation and Christian dogma. You may wear your religion like a shroud, but it doesn’t protect you from criticism. Especially since, in a feminist space, most women recognize that the official religious doctrine in organized Christianity is that they are little more than walking wombs that belong to their husband or father. Again, Christianity doesn’t carry any argumentative weight around here. Especially since I’m not Christian, and your assumption that I give two shits about your religious beliefs is more evidence of your massive sense of self-entitlement.
But if I was Christian, or I equated “gateway to heaven” with “Jenn’s minimal standards of human decency”, here’s what I would say: if you really want to be a decent human being, you could start by realizing that men and women are raised in a patriarchy in which men are taught to treat women like lesser human beings. The only way for them to treat women like equal human beings is to realize the former and make a conscious persistent effort in their daily lives to unravel the hold their sense of male entitlement has on their psyche and their treatment of women in their lives. That starts with not dismissing women who realize that all men display self-entitlement at their expense at least once, and that the culmination of all these displays of self-entitlement means that women really have little reason to trust that any men will treat them like equal human beings until they have proven as much.
Since you have already displayed your seemingly endless patience and willingness to go to a feminist space and dismiss the arguments and experiences of women, I can safely say that you fail on all counts at my personal standards of male decency. In that, my argument is thus proven, and I feel no need to revise my obviously correct conception of the world. Your demands, which are not “nothing” by the way, will go unmet at this juncture. I will not appease your massive sense of self-entitlement at my own expense. Get another soap-box, preferably one that is not seeped in male entitlement and the festering tainted assumptions of what you think my argument is for your own gain.
It’s hard to believe the depth of judgment and “insight” into the thinking of others. /sarcasm
If women want to avoid and distrust men, that’s their perfect right. Men don’t have to deal with them.
The joke, though, is that Ted Bundy never had a problem meeting women or getting them alone. I don’t think the snooty women in public are worried about their safety (being in public around a lot of people), I think it’s just a general snootiness when they are young and hit on a lot by men. Don’t worry girls, that will change as you get older.
Otherwise, just avoid bigots. The woman above who talks about men with their Patriarchal attitudes should also just avoid men if it’s so bad. Since I made fun of all this phony insight into people’s thinking above, I won’t examine the notion that some of these bigoted women may simply be mentally ill.
And Hugo is just an enabler for his own reasons. Maybe his stories of “conquering” his female students in his past, and also his fear of pissing off feminists in any way, could lend some insight into his odd way of thinking.
I literally can’t believe that so many hours are devoted to going round and round with this nonsense. And that it’s probably part of a “gender studies” curriculum somewhere.
Women: If you distrust men, then do that.
Men: If particular women are bigots, avoid them. Unless you like bigots, of course.
Oh, one more thing:
It’s almost funny (almost) that feminists, including Hugo, don’t think twice about attributing motivations to men, but they bristle when motivations are attributed to THEM.
And the motivations they attribute are sometimes the worst ones they can think up, in other words: Maybe not the real motivations.
Yuk. Now I have to go take a shower to get rid of this coat of arrogant judgmentalism that has covered me from this Web site.
Hugo’s inability to reason his way out of a wet paper bag was highlighted here:
http://standyourground.com/forums/index.php?topic=5840.0
I assume he begged the board owner to erase his posts, as they showed a completely disordered mind.
He has simply been in academia his whole life, so he has picked up the feminist notions and a few big words.
That’s it. And this guy is teaching students. He can’t reason, and he can’t even critically look at what he is “teaching”. His game is to please feminists and try to score with the female students by trying to play the hero.
And that is “modern education” today in the soft studies.
Lovely. We have one self-aggrandized ignoramus who can’t bother to get my name correct when it’s printed right there on the screen, and another that wouldn’t even bother to try.
Way to argue, by the way. If everything in the world was so simple that it could be avoided or solved by simply ignoring it! That worked ever so well with World War 2 and any other problem. Just ignore the Germans, genocides in Rwanda, and climate change and they go away. Under what screwed up notion of what is right and just does a person who simply wants to be treated like an equal human being have a duty to avoid 50% or more of the population and all the good things in life that entails eschewing? Silly me. I’m a horrible person for both recognizing the pervasiveness of patriarchal attitudes and yet continuing to associate with the general public and doing what I enjoy.
“These women might be mentally ill” indeed. I see what you did there. You established that it was inappropriate to extrapolate bigotry from comments that simply seethe with it, but it’s perfectly acceptable to make conjectures about the mental state of those you disagree with. Because you’re a special flower and immune from the rules you set and all standards of human decency. Standards, of course, that should include a manifest prohibition against dismissing someone’s life experience and arguments on the grounds of fallacious, inappropriate, and wildly offensive speculation about the mental health of opponents. Only you are mentally healthy. Everyone who disagrees with you is mentally ill, and therefore their disagreement need not be addressed. What a useful world view! Isolated, offensive, and utterly prohibitive of character growth and intellectual challenge, but it so does prevent those messy epiphanies, examinations of one’s mistaken premises, and defiances of grossly disproportionate pride.
Here we have another stunning example of dragging all men through the mud because of the supposition that they are all in for the boobies. Men, you see, are incapable of rising above their scrotal-centered desires and treating others like equal human beings. And I do so like that it’s supposed that Hugo, male feminists, and female feminists are the ones that are labeled “man-haters”.
Gosh, I turn my back for a moment and the tired old horde of MRAs reappear with a vengeance. I’m turning on moderation for everyone for a while.
Jenn,
“Ahoy slippery slope! If you would kindly point out where I said that I think “preemptive attacks” would be prudent, I would be much obliged.”
Read it again. I didn’t say that you yourself attacked preemptively, or thought that preemptive attacks would be prudent. I said that sometimes sweeping distrust can lead to that, and that Hugo has expressed no concerns with that possibility.
“It seems I have stumbled unto a quite horrible realm called “reality” in which the privileged group demands that the oppressed group kindly shut up about their oppression because it makes the privileged uncomfortable to reap even a fraction of what they have sown.”
I don’t speak for anyone, and I haven’t asked you to shut up. I am not a group. I just commented on what you said, and what it means for me.
“I recall saying something contrary to that, when I prefaced a statement with the phrase “the men in my life”. Honestly, I must be up to some reality-defying shenanigans, or I just miserably fail at being a hopelessly paranoid feminist…”
Your original comment only complained about the men in your life, you said nothing positive about them. The fact that you have had men in your life, and may still have men in your life says nothing about your feelings towards them, or whether you even want them in your life.
“You just implied that I’m a crazy man-hating feminist who lives in an all-female enclave of crazy paranoia. By “your views are your own,” you mean that my views are batshit, and you think them despicable”
Sometimes simple statements trigger revealing responses.
“If you didn’t want anything, you wouldn’t be here replying to me in veiled platitudes and bigoted assumptions that there’s something deeply wrong with my world-view. I’m neither stupid nor ignorant, and your statements are loaded with subtext.”
I said I don’t demand anything from you, and I don’t. I pointed out that your distrust of men is sweeping, in that it lumps 6 year old boys together with violent men. I surmised you would want nothing to do with me, and I think your response has vindicated that. And I concluded by saying I didn’t need to earn your trust, or your approval.
“Here you go, conflating distrust on specific things with manifest distrust on all things.”
This, from the master of conflation, who, in one sentence lumped 6 year old boys among the abusive and violent.
“Protip: when in a progressive space, not all the people you talk to are Christian or impressed by metaphors and references to salvation and Christian dogma. … your assumption that I give two shits about your religious beliefs is more evidence of your massive sense of self-entitlement.”
Some people here are Christian, and the blog owner is Christian. Quite often in a debate, you are making points for the audience, not the other debaters.
“Get another soap-box, preferably one that is not seeped in male entitlement and the festering tainted assumptions of what you think my argument is for your own gain.”
This soapbox belongs to Hugo, not you.
However, I remain free to conclude that any women that treats me with suspicion based solely on my gender is a bigot who should be avoided whenever possible.
That would be marvelous. Unfortunately, most men’s response is to torment the woman instead. Avoidance, and mere default politeness when you can’t avoid a woman, would be infintely preferable to the constant barrage of bullshit women get from the world for daring to try to protect themselves from strangers.
(But then, we get the constant bullshit when we AREN’T self-protective, either, so, gosh, I guess women are just too stupid to live. You SHOULD avoid us. Please. You could start by avoiding feminst blogs, since they’re chock-full of man-haters).