Tags
There’s something I hear a lot from men when gender inequality issues are being spoken about. They’ll leave off from commenting, or preface their comments, with ‘I’m just a stupid man who doesn’t know anything’. The idea is that men should stay out of feminist conversations because “ignorant males,” or whatever variation we’re working with today, aren’t capable of understanding.
It’s a passive aggressive tactic. Men who say this kind of thing don’t really think they’re incapable, they’re speaking to a strawfeminism they see as positioning them that way. It’s a fearful response to a changing world order in which basing expression of a male gender identity on aggressively lording it over everyone else is shortly going to be over. It’s an attempt to escape the responsibility to pursue knowledge and to participate in making the world better.
The thing is, it’s patriarchy that says men are stupid and monolithic and unchanging and incapable. It’s patriarchy that says men have animalistic instincts and just can’t stop themselves from harassing and assaulting. It’s patriarchy that says men can only be attracted by certain qualities, can only have particular kinds of responses, can only experience the world in narrow ways. Feminism holds that men are capable of more – are more than that. Feminism says that men are better than that, can change, are capable of learning, and have the capacity to be decent and wonderful people.
It would be wonderful if more men wouldn’t try to twist their way out of engaging with ideas that threaten their unfairly gained place in the world, and just went for it. If you’re a person, you have the ability to become a better one. Personhood is one thing on which one should definitely not chicken out.
Hello,
Not sure if you check your reddit feed account, so thought i may as well repost my comment locally as well :)
I can’t say that in all my time posting on 2X, or in any other forum where topics of gender/sexuality/feminism/whatever else are discussed I have ever seen a guy preface a comment with “I’m just a stupid man who doesn’t know anything”?
o.0
Maybe i’m just really unobservant, but the posting just dosn’t ring true to my experince. It kinda seems like its attacking a (forgive the pun) straw “man”.
Equally, since when has “aggressively lording it over everyone” ever been part of the male gender identity?
Reddit thread: http://www.reddit.com/r/TwoXChromosomes/comments/mkjb4/on_claiming_to_be_a_stupid_man_who_doesnt_know/
Clearly if I’ve encountered it a lot, it’s not a strawman. Just because it doesn’t ring true in your experience, that doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen.
Traditionally, men have been encouraged to express their gender in terms of a masculinity that aggressively dominates femininity, women, etc. Perhaps you’re familiar with the Western binary oppositions of male/female strong/weak active/passive.
What if all you know, so far, is that you know there are things you don’t know? Maybe it’s been powerfully demonstrated to you that you have privilege, but you don’t yet know where that’s going to skew your perception. Maybe you want to be able to engage in discussion as a way to learn more, without having it sound like you’re trying to trample on the opinions of people who know more than you (but whose opinions are discounted by society).
If “I’m just a stupid man who doesn’t know anything” (or variations thereon) is a way to try to stop people from criticizing you and helping you learn, then, yeah, it’s not much use. But if it’s an attempt to engage the discussion without dominating it, surely that’s not all bad?
I find that people who are genuinely trying don’t tend to express themselves with that, though? They’ll say that they’re new to this, or that they’re learning. But I find that they don’t try and echo that “men are stupid lololol” script.
It doesn’t just come out as “I’m a man who doesn’t know anything” it comes out as ‘biological determinants mean that I hunt and she gathers so therefore it is not surprising that I couldn’t find something that was behind something else’ etc etc. Same crap though.
Chally, I agree. In my experience, men who are new to feminism tend to want to listen, and ask questions, and talk about their views, rather than arrogantly dismissing the whole conversation with “I don’t know anything about this so we shouldn’t talk about it”.
That’s an approach I’ve rarely seen, but I tend to avoid troll-heavy forums. I’ve participated in a variety of feminist forums and blogs, from the “men post as guests and will be more strictly policed than women” type (swlab) to occasionally reading the unmoderated drivel forums (the old alt.feminism, any newspaper comment thread). The times I’ve seen that sort of self-denigration in the more sensible forums has been from frustrated men responding to attacks with “ok, clearly I got it all wrong, but I still don’t see how…”. Generally it’s a plea for help, often after an early post was dismissed out of hand as trolling. This happens often in the fetlife “BDSM and Feminism” group, for instance, because moderation there is often vigorous, side-tracked and done in a pile-on fashion. Someone asks about one topic and gets a spate of posts about how their question was offensive to a type of person that they didn’t know existed.
Are you seeing this as a first post on a topic, or in the above sort of way?
I’m not seeing it in posts at all, actually, I was speaking to offline experiences rather than anything I’ve encountered in Internet (social justice) spaces.
I know exactly what you are talking about and it is vast annoying and generally derailing.
@ thetroubleis – my experience also!
I find that there are many approaches taken by people when they wish to derail conversations. In my experience cis-men when talking about feminism have used the following quite often:
1. I’m just a guy so I don’t know what it feels like but…. (insert possibly relevant, usually not anecdote)
2. I don’t know if this is true but… (insert rational argument devoid of an analysis of power)
3. As a guy I don’t really have the right to speak but…
What these approaches have in common is making the ensuing conversation about whether or not cis-men have or should have the right to speak about issues of feminism rather than whatever it was the conversation was prior to that interjection.
I find this problematic because often conversations around feminism are difficult and needful and it bothers me when they become about men’s place in the struggle.
Another thing I’d like to add is that there is no way of knowing the intention of the speaker when they say things that derail the conversation. Personally, I’d like to believe that they do not intend to derail the conversation. However, if what they say derails the conversation, then I would like them to a) stop the derailing conversation and b) acknowledge that that was not their intention and go back to the conversation that was going on prior to that.
Mistakes are okay. I have more trust in people when they own up to their mistakes and then change their behaviour.
In my experience – at least of all the men who I’ve seen preface their statements with that kind of disqualifier – is that they have – rightly or wrongly – been previously beaten up for trying to participate in a gender-political discussion. How to handle the issue is something that any given forum has to decide for themselves, but it’s unfair to assume, by default, that a person saying that is being “passive aggressive”.
And it’s worth mentioning that someone who says that is, at the very least, somewhat sympathetic towards your viewpoint, because otherwise they’d be insulting you, remaining silent, or – worst of all – joining an MRA forum.
It’s worth quoting my grandmother – a very wise woman – who said “You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar”. There are multiple useful ways to interpret that bit of folk wisdom in this context. I hope y’all will be open-minded enough to give it a try.
I said it was a passive aggressive tactic. Open-mindedness is a definite when approaching any discussion. I think it’s worth tempering that bit of folk wisdom, however, with a remembrance of the tone argument.
There’s no denying that it certainly can be a passive-aggressive tactic. I’d argue, though, that it’s an understandable one when one’s concerned that one might be beaten up for their gender, simply for trying to participate in a discussion.
I appreciate your point about the Tone Argument, I just feel that in this case, a person who says that does so because they feel (again, rightly or wrongly) that they’ll get beaten up if they don’t ‘armor’ themselves with a heap of disclaimers before they enter the fray, just as one does when disagreeing with a cop.
*nod nod* The disclaimers still usually go along the lines I outline in comment #4 if participants are genuine, in my experience, at any rate.
You might be interested to know that I’m visiting because your original post sparked off quite an interesting discussion on G+ that’s touched on a heap of issues WRT discussion of gender politics in general, most particularly about de-escalating the usual conflicts that come up in these sorts of debate. If you’re interested in following up on it, drop me a line & I’ll send you a link.
Oh, thanks, that sounds interesting, but I try to avoid offsite discussions about my posts for a few reasons. :)
No problem. :^)
This is an important post. When I talk about “feminist” issues, I make a big point of saying that improving things for women in fact improves them for everyone. So, I don’t think I fall into the trap you describe. But, I do notice that I get an incredible amount of attention for being a man who is interested in these issues, and sometimes I think I get that attention just because I’m a man. It’s a delicate issue, and I think it’s great that you get this discussion going.
Two examples from me:
The Nobel Peace Prize’s problem with women http://wp.me/p1xS1Q-aD
There are only 3 reasons women don’t make it to the top http://wp.me/p1xS1Q-iB
I think men should be involved in feminism. I think men should call themselves feminists. Unfortunately, there are many women in the feminist movement who feel that “feminist” is a privileged term reserved for women. By my estimation, all this results in is alienating men and hurting the goal of equality and solidarity. I feel that denying men the title of feminist proliferates the stereotype that feminists want female superiority.
A big cultural hurdle has to be jumped for men to make it to the point where they would consider themselves feminists, and unfortunately, once they get there, they are wrought with struggle. I think one thing female feminists can do to make it easier for men to join is to be more welcoming and inclusive in their language.
Okay, that’s really got nothing to do with the post, but I agree that ideology isn’t restricted by gender, and men can be feminists. I don’t think it’s women’s responsibility to make men more comfortable in pursuing social justice, however.
Actually, that’s got a lot to do with this post. It’s the natural next step. What happens once men do overcome their patriarchal conditioning?
It’s everyone’s responsibility to bring others into the struggle for social justice. Without solidarity we have nothing.
My goal was deepening the discussion here. But you seem more interested in being combative than in being productive, so I’ll bid you adieu.
Um, it’s an important issue, but it’s not an on-topic one. Possibly the moderator and writer of this blog might have a say in what the topic is. The thing is, women are taught to be super nice and accommodating already, and men have to take some responsibility for how that social dynamic might play out here, too. Throwing yourself into a new perspective is about seeking solidarity with the people who want to welcome you into a new framework, and that can involve some uncomfortable shifts in perspective which the oppressed group ought not to have to cushion even more. It’s not really about what women can do, you see? It’s about taking that extra step and realising that not only is feminism a good idea, but to be a man pursuing it means not demanding women play into existing let’s-play-nice socialisation. I’m really not interested in being combative: not 100% agreeing with everything you write doesn’t necessitate a flounce.
Your phrasing comes off as combative. Your opening statement was assertively rude. How you use language says a great many things about your attitudes and values. It’s not an issue of agreeing or disagreeing. It’s an issue of attitude towards discussion in general.
On my blog, I encourage discussion. I erred in assuming that you would want discussion on yours.
I’m saying, “Feminists, don’t drive away allies.” You’re interpreting it as, “Women, be accommodating and servile.” Are you unaware of the disagreement in the feminist community about whether or not men should be “allowed” to consider themselves feminists? Perhaps that’s necessary background knowledge for understanding what I’m saying, because I don’t actually understand how your response corresponds to my statement.
To be more clear: many female feminists are saying, “Men, you can’t have the word ‘feminist.’ You cannot be a feminist. That is for women.” By my estimation, that is extremely counterproductive. It accomplishes nothing but further solidifying binary gender and gender separation rather than cooperation. It says, “You can never be one of us,” when egalitarianism is supposed to say, “We are all the same.”
So this isn’t an issue of, “Make it easy.” It’s an issue of, “Don’t purposefully make it hard.”
Perhaps you’re familiar with the tone argument? Please don’t use it here. My opening statement was a moderator’s direction. Of course I want discussion on my blog. That’s why the comments are open. If you look at the comments policy, you will see that I want comments to be on topic. Hey, I’m still engaging with you even though you’re being off-topic and calling me combative for enforcing my comments policy, which should probably show you that I’m trying really hard to be open to discussion here. If I write a post about non-white people’s perspective on racism, for instance, I will nudge the conversation back to that if it starts to focus on white people’s. It’s just basic moderation.
Of course I’m aware of that background. Again, I agree that men can be feminists. You did say ‘I think one thing female feminists can do to make it easier for men to join is to be more welcoming and inclusive in their language,’ and I responded to that by saying that it’s not the oppressed group’s responsibility to smooth the way, particularly given that this has implications for the existing socialisation of women. It’s a bit hard to engage now that you’re shifting the goal posts to ‘So this isn’t an issue of, “Make it easy.” It’s an issue of, “Don’t purposefully make it hard.”’
I still contend that my comment is completely relevant. Further, your comment policy does not mention anything about topic restrictions (http://zeroatthebone.wordpress.com/comment-policy/ in case there’s a different one you’re referring to). I don’t want to overstep my rights as a contributor to discussion on your blog, but I think you and your commenters would benefit from a clearer mod voice. The comment came off as rude instead of informative or nudging. I trust your motivations, but the effect didn’t match your intent. Something for both of us to think about.
Ah, okay. I forgot about that bit of phrasing I used. Should have reread. It’s not shifting; it’s clarifying. The original language I used did not accurately communicate my meaning. Now we’ve cleared up a miscommunication. Good on us.
It’s under the first dotpoint. I seriously do not know how I could have been any more clear. Again, I’ll direct you to the tone argument. Rude would have been ‘you’re stupid because you posted offtopic,’ not an affirmation of what you were saying while making it clear that you were not on topic. Again, I’ll direct you to the tone argument; a relevant link is upthread. I’m really not up for being schooled in tone, just as I’m not up for being scolded for responding to something you said by mistake. I’ve been more than kind in entertaining this at all, and seriously don’t have the time or inclination to respond to any more of this. Please leave a comment related to the post or don’t leave any more.
“I still contend that my comment is completely relevant.” May I respectfully suggest then that you take the argument to your blog and hash it out over there since Chally has made it clear it is not on topic for this post? Please leave a link because I’m interested in the nuance between ‘making it easier’ and ‘socially conditioned responses of women’ because I can’t see it at the moment but I’m interested in learning.
I still have the ‘well obviously I’m just a man’ argument with MyNigel who wants me to find evidence for him for all the feminist arguments we have. Just bloody google it yourself is apparently not good enough, if I’m passionate enough I should be able to prove it. Then we get into ‘well if you care about me then you should…’ and it just spirals down from there. Point being, I don’t see why I should have to hold his hand and take him through it. If he doesn’t come to it himself, he will never feel it the same way.
i agree with your hypothesis. this fear is real.
but i got to ad the following: there are also some men who just made bad experience with feminist women discussing the issue. i very well remind one of my university teachers saying: you are a man, you are not allowed to talk about that. she was a gender expert, as she claimed. there was no student for whom she wasn’t relevant in one or another way.
its like with the police brutallity: you can not say “thats just like all the cops are” because most of them are quite no bullies; but it just needs one stupid individual to put dirt on the names of 10000 and to cover (un)experience with shadows of ressentment . its the same with feminists: it just needs one stupid and you will look like an offensive, unfair movement as a whole.
moreover i guess it is such (subliminal or unconscious) fear of being offended as chauvi, macho, nazi, (you-name-it), when having contradictory or uninformed position in the discussions and so some men just don’t want to get dragged into it – and don’t discuss it. To say in another way: especially younger men dont agree to exculpate them self for a history they didnt create, i.e for being the criminals who made up nowadays structures of sexual discrimination and suppression and inequality. they are heirs of it, not creators. but sometimes they are treated as if they would be the creators and find themselfs in the situation to explain and confess about thousands years of history. it is like a feeling close to following: if you, as a man, are not able to justify or explain or excuse or bleed for thousands of years of gender-injustice – especially towards women (there are others too: gays, hermas aso.)- then you will be nothing but a stupid criminal without the right to pledge for mercy, cause your gender was mercyless for the last thousands of years – now it is our turn.
might sound a little exaggerated, but fear is never not exaggerated.
greetz
tom
Femyne is correct in that this is a problem of understanding each other, not of being off-topic. I’m going to take a stab at what I think he’s trying to point out and, if I’m wrong, I’ll just get chastised from both sides and call it a day…
The point of the essay is to bring attention to a tactic that is, as the author sees it, a method of chilling speech. And it is always good to point out logical fallacies for what they are. But the essay itself makes these fairly wild assertions about motive and gross generalizations that make it feel like the author is looking for a reason to dismiss someone they disagree with. In effect, taking a narrow use scenario where the statement is a strawman argument and claiming that is must always be a strawman argument.
I, myself, will say in a discussion that my view on a topic may be colored by my upbringing, the people I surround myself with, millions of years of genetics, lack of experience, etc. That’s a mouthful, so it usually comes out as “being a middle-aged somewhat successful white male, my perception may be off.” That’s a very close tie to the author’s premise statement of “I’m just a stupid man who doesn’t know anything”. In fact, if a person were conversing with me with the intention of chilling speech and my viewpoints, I could say the former and they would hear the latter.
The tone of the essay sets up a hostile relationship between men and women in discussing gender matters. As a man, this is already a minefield topic for discussion or debate. We may feel we’re making a point in a conversation only to find that the other person is just looking for a way to lump us in as “patriarchal” or misogynistic so they can reinforce their own position on a point without considering the other sex at all. And the essay feels like it feeds that kind of “debate”, where the sophist is looking for vectors to attack the speaker and avoid the issues.
The author is seriously not looking for hostility or a way to avoid discussion, clearly quite the opposite.
I don’t know if Grim meant to describe Femyne as male by using “he” or if Grim is defaulting to a male pronoun inclusively because gender is unknown and English makes this quite difficult, but Femyne is female.
Just so you know.
Because while I don’t think it should matter, I think it does matter given our society’s tendency to define everything along gender lines. If you want to chat on this point, please click the link to come to my blog, as I’m trying not to fill Chally’s post with things deemed irrelevant to the post’s original content.
Pingback: O Big Brother e a incoerência das mulheres machistas « A Meio Amarga
Pingback: On Being a “Downer”, and Why I Won’t Stop Giving Patriarchy the Finger Just Because You Like Hiding in Your Privilege | We've Had Enough – Ohio
Pingback: Welcome to Monday ~ 6 August 2012 | feminaust ~ for australian feminism