Wow, it's Saturday already!
Sorry guys, I started a new job and I've just been too tired to think in any sort of profound way. And I refuse to post anything here unless it's at least slightly profound. Perhaps I will make it up to you with two posts today!
So, what I came to ponder today is the concept of being "anti-male."
This is a term I've heard a lot over the last couple days from two sources on a board where we discuss current events. Now, I have to admit, both of these individuals fall under the aptly named Fucking Pedantic Asshole category. So really, I probably shouldn't care that they think I'm "anti-male," and yet it irks me.
You see, to me, "anti-male" means, you hate men. I don't hate men! I fucking love men. I love fucking men, for that matter. I love their straight forward ways of speaking. I love when they look at me and I can tell they find me attractive. I loved the animated conversation with a very attractive new male which caused us to lean forward towards each other so noticeably that my husband (who by the way I also love) felt the need to yell out "hey are you two going to make out!?" I love when they are as irreverent as me, and when they can make me laugh. And I especially love when I can tell they are attracted to both my mind and my body.
I grew up with almost exclusively male friends. To be honest, I didn't even like my sex that much growing up. They were complicated, too much went on beneath the surface that honestly I didn't understand, and many of them were incredibly catty towards me for not being like them.
But the fact that I recognize that there are men out there who are not my friends? That makes me anti-male? That I realize that patriarchy is a real thing? That we are not equal, and that there are men out there who rape, murder and abuse women on a regular basis, and in fact far too often...That makes me anti-male?
I'm steadily seeing one of the ways that feminists came to be known as man-haters. Some men don't fucking get it. They don't get the complexities I'm working in when I make a feminist argument. They don't get the complexities that are life. And apparently they can't suffer their brothers to be criticized without feeling criticized themselves, and of course, you can't be critical of them unless you actually hate them. They don't see how you can love men, and criticize them at the same time.
But it is possible. You can in fact, criticize "men" (and "men" means "men who this criticism applies to, because it doesn't apply to all of you") and still love them over all. When out in public, by myself, do I treat men with some suspicion? You're damned right I do. There are definitely situations where I am very aware of my vulnerabilities. But if I feel I'm in a safe situation? I talk to all of them. And I don't ask their political or feminist affiliations first. Does any of that sound like someone who is "anti-male" to you?
I find it very telling that while you take offense that someone calls you "anti-male", you think it's OK to call them "Fucking Pendantic Assholes". Which is more offensive? I'd say the second clearly is, and is in and of itself a pedantic comment lacking in true substance. But away from your poor choice of words...
ReplyDeleteBy "anti-male", I didn't mean that you hated all men. I don't think you do. I just think that you hate men who disagree with you, and you think women are superior to men in some, if not many, aspects.
What makes you anti-male isn't your realization that not all men are your friends. Not all men (Or women, for that matter) are anyone's friends. I freely admit that a lot of men are despicable creatures. So, too, are many women. That isn't the problem. The problem is your never-quite-stated but all too clear suspicion of men as somehow more depraved or evil than women. Maybe you don't think of it as that way, maybe you aren't even aware of it, but it's obvious to me.
I don't see many feminists, including yourself, as anti-male because you criticize men when they act badly. I see you as anti-male because you EXPECT men to act badly, and because you care more when men act badly than when women, or men AND women act badly.
In response to your talking about our own friends, a note on mine: at least half of them are women. (Probably 60%~) Out of my two very best friends with whom I could tell pretty much anything, one is a guy, one is a girl. I'm not anti-woman. I love women. I'm anti sexism, whether it's against women OR men. Thus, the conflict between us.
Follow the link. The term is not mine. But you do entirely fit that description, and thus I will use it for you.
ReplyDeleteI will happily embrace any label you want to put on me which I agree with, derogatory or not, but yes, yes, I will take issue when you say something that is a gross misrepresentation of my beliefs and myself as a person. I don't believe men are evil or depraved. I think THE RULING CLASS IS. Which is what men, atm, are. And I think many men act accordingly. I think many women would act the same if places were reversed. Of course, since you don't believe in Patriarchy, that will mean nothing to you, but it is an important distinction between being "anti-male" and "anti-patriarchy" which is what I am.
That you would say I think women are superior is LAUGHABLE, and shows just what a pedantic fucking asshole you can be, and how little you know of me outside of a VERY limited atmosphere where the things we discuss are likewise, limited. And the difference between you and I, is that I know you simply CAN BE a fucking pedantic asshole, while you think I AM anti-male.
I don't think women are human beings? I am motived by "vulgar patriarchal domination imperative[s]"? Since when? I definitely do think women are human beings, and deserve equal legal rights with men. I'm not aware of any "vulgar patriarchal domination imperatives" in my life. Maybe you could explain how just these two characteristics of the "Fucking Pedantic Assholes" applies to me?
ReplyDeleteWhy do you have the right to determine what labels apply to me, when I do only have the right to apply labels to you that you agree with? That right there is a double standard.
I think the feminist concept of patriarchy is a model for society - just a flawed model that doesn't accurately reflect the way things are. I believe it exists as a concept the same way I believe the Death Star exists - the concept is there, the reality is not.
I think it is very telling that you can't seem to engage in even a limited debate without attacking me personally. Why? If a woman said I was anti-female, then I would either ignore her, or debate her, and convince her that I was not. And yet you don't debate me, you call me names. Perhaps I've struck a cord?
Methinks the lady doth protest too much....
Unless you have the shortest attention span in history, you will recall that we have engaged in EXTENSIVE debate together. Wherein I have never resorted to "without attacking" you.
ReplyDeleteHowever, this is my PERSONAL BLOG dude.
I'm not wearing my fucking CE gloves in here. I'm not here to be nice either. I can be very nice, or I can not be. Your tone and constant arguments DO NOT lend to me being nice to you IN MY PERSONAL SPACE.
Now, as to your qualifications for the labeling.
"You know how you’re sauntering along through your life minding your own beeswax, and some sexist shit goes down, and you, a feminist, naturally respond as one who is sick and tired of sexist shit, perhaps saying aloud in mixed company “that’s some pretty sexist shit, yo,” and your unwillingness to just laugh it off with the rest of the ladies raises the hackles of some asshole pedantic dude who then, out of his profound concern for your well-being, tries to rescue you from pariah-dom, lavishing you with the benefit of his superior grasp of the human condition by setting you straight on the distaste with which every other rational person on Earth regards ‘feminism’? Perhaps even adding that if you really want to get anywhere with your arguments, you’ll get better at appeasing your oppressor with a more solicitous, more conciliatory, more sexyfun tone?"
Wow, gee, that sounds like what you're doing EVEN RIGHT NOW.
"But the fucking pedantic asshole’s primary advantage is that he is motivated not by intellectual curiosity, but by the vulgar patriarchal domination imperative. He’s not really about discourse at all. He fakes you out by getting you to intone your feminist manifesto, but he’s really just baiting you for the old put-a-sock-in-it-or-the-consequences-will-be-dire gambit. The fucking pedantic asshole has made the exciting discovery that he can dominate the women in his midst merely by threatening to revoke that most golden and priceless of gifts: his favor. In generously condescending to converse with a member of the sex caste, these putzes pretend to want to engage in serious philosoph-socio-political debate, but their only real interest lies in forcing the uppity feminist to submit to their awesome power."
If you don't think that sounds like you and the other ones I was talking about, then you need to do a bit more looking at how you come across to others. Judging by the pm's I get concerning all three of you, this is not a rare conclusion.
As for striking a chord... You're damn right to strike a chord. You PISS me off. You arrogance disguised with pseudo intellectual bullshit, when you are just a fucking kid, who doesn't know shit about the real world, has probably never endured any real hardship, or had to deal with the realities of this world except from a nice, safe, position reading it from a book or website... Yah, you piss me the fuck off.
So calling someone a "Fucking Pedantic Asshole" isn't a personal attack? What if I were to call you equivalent names? Would you feel that it was a personal attack then? You haven't attacked me in CE, because you know you'd get in trouble - but since we're debating NOW, and you're attacking me NOW, I'd say it is accurate to say that you have attacked me personally. And unless you have the shortest attention span in history, you can see that you have attacked me in this post, and in your responses repeatedly.
ReplyDeleteActually, none of that sounds like me in the slightest. I think you're just too overwhelmed by your obvious distaste for me to consider this rationally.
Amazing, isn't it? I make a few rational, simple arguments and you go off the deep end. Why do you allow yourself to be "pissed off" by some "kid who doesn't know shit about the real world" sitting 3000 miles away making simple arguments? If I'm so arrogant and psuedo intellectual, you should be able to defeat my arguments fairly and rationally. That you resort simply to name calling is, I think, clear proof that you can't, but you don't want to admit it.
Sure, it's a personal attack.
ReplyDeleteSo?
I haven't given anything away here as to who you are or where I know you from.
I'm not allowed to have personal opinions about other people?
And I honestly wouldn't give a shit if you did make similar attacks in your own personal space. It's your space to do with as you please.
In fact, I would be extremely disappointed if not a single thing I've said to you at that board has caused you to have an introspective and ranting response.
You're right about one thing, I shouldn't even bother responding to you (although, as far as I'm concerned I have rationally rebutted every meaningful argument we've ever had). But you know, I just hate assholery so much, it's hard for me not to. I never claimed to be a saint, and I have a short fuse about such things. Especially since this is like, you know, my house, so to speak. And the name calling is just for fun.
No, you haven't, although giving away where you know me from wouldn't particularly bother me. (Giving away my real name or other personal information of that sort would, but I can't imagine how you would have access to that anyway)
ReplyDeleteYou're allowed to have personal opinions. You're allowed to express them, of course. This is your blog, and you can say what you like. That doesn't mean it's true, or that it's polite, though, and much of what you've said is neither.
Introspective? Possibly, but extremely so, as I haven't seen you raise many actually good points. (I am an extremely introspective person, but only when challenged, which is typically by myself) Ranting? Not really, as you don't make me particularly angry. A little sad, a little amused, a little bewildered that you can believe some of the things that you do, but I don't get angry like you seem to.
If you don't want to respond, then fine. I can't MAKE you see reason. It seems intellectually dishonest to me to simply refuse to debate with someone when you can't actually attack any of their points successfully, but it's your call of course.
So you're calling me names because it's fun? That's amazingly childish.
It's also intellectually dishonest to try and debate with someone when you already know they refuse to even try to understand what you're talking about, and have already invalidated for themselves at least half of the base from which your argument stems.
ReplyDeleteThe thing is, man, we've done it all before. I've watched you tear into issues that I've found to be horrific. I have watched you debate and debate and debate, never aiming for mutual understanding, never with any sympathy towards your fellow humans. Oh, maybe you feel it, I'm sure you do on some level. But it never "taints" your debates, you seem to just live in this world of black and white, a world I don't understand, because I've seen too much shit too not see the greys.
I get sick of beating my head against a wall, man. It's exhausting. It's agonizing. It hurts my heart, because all I see is unrecognized privilege and ignorance. Not book ignorance of course... You're very well read. But real world ignorance, and there's no way I can teach you that.
Bah, I don't know why I try. You've never responded to an honest heart to heart before, why would you now.
Jade, I do try to understand what you're saying. And I think I understand WHY you believe a lot of the things you do. I just don't agree. Why is that so incomprehensible? I get what you're saying - I just see flaws in it.
ReplyDeleteI suppose you could say that I aim for mutual understanding. I suppose you could say that I don't. Because what I really aim for in every debate is finding the truth. That's what I'm interested in primarily. If everyone agrees, then fine - but I'll take the truth that only one person knows over the lie that everyone believes. I don't aim towards mutual understanding as my #1 goal, because that's misleading. I aim to figure out what is really true and accurate.
I've never denied that there are gray areas. What I deny is that because there are gray areas, there is no white and black.
Unrecognized privilege? I don't think so - I know that I'm fairly well off as an American, and extremely well off when compared with the average human being alive today, opportunity wise. Un recognized ignorance? Maybe - if I recognized my ignorance, then I wouldn't be ignorant, now would I? I'd be wise!
But that's why you should debate - to find out where you are wrong. By running away from the issue or resorting to personal attacks rather than addressing the issues at hand, you don't truly debate or help either one of us.
Why you try? I think you're in earnest, but I suspect it's different than what you think. I think you really want me to agree with you and to see things like you see them. But you can't actually defeat any of my points, so you resort to "alternate tactics". I appreciate your honesty, and I do believe that you're sincere. But one may still be sincere, and still be wrong. If you think that's me, rather than you, then specifically say how so rather than dodging the issue by attacking me personally or insisting that I have different motives than I admit.
And exactly how do I do that in this situation when you are doing exactly what you are telling me not to do to you?
ReplyDelete"say how so rather than dodging the issue by a...insisting that I have different motives than I admit."
I don't hate men. I am not anti-male. I provide a plethora of reasons how this is inaccurate. I am anti-patriarchy. And anytime I am suspicious of a man in a given case, it is because my personal experience and probably the stats too, show that he is worthy of being suspicious of.
wow posts like this make me wish i had more time for you to educate me, really great stuff.
ReplyDeletecollar poppin' mike? LOL
ReplyDeleteHey man, keep up with this, and check out some of the people on my blogroll when you have time. You will be SO far ahead of most 18 year old guys it won't even be funny...
Wow, that is quite an attack. I'd like guy.. (obvious handle?) to explain his evidence that the patriarchy does not exist. He claims not to believe it is an accurate tool for reading our society. Why not? He believes men have no privilege. How do you explain rape and non-prosecution of rape without
ReplyDeletemale privilege? Can you explain why men make more money with a better explanation? Why are jobs downgraded to lower pay when women enter them? These data points surely point to patriarchy or a system of male privilege. How do anti-feminists like yourself explain them away?
By the way, as an older person, you do rather sound like a young person with little experience of the world or hardship.
And as for your first point in this comment thread, we expect men to behave badly because men *do* commit most of the violent crime. Why would reacting to our reality be equivalent to hating? Caring more? I've never heard of a woman raping anyone, so I'm not sure where you're going there. And we don't think men are more evil, just more PRIVILEGED.
Please pardon me for presuming to correct you in your personal space, but I firmly believe that "stupid fucking pedantic asshole" might be a more accurate reflection of who you are dealing with here.
ReplyDeletethebewilderness
Sadly Ack, I don't think he's coming back. But who can know? He's usually up for a good fight...
ReplyDeleteAnon, no worries! ;)