Male = Evil Watch: Tom Hawking, "Yes All Men"
Tom Hawking, "Yes All Men; Every Man Needs To Understand Internalized Misogyny And Male Violence"
1. This is largely crap.
2. It's not entirely crap. Not by a long shot. But the parts I'm interested in are crap. And I'm writing this thing, so there.
3. I'm going to churlishly suggest that "Yes All Men" basically constitutes the missing link between the "NotAllMen" hashtag/meme/whatever (i.e. the systematic attempt to deny that it is permissible to challenge false generalizations about males) and the "YesAllWomen" hashtag/meme/whatever.
Told ya so.
The link seemed clear to me from the get-go.
And it's the link to the jihad against saying "not all men" that's the most salient problem with the "YesAllWomen" thing. It's the tip of the iceberg, anyway.
4. Which is not to say that it isn't true that it might not be a good thing for men to understand misogyny, internalized or otherwise. Some of us already understand it pretty well, though... So let's make sure that's on the table.
5. The problem is that "NotAllMen," "YesAllMen," and "YesAllWomen" are all sidling right up to: every man is a misogynist.
And as for that claim: speak for yourself, asshat.
In my book, that's as loathsome and patently false as "everyone is a Nazi" or "every woman is irrational" or "every Jew is greedy," or "every human is an arsonist."
6. I'm sore about this stuff right now. Well, I'm rather sore about this stuff in general. I think everybody should be sore about this stuff. And by 'this stuff' I don't mean misogyny, which is a different thing we should be sore about. More than sore, of course. What I'm sore about is false and/or bogus and/or irresponsible/unjustified claims to the effect that all men are misogynists.
That is bullshit.
7. There are exactly ZERO reasons to be having a conversation about that insane proposition.
The extremist web feminists in question keep insisting that those of us who refuse to give them carte blanche to tell us who we are somehow "derailing" "their" discussion--ostensibly about the Isla Vista murders.
But that discussion has nothing to do with the proposition: (A) all men are misogynists.
That discussion has to do with the proposition: (S) some men are misogynists.
If anybody is "derailing" the conversation here, it's not me/us...
Anyone really interested in the Isla Vista Murders and the problems surrounding it is not trying to talk about (A).
Anyone genuinely interested in those problems is going to be talking about (S).
If you think (A) is true, then you're a sexist. And, apparently, you are more interested in using the Isla Vista mass murder as a stalking horse to promote your pet prejudice than you are in actually talking about the real problem. If you were really interested in the problem, you wouldn't be side-tracking the conversation with this nonsense that is guaranteed to alienate every even vaguely reasonable male human being with any self-respect whatsoever.
What's crazy about this is there there was absolutely no reason for feminists to have picked this fight.
8. But...um...the point about being sore was: since I'm sore about this, I'm not at my most rational. That has to be taken into account. In this case, I'm way more like a lawyer than I am like a judge--to my shame. But if you can't overcome your biases, you can at least cop to them. So there it is.
9. I plan to go through this more carefully when I'm too wiped out to do any real work. But not now.
1. This is largely crap.
2. It's not entirely crap. Not by a long shot. But the parts I'm interested in are crap. And I'm writing this thing, so there.
3. I'm going to churlishly suggest that "Yes All Men" basically constitutes the missing link between the "NotAllMen" hashtag/meme/whatever (i.e. the systematic attempt to deny that it is permissible to challenge false generalizations about males) and the "YesAllWomen" hashtag/meme/whatever.
Told ya so.
The link seemed clear to me from the get-go.
And it's the link to the jihad against saying "not all men" that's the most salient problem with the "YesAllWomen" thing. It's the tip of the iceberg, anyway.
4. Which is not to say that it isn't true that it might not be a good thing for men to understand misogyny, internalized or otherwise. Some of us already understand it pretty well, though... So let's make sure that's on the table.
5. The problem is that "NotAllMen," "YesAllMen," and "YesAllWomen" are all sidling right up to: every man is a misogynist.
And as for that claim: speak for yourself, asshat.
In my book, that's as loathsome and patently false as "everyone is a Nazi" or "every woman is irrational" or "every Jew is greedy," or "every human is an arsonist."
6. I'm sore about this stuff right now. Well, I'm rather sore about this stuff in general. I think everybody should be sore about this stuff. And by 'this stuff' I don't mean misogyny, which is a different thing we should be sore about. More than sore, of course. What I'm sore about is false and/or bogus and/or irresponsible/unjustified claims to the effect that all men are misogynists.
That is bullshit.
7. There are exactly ZERO reasons to be having a conversation about that insane proposition.
The extremist web feminists in question keep insisting that those of us who refuse to give them carte blanche to tell us who we are somehow "derailing" "their" discussion--ostensibly about the Isla Vista murders.
But that discussion has nothing to do with the proposition: (A) all men are misogynists.
That discussion has to do with the proposition: (S) some men are misogynists.
If anybody is "derailing" the conversation here, it's not me/us...
Anyone really interested in the Isla Vista Murders and the problems surrounding it is not trying to talk about (A).
Anyone genuinely interested in those problems is going to be talking about (S).
If you think (A) is true, then you're a sexist. And, apparently, you are more interested in using the Isla Vista mass murder as a stalking horse to promote your pet prejudice than you are in actually talking about the real problem. If you were really interested in the problem, you wouldn't be side-tracking the conversation with this nonsense that is guaranteed to alienate every even vaguely reasonable male human being with any self-respect whatsoever.
What's crazy about this is there there was absolutely no reason for feminists to have picked this fight.
8. But...um...the point about being sore was: since I'm sore about this, I'm not at my most rational. That has to be taken into account. In this case, I'm way more like a lawyer than I am like a judge--to my shame. But if you can't overcome your biases, you can at least cop to them. So there it is.
9. I plan to go through this more carefully when I'm too wiped out to do any real work. But not now.
posted by Winston Smith at
11:30 AM
3 Comments:
Watching society handle a problem is like watching paint dry.
This guy starts out by declaring that everyone's got the potential to be the problem. Yup. That's true. Oh, but he doesn't mean it in the reasonable way. No, he, as with so many others like him, seems to just take it for granted that every guy has this underlying misogynist. He doesn't give any arguments for its existence, he just asserts over and over that it totally exists, and if you were honest with yourself, you'd totally know that.
It's as if he simply can't conceive of any way that others might have avoided his sins.
And because of this, he and others like him conclude that Rodger's irrational hatred of women must be some sort of socially-imposed view (I mean, how else would we explain that EVERY GUY EVER totally feels that way!?).
And all of that is exacerbated by the fact that society, of course, DOES contain misogyny, and there ARE misogynistic influences in the lives of most people.
And when these people start with the premise, often based on publicly touted personal experience (to the jubilation and approval of the masses who adore these courageous attention-seekers for acknowledging the pet theory), that every man struggles against inner misogyny demons, a culture with some misogynistic aspects quickly becomes "rape culture."
I don't know whether it's comforting or creepy how pendulum-like these discussions are, but boy does that pendulum swing.
This article in particular would seem to have one believe that any sadness or frustration one might experience on account of exclusion from a society perceived to revolve around romantic/sexual relationships must be the result of some sort of misogynistic objectification of women. There is no reasonable way to feel sorrow over the lack of a romantic partner. The only way a guy can feel miserably alone is if he is a misogynistic asshole who objectifies women and feels entitled to their attention.
Well buulll shit. BULL SHIT! I never once thought of women as objects for my pleasure, nor did I ever think that any woman must love me because of any particular thing I did. I never thought a woman was a prize to be won, nor did I think less of women on account of my social isolation. But I was sure as hell sad. Really, really, unbelievably sad.
I will admit, however, that I have long believed women to be sacred beings. But, apparently that makes me a misogynist, too, according to this toolbag. 'Cause, you see, something-something "the other" something-something "still the implication that if you treat them the right way...you will Get Girls."
Really? Is that built into your understanding of "sacred being"? Watch out, Jesus, this guy's expecting you to put out.
What shallow hogwash. These people are such morons, I can hardly stand to read this junk.
The fact is, it's hard to live alone and sad in a society that glamorizes and celebrates sex and romance to a tremendous extent. Period.
Does this require that the sad person be a misogynist? No. Does Elliot Rodger somehow represent this problem? I thought he might, but even a cursory glance at the situation yeilds the undeniable answer: No.
Elliot Rodger does, however, represent a whole mess of problems that can be used to "explain" the sadness and frustration of exclusion from romance and sex if you're after that sort of thing, though.
I think you are absolutely right.
Especially:
"This article in particular would seem to have one believe that any sadness or frustration one might experience on account of exclusion from a society perceived to revolve around romantic/sexual relationships must be the result of some sort of misogynistic objectification of women. There is no reasonable way to feel sorrow over the lack of a romantic partner. The only way a guy can feel miserably alone is if he is a misogynistic asshole who objectifies women and feels entitled to their attention."
Right there with you. I went through some pretty lonely and loveless periods in my early life. I was damn down about it, too. Furthermore, I was resentful that I had to see a lot of douchebags being extremely successful in the relevant respects. But I never, ever felt the kinds of feelings nor thought the kinds of thoughts that are being attributed to me--and every other male.
Among the many things that piss me off about all this is that I *don't* have the characteristics being attributed to all men; many times in my early life I saw guys who *did* have those reprehensible characteristics be a *lot* more successful with women than I was, *AND* now I'm supposed to lavish agreement on people who are falsely saying that I'm like the douchebags...
You know, I'm just not going to to do that.
I'm just not--as it were--giving in to the man on this one.
And I'm pretty sick of liberals--men and women--giving in on these points. Conservative points that are this stupid would be laughed out of the room by liberals. And yet we're not only supposed to take them seriously, if we even have the temerity to *question* them we're committing NOTALLMENZOMG.
> Really? Is that built into your understanding of "sacred being"? Watch out, Jesus, this guy's expecting you to put out.
Heh heh...also funny
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home