It has nothing to do with superiority or inferiority. As far as I know, there is no code against hitting subordinates or employees or friends on the lower end of the social scale - at least, no more so than there is against hitting any other random person.

There is an idea that hitting people at an obvious physical disadvantage against you is wrong. For young to middle aged men, this includes women, children, the elderly, and the disabled. Sure, there are potentially sexist elements mixed in with this - it is more wrong to hit a six foot four female track athlete than it is to hit a skinny guy with a caved in chest who can’t lift a ten pound dumbbell without flopping like a fish - but worse injustices, I can think of many. I think this code, as it were, does more good to society than bad.

—Myca

I never saw this question back in April, sorry.

I think the idea that one (masculine) hits one’s peers, but not one’s inferiors, is one we should do away with — however, the fact that it marks out women as inferiors is an important thing to recognize. (Just as a male-only draft marks out women as inferiors.)

I prefer the idea that “one (masculine or feminine) should hit no one.”

About the UU-dating issue… I’d say that in general, feminist women who prefer traditionally masculine men are the flipside of the liberal misogynist male. Both are completely full of shit. These are faults in personality more than symptoms of any sort of oppression, though.

We all know many chip-in-shoulder ‘nice guys’ who blame women for their own lack of confidence, but careful with the generalizations concerning ‘nice guys’ in general. It’s a gross oversimplification to suggest that the average ‘nice guy’ - air-quoted or no - is as misogynistic as your average non-nice fucko.

I see this as important because dating and relationships is that most personal area where you must really put your money where your mouth is. To segue into an unrelated area I care more about, anyone who says all the right things, expresses all the right sympathies, and writes all the right essays in high school humanities classes but nonetheless cannot see themselves dating anyone of a particular race, is a racist. (Assuming, of course, that the issue is not parental approval or reputation but rather those all-encompassing ‘personal preferences’.) The subjugation of any race always begins with sexualization, whether de-, over-, or both.

That really wasn’t intentional. It’s been a long week :/

*LAUGH*

I didn’t assume it was, goodness knows we could all use some rest.

—Myca

# Myca Writes:
Ah, okay, cool, sorry.

# defenestrated Writes:
Myca - ah, ok, it’s much clearer with the two parts separate.

That really wasn’t intentional. It’s been a long week :/

I think it’s sort of a ’suspicious until proven innocent’ kind of thing when discussing how PHMT, or at least in my mind it should be - by which I mean, I know that some do just jump to ‘guilty,’ which as Amp says is understandable, but not helpful. Since the vast majority of the time feminists hear such arguments coming from men the conclusion or point is anti-feminist, there’s an extra burden on the men who sincerely want to dismantle the patriarchy to make that position clear when such a topic is brought up.

Amp and Myca have reams and reams of posts/comments backing up their good intentions, so at least to me there isn’t a question of motive when they talk about PHingMT. I guess it’s not that the burden isn’t there for them, it’s just that for the purposes of my personal opinion, this nebulous burden has been met. Myca, that’s part of the reasoning behind the bit about knowing when it’s not coming from malice or disrespect in my earlier comment. It might not have been totally clear from what I wrote - and I don’t feel like scrolling up to examine it - but I know that ostensibly Nice Guy™ brand thinking can come from genuinely nice, well-intentioned guys (or women), and such thinking doesn’t by itself change my view of them. It’s just that I’m still going to point out the parallels between their words and the less respectful incarnations of those words.

Amp says,

I think that a major part of the reason so many feminists have a knee-jerk reaction to men talking about how patriarchy harms men is because of guys looking to women (or to feminism) to solve their problems. [snip] I’m not looking for women to solve my problems, for example - far from it, I’ve always felt that men have to become feminists so that women aren’t the only ones fighting the gender system. But when I post about the way patriarchy harms men, I inevitably get at least a couple of comments along the lines of Rachel’s comment #8 on this thread: “This is bordering on the men’s pity party…. Is this Amp or Daran?”

Thing is, the guys who are most likely to be ok with being ’suspicious until proven innocent’ in these discussions are also most likely to already be accustomed to the idea of being seen that way and do make an effort to be clear that they’re coming from a pro-feminist position (by, say, running a pro-feminist blog for years or something). I can certainly understand that that would then make it even more frustrating when the response treats them as MRAs. It’s one of those times when having an anti-patriarchy certification board or something would come in handy, so people could just whip out a card ;D

There’s a good bit of you/they switching in this comment, and quite possibly some atrociously unclear grammar, so apologies in advance about any confusion.

Hey Myca, I knew as soon as I posted that I’d used “you” wrongly. Mine was a more universal “you” and did not mean you specifically. Sorry for being unclear.

Ah, okay, cool, sorry.

For me the ultimate example of that is MRAs who demand that domestic violence shelters take resources away from female victims in order to devote more resources to helping male victims.

Right, that’s actually something I was going to specifically address, because it’s such a freaking ridiculous demand, but I ended up folding it in to the bit where I said that I believe that the hugely overwhelming majority of funding and concrete action and activism should go to women.

Heck, I think in terms of ‘people helped’ if it came down to it and resources were limited enough, it might make more sense to ONLY fund woman-only clinics . . . I just care about people getting help, and if that will help more people, then that’s that. I just don’t think that it’s necessary to also talk shit about the abused men.

—Myca

Did you ever stop to think that he gets that response because he’s looking for women to solve his problem?

I think that a major part of the reason so many feminists have a knee-jerk reaction to men talking about how patriarchy harms men is because of guys looking to women (or to feminism) to solve their problems. For me the ultimate example of that is MRAs who demand that domestic violence shelters take resources away from female victims in order to devote more resources to helping male victims.

So to that extent, I think you’re right.

But I also think that, as Myca says, men who do no such thing also get the same knee-jerk reaction. That’s understandable, but it’s still wrong.

I’m not looking for women to solve my problems, for example - far from it, I’ve always felt that men have to become feminists so that women aren’t the only ones fighting the gender system. But when I post about the way patriarchy harms men, I inevitably get at least a couple of comments along the lines of Rachel’s comment #8 on this thread: “This is bordering on the men’s pity party…. Is this Amp or Daran?”

That’s by no means the only reaction I get, of course. But it’s pretty much always one of the reactions I get.

So quit bitching about feminism. Get of your keister and get angry at the patriarchy. Getting angry at feminism because the patriarchy hurt you is childish. And selfish.

Ahh, I see, you think I’m angry at feminism. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

I’m angry at insensitive people who minimize the suffering of people who are not like them, whether that’s you trying to explain how transfolk don’t count for some reason or another or someone else posting about how abused kids had it coming because they’re men.

I believe in feminism, I just don’t think that this is part of it.

Did you ever stop to think that he gets that response because he’s looking for women to solve his problem?

No, sorry, this is one time you’ll have to look beyond your blinders and assumptions.

I’m talking about men who post about how the patriarchy hurts them and get told, “well, I don’t care how the patriarchy hurts you, because blah blah blah . . .”

Actually, I even posted specifically that I wasn’t talking about ‘fixing’ the issue, but rather the freeform hostility and insults that crop up almost any time a guy says “Hey, this happened, and it really sucks.”

It’s interesting that your response was actually addressed in my original post.

Of course, I’m not surprised that you responded the way you did. Have fun rereading!

What bugs me, though, is that in many situations, when a man brings up an instance of the patriarchy harming him, whether it’s a boy who’s been bullied or sexually molested, or a man who feels like his ability to express emotion has been systematically crushed, or a man who feels like he’s been told incessantly that he’s less of a man because he doesn’t make much money or because he’s not good at sports or whatever the hell it is . . . almost inevitably there will be someone who comments with a “I don’t care. You’re a man. Fuck off,” kind of comment.

Did you ever stop to think that he gets that response because he’s looking for women to solve his problem? If he’s hurt by the patriarchy, he can buck it up like the feminists do, and start fighting it himself. Feminism isn’t here to cure the harm that the patriarchy does to men. In fact, feminism points out that it has historically been women who nurse these particular wounds in men and were damn sick of men needing nursing and then once they’re better they go on participating in and benefiting from the damn patriarchy.

So quit bitching about feminism. Get of your keister and get angry at the patriarchy. Getting angry at feminism because the patriarchy hurt you is childish. And selfish.

First off, realize that I didn’t write the quoted portion. it was written by a woman I used to live with, Sharon Colligan, who’s spent a lot of time in UU circles . . . so it’s absolutely not an analysis coming from a man. Not that that means it’s absolutely right or anything, but just don’t assume that this analysis comes from “The men they don’t date.”

You can actually find her entire thing here: http://www.circlemaker.org/cdt.html

The portion immediately before the part I posted earlier:

I went to lunch one Sunday after services with about fifteen young adults. Several were first-time visitors; most were not raised UU. Just a group of young adults interested in liberal religion. Since there were so many strangers, the leader tried to keep the check-in simple: say your name, and maybe something about your name. People all said how they had gotten their name, how their parents or sometimes they themselves had chosen it. After we had gone around the table, I made a mental count and realized that fully half the group had made reference to feminism in their naming story. “My first name is actually my grandmother’s maiden name; my parents didn’t want it to be forgotten.” “My name sounds like a boy’s name, but actually it’s a woman from the Bible. People say she’s portrayed as bad, because, well, she killed a lot of men. But I think she’s a really strong woman.” “My name is Mark, but it was really supposed to be Martha. My parents really wanted a girl.” “My mother named me after a woman she admired. My father didn’t get much say in the matter.” “I read this [feminist] science fiction novel, and it changed my life. I named myself after one of the characters in it.” No one else commented on this or seemed to find it remarkable. It was a profound symbol to me of the impact of feminist culture on our lives.

Second, the second bit of my post wasn’t a direct reference to the first. Sweet God I don’t consider “she won’t date me” a form of harm or oppression! It was more in reference to the personality clash issue I posted on earlier, where I do see people posting on actual, specific harms and have watched time and time and fucking TIME again as they get insulted and dismissed. Hell, a while back, we actually had a fairly well respected feminist web person explain that she didn’t give a shit about male victims of child abuse, because “hey, they’re men, it’s not my job.” My point was that it’s pretty free to say “Wow, that’s awful,” and if you not only don’t say that, but go out of your way to explain how you don’t care, I think that there’s probably something wrong with you.

Third, yes, the vast majority of people who publicly wear the aggrieved ‘nice guy’ mantle are full of shit misogynists, but I also think that you’re assuming negative intent where none is necessary. Sharon’s passage wasn’t about how these guys deserve to be dated or anything, it’s about how men who are worried about their own power, and who try as hard as they can to avoid abusing it, can be left in a weird social situation when dealing with women who are encouraged to seize their power. It’s the personality conflict I talked about in post #85, in other words.

I can totally see how you would conflate the two parts of my post and think it was a whiny “why, oh WHY won’t people date meeeee” post, but I promise you, it wasn’t. Read the two parts separately.

The young men, on the other hand, are people who were told to control themselves, to be careful not to hurt anyone, to remember that sex and power are not entitlements. They were taught to be nice.

Supportive, cooperative, helpful.

The thing with these lessons is that they tend to result in not getting everything one wants. So, the flip side of expecting sympathy when not in possession of everything one wants is that it includes or comes off as expecting a dispensation from ‘remember[ing] that sex and power are not entitlements.’

Yeah, that probably reads as snarkier, which it’s not really meant to be. It’s definitely shorter, though.

So, for example, if a young UU man likes a young UU woman, what he does is he goes over to her and tries really hard to be harmless. He doesn’t want to oppress anyone by expressing interest or desire, so he just hangs around and acts cooperative. The more he wants her to like him, the more submissive he acts. Not surprisingly, the young UU women find this boring, frustrating, incomprehensible, and just not sexy. He doesn’t understand why this doesn’t work, or why all the young UU women are off dating “bad” men instead of “nice” men like himself.

Myca, I think that in this particular instance, there’s something to be said for having had the experience of living on the opposite end of it. There’s a reason that there’s a Nice Guy ™ moniker, and it’s not because women don’t dig actual kindness.

From the young UU woman’s perspective, there’s this guy hanging around her (or, more likely, multiple guys doing the exact same thing), pretending to only be interested in friendship when, from your description of the situation, it’s clear that his interest doesn’t end there. Even if the attraction is painfully obvious, since it’s never stated the woman can’t very well come right out and turn the guy down for something he hasn’t asked for. If she does, trust me, she’ll get torn to pieces for being so full of herself (after which the guy will probably resume the kicked puppy pose).

The specific male quandary you’ve described stems from a belief that by hanging around and being “nice,” a man is entitled to female affection. I have a lot of sympathy for a lot of situations that hit men, but being upset by not getting what they won’t ask for (and will thus often try to extract through manipulation, like pretending to be a friend when the friendship is treated as a tedious and insulting means to something else) isn’t one of them. Also, many - by no means all, but enough to make it a more than reasonable concern - of the kinds of guys who make this particular kind of complaint are only a step or two a way from outright stalking the object of their desire. The use of the word ‘object’ isn’t accidental.

I sympathize with the frustration and confusion, but that’s not the same as sympathizing with the reasoning behind the complaint. When I hear one of my own male friends voicing these kinds of concerns (or other anti-feminist thoughts that since we’re friends I know don’t come from malice or any intentional disrespect) I’m happy to help him see the opposite side of his experience and understand why things are that way. What I won’t do is agree that he gets to complain that his female friends aren’t all over him for being so cooperative and friendly. Especially if it comes along with a blanket disparagement of the judgment and tastes of said women (who says the men they date are “bad”? The men they don’t date? Is there a bias there?).

That doesn’t make me an unempathetic person. It makes me a person who knows that to actually relieve this form of “harm” against men without them changing their own behavior would have to mean taking the right to choose one’s own partners away from women. It’s empathy that makes me more interested in pointing out and clarifying the communication disconnect than commiserating about how selfish these independent women are for not being available for every man’s every whim. It’s also empathy that makes me understand that the situation you describe is also difficult for the woman involved, and likely provokes a (well-founded) fear that the man in the equation probably hasn’t faced, and usually doesn’t register.