Why "Yes, But" Is The Wrong Response to Misogyny

Priori

After having read this article, I must say while I don't disagree with the points made (which basically boil down to "don't change the subject when misogyny is pointed out, as it trivializes it"), I have to say, the reading of it wasn't particularly pleasant, and not because I feel I'm in the guilty camp.

The style feels overbearing and unnecessarily aggressive, as if it assumes its readers are wrong-headed and need correcting. That style really irritates me, irrespective of whatever issue is being discussed. I actually did end up feeling like saying "Yes, But" by the end of it, but only because of her 'shove-this-down-your-throat-and-don't-forget-it" style.

So I guess I have a couple of questions for the guys here:

1. If you've read the article, how did it affect you?
2. Have you seen the kind of carry-on she's talkig about on boards before? And if so, do you feel the kind of users that condone misogyny in this way would be in any way swayed by her article? As I can only assume these are the men she wishes to address.

Logical Fallacy

I've noticed a lot of very aggressive tones in articles aimed at men online tbh.

Can't say as i think it's going to work beyond having all the people who usually like a person's article liking it, which is basically preaching to the choir.

The simple fact is that any "yes, but..." that is offered should simply be debated on it's own merits within the context of the argument as opposed to simple shut down.

You don't change people's minds by telling them to change their minds, you change people's minds by engaging them in discussion and using logical and reasoned debate to argue your points...often times using examples like "yes, but" which will be offered by the very people who minds you want to change.

Basically i get the feeling a lot of people want to change the world but don't quite understand that doing so takes time, effort and the engagement of the people you disagree with.

Are you people serious.

That article is in no way aggressive.
It is not dismissive.
It extensively details common reactions and counters them reasonably and logically. It says "please speak out if you feel it wasn't misogyny". It says "please save certain points for separate discussions, because they are indeed worthwhile discussions on their own merits".
It says "But I’ve certainly seen accusations of misogyny or sexism that I thought were bull****. (Porn wars, anybody?) And I don’t expect people of any gender to just silently accept any and all of these accusations without question."

If you call that aggressive, suggest she is not being logical, doesn't understand, I just genuinely wonder...

The Corinthian

I don't think it's overly aggressive, but I do think it hypocritical. If you don't believe me do a search on the blog for the word 'misandry'; two entries, both pretty dismissive of it and one even turning it into a game.

So my attitude to such an author is "why should I waste my time listening to your views when you appear to have such contempt for the views of others?"

smallBiscuit

Yes but ..

I'd agree on the don't change the subject, except, a lot of those yes buts are not changing the subject, they are responses. They are trying to start up an informed debate. What I'm getting from that article is 'We are going to talk about misogyny, and that's it, not else matters, and you are not to respond except to agree with whatever I say'

I often feel that a lot of speakers like Greta are ignoring the whole picture.

Was that example of the 15 year old an example of misogyny. Yes definitely, was it wrong and should it be stopped, yes. But ...... How?

Note what I'm saying below is not for ALL, it is a portion of the group (men and women), it is not all

I think a number of these examples, and the one I'm thinking of was from a few years ago, when an online chat room found out one of the chatters was a girl and turned on her (can't remember details) are missing details, often crucial details. What for example was the ages of the respondents. Because lets be honest (and I'm not excusing here) (see my note above) teenagers are assholes, and clueless.
You cannot decide the fate of humanity based on the ignorant, rude and stupid rantings of teenagers. They tend to be impulsive and ill informed and they also have a great tendency to follow the herd. One asshole attacks, the rest follow.


As an aside, why am I seeing a lot of talk on misogyny lately?

The Corinthian

The Corinthian wrote: »

I don't think it's overly aggressive, but I do think it hypocritical. If you don't believe me do a search on the blog for the word 'misandry'; two entries, both pretty dismissive of it and one even turning it into a game.

So my attitude to such an author is "why should I waste my time listening to your views when you appear to have such contempt for the views of others?"

Because they make sense on their own merit?
I note with amusement one of the early points was "“Yes, but… the woman/ women in question didn’t behave absolutely perfectly in all respects. Why aren’t we talking about that?”"

Priori

bluewolf wrote:

... I just genuinely wonder...

I'm fairly sure I know what you're genuinely wondering about, but:

Please just say, “That is terrible. That is completely unacceptable... That is not how civilized human beings treat one another. Anyone who did that owes that girl the most groveling apology in their repertoire. If they don’t make an apology in the next six nanoseconds, they ought to be shunned..."

Period.

Stop there.

Do not say “Yes, but…"

I genuinely wonder how somebody could read through the above without feeling it is aggressive. I think her points are valid and logical, and clear-cut to the point that they don't require much in the way of argumentation. Her style however is such that it comes across, to me at least, as aggressive.

Anybody who argues their point in the above style deserves to come in for criticism. It's the simple shut-down nature of it, as pointed out by Logical Fallacy, that I take issue with. It's not open. It's a case of 'if you're not with me, you're with them'. That won't help her cause in my opinion.

Standman

I think she makes a fairly straightforward point, if someone calls out some blatant misogyny then don't go making excuses or muddying the waters. What's controversial about that??

Priori

Priori wrote: »

I'm fairly sure I know what you're genuinely wondering about, but:



I genuinely wonder how somebody could read through the above without feeling it is aggressive. I think her points are valid and logical, and clear-cut to the point that they don't require much in the way of argumentation. Her style however is such that it comes across, to me at least, as aggressive.

Anybody who argues their point in the above style deserves to come in for criticism. It's the simple shut-down nature of it, as pointed out by Logical Fallacy, that I take issue with. It's not open. It's a case of 'if you're not with me, you're with them'. That won't help her cause in my opinion.

Taken in context of the rest of the article, I don't feel it's remotely aggressive.
There are a lot of articles I could find condescending, dismissive, aggressive, etc - but this is not one of them. "Please just make your point without adding 'yes but'" is the premise of the whole article, and she says in your quote once, politely. With the usual "period, stop there" for emphasis.
She already goes to lengths to say that many of the points could be valid, that people shouldn't just shut up and put up if it's not misogyny in the first place. She's already gone to great lengths to explain why you shouldn't say "yes but" before finally saying that.

eoferrall

the article annoys me as it is a thinly disguised rant in my view, but the main bug bear I have is that her example to me is not misogyny but pure sexism and bullying.

My understanding is misogyny is the hatred of women and so someone who dislikes someone simply for being a woman or disregards them for simply being a woman.

Logical Fallacy

bluewolf wrote: »

Are you people serious.

That article is in no way aggressive.
It is not dismissive.
It extensively details common reactions and counters them reasonably and logically. It says "please speak out if you feel it wasn't misogyny". It says "please save certain points for separate discussions, because they are indeed worthwhile discussions on their own merits".
It says "But I’ve certainly seen accusations of misogyny or sexism that I thought were bull****. (Porn wars, anybody?) And I don’t expect people of any gender to just silently accept any and all of these accusations without question."

If you call that aggressive, suggest she is not being logical, doesn't understand, I just genuinely wonder...

Apologies , my comment was about articles that i view as being aggressive in general, as opposed to this article specifically.

I really should have been more clear.

Logical Fallacy

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

Apologies , my comment was about articles that i view as being aggressive in general, as opposed to this article specifically.

I really should have been more clear.

Fair enough, I was surprised at you calling this one aggressive

Logical Fallacy

bluewolf wrote: »

Fair enough, I was surprised at you calling this one aggressive

Yeah, i just re-read my post and realised i didn't put in a single qualifier...haven't been sleeping much lately so my brain is slightly slow.

First two lines are general comments, the later bit is why i like the article.

Maguined

Standman wrote: »

I think she makes a fairly straightforward point, if someone calls out some blatant misogyny then don't go making excuses or muddying the waters. What's controversial about that??

Because "blatant misogyny" is rarely a given in these debates, sexism like most things in life is a matter of personal opinion so it is only natural some people will disagree and so utter the dreaded "yes, but ...".

The Corinthian

bluewolf wrote: »

Because they make sense on their own merit?

Then let someone who is not a hypocrite make such points - it's like expecting us to take seriously points on political ethics from Bertie Ahern.

I note with amusement one of the early points was "“Yes, but… the woman/ women in question didn’t behave absolutely perfectly in all respects. Why aren’t we talking about that?”"

I don't know about you, but that is actually a valid point. For example, I remember an African exchange student back in college, many years ago, who was repeatedly caught pinching people's money that they'd put down on the pool tables. When caught, he would invariably accuse others of 'racism' despite the fact that he had been caught red handed stealing.

As with him, negative comments or attitudes towards particular women may indeed have nothing to do with misogyny, but with the fact that the woman in question is simply an asshole.

This is what is additionally disingenuous about the article, because while it begins with some valid points, it also lumps in very dubious ones that are unlikely to have anything to do with gender, let alone misogyny, at all.

And, as Maguined pointed out, one person's definition of misogyny will differ from another's. Even in Feminism, there appears to be a lack of consensus on whether a man opening a door for a woman qualifies as such; thus there will be disagreement.

The author's article seems to complain that their definition of misogyny is not simply accepted as fact. How dare they disagree?

So even if some of the points given have merit, that does not mean that we should blindly accept them all, which is what the author is arguing we should be doing.

The Corinthian

The Corinthian wrote: »

The author's article seems to complain that their definition of misogyny is not simply accepted as fact. How dare they disagree?

So even if some of the points given have merit, that does not mean that we should blindly accept them all, which is what the author is arguing we should be doing.

It absolutely does not.
As I've pointed out already.

Now. If an instance of misogyny is being discussed, and you genuinely don’t think that the instance really was misogynistic or sexist… by all means, say so.
I’ve certainly seen accusations of misogyny or sexism that I thought were bull****. (Porn wars, anybody?) And I don’t expect people of any gender to just silently accept any and all of these accusations without question.

18AD

Is this just about to go meta?

Is "yes, but..." the wrong response to misogyny? Yes, but...

We need to go deeper.

The Corinthian

bluewolf wrote: »

It absolutely does not.
As I've pointed out already.

Pity the author does not actually practice what they preach though, as with the "Yes, but..." I responded to in my previous post.

The Corinthian

The Corinthian wrote: »

Pity the author does not actually practice what they preach though, as with the "Yes, but..." I responded to in my previous post.

So we're back to attacks on the author and not the article now?

ok

The Corinthian

bluewolf wrote: »

So we're back to attacks on the author and not the article now?

I'm specifically citing the article; they dismiss the "Yes, but… the woman/ women in question didn’t behave absolutely perfectly in all respects" argument, which as I pointed out could well show that it is not a question of misogyny, then say that valid objections are OK, despite having already dismissed one.

psicic

Is this article a debate about misogyny or humour?

Let me first say that I'm sure I come across as very misogynist in a lot of ways, especially to feminists.

I've been constantly confused by these feminist/humanist/athetist blogs - the ones which try to be all three - which I've only stumbled onto and read thanks to links from boards. I've always had the nagging feeling that such blogs are part of the internet that aren't meant for me and I was never supposed to experience. They all seem so... err.... "American" in outlook.

I mean, I didn't get the big problem with Rebecca Watson being asked for 'coffee' after she gave a talk on women being objectified. I thought it wasn't something I'd do, but it was a hilariously Irish thing to do. I certainly wouldn't regard that as misogynistic, and I would and did ask "Yes but why is it so terrible to ask a woman for coffee in a hotel elevator at four in the morning?"

Apparantly I'm one of the targets of this article, then.

In that respect, the article annoys me. It is manipulative - it seems to be saying, we can discuss misogyny only in conversations with specific parameters. We, as men, cannot explore whether something is actually mysogynistic or not. Hell, there is so much debate even amongst feminists over what 'mysogynistic' actually means when it's used by someone, the article is basically a supposition by the author that they are an authority on the use of the term. The weasely way she then says in the article that if something isn't misogynistic then say so - how can we establish this without debate.... and does context play a role or not? It seems to me in the author's mind it's black and white with no grey areas at all.

Now, I will say that the article has made me think a little more - especially about context. When I went and read up about the responses to the 15 year old girl holding a book, my first reaction was "school yard humour" mixed with typical internet bullying. I mean, it is exactly the same thing that used to go on in our school yard when I was younger - if anyone stood out there'd be jokes made, you'd probably call it bullying if it went too far, and then people would move on. Likewise, if there was something you knew you weren't supposed to do, it made it all the more exciting to try. Initally, for the Reddit posts, my reaction was "Isn't this an extension of the whole 'there are no women on the internet meme' mixed with a healthy dose of deliberately bucking social mores?"

I did, though, start to wonder if it was more than that. Would I characterise it the same way if racism was involved? Did people actually mean what they said? I mean, I've seen some of the 4Chan posts about the shape of plugs in different countries and the passionate arguments each way about it... thought they were funny... don't think that makes me 'plugist'. Or when people post up pictures of their 'fantastic' computer set-ups and are berated for 40 pages for including a Macbook from the 90s, I'm not sure too many people are serious about the Apple-Jihad.

To answer the second question in the Op: I have seen some misogyny on boards, depending on your definition of misogyny... the 'you laugh, you lose' thread - which I generally love and check daily - rehashes a lot of memes and 'misogynist' content. The jokes that constantly surface on after hours - is 'yore ma' misogynistic? Hell, wasn't there a conversation once about whether it was okay to grab a girls arse in a pub, with some people, seemingly unironically, saying yes? And there, again, it mostly comes back to humour.

And I have read some posts by women about women that, if they came from a man I would easily categorise as 'misogynistic' - but would find it much harder to do so knowing the context.

amacachi

I agree with the article, all men, especially atheists are exactly like the people who picked on that girl on reddit. Hell I was involved in a discussion elsewhere where everyone agreed it was her fault.

MagicMarker

amacachi wrote: »

all men, especially atheists are exactly like the people who picked on that girl on reddit.

Just, no.

MagicMarker

eoferrall wrote: »

but the main bug bear I have is that her example to me is not misogyny but pure sexism and bullying.

I have to agree with this tbh, misogyny seems to be a term used rather loosely by some folk. Any attractive woman who posts a picture of herself on after hours for instance would get similar sexualized responses, although maybe not some of the more violent stuff mentioned in that article.

A bunch of idiots saying crap on the internet does not a misogynist make.

amacachi

MagicMarker wrote: »

Just, no.

Sarcasm alert.

MagicMarker

amacachi wrote: »

Sarcasm alert.

DublinWriter

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MzDK70zO-Eo

'nuff said. To ensure order will be restored in the morning, send her a bunch of flowers, a tub of Hagen Dazs and a DVD of Pretty Woman.

deirdre_dub

I think the big point that is missing from this debate is the emotional aspects of the subject being discussed.

Misogyny is a hugely emotive subject for those affected by it. And, when dealing with that level of emotion, care, time, patience, empathy etc are needed in bucketloads.

"Yes, but" brings the debate away from that level where the emotive aspects of the subject can be dealt with.

To give an example of what I'm talking about that we may all be able to relate to. Let's imagine that we are discussing the death of a grandmother that was close to your heart. You are in the throes of mourning her, missing her, and your friend says "yes, but she had a long life". Is your friend correct? Yes. Is your friend helpful? Most definitely not. What has your friend done to the conversation, and to the healing that was occurring during it? Killed it! It is completely beside the point that she had a long life.

It's really difficult to be in the company of someone who is mourning, just as it is really difficult to be in the company of someone who is trying to express their hurt around an issue where you are in the group of people who not only isn't affected by the issue, but is actually being "blamed" on some level for it. FWIW it is still less difficult for you than it is for the person who is talking about the issue. A lot of time, space, slowness, and true listening is needed. "Yes, but" is the antithesis of all that.

The other big issue that isn't being addressed is - how do you deal with the fact that you are in the group of people who are being "blamed" on some level. I believe the answer is to really educate yourself as to what is actually going on, and to be completely honest about where you are, in fact, part of the problem. Let's face it - none of us are perfect. I'm sitting in a warm apartment, in the middle of a polluting city, with tons of food in my refrigerator, using products that were produced by what amounts to slave labour. These are the facts. Within the past hour, I muted the television when an ad for starving children came on. Do I feel guilty? On some level, yes, but on another, I believe I'm doing my best with the understanding of the issues that I have. I shop for fairtrade where I can, I educate myself about companies who use slave labour etc etc etc.

Sonics2k

I find it quite amusing that she's complaining about people saying "Yes, but", when I've encountered people using the exact same thing when discussing male issues.

On another recent thread I brought up the issue of men being sexually assaulted, and was greeted with "Yes, but it happens more to women", or when I spoke about men also being sexualised in the media, I was answered with "Yes, but it happens to women more!".

Apparently this makes it more acceptable if it happens to someone else more.

yawha

The Corinthian wrote: »

Then let someone who is not a hypocrite make such points - it's like expecting us to take seriously points on political ethics from Bertie Ahern.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque

yawha

The Corinthian wrote: »

This is what is additionally disingenuous about the article, because while it begins with some valid points, it also lumps in very dubious ones that are unlikely to have anything to do with gender, let alone misogyny, at all.

And, as Maguined pointed out, one person's definition of misogyny will differ from another's. Even in Feminism, there appears to be a lack of consensus on whether a man opening a door for a woman qualifies as such; thus there will be disagreement.

The author's article seems to complain that their definition of misogyny is not simply accepted as fact. How dare they disagree?

So even if some of the points given have merit, that does not mean that we should blindly accept them all, which is what the author is arguing we should be doing.

Yes, that's exactly what the author is arguing.

Now. If an instance of misogyny is being discussed, and you genuinely don’t think that the instance really was misogynistic or sexist… by all means, say so. I’d advise you to listen very carefully first, and to think very carefully, and to consider the possibility that women might know some things about misogyny that you don’t, and to choose your words and ideas very carefully indeed. But I’ve certainly seen accusations of misogyny or sexism that I thought were bull****. (Porn wars, anybody?) And I don’t expect people of any gender to just silently accept any and all of these accusations without question.

That’s not what I’m saying. I’m saying that, when an instance of misogyny is being discussed, and you don’t disagree in the slightest that it really was misogyny? When an instance of misogyny is being discussed, and it would be obvious to anyone but a sociopathic hyena on meth that it really was misogyny? When — oh, just for example — a freaking 15-year-old girl posts a picture of herself with a book by Carl Sagan to an online atheist community, and gets targeted with a barrage of sexualized, dehumanizing, increasingly violent and brutal comments, including threats of blood-soaked anal rape?

Please, for the sweet love of Loki and all the gods in Valhalla, when someone points out how terrible and misogynistic that is, do not change the subject.

The author is saying not to change the subject when you genuinely agree with something being called sexist or misogynistic. That's all.

amacachi

Saying "Yes but it happens to males too" is apparently missing the point. It isn't though, making a comparison is perfectly valid because misogyny is a "gender" issue, so showing that it applies to the other gender as well disproves a point. Pretty inconvenient.

It's getting a bit off-topic but my sister freely admits that the year she spent in a "boys" school was the best of any, the slagging that went on was unreal. All the lads reading this will recognise it, many will have been on the wrong end of it. Point is that most fellas grow up giving and taking way more "verbal abuse" than any woman will take in a lifetime, so offence being taken to a lazy comeback seems, tbh, pretty lazy.

yawha

amacachi wrote: »

Saying "Yes but it happens to males too" is apparently missing the point. It isn't though, making a comparison is perfectly valid because misogyny is a "gender" issue, so showing that it applies to the other gender as well disproves a point. Pretty inconvenient.

It's getting a bit off-topic but my sister freely admits that the year she spent in a "boys" school was the best of any, the slagging that went on was unreal. All the lads reading this will recognise it, many will have been on the wrong end of it. Point is that most fellas grow up giving and taking way more "verbal abuse" than any woman will take in a lifetime, so offence being taken to a lazy comeback seems, tbh, pretty lazy.

Again, the point was not to change the subject. If someone said something like "girls have a much harder time with verbal abuse in school", then you would be justified in pointing out that it's not specifically a gender issue. However, if someone commented on something like, for example, women receiving threatening sexual comments, that is a separate issue to verbal abuse guys might receive in school, because although both are tenuously related in that they both involve verbal abuse, they involve completely different contexts, settings and intents. Ultimately, I think the point is that it's not some competition to outdo the other gender in terms of victimhood. We should acknowledge the issues that the opposite sex faces without trying to draw parallels with some vaguely similar issue that our sex faces.

Of course, it works the other way around too. If someone mentions the high number of assaults on young males, for example, one should not reply by mentioning that many women get raped.

Maguined

deirdre_dub wrote: »

I think the big point that is missing from this debate is the emotional aspects of the subject being discussed.

Misogyny is a hugely emotive subject for those affected by it. And, when dealing with that level of emotion, care, time, patience, empathy etc are needed in bucketloads.

Most debates revolve around emotive topics surely? Whenever I debate something that is emotive to me I don't expect others to tip toe around my emotions as if it is too much for me I simply won't enter into a debate as the entire point of a debate to me is to discuss things rationally and logically, if I want to discuss things in an emotion based way I will call up my friends and talk to them not enter a debate on the internet with random people.

I don't think your mourning comparison is good, talking to someone in mourning is not a debate and do you don't treat it like one just as debating on the internet is not empathising with someone's grief so I don't treat it as such either, the two are not comparable as they are entirely different situations.

deirdre_dub

amacachi wrote: »

Saying "Yes but it happens to males too" is apparently missing the point. It isn't though, making a comparison is perfectly valid because misogyny is a "gender" issue, so showing that it applies to the other gender as well disproves a point. Pretty inconvenient.

Grief is something that happens to all of us. If you are in the company of someone who is grieving, it isn't always the best thing to say "yes, but I'm missing my aunt too".

so offence being taken to a lazy comeback seems, tbh, pretty lazy.

There is more going on here than just a lazy comeback - it has to do with respecting where the other person is in the moment.

deirdre_dub

Maguined wrote: »

Most debates revolve around emotive topics surely? Whenever I debate something that is emotive to me I don't expect others to tip toe around my emotions as if it is too much for me

It isn't a case of tip-toeing around the emotions - it is a case of allowing space for those emotions to occur.

I simply won't enter into a debate as the entire point of a debate to me is to discuss things rationally and logically, if I want to discuss things in an emotion based way I will call up my friends and talk to them not enter a debate on the internet with random people.

Um - did you not just say that most debates have an emotional content?

I don't think your mourning comparison is good, talking to someone in mourning is not a debate and do you don't treat it like one just as debating on the internet is not empathising with someone's grief so I don't treat it as such either, the two are not comparable as they are entirely different situations.

It takes an awful lot of effort to get to a place where a topic as emotive as, say, mysogyny can be debated in a detached way by someone who is a victim of same.

To give another example - how would you debate the issues around clerical sexual abuse with someone who is a victim of such abuse? Would you say to them "sorry - this is too emotive for you - I'm not going to engage with you"? Would you say "yes, but ..."? Or would you sit down, take a deep breath, listen carefully, and support the person as best you can?

Fear Uladh

http://www.feministe.us

:rolleyes:

Basically the article reads as "shut up and don't argue with us".

Daftendirekt

Fear Uladh wrote: »

:rolleyes:

Basically the article reads as "shut up and don't argue with us".

It really doesn't.

amacachi

yawha wrote: »

Again, the point was not to change the subject. If someone said something like "girls have a much harder time with verbal abuse in school", then you would be justified in pointing out that it's not specifically a gender issue. However, if someone commented on something like, for example, women receiving threatening sexual comments, that is a separate issue to verbal abuse guys might receive in school, because although both are tenuously related in that they both involve verbal abuse, they involve completely different contexts, settings and intents. Ultimately, I think the point is that it's not some competition to outdo the other gender in terms of victimhood. We should acknowledge the issues that the opposite sex faces without trying to draw parallels with some vaguely similar issue that our sex faces.

As far as I'm concerned if something applies to both genders then it can't be misogyny or misandry.

Maguined

deirdre_dub wrote: »

It isn't a case of tip-toeing around the emotions - it is a case of allowing space for those emotions to occur.
Um - did you not just say that most debates have an emotional content?
It takes an awful lot of effort to get to a place where a topic as emotive as, say, mysogyny can be debated in a detached way by someone who is a victim of same.

Yes most debates have an emotional content however the difference is I do not expect this fact to determine how people are allowed debate these topics, in a rational logical debate I think "Yes, but" is a completely acceptable input where as you do not because of the emotive context.

deirdre_dub wrote: »

To give another example - how would you debate the issues around clerical sexual abuse with someone who is a victim of such abuse? Would you say to them "sorry - this is too emotive for you - I'm not going to engage with you"? Would you say "yes, but ..."? Or would you sit down, take a deep breath, listen carefully, and support the person as best you can?

It would depends entirely of the context, I do not enter into "debates" in order to support someone, supporting someone is something I do for friends and family when they are going through something and looking for help. If a friend wanted to talk to me about their experiences I would never debate with them as that is not what they are looking for.

Similarly if I am entering into a debate with someone and they complain I am not being supportive because of my use of "Yes, but" then I will still use it as it is a valid point and that is what you do in debates, I do not enter debates in order to emotional support random strangers, especially on the internet.

yawha

amacachi wrote: »

As far as I'm concerned if something applies to both genders then it can't be misogyny or misandry.

I agree 100%.

Did you even read what I wrote?

deirdre_dub

Maguined wrote: »

It would depends entirely of the context, I do not enter into "debates" in order to support someone, supporting someone is something I do for friends and family when they are going through something and looking for help. If a friend wanted to talk to me about their experiences I would never debate with them as that is not what they are looking for.

Similarly if I am entering into a debate with someone and they complain I am not being supportive because of my use of "Yes, but" then I will still use it as it is a valid point and that is what you do in debates, I do not enter debates in order to emotional support random strangers, especially on the internet.

For each issue, people broadly fall into one of these categories -

1. They have no personal experience of the issue
2. They have personal experience of the issue, and are still dealing with the emotional impact of it.
3. They have personal experience of the issue, but have done a ton of work around the emotional impact of it, which has led them to a place where they can talk about it in a detatched, logical way.

Most people fall into category 1 or 2 - there are relatively very few people in category 3. The problem is when the issue is being debated by people from both category 1 and 2 - those in category 1 tend not to give the space that the people in category 2 need.

If you yourself fall into category 1, and you want a rational logical debate, then you need to make sure that all the people you are debating with also fall into category 1 (which sounds to me like a recipe for a dull debate). If you want to debate with people in category 2, then you will need to remember to give them the space that they need to deal with the human impact of their personal experience.

18AD

deirdre_dub wrote: »

If you yourself fall into category 1, and you want a rational logical debate, then you need to make sure that all the people you are debating with also fall into category 1 (which sounds to me like a recipe for a dull debate). If you want to debate with people in category 2, then you will need to remember to give them the space that they need to deal with the human impact of their personal experience.

So a good debate can only happen when it cannot be fully carried out due to appropriate emotional reservations?

Also, you can't make sure everyone is in such and such a group since this is on the internet.

Maguined

deirdre_dub wrote: »

For each issue, people broadly fall into one of these categories -

1. They have no personal experience of the issue
2. They have personal experience of the issue, and are still dealing with the emotional impact of it.
3. They have personal experience of the issue, but have done a ton of work around the emotional impact of it, which has led them to a place where they can talk about it in a detatched, logical way.

Most people fall into category 1 or 2 - there are relatively very few people in category 3. The problem is when the issue is being debated by people from both category 1 and 2 - those in category 1 tend not to give the space that the people in category 2 need.

If you yourself fall into category 1, and you want a rational logical debate, then you need to make sure that all the people you are debating with also fall into category 1 (which sounds to me like a recipe for a dull debate). If you want to debate with people in category 2, then you will need to remember to give them the space that they need to deal with the human impact of their personal experience.

I agree with everything you say apart from the last part, my personal view would be that when debating on the internet the onus should be on people in category 2 to decide if they are willing to engage in a rational logical debate rather than expecting category 1 people to not use rational logical points as they may be too emotive.

If category 2 people want to engage in an exchange that will respect and cater to their emotive needs then I think an internet debate with random strangers is not the place for it and they should really be seeking the support of their friends.

No matter how emotive a topic is for me I do not engage in debates looking for people to agree with me or at least not point out why they disagree with me which is what this article basically said to me, don't try and debate any proposed examples of misogyny, just accept them.

deirdre_dub

18AD wrote: »

So a good debate can only happen when it cannot be fully carried out due to appropriate emotional reservations?

Not what I'm saying at all. A good debate requires sensitivity if some of the participants are speaking from personal experience.

Also, you can't make sure everyone is in such and such a group since this is on the internet.

Of course!

deirdre_dub

Maguined wrote: »

I agree with everything you say apart from the last part, my personal view would be that when debating on the internet the onus should be on people in category 2 to decide if they are willing to engage in a rational logical debate rather than expecting category 1 people to not use rational logical points as they may be too emotive.

Why isn't the onus on those in category 1 to have due sensitivity to those in the debate who are in category 2?

The real-world situation is that if the onus is on those in category 2 to bow out if they are unable to have rational, logical debates, then most debates will end up basically consisting of category 1 people only.

If category 2 people want to engage in an exchange that will respect and cater to their emotive needs then I think an internet debate with random strangers is not the place for it and they should really be seeking the support of their friends.

It's not that the debate needs to cater for emotional needs as such - it's that there needs to be a recognition that those emotions exist, and that they require space.

I cannot expect strangers who are debating with me to know as much about issues that affect me personally to be able to see to my emotional needs. However, the fact of the matter is that I have an emotional reaction to my experience, and therefor the people who I am debating with will either need to give space for my humanity, or accept that the debate cannot have the input of my personal experience and hence can probably therefore consist of category 1 people only.

don't try and debate any proposed examples of misogyny, just accept them

... or call me a liar

... or tell me that I'm crazy to have had the reaction I've had, and hence my emotions are "wrong" (ouch!)

... or _______ ???

Look - you weren't there. It didn't happen to you. It happened to me. I know how it affected me. I'm not lying. I'm not making this up. I'm not mad.

deirdre_dub

Hopefully this will work as a better example.

Imagine, if you will, that there is a debate in this forum about domestic violence against men. Such a debate will, obviously, attract male victims of domestic violence to speak out about their experiences. Those posts will probably be the most "thanked" posts on the debate, and the debate moves forward on to issues like men finding it difficult to be believed by the authorities (you are the man of the house yadda yadda yadda) and the lack of services for such men (only one phone number, I believe?).

Then I chime in and I go "yes, but domestic violence is also a huge problem for women".

My statement is completely truthful, but it is also extremely unhelpful, and even disrespectful - even if I am also a victim of domestic violence.

Yes, there are similarities between domestic violence committed against men and women, but there are also differences, and if the debate has moved on to where those differences exist, it is no longer a debate about my experience.

Does that mean I cannot contribute to the debate? No - of course not. But it does mean that I have to keep my own experience in check, and not unwittingly derail the debate by talking about my experience. There are maybe bits of my experience that are relevant, but much of it is completely irrelevant and beside the point.

A debate which discusses the similarities between the experience of male and female victims of domestic violence would have to be clearly tagged as such.

Dudess

If I went into the sexist ads thread on this forum and said "What about sexist ads against women?" I would deserve to be reprimanded for it, because it is confrontational, agenda-pushing and dismissive of the issue which is being discussed - sexism against men in ads. The author appears to be just making that point. Can't see what's hypocritical about it.

Maguined

deirdre_dub wrote: »

Why isn't the onus on those in category 1 to have due sensitivity to those in the debate who are in category 2?

Why should they? if someone cannot enter a debate without room/due sensitivity/catering to their own personal individual emotive needs then that person should not be in a debate, each person will have their own individual sensitivities so it is unrealistic to expect such an individually unknown requirement to be catered to by every random internet stranger. In my opinion the old saying applies "if you can't take the heat stay out of the kitchen", if an individual cannot enter a debate without being offended by "yes, but..." then that individual should avoid these debates.

Dudess wrote: »

If I went into the sexist ads thread on this forum and said "What about sexist ads against women?" I would deserve to be reprimanded for it, because it is confrontational, agenda-pushing and dismissive of the issue which is being discussed - sexism against men in ads. The author appears to be just making that point. Can't see what's hypocritical about it.

Personally I would not reprimand you as the debate is "are these adds sexist" and my view is that they are not as they are intended with humour and women also receive the same treatment in advertising. To me as both adverts make jokes against men and women I do not believe it is sexist as it applies to both. So your point is completely valid as I cannot find an add depicting a man as an idiot that cannot clean an oven sexist as there will also be an add depicting a woman negatively so both genders get a bashing so its equal in my book.

Similarly Deirdre your example about domestic violence would depend upon the exact type of discussion going on, if it is in anyway discussing a gender based debate so focusing on the misandry involved then I think your point would be perfectly valid, however if it was not discussing the gender politics at all and merely discussing the effects it has had on the men who encountered domestic violence then your points would not be valid as there is no gender debate going on.

If there was a thread for discussing the hardships encountered by women who suffered breast cancer I would not condone anyone posting "yes but what about men who suffer prostrate cancer" as there is no gender debate in that thread such a comparison does nothing, however a thread built upon a gender debate which all discussion of misogyny and misandry are then "yes but..." comparisons are entirely valid to me.

K-9

Maguined wrote: »

Personally I would not reprimand you as the debate is "are these adds sexist" and my view is that they are not as they are intended with humour and women also receive the same treatment in advertising. To me as both adverts make jokes against men and women I do not believe it is sexist as it applies to both. So your point is completely valid as I cannot find an add depicting a man as an idiot that cannot clean an oven sexist as there will also be an add depicting a woman negatively so both genders get a bashing so its equal in my book.

This is an area that the "yes, but" arguments can totally skewer a debate so that the general opinion becomes "sure both men and women get it so everything is grand". Both types of ads are sexist and well, more importantly, a bit dumb. That gets lost in the "yes, but" type debates that come up when these get discussed along gender lines.

Maguined

K-9 wrote: »

This is an area that the "yes, but" arguments can totally skewer a debate so that the general opinion becomes "sure both men and women get it so everything is grand". Both types of ads are sexist and well, more importantly, a bit dumb. That gets lost in the "yes, but" type debates that come up when these get discussed along gender lines.

It doesn't get lost if it is a valid comparison, I don't believe a Lynx add is sexist just because it has hoards of women throwing themselves at a man any more than an oven cleaner add is sexist for portraying men as feckless idiots because they are choosing a demographic and trying to appeal to it. Just as I would not describe Best Menswear clothes shops from being sexist for only catering to men's products as there are similar shops that only cater to female products.

Whether that comparison is valid is questionable though the original article is not alluding to this at all, it's making a blanket statement that you cannot argue or debate any suggestion of misogyny, you should just accept it which I do not agree with at all, all things should be able to be rationally debated.