But Not All Feminists, Apparently
When you enter a space – any space – as a man, you carry with yourself the threat of harm.
Melissa Fabello, the queen bee of Everyday Feminism, teams up with Aaminah Khan to once again remind any male readers that there’s something fundamentally wrong with them, and all men currently striding about the planet:
The socialisation of men is such that even a good man – a supportive man, a respectful man, a trusted man – has within him the potential for violence and harm because these behaviours are normalised through patriarchy.
For those who find the above less than compelling, Ms Fabello and Ms Khan obligingly link to an earlier Everyday Feminism article, in which a male contributor, Jamie Utt, a “diversity and inclusion consultant,” recounts slamming a table in exasperation and consequently being chastised by his female partner, before rending his garments and rushing to the conclusion that,
My actions exist in the context of patriarchy. And patriarchy is violent. Full stop.
This is followed by a series of equally adamant reiterations – “Cis-masculinity is fundamentally oppressive and violent” says he. Apparently, a single incident of exasperated table-slamming is damning evidence of patriarchal brainwashing, proof that the author has been “socialised to be abusive,” along with all other men. However, the gender-damning meaning of female table-slamming, or door-slamming, or general fits of irritation, or any number of aggressive and passive-aggressive displays indulged in by women, remains oddly unexplored. Instead, Mr Utt equates this apparently all-pervasive patriarchy with “related systems of oppression like white supremacy.” Adding, “It’s important that I situate myself within my positionality.”
This being Everyday Feminism, Ms Fabello and Ms Khan are no less bold in their statements:
We know that even the men that we love, never mind random men who we don’t know, have the potential to be dangerous.
Though Ms Fabello and Ms Khan don’t acknowledge it, it seems that ladies have made great strides on that front too, with some taking advantage of the customary reluctance among men to repay female aggression in kind.
But in a world divided into the oppressed and the oppressors, the former learn to fear the latter as a defence mechanism.
Ah, the subtleties of “social justice.”
What makes (yes) all men potentially unsafe – what makes (yes) all men suspect in the eyes of feminism – is the normalised violating behaviours that they’ve learned, which they then perform uncritically.
“All men,” then, are not only “suspect” and prone to “violating behaviours” – and by dint of existing, oppressors - we’re also nowhere near as insightful and self-aware as members of our more elevated feminist caste, whose self-knowledge and mental nimbleness are famed far and wide.
And so,
Make no mistake: When you use the phrase “not all men” – or otherwise buy into the myth of it – you’re giving yourself and others a pass to continue performing the socially sanctioned violence of “masculinity” without consequence, whether or not that’s your intention.
Well, I’m fairly confident that my interactions with women aren’t by default abusive or controlling, or steeped in “socially sanctioned violence,” and my confidence on this point certainly doesn’t imply any tacit affirmation of men who do behave abusively. To insist, as Ms Fabello and Ms Khan do, that, “all men are at least passively complicit in this patriarchal system that rewards male entitlement,” that their “maleness distorts the fabric of society,” and that “every time [men] ask for something, they’re going to get it,” is to air a conspiracy theory. And the insinuation that those of us who find feminism not entirely convincing are mere notches away from a man who “learns that if he commits rape, his friends will laugh it off,” might be insulting if it weren’t so bizarre.
And I can’t help wondering how Ms Fabello and Ms Khan might react if their assertions were reversed and they were told, quite emphatically, by a man, speaking as The Voice of All Men, that all women, being women, can have negligible insight into their own behaviour, their own minds, without repeated intervention by members of the other, more enlightened sex, “who can see things they can’t,” and to whom they should defer.
To a gender minority, there’s very little difference between the impact of inadvertent and intentional harm. A man who makes you feel unsafe by accident is as harmful to you as one who does it on purpose.
Women are apparently “a gender minority.” Please update your files accordingly.
Here’s the truth… attempting to fight that [male] entitlement is… a choice – one that has to be both conscious and ongoing. You’ve got to choose it every day, in every instance.
The struggle session never ends.
But how many well-meaning men are truly choosing that path, instead of just insisting that it’s “not all men” and that they’re “not like that?” Hint: You are “like that” – especially if you’re not actively fighting patriarchy.
In short, if you don’t wholeheartedly agree and hang your head accordingly, then you are, it seems, the enemy. Your only salvation as an accursed male person is vicarious shame, continual deference and round-the-clock anxiety about your own maleness.
Don’t all rush at once.
Update:
In the comments, Karen notes drily, “She’s not selling it very well, is she?” Well, no. Whether the “it” in question is the rickety argument poked at above, or feminism more generally, or the apparent belief that the world is “divided into the oppressed and the oppressors.”
But then, I don’t think Ms Fabello writes these things in order to persuade anyone who isn’t already very much onside. If she were interested in actual, open-ended debate, in finding out something new or testing her conceits, she wouldn’t insist on preconditions to discussion that are comically self-flattering and which entail a position of deference to her and indifference to reality. And if she were interested in such things, I doubt that our everyday feminist would retweet quite so many demands that men “stop talking,” under a banner boasting that she “never wants to hear a word any heterosexual white man has to say.”
To quote another commenter, Anna, “‘Social justice’ means feeling good about not listening to people based on their sex and race.”
There are four lights.
In effect, and like so many of her peers, Ms Fabello is a trafficker in pretentious guilt – that’s her leverage, the basis of her status. And so “all men” must be scolded and told they should feel guilty, or at least pretend to feel guilty, even if they have nothing whatsoever to feel guilty about. Vicarious guilt will do, apparently. Those sufficiently credulous to comply with such demands will quickly become unrealistic and absurd. Just like Ms Fabello and her admirers.
But Jamie Utt, LLC knows how to up-sell: “The Ten Take Aways: Best paired with at least two of the workshops above, The Ten Take Aways leaves participants with a tool kit…”
Hmm…I strongly suspect Mr. Utt has as little to do with actual tools as he possibly can.
“I wonder how long before they claim that Milo isn’t a real gay man?”
Well, under Shaidle’s Rule (“When I say ‘gay’, I just mean it like ‘retarded'”) Milo — not to mention mine host — might be travelling on the other bus, but he is certainly not a legitimate target for the epithet.
“It’s important that I situate myself within my positionality.”
Yes, there is a shorter version of that instruction, physically impossible for some, and a sight well worth seeing if the subject can do it.
Mr. “Full Stop” Utt has that smarmy look that reminds me of the famous feminist professor Hugo Schwyzer who, rather inconveniently, once attempted to murder his girlfriend in a violent manner and almost succeeded.
So if Utt talks about violence against women, I have no doubt that he himself is quite capable of it. I’ll take his word on it, even as he blames it all on the patriarchy.
Of course, the assertion that all men are inherently violent is typical liberal projection. But it’s working for him. He’s found women who fall for his act and even pay for it, the gullible things. I guess con artists do what con artists do.
Speaking of “social justice” and the kinds of personalities it attracts, here’s a telling moment.
Regarding the “telling moment,” imagine if that person was in a position of real power.
A bit off topic, yet is it? A story from 2008 that I would have thought I had heard, given my penchant for Timothy Treadwell stories, but oddly I don’t remember…
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pippa_Bacca
Sheesh, you don’t call, you don’t write. What, do we have to beg?
Feminists have always been traditionalists and are demonstrating one of humanity’s oldest traditions. Women get things done by nagging men into doing those things for them.
Another blow struck against toxic masculinity.
#triggerwarning
As a member of Homo sapiens, a woman, and an English composition teacher I don’t know if I should be more disgusted by their self-absorbed lack of compassion and wisdom that are supposed to be the reported trademarks of my species; their besmirching of my gender by ruthlessly attacking the other gender, which for the most part I have not one wit of problem with and in fact most enjoyable to have around; or the fact that they can’t write worth a damn (and are supposedly academics).
here’s a telling moment.
Commenter “kolar” calls her “Smuglypuff.”
That’s one of you, isn’t it? “kolar” has got to be someone from this site.
“It’s important that I situate myself within my positionality.”
I just can’t get away from this line.
I know it’s a waste of time to analyse guff, but that “situate myself within my positionality” has a kind of brainwashed perfection about it.
Undefined and undefinable terms, reflexive in that special Alice-down-the-rabbit-hole way, the rolling sound of profundity, the extra syllables, the pretense at introspection, the carefully vocalized “caring” about those about us.
I think I’ll just avail myself of one of those old-fashioned bits of jargon…
Sod off, swampy.
The Ten Take Aways: Best paired with at least two of the workshops above, The Ten Take Aways leaves participants with a tool kit…
I once had The Four Take Aways but it was just three egg rolls and a chicken chow mein.
. . . Take Aways . .
Every single time I’ve encountered that, ah, form of verbal signalling, the use has been a blatant declaration that A) the subject matter is so totally incompetently arranged and written that summary is required, B) the one stating . . . Take Aways . . is so totally incompetently arranged and bewildered that summary is required, C) both.
Rather a lot like the rather irrelevant upscale where the user always has fantasies that others will mistake that for quality.
“Though Ms Fabello and Ms Khan don’t acknowledge it, it seems that ladies have made great strides on that front too, …”
Out of the mouths of babes and…err…takeaway workers:
“A worker at another Southchurch Road takeaway, who did not want to be named, said revellers often behave “like animals” in the early hours of the morning.
He said: “We have had windows smashed and so has the place opposite.
“Sometimes the girls are the worst because they feel like they have more rights than the men, so they will get involved.”
“Sometimes the girls are the worst because they feel like they have more rights than the men…”
I’ve seen several incidents in which a woman, or several women, initiated violence against a man, presumably because they assumed the favour wouldn’t be repaid in kind.
I remember at school there was a girl who amused herself for several days by kicking random boys in the balls for no discernible reason, again assuming impunity. She tried it with me, and guessed wrong. And even though her shocked expression was quite gratifying to schoolyard me, there was still a strong sense of taboo.
Of course, the assertion that all men are inherently violent is typical liberal projection.
I think there’s also an element of “defining down” violence to mean e.g. the fact that the average man is stronger than >99% of women. In any sort of athletic competition between men and women, women tend to lose, and lose hard. Female Olympic sports teams play about the level of male junior varsity teams. Men’s potential for violence, and skill at violence, tend to be so far above those of women that a typical fight would be utterly one-sided. Combine with the constant provocation-of-men that liberal women engage in, and I can see why they might be a little concerned about men not holding back any more.
https://twitter.com/AcademiaObscura
David@07.53 The same thing happened to me at school, one of the girls in my class had got into the habit of slapping any boy she had a disagreement with, maybe she had seen it in a movie and thought it looked cool but it got to the point that she thought she could do it with total impunity and had slapped 5 or 6 of the boys in my class,I decided in advance that if she ever tried it on with me I was going to slap her right back and eventually that’s what happened,but what was most satisfying was that the teacher saw what happened and backed me rather than her.
I hope she learned that actions have consequences, even for strong empowered women.
She tried it with me, and guessed wrong. And even though her shocked expression was quite gratifying to schoolyard me, there was still a strong sense of taboo.
And that woman became Melissa Fabello…..
But then, I don’t think Ms Fabello writes these things in order to persuade anyone who isn’t already very much onside.
The lack of a comment section is a giveaway.
So on this four lights/five lights thing…Not having watched much STTNG I needed to look it up. Seems to me Jean-Luc Picard is just being a drama queen here. The Man says there’s five lights, there’s five lights.
When I was in school I took AP History class, the one that the smarty-smart smart kids took. Sometimes I wonder how I got in. It certainly wasn’t due to any family connections. But most of our elites in the US would have taken similar with the same standardized final exam. In this class we were taught that despite the obvious, on the final test when confronted with the question as to what the US Civil War was about we must NOT say “slavery”. This would be wrong, wrong, wrong. It was of course all about state’s rights. Of course. Some 650,000 mostly illiterate men went to their graves fighting over a legal matter. There are five lights.
When I was in college, a required physical education course (yes, required undergrad PE for 18 year olds) had a test question “What is the most popular sport in the US?”. We were told the correct answer was stock car racing. Never mind that the Super Bowl was watched by soooo many Americans that urban legends popped up about the strain that Super Bowl halftimes put on the nation’s plumbing systems. Never mind that damn near every high school in the US had a football team. The answer was “stock car racing”. There are five lights.
I would argue that the above two questions (among many others I might recall if I bothered) are not that important in the grand scheme of things, but considering that whether there are four lights or five lights is such a big deal is a bit of a stretch. Picard was just using this light-counting thing as an excuse to shirk his proper duties. Picard needed to get over himself.
Peak Privilege
The Man says there’s five lights, there’s five lights.
Only if he’s a straight white man.
Peak Privilege
It has become nigh impossible to differentiate parody and satire from sincere looniness. Peak Poe’s Law.
‘Ain’t nobody got time for this. For real.’
R Sherman – I was forced to deploy the “And BTW,you have nice tits” spell before things were resolved in my favor.
Hey, it worked for Mel Gibson.
Jeff Guinn – Sheesh, you don’t call, you don’t write. What, do we have to beg?
Stevils are never late. We always arrive precisely when there’s jammie dodgers to eat.
Peak Privilege
“For years, the majority of anything relating to sex — from pornography, to articles in magazines, to research into sex based disorders — has focused on cis, heterosexual men,” [feminist Lauren] Ingram says.
That’s because most men are “cis” and heterosexual. And women aren’t as interested in pornography, which half the feminists think is horrendous anyway (and the other half think is liberating, meaning they can’t get their stories straight).
Also, men are stronger than women, more likely to engage in crime, more likely to want to become CEO, etc.
Sex, by defn, is cis: xy + xx. I do hope it won’t be necessary to draw a boolean decision table.
Meanwhile, in Australia, young minds are being reshaped:
Now children, hands up anyone who can you spell indoctrination…
…given that all newborns look like Winston Churchill…
Point of order: They look like Jimmy Hoffa.
Point of order: They look like Queen Victoria
…given that all newborns look like Winston Churchill…
Point of order: They look like Jimmy Hoffa.
Point of order: They look like Queen Victoria
Mr. Muldoon had it right. It’s Winston Churchill. The baby boom ended in 1964. Churchill died in January 1965. Coincidence? I think not.
And women aren’t as interested in pornography,
Er, so I guess ’50 Shades of Grey’ was a home decorating book then?
The point is that women and men seem to be sexually aroused by different things, one is referred to as ‘Porn’ and the other is referred to as ‘Erotica’, but only one of them is considered to be harmful, exploitative of and oppressive to the opposite sex.
…given that all newborns look like Winston Churchill…
I was told I looked like Ed Koch (former NYC mayor, and the person who convinced my parents that conservatism actually kinda made sense).
Violence normalized through patriarchy? Boo fucking hoo, toots.
“Victorian students will be taught […cavalcade of bollocks]”
Given that female school pupils steam ahead of their male contemporaries early on and stay ahead up to postgraduate level, it’s not immediately clear that The Patriarchy is much cop at entrenching privilege.
Aaminah Khan: “25-year-old lawful evil social justice crusader and queer muslim feminist.”
There’s Dungeons & Dragons reference there. (D&D has two dimensions of character alignment: Good <--> Evil and Lawful <--> Chaotic.) It seems anomalous. Does she actually play D&D? Because that was a classic nerd thing, and has been almost entirely displaced by various forms of computer gaming, especially MMORPGs.
And calling herself “lawful evil” seems ironic; could she have a vestigial sense of humor left?
The point is that women and men seem to be sexually aroused by different things, one is referred to as ‘Porn’ and the other is referred to as ‘Erotica’, but only one of them is considered to be harmful, exploitative of and oppressive to the opposite sex.
Here here. (Hear hear?)
Publishing industry types are occasionally wont to bemoan the relative lack of male readers, and to treat the disparity as if it were quite the puzzler. Having worked in a bookshop, I can explain that the unequal weighting of the reading public is entirely down to women and their porn. If men liked to imagine hot girls instead of looking at them, there’d be gender parity.
(Hear hear?)
Correct. Definitely not here, here.