Weepy And Hysterical
Men, listen up… Join me, with due diligence and civic duty, and publicly claim: I am sexist!
In the pages of the New York Times, a philosophy professor named George Yancy is gushing his little heart out:
It is hard to admit we are sexist. I, for instance, would like to think that I possess genuine feminist bona fides, but who am I kidding? I am a failed and broken feminist.
Upon which revelation, I suppose we could all just stop and go home. But no, let’s press on.
More pointedly, I am sexist. There are times when I fear for the loss of my own entitlement as a male. Toxic masculinity takes many forms. All forms continue to hurt and to violate women.
The word toxic, by the way, is deployed no fewer than nine times, excluding various synonyms, as if it were an incantation. Now brace yourselves for some full-on testosterone-jacked beastliness.
For example, before I got married, I insisted that my wife take my last name… While this was not sexual assault, my insistence was a violation of her independence.
To reiterate. Asking a fiancée if she’ll change her surname upon marriage, as is still the custom, perhaps to avoid confusing people as to whether you’re actually married or not, and possibly to avoid imposing on any children lengthy hyphenated surnames… this is not sexual assault. I’m glad we’ve cleared that up.
However,
I had inherited a subtle, yet still violent, form of toxic masculinity… These are deep and troubling expectations that are shaped by male privilege, male power and toxic masculinity.
What, then, are these dark and monstrous expectations, the ones that are “subtle, yet still violent”? Apparently, our professional thinker is troubled by the fact that he appreciates thanks after cleaning the house or cooking a meal. Yes, it’s deep and troubling.
Oh, we’re not done yet.
If you are a woman reading this, I have failed you. Through my silence and an uninterrogated collective misogyny, I have failed you. I have helped and continue to help perpetuate sexism. I know about how we hold onto forms of power that dehumanize you only to elevate our sense of masculinity. I recognize my silence as an act of violence. For this, I sincerely apologise.
And yet, frankly, I’m not sensing an excess of masculinity. If you spend hours preparing a meal, or cleaning the house, and then appreciate some acknowledgement, however small or routine, this doesn’t strike me as “toxic,” or “troubling,” or “dehumanizing,” or a “violation” of womanhood. Framing an appreciation of gratitude as “uninterrogated collective misogyny” sounds just a tad preposterous. And when my own Other Half takes charge of some particularly tricky meal preparation, some feat I daren’t attempt, I keep bunting and T-shirt cannons on hot stand-by.
Professor Yancy goes on to denounce, on behalf of all men, “our sexually objectifying gazes… our pornographic imaginations.” Our “dominant phallic economy.” Indeed, he continues, “we are collectively complicit with a sexist mind-set and a poisonous masculinity.” You see, being aroused by women, while not quite rape in itself, is nonetheless, as it were, rape-adjacent, and constitutes “a violent, pathetic and problematic masculinity.” One wonders how a species of suitably corrected human beings, purged of such heterosexual inclinations, might propagate and flourish. Such that we can indulge the theatrical sorrows of woke philosophy lecturers.
Or, as our educator puts it, tearfully, his face reddened with shame,
When I was about 15 years old, I said to a friend of mine, “Why must you always look at a girl’s butt?” He promptly responded: “Are you gay or something? What else should I look at, a guy’s butt?” He was already wearing the mask. He had already learned the lessons of patriarchal masculinity.
Yes, adolescent butt-watching. Oh calamitous woe. And which, apparently, girls never indulge in. Presumably, we should only be sexually attracted to personalities, and never the fleshy packaging.
There was no wiggle room for me to be both antisexist and antimisogynistic and yet a heterosexual young boy. You see, other males had rewarded his gaze by joining in the objectifying practice: “Look at that butt!” It was a collective act of devaluation.
Or possibly the reverse.
The acts of soul murder had already begun.
I’ll just leave that one there, I think.
Ooh, a button.
I see value in the man’s writing this. When Spaceship A and Spaceship B are finally built, I think this essay can be used to determine who goes on which. If you agree, in any way, go to — and if you don’t, go to –.
Welcome aboard! And good luck / best wishes to those on the other ship! I’m sure everything will go just swimmingly when you start into the asteroid belt.
Heckler’s chorus: “YOU SURE ARE!”
I’m guessing he wouldn’t be a fan of Jake Thackray, then.
As a child, I used to get him confused with Derek Nimmo, who also had
a certain way with words.
You know what? Good for him. I’m glad a potential violent rapist has self-identified, therefore his friends, family, and colleagues can steer well clear of him. At minimum he gets put on the “don’t leave alone with the nieces” list during Thanksgiving*.
*Insert Brit holiday of choice.
Or possibly the reverse.
LOL
That.
Western civilization probably won’t hold.
Correct.
When Spaceship A and Spaceship B are finally built, I think this essay can be used to determine who goes on which.
Why not start building the Golgafrincham Ark B today?
Correct.
There’s a fitting aspect to an on-cue self-parodying of Western complacency to a degree indistinguishable from that of the subject of this post.
“A fact which cannot be disputed is the weakening of human beings in the West while in the East they are becoming firmer and stronger — 60 years for our people and 30 years for the people of Eastern Europe. During that time we have been through a spiritual training far in advance of Western experience. Life’s complexity and mortal weight have produced stronger, deeper, and more interesting characters than those generally [produced] by standardized Western well-being.
Therefore, if our society were to be transformed into yours, it would mean an improvement in certain aspects, but also a change for the worse on some particularly significant scores. It is true, no doubt, that a society cannot remain in an abyss of lawlessness, as is the case in our country. But it is also demeaning for it to elect such mechanical legalistic smoothness as you have. After the suffering of many years of violence and oppression, the human soul longs for things higher, warmer, and purer than those offered by today’s mass living habits, introduced by the revolting invasion of publicity, by TV stupor, and by intolerable music.
There are meaningful warnings which history gives a threatened or perishing society. Such are, for instance, the decadence of art, or a lack of great statesmen. There are open and evident warnings, too. The center of your democracy and of your culture is left without electric power for a few hours only, and all of a sudden crowds of American citizens start looting and creating havoc. The smooth surface film must be very thin, then, the social system quite unstable and unhealthy.”
– Solzhenitsyn, 1978
Gad Saad giving the cuck a damn good fisking.
[Note: I’ve never really been sure what fisking is exactly. But this is probably it.]
http://www.faqs.org/docs/jargon/F/fisking.html
fisking: n.
[blogosphere; very common] A point-by-point refutation of a blog entry or (especially) news story. A really stylish fisking is witty, logical, sarcastic and ruthlessly factual; flaming or handwaving is considered poor form. Named after Robert Fisk, a British journalist who was a frequent (and deserving) early target of such treatment.
From Wikipedia: “[Yancy] is known for his work in critical race theory, critical whiteness studies, African American philosophy…”
Adorno, Marcuse, Benjamin, et al. must be laughing their asses off down in hell. They created a monster.
The risk of blindly quoting self-styled authorities on the interwebs:
Urban Dictionary:
Fisking is a written argument where one person sequentially addresses each point of an of another person’s argument.
This is done in a precise manner relying on semantics and ambiguities to infer a defect in the original point. This approach is tantamount to taking a sentence out of context in order to refute an entire argument.
Fisking does not pay heed to the opponent’s thesis as a whole, and thus does not disprove the thesis as a whole.
Which is pretty much the opposite spirit of your “faqs.org” definition.
Read and sigh:
http://www.georgeyancy.com/bio.html
I knew a guy in grad school who was very vocal about his feminism and support for all women’s rights.
He told me in private that this was the best way he’d found to get laid.
“[Yancy] is known for his work in critical race theory, critical whiteness studies…”
But of course. For those who aren’t familiar with the eye-widening hokum of “critical race theory,” this is a good place to start.
Which is pretty much the opposite spirit of your “faqs.org” definition.
It’s also incorrect, and gives off more than a faint whiff of butthurt.
pst314’s definition is the correct one. Fisk’s articles attracted the treatment beause near every sentence contained a trivially provably incorrect assertion.
Read and sigh:
Judged by the notably weak sauce home page, it’s in some doubt whether Yancy is any more to philosophy than Neil deGrasse Tyson is to existentialism.
Whenever someone smugly informs me what’s “correct” on the internet I’m reminded of Nicholas Matte.
a faint whiff of butthurt
I’ll have to take your word for that.
Hi Adam: Must be a thing with the young folks. My reaction to a feminist man would be “Go away, I already have a pussy.” 😄🐱
(I’m 59 & holding.)
pst314’s definition is the correct one.
It is indeed. The sadly defunct Daily Ablution featured some inspirational fisking, as did the also-missed Factchecking Pollyanna, a blog devoted to parsing the boggling innumeracy of Guardian columnist Polly Toynbee.
pst314’s definition is the correct one.
While I do of course defer to our host, I reserve the right to refuse one of his pickled “eggs”.
That pickled “egg” may make you an offer you can’t refuse…
In the feminist utopia the “eggs” pickle YOU!
I’ll have to take your word for that.
Would you accept Firefox?
My connection is not secure
I’d blame typepad for auto-prefixing https to my website.
I’d blame typepad for auto-prefixing https to my website.
It’s apparently being looking into as I type. Meanwhile, it’s up-buggered half the blogroll and any number of links in comment threads.
I sincerely apologise for the insecurity of my website. If only I’d known the potential ramifications. This internet thing is a disaster waiting to explode. We should go back to criers. What was so wrong with town criers?
I sincerely apologise for the insecurity of my website.
Heh. On Friday, I spent several minutes trying to convince Tim Newman that his website was down.
Anything else he says about the incident is a filthy lie.
“I’d blame typepad for auto-prefixing https to my website.”
Nah, it’s Firefox. Mozilla’s determined to encrypt all the things right now, and is going around scaring the kids with warnings that innocuous static pages are “insecure” if they aren’t. I think it’s an early Halloween prank.
On Fisking.
The original Fisking is below, by James Lileks concerning a laughably smug piece by reporter Robert Fisk on the Olive Garden chain restaurant. Lilek’s post is one of the blogosphere’s founding documents, so it’s worth a read for nostalgia’s sake at the least.
http://web.archive.org/web/20030416020456/http://www.lileks.com/writings/screed/olivegarden.html
“He calls me into his office and closes the door… to promote me. He promotes me again and again. I am wild with ecstasy.”
https://www.amazon.co.uk/New-Erotica-Feminists-Deserve-Again/dp/1473691168
Respect my independence you…you big patriarch you. Respect me till I scream!
innocuous static pages are “insecure”
Hey – watch who’s pages you call innocuous, buster!
Hrm,
The Wayback Machine has not archived that URL.
Well, typepad messed that up 🙂
I enjoyed your reassuringly secure link [ https://web.archive.org/web/20030416020456/https://www.lileks.com/writings/screed/olivegarden.html ], but it didn’t seem to be so much Fisking as hilariously carping. Hence my observation that depending on where you sit, Fisking appears to be either a decimating factual take-down, or a good excuse for a grumpy whinge.
Hrm,
I don’t think Typepad and the Wayback Machine are compatible!
What the hell must his wife be like? — Joan
Sick unto death would be my guess.
Karl,
Yeah, typepad and Wayback aren’t very friendly, I guess. And we both tried “preview” and everything!
Anyway, a bit of googling should get folks the Fisking if they are interested. Lileks, as always, was light-hearted. But I think he did pretty well in deflating Fisk’s rather tendentious piece.
I am a failed and broken feminist.
Translation: I can’t get laid and I’m appealing to the pity-sex demographic.
The sadly defunct Daily Ablution
Yes, a jewel of the Internet.
Preserved on the Internet Archive Wayback Machine.j
Masculinity is the least of his worries…
A woke prodigy, presumably, and therefore terribly agonised by other boys noticing their female classmates’ buttocks.
In my day, we didn’t have any fatties (well, unlike today), so buttocks weren’t high on the list of what a 15-year old male checked out–IYKWIM.
But Yancy is a Black dude, and their interests tend towards the backside–so I’m told…
“our sexually objectifying gazes… our pornographic imaginations.” Our “dominant phallic economy.” Indeed, he continues, “we are collectively complicit with a sexist mind-set and a poisonous masculinity.”
Shiver me timbers. The good Professor has reminded me I’ve been working too hard lately. It’s been months since I visited a porn site and directed my ‘sexually objective gaze’ at anyone other than Mrs EMG – and there they are, just a key stroke away. Possibly not what you intended, but thanks anyway Prof…way to start the weekend!
@Forbes
Essentially, Yancy is letting us know that he is partial to a Big Butt, and is unable to falsify that fact.
Essentially, Yancy is letting us know that he is partial to a Big Butt, and is unable to falsify that fact.
Neither can the men of similar melanin content effectively disavow it.
Essentially, Yancy is letting us know that he is partial to a Big Butt, and is unable to falsify that fact.
Essentially, Yancy is letting us know that he is partial to steatophygia, and is unable to falsify that fact. Later he informs us that his inamorata is so afflicted.
The hair shirt is very much in fashion for Professor Yancy and his ilk. I’m not at all convinced I should wear one.
Professor Yancy enthusiastically cites Bell Hooks – specifically, her claim that all men – including those with wives and daughters – “unconsciously engage in patriarchal thinking, which condones rape even though they may never enact it.” “This,” we’re told, “is a patriarchal truism.”
Professor Yancy enthusiastically cites Bell Hooks
Have you committed a microaggression by capitalizing her name? 😀
Have you committed a microaggression by capitalizing her name?
To paraphrase Mr Spock, I believe my response would be fuck that shit.
😀
That would make a great YouTube clip, David.
He’s probably been hounded by the narrative so unremittingly in his daily faculty rounds ans general existence that he’s capitulated just for a quiet life and felt constrained to publish these catechisms for all to see so that he’ll be left alone and have a safe tenure and a nice safe life.
“[Yancy] is known for his work in critical race theory, critical whiteness studies…”

This seems apposite:
Via Dicentra.