So I read Jesse Eisenberg’s other piece in McSweeney’s, linked from the one linked. It’s a bunch of deliberately unfunny and openly bitter jokes about Marxists. He’s too ironic to write funny jokes; he prefers jokes that fall completely flat as the kool kidz form of humor. Basically I feel about this the same sort of bland distaste that I feel at the self-congratulatory self-absorption of Dave Eggers. In case Eisenberg can’t tell how to take that, it isn’t a compliment.
Jill: Guy in the story, I think. TERRIBLE. Yes. I quite enjoy Jesse Eisenberg, actually. I mean, I quite enjoy geeky Jewish boys with fluffy hair, as a general rule. Enough that I ended up marrying one. š
I liked the part where he asked for free alcohol. Oh! And of course the bit where he’s so busy being post gender that he doesn’t have time to notice such “trivial” details like how the woman he is talking to is very angry and not interested in his advances.
Um, I’m kind of uncomfortable with the point this seems to be making? Which as I read it is “LOL those feminists! They wouldn’t actually like it at all if men were into all that equality crap! Let me deliberately misunderstand and reductio-ad-absurdum the way someone who thinks about gender norms might approach a woman in a bar!” I mean, I guess the author could be making a point about Nice Guy Feminists (TM), but I feel like I’ve seen this joke before, and they’re usually laughing at us.
I get the idea that this alleged humor is supposed to be very meta, but it reads to me as just stupid and unfunny.
::shrug:: I found it amusing. I’ve also been propositioned by that type of man dude before, and it’s incredibly frustrating because they just. don’t. get. it.
Yeah, I found it amusing too, and not in a laughing-at-feminists way. I interpreted it as laughing at those dudes who use the “I’m totally beyond gender, man” to try and get into women’s pants.
“I feel like Iāve seen this joke before” I grew up with this joke, it’s my age. It was born as an Alan Alda joke in 1972 and it has gotten bigger but it hasn’t matured.
glitterary: I mean, I guess the author could be making a point about Nice Guy Feminists (TM), but I feel like Iāve seen this joke before, and theyāre usually laughing at us. I got the feeling that it was making a point about Nice Guy Feminist. I dunno, like particularly at the end where the guy is all, “oh hey, woman clearly wants me to leave and I am blatantly ignoring her.” but still like, “nonono, I’m totally progressive and feminist! Give me a cookie/beer!”
I read the joke as being on the guy, not the woman, FWIW. I think it’s aimed at mocking the sort of dude who spouts feminist language but doesn’t really mean it (the kind who often shows up on feminist websites, initially rambles on about how much he respects women, and then throws a huge tantrum when women are insufficiently impressed).
Eh, I can see how it could also be on the guy, but it’s still not really funny, to me. It’s not original, and it’s associated with versions of the same joke that make fun of women wanting to be treated like people. But in that case, still, yeah: don’t be that guy. I think “don’t want a cookie” is probably good advice for anyone foraying into communities they’re not part of.
That was tedious. Jessie Eisenburg put in a much better performance in “The Squid and the Whale”, imho.
glitterary: Eh, I can see how it could also be on the guy, but itās still not really funny, to me. Itās not original, and itās associated with versions of the same joke that make fun of women wanting to be treated like people. But in that case, still, yeah: donāt be that guy. I think ādonāt want a cookieā is probably good advice for anyone foraying into communities theyāre not part of. The ‘joke’ is that the ‘post modern feminist’ man can not take ‘no’ for an answer any more than the Neanderthal throwback.
The thing is painful to read. I don’t call myself a feminist anyway not any more to much “more feminist than thou” bull shit directed at you weather your male or female. Coolaid is bad for you. I’ve had some lame ass come-ons from obnoxious women I guess if I was a woman that shit would probably happen constantly till I actually lost all compassion and no longer caired about their feelings whatsoever perhaps to the point of throwing a drink in their face. Then again if society wasn’t arainged to teach men that they had to “take charge” make the first move etc so many men charming or otherwise woulden’t be making a nusance of themselves.
I think in that situation it is normal to want to impress your date. But whatever stance that might take, it helps when there’s an actual personal touch amidst the terminology. Why would you want to go on a date with a self-serving women’s studies textbook?
Seems like the jist of it is the guy is a douche and the girl is fed up with being harrassed by weirdo guys that want to use her body or whatever. I don’t think that the guy is some kind of feminist at least you wouldent think. Seems more like some kind of scam he’s running to get laid.
Actually, I see it as a mockery of all feminists (male and female). Its intent is to show the author’s viewpoint that feminism is absurd. It’s not being kind, folks. It’s a slam.
I thought the McSweeney piece was funny. Some random guy walks up to a stranger, asks her to buy him a beer, and starts sanctimoniously rambling on about how great he is. Surely it doesn’t take a feminist to see why this is annoying. If he was really a feminist wouldn’t he have made sure he wasn’t bothering her, respected her wishes, and listened a little? I thought the point was anyone with any label can be a pompus ass, didn’t really seem offensive to women, male feminists, or anyone with common sense.
I really REALLY want to read this as an in-joke by a feminist, but it really more seems like, “feminist guys are a bunch of wussies, am I right?” Especially for passages like this: Oh, how gauche of me! Iāve just been chattering away incessantly like some kind of boy or girl who talks a lot. I havenāt even properly introduced myself. Although, one often gets the uneasy sense that patriarchy dictates a learned and ultimately damaging order of events with men taking an unearned lead. My name is Terri, with a heart over the i, instead of a dot. I have a heart, is what that says, and Iām not afraid to wear it on my sleeve. and Thank you for your blunt rejection of me. It takes a lot of courage, which you no doubt have in equal measure to any other human. Now, if youāll excuse, Iām going to the bathroom where Iāll cry silently in a stall, questioning my body and texting my mom, but for now, I thank you for your time, which was equal to mine.
The joke is that women want Bad Boys, not Nice Guys, and that they should be careful what they wish for if what they wish for is a more egalitarian world.
Maybe it is the interviews I’ve read with Jesse Eisenberg, where he talked about being uncomfortable with rape jokes in movies and how he doesn’t like to be approached on the street, but I saw this piece being about how a guy could be well versed in, say, the mechanics of feminism but not figure out how he can implement that in his own every day life. I read the story like @CaliOak did, that its humor came from the fact that the guy was like that guy who shows up on forums to tell the ladies what’s what but doesn’t ever listen to what the ladies actually are saying, who privileges his own desires over the desires of his object of affections. After all, how could she not want him? He’s sensitive! He’s not adverse to walking up and asking you to buy him a drink! He works at ESPN, but still thinks Lance Armstrong is so thuggish! Mostly, I think part of the reveal is that moment where he blames his mother for not buying him an Easy Bake oven. He’s a post gender normative man who still blames his mother for his hang-ups. And it comes home when he (a) walks up to a woman without thinking about whether or not she wants to talk to him and (b) refuses to take the hint. But I really chuckled when he presses for that drink.
Count me in with the people who say that the joke is that the guy is being a pompous asshole while at the same talking about how he is sensitive and progressive. There’s nothing really to indicate that this is supposed to be a “be careful what you wish for thing” other than the fact that the woman in the story doesn’t like him. He seems to be a feminist variant on a character that appears in a lot of McSweeney’s pieces, the guy or girl who is learned and erudite, but is still, in fact, a doofus. Saying that this is about insulting feminists is like saying that McSweeney’s is anti-intellectual because it makes fun of people who go to graduate school and read books. Alos, I thought the Marxist jokes where very, very funny.
xenu01: I really REALLY want to read this as an in-joke by a feminist, but it really more seems like, āfeminist guys are a bunch of wussies, am I right?āEspecially for passages like this: Oh, how gauche of me! Iāve just been chattering away incessantly like some kind of boy or girl who talks a lot. I havenāt even properly introduced myself. Although, one often gets the uneasy sense that patriarchy dictates a learned and ultimately damaging order of events with men taking an unearned lead. My name is Terri, with a heart over the i, instead of a dot. I have a heart, is what that says, and Iām not afraid to wear it on my sleeve. and Thank you for your blunt rejection of me. It takes a lot of courage, which you no doubt have in equal measure to any other human. Now, if youāll excuse, Iām going to the bathroom where Iāll cry silently in a stall, questioning my body and texting my mom, but for now, I thank you for your time, which was equal to mine. Don’t you see the subtext? the first passage implies that the guy is completely oblivious to the fact that the women are not speaking to him. The second passage refers to his face saving after having a beer thrown on him. This is a satirical piece about a man who has changed in no way from his 1950’s counterpart except in verbiage.
Fat Steve: This is a satirical piece about a man who has changed in no way from his 1950ā²s counterpart except in verbiage. I’m not sure it isn’t going for “You might teach men all this feminist theory, but they are still going to hit on you the same way, ’cause guys will be guys.”
On the plus side, if it is an attempt to poke fun of feminists, it must be doing a poor job of it since people can’t even tell whether the object of ridicule is feminists, feminist guys, or faux-feminist guys.
Fat Steve: The ājokeā is that the āpost modern feministā man can not take ānoā for an answer any more than the Neanderthal throwback. Thanks, I ‘got’ that. Or at least, I got that that’s one interpretation of the story, but it wasn’t the one that seems most compelling to me. I think that even if that was the intention, it walks very close to a lot of jokes at feminists’ expense, and has carried over enough cliches to not be funny (to me) on that account. I don’t like the silly intricacy of his arguments; it just smacks of “feminists overcomplicate stuff!” to me. I guess that makes me a humourless feminist…
every day, in every way, I’m becoming less and less like that dude. every day, in every way, I’m becoming less and less like that dude…
The differing interpretations here are very interesting. I also very clearly read it as a slam against feminism and gender theory. So much so that I was confused as to why it was posted on a feminist blog.
Those who are reading it as making fun of feminism in general seem to be missing a key element of the situation presented. Here’s a simple question: Why is the situation absurd? Is it because feminist ideas are absurd? Or is it because he is using them as an endless string of stupid pickup lines?
Sara: Why is the situation absurd? Is it because feminist ideas are absurd? Or is it because he is using them as an endless string of stupid pickup lines? It can easily be both and more. – An endless stream of stupid pick up lines is absurd. – An endless stream of stupid pick up lines based on something that is philosophically not fond of endless streams of stupid pick up lines is absurd. – An endless stream of stupid pick up lines based on an absurd theory that doesn’t change any of the essentials about men and women is absurd. – Feminist ideas are absurd because it emasculates men and makes them use stupid pick up lines. – Feminist ideas are absurd because it pretends to all this equality but really men will use stupid pick up lines in bars and women will throw drinks at losers because that’s just the way it is and you can’t change that. *shrug* More than one interpretation is possible. I think as a performed piece, it could be clearer which was being aimed at, but as it stands I’d say it is somewhat ambiguous.
“The joke is that women want Bad Boys, not Nice Guys, and that they should be careful what they wish for if what they wish for is a more egalitarian world.” http://www.google.com/search?q=dark+triad&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
It’s irony. Performing verbal feminism and behaviour mysogyny at the same time. So it’s got that kind of “hollow mithless laughter” (hat-itip to SDIers) kind of funny.
Pidgey: On the plus side, if it is an attempt to poke fun of feminists, it must be doing a poor job of it since people canāt even tell whether the object of ridicule is feminists, feminist guys, or faux-feminist guys. It’s doing a wonderful job if it’s getting people, even feminists, to laugh at themselves without realizing that they’re the object of derision.
CassandraSays, “I think itās aimed at mocking the sort of dude who spouts feminist language but doesnāt really mean it (the kind who often shows up on feminist websites, initially rambles on about how much he respects women, and then throws a huge tantrum when women are insufficiently impressed).” Don’t get me wrong, I get the obnoxiousness of the behaviour described in the article, but the “no cookies” thing is also really annoying as an attitude. Guys certainly also see the liberating potential of the gender discourse as such and the justice elements in feminism. Yet they are not rarely confused because, sorry, we’re getting to that point again, those more likely than not don’t actually matter in a mating context, contrary to what they perceive feminists to be saying. And the weird thing is that female feminists don’t ever seem to get that what they say *can have that impact* on guys and that making fun of stories (and characters) like this is bascially telling guys to *actually* consider a woman’s feminism as some kind of shit test. And should he ask how feminists *actually* mean what they say when they make general sweeping statements about male behaviour that men do not rarely take literally, the guys will more likely than not be told that they should check their priviliege and that it’s not the women’s job to educate them… You see how that’s not going to improve the situation for anyone?
Sam: Guys certainly also see the liberating potential of the gender discourse as such and the justice elements in feminism. Yet they are not rarely confused because, sorry, weāre getting to that point again, those more likely than not donāt actually matter in a mating context, contrary to what they perceive feminists to be saying. I have no idea what this section means. (Really, I can’t parse it.)
LC: It can easily be both and more. – An endless stream of stupid pick up lines is absurd. – An endless stream of stupid pick up lines based on something that is philosophically not fond of endless streams of stupid pick up lines is absurd. – An endless stream of stupid pick up lines based on an absurd theory that doesnāt change any of the essentials about men and women is absurd. – Feminist ideas are absurd because it emasculates men and makes them use stupid pick up lines. – Feminist ideas are absurd because it pretends to all this equality but really men will use stupid pick up lines in bars and women will throw drinks at losers because thatās just the way it is and you canāt change that. *shrug* More than one interpretation is possible. I think as a performed piece, it could be clearer which was being aimed at, but as it stands Iād say it is somewhat ambiguous. Even if you’re right that those other interpretations are possible, certainly you can agree that they have nothing to do with the reason Shoshie posted it here.
Fat Steve: Even if youāre right that those other interpretations are possible, certainly you can agree that they have nothing to do with the reason Shoshie posted it here. Sure.
Heh, that’s exactlty what I manage to avoid simply by not flirting at all. I don’t know how to flirt, I can’t flirt, I don’t flirt. Yay.
Mental image this evokes is the scene in a pub in that facebook movie. This piece is a blatant rip on feminism as realistically implausible. Interpret how you like, but that is the truth. Hey, Jesse, not all women pick up free drinks and men at bars, some of us use Match.com(tm)… But seriously, isn’t it sorrowful that even moviestar hipster (faux) feminist men cannot envision a world where we are equal? Hey, howās it going? Mind if I sit my ass down? I saw you over here sitting by yourself and I thought, I would sure love to sit my ass right down next to her since I am a lonely millionaire. A woman should be able to self-sustain, but alas $0.76 to the dollar in the US is a sad fact of life. A lot of women are choosing to stay single, what with advances in salary equitability being a whole cent higher than it was in the 90’s and maternity extensions making it possible for women to stay home with babies for like 6 weeks PAID, if they are lucky enough to work at a nice corporation with benefits and I think itās an important and compelling trend. I noticed that you were about to finish your drink and I was wondering if we could possibly purchase another one. And, at the risk of being forward, let’s “go Dutch,” as they say, which is not meant to be derogatory to those of the Netherlands…
I can see where a lot of you are coming from with your interpretations. I can see where it could be making fun of feminism, some of it reminds of one of Glenn Beck’s (ewwww) “politically correct” Christmas Carols, for one thing. But it also reminds me a lot of some of the so-called feminist men who come to the feminist blogs and mansplain away, or defend asshole behavior like the behavior of the male feminist in the story.
…yeah. Thanks for explaining to me about why I should get it but I don’t, Fat Steve, but I’m not convinced that I like it, that it’s funny, and that my interpretation is wrong any more than I was convinced that Equilibrium was the BEST MOVIE EVAR in 2002. Sorry.
@ LC – It means that Sam is still sore about a previous disagreement, and is trying to get me to agree with his views on dating and how women want to be treated by men (in his “experience”) in a dating context. It’s also not going to work. Sorry, Sam, feminists are not responsible for your dating woes, and if you are literally never encountering feminist women while dating, well, I don’t know what to tell you about that without knowing where you live, what kind of women you ask out, what the age of everyone involved is, etc. But what I do know is that your dating experiences do not mean that feminists need to stop rolling their eyes when men ask for cookies on blog posts. Or that we need to not find it amusing when a rather clever young actor observes the same behavior in meatspace and finds it funny.
Also, this is a perfect example of why people really shouldn’t do that thing where they take an argument from one post and try to pursue it in the comments of another post. Because yeah, I can parse what Sam is getting at, but for anyone who wasn’t party to the previous conversation it reads as totally incomprehensible.
CassandraSays: Also, this is a perfect example of why people really shouldnāt do that thing where they take an argument from one post and try to pursue it in the comments of another post. Because yeah, I can parse what Sam is getting at, but for anyone who wasnāt party to the previous conversation it reads as totally incomprehensible. Good point. I snapped at Lettuce in one thread for doing something zie had already done in a previous thread. I can see how that is a problem now. Won’t do it again.
I’m trying to find out what’s so offensive, smarmy, or annoying about the man in the piece. I think it comes down to the fact that he talks too much – and sounds effeminate in all of his question asking and thirst for approval. I think it’s also that he cries at the end and ends up having to talk to his mother. I think this tells us a lot about the quality of the “joke” and who is laughing at it. But hey, I’m sure that the crowd over at the spearhead are laughing raucously as well, so it must be good, amirite?
xenu01: ā¦yeah.Thanks for explaining to me about why I should get it but I donāt, Fat Steve, but Iām not convinced that I like it, that itās funny, and that my interpretation is wrong any more than I was convinced that Equilibrium was the BEST MOVIE EVAR in 2002.Sorry. I in no way meant to imply your interpretation was wrong, I agreed with the interpretation that you ‘REALLY wanted’ to read in to it. I understand that people interpreted it in a different way, and don’t think it makes them wrong, just that they think differently.
CassandraSays, “@ LC ā It means that Sam is still sore about a previous disagreement, and is trying to get me to agree with his views on dating and how women want to be treated by men (in his āexperienceā) in a dating context. I don’t see what trying to make you see my point has to do with me being “sore” about you disagreeing with me… not sore at all, but interested in the subject. “Itās also not going to work. Sorry, Sam, feminists are not responsible for your dating woes, and if you are literally never encountering feminist women while dating, well, I donāt know what to tell you about that without knowing where you live, what kind of women you ask out, what the age of everyone involved is, etc.” Who suggested that feminists are responsible for my dating woes? Or that I have any. Or that I never meet feminists… I don’t specifically look out for them but I tend to get along rather well with post modern feminists – just yesterday I went out with a woman who’s doing a phd about gender and education. If there’s one thing I hate about these online discussion it’s the tacit assumption that a “privileged cis het guy” can only ever be interested in gender issues if he’s not getting laid enough. Imagine what someone would be told if s/he suggested that a woman’s opinion would be a function of the frequency of her having sex… With respect to the OP, reading your comment, I suggested that it seems slightly unfair to me to on the one hand be part of a significant public discourse asking men for specific behavior and on the other to explain that they cannot be expected to be rewarded for adhering to the demand, and also telling them that they are on their own with respect to parsing the demands becaus, well, making sure the message is appropriately understood is not what feminism is about. If you take what’s in the linked essay, the self-denying gynocentric focus reads pretty much like a meta-text analysis of a male feminists’ blog. Take Hugo Schwyzer, whose blog I’ve been reading (and not rarely enjoying) for years, and create a contextual term analysis, and you’d probably get to something like what’s in the essay. And it really seems like feminists do require a certain amount of self-flagellation from men before they’re accepted as discussion partners. Yet in a dating context *that* behaviour is, as is readily apparent from the essay, onoxious and f ar, far from sexy in any way. We don’t even need to get into the question of possibly different interpretations of the concepts confident vs. dominant to see what was wrong with the guy in the essay. He superimposed what he believed correct behaviour towards a woman as a privileged guy on his dating persona and tanked. And rightly so, because that just sucks. BUT: Given that the best advice guys get from feminists is “don’t be that guy”, Schrƶdinger’s rapist or “homogamy works and try to date less attractive women” (Amanda Marcotte on the good men project), and given that they’re even attacked if they’re taking sweeping overgeneralized feminist demands literally, how can you be surprised if the result is twofold: One, guys like the one described in the essay, and two, guys who realize that what they hear from feminists (possibly even the one’s they’re dating) really doesn’t have anything to do with the behavior these women are actually looking for. “But what I do know is that your dating experiences do not mean that feminists need to stop rolling their eyes when men ask for cookies on blog posts.” They can roll their eyes all they want. But it will not help. I sometimes get the impression, feminists don’t actually believe that they can have that kind of impact on guys, because if they did believe it, they’d most certainly switch to a more productive discourse. “Or that we need to not find it amusing when a rather clever young actor observes the same behavior in meatspace and finds it funny.” Sure. But there is a reason it’s funny. It’s because it’s sad. And given that I think the inherent contradictions of the different layers of demands asked of men are an important cause of the behaviour made fun of, I think laughing about it without accepting some sort of responsibility for ameliorating the inter-gender discourse leading to such misinterpretations is part of the problem, in my opinion.
Sam, the problem seems to be that you think feminist blogs are designed to be a forum that explains to men how to appropriately date women. They’re not. And it’s extremely rude to keep jumping into conversations with this set of demands that you want/expect us to meet. You are hijacking posts in an attempt to get them to address your personal issue that you think is more important than whatever else everyone was talking about, and that’s just rude. And with that I am done talking to you. I do not appreciate your implication that I should stop whatever I’m doing and address your personal set of grievances with feminist discourse, and I’m not going to do it. So stop pestering me. (Actually I wish someone would start a blog just to address the kind of stuff that Sam and others keep throwing into the conversation, so that we could simply direct them over there and get back to what we were talking about before. I sure as hell don’t have the patience to be the one to start it, though.)
CassandraSays: Sam, the problem seems to be that you think feminist blogs are designed to be a forum that explains to men how to appropriately date women. Theyāre not. And itās extremely rude to keep jumping into conversations with this set of demands that you want/expect us to meet. You are hijacking posts in an attempt to get them to address your personal issue that you think is more important than whatever else everyone was talking about, and thatās just rude. And with that I am done talking to you. I do not appreciate your implication that I should stop whatever Iām doing and address your personal set of grievances with feminist discourse, and Iām not going to do it. So stop pestering me. (Actually I wish someone would start a blog just to address the kind of stuff that Sam and others keep throwing into the conversation, so that we could simply direct them over there and get back to what we were talking about before. I sure as hell donāt have the patience to be the one to start it, though.) Cassandra. This place isn’t designed to teach men how to pick up women – nor should it be. However, I see it hardly fair for you to assume that the entire reason that Sam is posting is to learn how to do this, when he has stated already that he is fine with dating, fine thank you. Or is it your assumption that men who post on this site are all needy horndogs who are looking for female validation? I assure you, some of us are not so emotionally fragile or starved for attention that this is the entire reason we’re posting. Some of us are actually interested in the argument. Sorry if I’m being contentious. It’s just the (take your pick) testosterone poisoning, or the dudebromanham in me that’s acting up.
Sam: If thereās one thing I hate about these online discussion itās the tacit assumption that a āprivileged cis het guyā can only ever be interested in gender issues if heās not getting laid enough. Umm… what?? My “tacit assumption meter” must be broken because I’ve never noticed this. Sam: And it really seems like feminists do require a certain amount of self-flagellation from men before theyāre accepted as discussion partners. Umm.. what?? I better tell all my friends. Luckily, I know some kinky people, so we should be able to find enough whips. Sam: I sometimes get the impression, feminists donāt actually believe that they can have that kind of impact on guys, because if they did believe it, theyād most certainly switch to a more productive discourse. What impact do you think feminists are having that they are denying? I missed the earlier conversation, so I really don’t know. CassandraSays: Sam, the problem seems to be that you think feminist blogs are designed to be a forum that explains to men how to appropriately date women. Is that what’s going on? CassandraSays: I sure as hell donāt have the patience to be the one to start it, though. I don’t have the time, although I can see the usefulness.
There are two ways this can be seen as poking fun at feminists, both of which I think are spot-on: 1) There are normal interactions in the world that don’t need to have a million layers of structural analysis and subtext thrown at them. One of those interactions is walking up to a woman and asking if you can buy her a drink and trying to start a conversation. If a man tried to respond to all the reaosons you’re about to tell me that kind of interaction isn’t so simple, he’d come off sounding like a douche. Stop thinking about all the structural analysis, and like, have a beer, lady. [yes, this is a more subtle version of “stop being a humorless feminist”, which is also what the Marxist-Socialist jokes were– chill out, yo. Humor comes from suffering. ‘s why Jews are funny.] 2) When women start talking to you about these things while you’re trying to start a casual conversation, it’s douchey, but it’s hard to make a nuanced critique of that fact that criticizes the person without criticizing the substance. Hey, it’s okay to believe these things. Just, you know, dial it down, Einstein. See how obnoxious it is when people talk like this? Because sometimes, the only mature way to handle a situation like that is to say “no, thank you” and not turn it into a polemic moment.
@CassandraSays I know Clarisse Thorn is interested in creating a pro-feminist version of “The Game” and other PUA techniques. Pick Up Artist culture often has a lot of misogyny in it, but things like “being confident (or pretending to be confident) in yourself” and “coping with rejection” are a couple Pick Up Artist techniques that don’t go against feminist principles. Back on topic of the thread, feminists make fun of supposedly feminist guys who are clueless and/or only interested in feminism because they think it’ll help them get laid. And misogynists make fun of feminist guys because they think they’re gender traitors or “weak” or something. The guy in the joke is an extreme caricature, but the joke doesn’t do a great job establishing what the guy is a caricature OF. Alright, I really wanted to stay on topic, but… so… hard… must resist… OFF-TOPIC PARAGRAPH DELETED, TWICE, SUCCESSFULLY! RAGE VENTED! SUMMARY OF DELETED PARAGRAPH: “Feminism: Not actually all about the men.”
@pidgey – Clarisse has about a billion times more patience with this shit than I do, so hey, if she wants to do it that would be cool. Not that I think for a second that the dudes are in any way justified in coming into threads on feminist blogs to go BUT ME, WHAT ABOUT ME, WHY DO WOMEN NOT ALWAYS ACT ACCORDING TO SCRIPT, DAMMIT, DO YOU ACTUALLY EXPECT ME TO TREAT THEM LIKE INDIVIDUAL PEOPLE, WAH THIS IS ALL SO CONFUSING AND IT’S YOUR FAULT. But at least it would give us somehere to point them at when they do. Back on topic. You know, I think I’d read the article differently if it was by, say, Bill Maher, or an unknown person. But since it’s Eisenberg and I’ve seen him interviewed before I’m inclined to think he’s coming from the “Look, even men who think of themselves as evolved still act like pushy morons sometimes, and then there they go with the self pity. Shit, I’ve done this too, haven’t I? And now I’m embarrassed and mocking my own stupidity makes me feel better” POV.
Also, I think I’m erring on the side of giving him the benefit of the doubt (ie poorly written rather than ill intent) because, you know, actor. I’m a writer and I know I wouldn’t be able to do his job very well, so I’m going to be fair and not expect him to be any more skilled when he attempts to do mine.
LC, “Ummā¦ what?? My ātacit assumption meterā must be broken because Iāve never noticed this.” Well, maybe, don’t know. I certainly sense it all over the (general) place, not just here. Just take Darque’s reply as an indication that I’m not the only one feeling that way. “Umm.. what?? I better tell all my friends. Luckily, I know some kinky people, so we should be able to find enough whips.” Good for you ;). But seriously, just look at CassandraSays’ last reply for a good specimen of what I’m talking about. A general comment on one of hers with explicit reference to the OP is basically called trolling, trying to explain at length why I believe the OP is part of the problem that creates the very problem it is making fun of is considered hijacking the subject with a personal agenda. Now if that kind of aggression isn’t implicitly asking for male self-flagellation before beling allowed in to talk, if that kind of aggression isn’t making precisely the point I was trying to make about it being both “required” and then made fun of, then I don’t know. Again, it seems that feminists all too often aren’t aware of the double binds they create in this way. “What impact do you think feminists are having that they are denying? I missed the earlier conversation, so I really donāt know.” The earlier conversation was about expressions of confidence vs expressions of dominance by men in dating. CassandraSays suggested that my personal experience wasn’t representative of the general female/feminist population’s desire for displays of confidence/dominance (we didn’t get into that possible cause of for misunderstandings) while I contested that her sample/experience was representative of the general female population. So with me understanding her to be saying that non-classically-socially-dominant-performing men were preferred by feminists to classically-socially-dominant-performing men, I figured both the OP and her initial comment nicely illustrated the double bind I mentioned above. CassandraSays, “And with that I am done talking to you. I do not appreciate your implication that I should stop whatever Iām doing and address your personal set of grievances with feminist discourse, and Iām not going to do it. So stop pestering me.” too bad. It wasn’t my implication, but if that’s what you think then fine. Maybe my reply to LC can also partly serve as a reply to your last comment.
At first I thought “oh no, this might discourage guys from being more feminist”, but on the other hand, it’s a classic example of mansplaining at work (I’m a champion feminist, maybe better than you, here, let me explain things…), and even worse, as a pickup strategy. So I read it as a double-whammy satire.
Pidgey: I know Clarisse Thorn is interested in creating a pro-feminist version of āThe Gameā and other PUA techniques. Pick Up Artist culture often has a lot of misogyny in it, but things like ābeing confident (or pretending to be confident) in yourselfā and ācoping with rejectionā are a couple Pick Up Artist techniques that donāt go against feminist principles. I would be totally into helping support that project. I suspect Clarisse would be really good at it. CassandraSays: Also, I think Iām erring on the side of giving him the benefit of the doubt (ie poorly written rather than ill intent) because, you know, actor. Iām a writer and I know I wouldnāt be able to do his job very well, so Iām going to be fair and not expect him to be any more skilled when he attempts to do mine. I also tend to think that’s the way it was intended, for similar reasons. I just thought it was worth pointing out that it is clearly less clear than the author might have intended. Sam: Well, maybe, donāt know. I certainly sense it all over the (general) place, not just here. Just take Darqueās reply as an indication that Iām not the only one feeling that way. OK, but I’m not really seeing it. I’m totally on team cis-het-privilege (hell, give me a trust fund and I could be captain, but since not… ship’s mate? Oh! Bosun! Can I be the Bosun? They’re kind of bad ass, right? Wait, this was a sports metaphor, dammit! Never mind.). Despite that, I don’t think I’ve ever had that suggested to me in any thread, or ever seen it suggested as a general rule. Sam: Now if that kind of aggression isnāt implicitly asking for male self-flagellation before beling allowed in to talk, if that kind of aggression isnāt making precisely the point I was trying to make about it being both ārequiredā and then made fun of, then I donāt know. Fascinating. CassandraSays viewing something as a derail/thread hijack isn’t asking men to self-flagellate before talking. (How many people weighing in on whether or not it was funny or successful as satire and who was the target identify as men? I have no idea.) And clearly context is key here, since presumably you are basing your interpretation on previous behaviour, as is she. None of this seems to have much bearing on “feminists demand self-flagellation from men before they let them talk” or “het cis-men are assumed to be only participating in discussions because they aren’t getting laid enough.” Sam: The earlier conversation was about expressions of confidence vs expressions of dominance by men in dating. Ah. I suppose I would have to go back and read that to see what you think is the issue there, because while I can see why you drew the link, it does feel like a bit of a derail from appreciating (or not) a satirical piece of this nature.
LC, Clarisse *is* a star communicator. If you have a week or so, check her masculinity series on clarissethorn.com, in particular the “followup” mega-thread from December 2009 to October 2010. It’s also interesting as an example of how long it actually takes for people to have online debates without constantly talking past each other and how much goodwill is needed to even get to the point.
“…an example of how long it actually takes for people to have online debates without constantly talking past each other…” yep. Where do I find that again?
LC, that was undoubtedly the best gender-discussion I ever participated in. It was immensely helpful on personal level (because even though I don’t have dating issues in a narrow sense that doesn’t mean that I’m not affected by gender norms and constructions as such), and, I would hope, also for readers who didn’t participate, or who read the couple of pieces Clarisse wrote that were likely at least partly inspired by the thread. I recommend reading it to everyone, not just men interested in modern re(definitions) of masculinity and double binds imposed by, not least, feminism. But the fact that something has been discussed elsewhere certainly can’t mean that similar issues should not be pointed out in different environments. I still maintain my point about double binds in this case was very much on topic, and I am tempted to think that the fact that this is not as apparent to feminists is actually more of a confirmation than a refutation of my suggestion that feminists don’t really seem to understand what kind of sometimes disabling effects their discourse can have on men.
Sam. OK, fine, but you certainly can’t be unaware that coming in and saying “the fact you don’t agree with me proves I am right” isn’t likely to go over well?
Holy crap, I certainly didn’t expect this to be the most controversial thing that I posted during my guest blogging stint. I tend to agree with people that this is probably not particularly well written, since there’s so much ambiguity, which may come from Jesse Eisenberg being an actor rather than a writer. My creative writing profs always told me that good stories and poems are all about clear intentions. I could see an actor writing this as a monologue, which would have far more clear motivations that the written piece on its own. So, sorry to y’all who think that it’s making fun of actual, rather than faux, feminists. I didn’t mean to cause you hurt. That said, I still totally find it a hilarious critique of mansplaining and “feminist” guys. Even if it wasn’t the intention. Anyways. Sam: A general comment on one of hers with explicit reference to the OP is basically called trolling, trying to explain at length why I believe the OP is part of the problem that creates the very problem it is making fun of is considered hijacking the subject with a personal agenda. Now if that kind of aggression isnāt implicitly asking for male self-flagellation before beling allowed in to talk, if that kind of aggression isnāt making precisely the point I was trying to make about it being both ārequiredā and then made fun of, then I donāt know. Again, it seems that feminists all too often arenāt aware of the double binds they create in this way. Sam, I think I understand the argument you’re making, but there are a few things that I think you should keep in mind. 1. There is myriad humor making fun of women in general and feminists in particular. I have very low patience for men coming into feminist spaces and complaining about humor targeted at anti-feminist men. Which is how I view this piece and why I posted it. If you don’t laugh, you cry, and I’ve done a lot of crying in my life. I’m tired of it. Women deserve to have something to laugh about. 2. Women do not have a responsibility to prevent the hurt feelings of men. Feminists do not have a responsibility to prevent the hurt feelings of men. I understand that men may wander over to Feministe, read this, and be like, OMG feminists hate men, so I hate feminists!! GET BACK IN THE KITCHEN! But, to be honest, that happens all the fucking time, even with the calmest and most rational feminist arguments. So, see point 2b: feminists do not have a responsibility to prevent the hurt feelings of men. 3. I have no problem with feminist men asking questions and contributing to feminist discussions. I require no whipping of any sort. I have a huge problem with men coming in and trying to make themselves the center of the discussion. Which is pretty much what I see going on here. The space is not here for your personal enlightenment. If a feminist decides that she (or he) wants to take her time to make a guide for feminist men, that sounds awesome. But that is not the intrinsic goal of feminism or feminist spaces. 4. I’m really tired of being told that my “aggression” or “aggressiveness” makes it more difficult for men to access feminism. Yes, I am cranky and I am angry and I can be aggressive. Because I’m really fucking tired of women being marginalized. Fix that, and I’ll stop being so fucking “aggressive.”
I find it fascinating how, even after being explicitely told that a woman doesn’t want to talk to him, Sam doesn’t take that as a sign that maybe he should, you know, stop talking to (or, more accurately, at) her. This does rather illustrate why some women, such as myself, weren’t really keen on talking to him in the first place. In other words, what Shosie says. If someone has a pet subject that they really really want to discuss, cool. Write a blog post about it and ask other people to comment. This is both smarter and more polite than attempting to shoehorn your pet issue into any conversation that may or may not be semi-related. Back on topic – I can see why other people are reading it differently, but I still tend to think that Eisenberg’s intention was good, even though his execution wasn’t ideal.
@ Darque – As I read it, the point of the joke is that the man in the piece doesn’t let the woman get a word in edgewise, or in any other way pay attention to or respond to her reactions. He just walks up and starts talking at her, and continues to do so even when she’s clearly not interested. The fact that he’s spouting pop-feminist verbiage while doing it is the second part of the joke, ie that even with men who consider themselves more enlightened and woman-friendly sometimes that doesn’t actually translate into caring about women’s feelings, desires, etc. Basically the dude is acting like a PUA, but using the texts from his Feminism 101 class as a soundtrack.
Also at Darque – did you miss the part where this was a continuation of a previous conversation? Also, please refer to what Shosie said.
Shoshie, re your point 4., the quote you took from my comment referred to CassandraSays aggression in the comment that my reply referred to. The OP isn’t particularly agressive in my opinion, it’s merely contributing to the double bind I mentioned. As for “feminists do not have a responsibility to prevent the hurt feelings of men.” That explains a lot. I guess what goes around comes around, but that certainly won’t improve anything for anyone. It’s cementing the entire team sports gender point of view, which is not mine. CassandraSays, “I find it fascinating how, even after being explicitely told that a woman doesnāt want to talk to him, Sam doesnāt take that as a sign that maybe he should, you know, stop talking to (or, more accurately, at) her.” I don’t know what your thing is… rest assured that I won’t address you again.
Sam: As for āfeminists do not have a responsibility to prevent the hurt feelings of men.ā That explains a lot. I guess what goes around comes around, but that certainly wonāt improve anything for anyone. Itās cementing the entire team sports gender point of view, which is not mine. No, I’m pretty sure you still don’t get it. By existing, feminists hurt the feelings of some men. Because we’re trying to take something away from them, and that process is going to be painful. But, you know, it wasn’t theirs to begin with, so I don’t really mind hurting some feelings in the process. The point of the original post is to make fun of men who co-opt progressive feminist language to hit on women. Why is this problematic? Why is this making it more difficult for men to be feminists, unless they think they should be able to pull those kind of shenanigans? Why can’t it be a call for men to actually look at their own fucking behavior and think, “Hey, is this something I do? I should be careful about that!” or “Hey! I have a friend who does this! I wonder if he realizes that he’s being such an asshole? Maybe he should stop.” Why is it clearly a terrible, unfair feminist attack on men who clearly should be required to whip themselves into submission before my beautiful, feminist, and currently-dirt-covered toes? For the record, a couple of my favorite feminist/progressive writers are men, and I’m always interested to read their perspectives, no self-flagellation required. But, and this is key, they realize that feminism is not about centering them and their needs.
Shoshie, “Why is this problematic? Why is this making it more difficult for men to be feminists, unless they think they should be able to pull those kind of shenanigans?” I realize the good intention, yet I don’t know how to express myself any clearer than I have already. If you read a lot of feminist blogs, it’s not too difficult to get the impression that women are actually looking for that kind of self-flagellating gyno-centric behaviour. I mean, your last paragraph says, in my opinion, “I listen to men if they understand that their opinion is not as important as that of a woman”. So, well, a guy who takes that kind of statement literally has a reasonable chance of giving a performance like the guy in the story, don’t you think? He may even try to hide his sexuality because of its potentially opressive nature, but whatever he does he’s still a guy who would like to spend time in the company of the woman in question. So he’s chatting her up with what he believes feminists have explained to him and what he has accordingly come to believe about what women want. And before long, he’ll realize that what he inferred about women on feminist blogs isn’t what women he meets are looking for. And then he comes across this post and realizes that he is being made fun of for attempting to do what he believed feminists are asking of men… you really can’t see the double bind?
Oh god the whining…heaven forbid that feminism should decide not to center men’s feelings and be too busy to gush about how great men are, oh dearie me…
@Annaleigh – To be fair, it’s really only one guy whining. It’s just that, as in most things, it’s the annoying ones who by virtue of their lack of common sense and empathy shout the loudest and thus suck up all the air in the room. Fat Steve, LC, Comrade Kevin etc seem to be able to participate in the conversation without centering themselves just fine.
Sam: I mean, your last paragraph says, in my opinion, āI listen to men if they understand that their opinion is not as important as that of a womanā. Well, no, duh. Not when we’re talking about problems which primarily affect women, which men rarely if ever have a first-hand experience of. Women have more experience to draw on, a perspective which men don’t see. If we were talking about health issues the opinion of a doctor would be more important than that of a plumber. That doesn’t mean that when my sink is broken I’m going to call the doctor. Now, if we’re specifically talking about the way patriarchy hurts men too, men should totally speak up. I had a conversation on a post at the Guardian which was incredibly enlightening to me, because I asked male commenters to tell me how the patriarchy hurt them and the answers were not what I had assumed. (ctrl+f for AllyF and unexceptional if you want to find their posts–my posts are by jglitter) The thing is, the chap in the post is clearly a complete tool. You seem to be defending his behaviour on basis of the fact that he is a dude, and making excuses for his tool-ness, because women are soooo complicated and how on earth’s a guy supposed to know what women want nowadays? And here’s the thing: it’s not about acting in a way that’s going to get you laid. It’s about acting in a way that makes you a decent human being. If you politely tell a woman at a bar you noticed her and you’d love to buy her a drink sometime, and she refuses on the grounds that you didn’t “neg” her first or conversely fall over yourself trying to guess all her opinions based on her gender, then why on earth would you want to have sex with her? She’s clearly got some weird issues that you don’t want to be dealing with. You shouldn’t feel like there are certain things you need to say, tricks you need to perform, to get women to respond positively to you. There’s no secret code you have to enter for every woman. Just… don’t be a jerk. If you can’t go up to a woman at a bar, be yourself and be polite, and walk away with either her number or a friendly refusal (e.g. “Aw, I’m flattered, but I have a boyfriend/am not looking for anything tonight/am not interested), then you’re probably a jerk, and THAT is what you should be working on, not your pick-up technique.
Shoshie: I could see an actor writing this as a monologue, which would have far more clear motivations that the written piece on its own. That was what I meant when I said it would be much clearer if performed. (And you could probably perform it any one of the ways people have interpreted it and it would work.) glitterary: And hereās the thing: itās not about acting in a way thatās going to get you laid. Itās about acting in a way that makes you a decent human being. Quoted for truth. And Sam – First rule of holes. Stop digging. Seriously, I can’t tell if you are actually arguing that this space needs to teach men how to pick up women in bars, or what. This whole “men might read a feminist web site and then think they have to be weirdly self-flagellating people who apologize before being men before women will even talk to them” is so divorced from reality as to be amazing. If said hypothetical man is so bad at reading comprehension as to come away with that, there’s not much anyone can do. Hell, I don’t think in the depths of my worst 17-year-old Nice Guy(tm) phase I actually got that impression from my encounters with feminist discourse.
CassandraSays: Fat Steve, LC, Comrade Kevin etc seem to be able to participate in the conversation without centering themselves just fine. Very true, my apologies to them.
glitterary, thanks for your kind comment. Again, I don’t have problems meeting women. I have my own problems, part of which are a consequence of my mother’s feminism, but that’s really entirely unrelated. That said – “Women have more experience to draw on, a perspective which men donāt see. ” right, yet when I try to explain how I perceive feminist discourse to be affeting men and their behaviour, I’m told that I’m not getting it… “And hereās the thing: itās not about acting in a way thatās going to get you laid. Itās about acting in a way that makes you a decent human being.” Couldn’t agree more. Yet I wouldn’t say that the former is unrelated from the latter when it comes to behavioral expectations and how specific behavioral expectations are raised in men (in this case: by feminist discourse). “Sheās clearly got some weird issues that you donāt want to be dealing with.” Fair point, to which I reply with the best dating related “scarcity” comment ever (not by me, but s/he claims about me, which I don’t agree with): clarissethorn.com/blog/2011/04/03/storytime-fear-loathing-and-sm-sluthood-in-san-francisco/#comment-40312 Thing is, my point really wasn’t about defending the guy’s decidedly obnoxious behaviour. My point was that feminists don’t seem to realize how their discourse is causing guys to believe that this is what women want. And when they do it, they’re made fun of, which creates a double bind, and almost certainly resentment. I don’t think that’s a helpful result. To that Shoshie replied that it’s not her job to care about men to which I replied then we’re gonna play team sports on this subject a while longer. Will look at your Guardian comments. LC, again, I don’t think this space needs to tell men how to pick up women. I think it would be great if feminists had more to say about the most important arena of inter-gender interaction than the occasional “nice guy ™” post, which is pretty much where it’s at (Amanda Marcotte’s attempt at it at the Good Men Project was laudable and based on common sense) but it didn’t get into the discourse problem I’m referring to here. “If said hypothetical man is so bad at reading comprehension as to come away with that, thereās not much anyone can do. Hell, I donāt think in the depths of my worst 17-year-old Nice Guy(tm) phase I actually got that impression from my encounters with feminist discourse.” Good for you. I know a number of guys who offer some kind of the performance described in the essay based on what they believe is appropriate behaviour. It’s not helping them, and being made fun of for following what they believe feminists to be saying is certainly not helping. I understand that feminists are saying “not our problem”, but I think that attitude is a problem for the gender discourse as such. That’s why, in my opinion, the OP is part of problem it is making fun of. Also – hugoboy.typepad.com/hugo_schwyzer/2006/06/its_election_da.html
I remember growing up seeing packs of high-school bullies, these big illiterate thugs, get together and psychologically gang up on some poor nerd (occasionally me.) S/he would try and reason with them, try to be nice, but they’d just ridicule and belittle them until they ran away crying. It was horrible. That’s what you guys are doing to Sam. It’s sad. You’re schoolyard thugs.
I can be straight and still be an advocate for gay rights, just like I can be a man and still advocate feminism. Yet if I went to a gay-rights rally saying they don’t focus enough on the issues of straight people, they would rightly consider me a jerk. Sure, some of the cultural attitudes that are damaging to gay people are also damaging to straight people. For example there are plenty of straight, effeminate men who are hurt by homophobic slurs used against them for being effeminate. It is an objectively true statement that women are hurt more by gender norms than men are. As such feminism and gender studies in general will focus more on women, since they bear the majority of the hardships perpetuated by gender stereotypes. Though from my experience plenty of feminists have focused on how a lack of gender equality has hurt men too. Perhaps that’s just because I’m a guy so I tend to pay more attention to things that personally effect me. But claiming that “Well they don’t focus on men ENOUGH!” is problematic for numerous reasons: 1 .It is very difficult to argue against since “enough” is very subjective. We can have an argument going back and forth between “feminists don’t focus on men enough” “Actually, yes they do” forever, since we would be saying very little of actual substance. Similarly saying “men are forced to self-flagellate” is very subjective. That is your experience, but it isn’t my experience or the experience of some other men who’ve commented in this thread. It is possible you feel you have to self-flagellate because you often say things which are either wrong or hurtful. Also men (though some more than others) do often benefit from the patriarchy, so gender equality would require men to give up some of the privilege they have. But this is not the same as “self-flagellating.” 2. It erases the very real suffering women are much more likely than men to experience. Women get payed less than men for doing the same work. Women are more likely to be victims of rape and physical abuse. Men are victims of abuse too, but to a much lesser extent than women are. As such feminists will talk about men too, but to a much lesser extent than they talk about women. 3. Our culture is full of messages that imply women are somehow “less than” men and that their thoughts/opinions/issues are intrinsically less important than men’s issues. Thus making general, unspecific statements like “Feminists don’t focus on men enough” shows terrible taste and that you don’t have a very firm grasp of the issues women face. 4. It clumps feminists into one giant blob. Feminism is not a monolith. Feminism is a movement, and the root of the movement is individuals. Some individuals will be willing to focus on educating men about feminism and examining the ways gender stereotypes hurt men. Others will focus on women’s issues, or LGBT issues, or racial issues. Some feminists will mistrust a man before getting to know him, perhaps out of self preservation if they are survivors of sexual violence and suffer from PTSD. Rather than criticizing feminism in general, it is better to criticize the specific thing you think is problematic, and why you think so. People are imperfect, feminists included. If you are specific about what bothers you and why it bothers you, feminists will listen. But you also have to listen to them too. Sometimes they won’t agree with you. It is up to them whether they take the time to explain why what you said is problematic, damaging, or wrong. Your ignorance is not their responsibility. If you had entered this conversation with a post along the lines of “Hey, I think laughing at a guy because he cries after being rejected is cruel, unfair, and enforces the damaging stereotype that men must be strong and unemotional to get a date” there would be some responses of “Yeah, getting rejected is rough, though that isn’t what we find so laughable about this caricature. We identify with the ‘forever aloooone’ feelings people have after being rejected. But we laugh at the ‘trying to pick up women by trying to prove how feminist you are’ parts.” But instead you entered this conversation continuing an argument you had in a different thread, and offering the rather unhelpful advice of “Oh, this is just another example of how feminists are too mean to men.”
Sam: My point was that feminists donāt seem to realize how their discourse is causing guys to believe that this is what women want. I totally understand that this is your point. What you don’t seem to to understand is that it makes absolutely no fucking sense.
@Blatant Flavor It seems that most of the people engaging with Sam ARE trying to reason with him. We don’t agree with him, but we tell him why. Using the “schoolyard bully” metaphor is incredibly unfair. For one thing, Sam has the ability to not read the comments. For another thing, a terrible part of bullies is that there is often the implied threat of physical violence. Sam is under no such threat of violence from us. Furthermore we generally try to avoid personal attacks in our comments, to avoid the psychological bullying you accuse us of doing. There is a difference between telling someone how what they are saying is bad and telling them that they are a terrible person. There is a difference between not being nice to someone and bullying someone. We are under no obligation to be nice or cordial. And we are certainly under no obligation to agree. But I do try to be fair.
Sam: the most important arena of inter-gender interaction *arched eyebrow* Sam: I know a number of guys who offer some kind of the performance described in the essay based on what they believe is appropriate behaviour. Cool. So you go, “Yeah, really, that’s not it.” I mean, I’m not sure what to say because I actually don’t know anyone who thinks this is what feminists are saying. Even the unrepentant male chauvinist pigs I know don’t think this. (They just go right to “Feminists hate Men”.) As for the link… so Hugo agrees with me. And? Shoshie: Pidgey- Thank you. Seconded.
Pidgey, Blatant Flavour, Blatant Flavour, thanks for your support, but I think that, while being “piled on” in an online discourse can evoke a similar emotional response as bullying, these are indeed two different things. Pidgey is right in that respect. I’d also say that while I think that the general attitude here is “privileged asshole who doesn’t get it”, people have generally made the effort to use the sociological terminology for that š So, yes, piled on – as a result of being the one who raises the issue – but I wouldn’t say I’ve been bullied here, not even from CassandraSays who had the most aggressive attitude for some reason. Eppur si muove š
LC, “Cool. So you go, ‘Yeah, really, thatās not it.'” I try. But it’s not that easy. “As for the linkā¦ so Hugo agrees with me. And?” yeah, but he also described the problem as one experienced by a number of men and as a consequence of feminist discourse.
Fat Steve, “What you donāt seem to to understand is that it makes absolutely no fucking sense.” well, it does make a lot of sense to me.
Sam: Fat Steve, āWhat you donāt seem to to understand is that it makes absolutely no fucking sense.ā well, it does make a lot of sense to me. If you think women insist on be treated like they are in a Feminism 101 class, clearly you have never socially interacted with feminists. The entire argument is invalid as it doesn’t reflect the real world.
Its clear from the why its written that its not making fun of actual feminist men or men with alt gender identity’s but like other’s have pointed out on this thread the patronising and insincere nature of the protagonists spiel. Barking out phrases you’ve clearly just memorised from a gender theory text book as if your performing an for an oral presentation on the subject to someone who is clearly disinterested (I like to imagine an extra dimension to this piece where the guy has written down what he’s going to say on the inside of his hands) is dumb and reminds me of the old troupe of a middle aged person trying to drop as many pop culture references as they can into a conversation in a desperate attempt to appear hip and relevant to a crowd of young people.
Sam: yeah, but he also described the problem as one experienced by a number of men and as a consequence of feminist discourse. He describes it as one experienced by men who are misunderstanding what is being said in their first introduction to an academic class.
LC, “He describes it as one experienced by men who are misunderstanding what is being said in their first introduction to an academic class.” I read that as being more in line with my perception of the prevalnce – well, I guess we won’t agree on how prevalent the issue is…
“It is possible you feel you have to self-flagellate because you often say things which are either wrong or hurtful. ” The issue neatly summed up in one sentence. Thanks for that, Pidgey. Here’s the thing – this conversation reminds me very strongly of what happened on the “white people are scary” thread. And what Sam is doing is the gender equivalent of what some white people were doing on that thread by fixating on the word “scary” and refusing to pay any attention to the larger context. This happens a lot with men on feminist blogs, and it happens with white people on POC blogs, and straight people on queer blogs. And it’s not OK. It’s rude and obnoxious and self-centered and, frankly, in most cases evidence of some issues with the group whose space you are invading and attempting to subvert to serve your own needs. So when people do it the general reaction from the group who are in that space trying to have a conversation about issues important to them is not going to be good.
@ Fat Steve “If you think women insist on be treated like they are in a Feminism 101 class, clearly you have never socially interacted with feminists. The entire argument is invalid as it doesnāt reflect the real world.” No kidding. I mean really, I work in entertainment journalism. I spend a lot of time backstage at concerts interviewing rocker dudes. If “talk to me like a Feminism 101 textbook” was my expectation, I’d have had an aneurysm by now. Now “talk to me like a human being worthy of respect, and preferably without inflicting any issues that you have with your mother upon me” – yeah, that is an expectation that I generally have, and most men don’t seem to find that too hard to meet without dissolving into self-flaggelation.
CassandraSays: Hereās the thing ā this conversation reminds me very strongly of what happened on the āwhite people are scaryā thread. I was just thinking that parallel on the way home. CassandraSays: Now ātalk to me like a human being worthy of respect, and preferably without inflicting any issues that you have with your mother upon meā ā yeah, that is an expectation that I generally have, and most men donāt seem to find that too hard to meet without dissolving into self-flaggelation. One would hope.
Yeah, actually, the first time I saw what Shoshie posted was when a friend on fb called out major pick-up artists for techniques that were rapey, and one of the pua defenders posted this seriously to show how hard it was for men to do what women really want, or some such bs. So, if it was satire, I think it was failed. My response was to point out that men, particularly feminist ones, seemed to have no problem approaching me and dating me, and to give examples of how that had been accomplished. And as CassandraSays points out, it basically comes down to respect and treating someone like an individual. Pro tip: this was also how the men decided if they wanted to be with *me.* If I was up to their standards.
LC, since I promised CassandraSays not to address her – “I was just thinking that parallel on the way home.” So what’s that supposed to mean – that it’s not possible to point one’s perception about how these groups’ discourse is causing problems as well? If required silence is the result of “checking one’s privilege” even when something is/appears unfair, then that doesn’t seem to be a reasonable approach to me. As for Fat Steve’s textbook vs reality check, if so, why does feminist discourse lead to the phenomenon I’m describing, and I think Hugo Schwyzer is describing. Maybe there is something sweeping and over-generalizing to this kind of gender discourse as it relates to men that does cause that misunderstanding. And if so, as everyone who’s ever worked in communications is going to tell you, it’s not (only) the responsibility of the recipient to parse the message in the way the sender intends. It’s also the sender’s responsibility to ensure the message is correctly understood.
Sam, It doesn’t lead to that when men are operating in good faith and treating women as individuals who they respect and who are entitled to equal dignity. Really, it doesn’t. I have been around men who treat women with respect and as individuals, and they don’t think like this. And in addition, if such a conversation is necessary, this isn’t the place for it. Because here we are talking about feminism–which is how these things affect women.
Sam, It doesn’t lead to that when men are operating in good faith and treating women as individuals who they respect and who are entitled to equal dignity. Really, it doesn’t. I have been around men who treat women with respect and as individuals, and they don’t think like this. And in addition, if such a conversation is necessary, this isn’t the place for it. Because here we are talking about feminism–which is how these things affect women.
You have a lot of fortitude, Sam. One thing I see a lot in this discussion thread is the conflation of men in general with feminist men in particular. Feminists actually have a great deal of power in what these feminist allies think and how they behave. As such these feminist allies may feel that they need to be this way because they really have no idea how to act in a society that demands that they be the initiators of social contact coupled with their own self-instilled guilt for society being that way. So they either drop feminism discussion and revert back to patriarchial methods, or they essentially have to overprove their feminism and self-flagellate themselves so they don’t seem threatening. There is a third method which is to subvert the male social initiation expectation entirely, but I can say from observation and personal experience that this is akin to waiting in the desert for a water salesman. Being quiet and sitting in the corner goes nowhere. Society has not yet equalized the expectation for men and women to be social initiators in inter-gender socialization. And in the context of a bar scene, essentially anything a man says will be construed as a pick-up line. The lesson I take from this article is essentially that singles bars are a feminism-free zone and feminist ally men would do well to stow it and just try conventional methods of social interaction. Because, intellectually, nothing hurts worse than having your motives questioned on a subject you feel empassioned about. And I also agree with Sam about the “no cookies” attitude, not because I think men who join deserve immediate remuneration simply for being one, but it would help to not be suspected of trying to co-op this movement for quick college hookups. When you have uninitiated men who live blindly in a patriarchy, when it comes to feminism they have three options: 1. They can remain as they are, sticking to society’s conventions in ignorance of larger meaning and unrecognized beneift. 2. They can invest whole-hog in patriarchy and its various privileges and advantages awarded to men, which is similar to #1 but involves active rejection of gender equality ideas. 3. Or they can reject patriarchy and abdicate their privileges and embrace geneder equality movements like feminism, which is the right thing to do, but can sometimes lead to suspicion of your motives and generalized disdain for simply being there. I was a therpasit in Student Development at my university. There I saw an exchange between a campus feminist and an ally (at least I hope he’s still one) explode into an epic rant. He basically was tired of being treated like a skeezy loser angling for a date all the time. He was empassioned about gender equality, but I feel the suspicion may have burned him out on the subject for a long time. He had actually been in the gender equality group on campus longer than his argument opponent had, but that did not insulate him from suspicion even from people in the group that knew him for years. When he was meeting me for therapy (this was due to a breakdown that he had experienced follwing the argument), he said that it particularly hurt because he was so dedicated about helping this cause go forward. His exact words were that “It wouldn’t hurt if I didn’t care. I do care. They know what to say to hurt me because I care.” This goes along with what Sam asserted that among feminist ally men, feminists do have a large influence over the thoughts of said allies, and its really not fair to cajole and ridicule a man for trying to adapt and evolve into a more equitable person. Equality isn’t goling to be built tomorrow, so why should we expect newly converted men to be near-perfect almost immediately? Sure the feminist movement may not be 100% about men’s issues or really even 30%, but I believe that this particular sphere of the original post and the discussion does concern men in the movement. If the goal is greater equlaity for all, then occasionally an ear should be bent for the issues of men in the movement. Obviously I’m not suggesting anything radical like offering “rewards” for men’s involvement, but patriarchy can be very tempting in its offer of endless privilege, and men don’t need to be pushed in that direction when trying to do the right thing. Men in the movement should be more useful as allies than as enemies. (Of course when I say men I mean cis-het, occasionally white.) Thank you for your read.
Jeff, I don’t know what you are suggesting, then. The only times I suspect men of douchiness is when they either are douches or act like them. When I tell someone of good faith “hey, when you do this, it scares some women for x, y, or z reason” they don’t take it as some kind of personal attack. The usual response is “shit, I did not know that” and an increased understanding and better social comfort for all involved. The men I have dated were horrified any time they were thought to be a predator based on how they acted not because it hurt their feelings, but because they were horrified that they had scared someone they were trying to charm. The way that men have picked up on me (including, gasp! once in a bar in Las Vegas) and I have picked up on them is the same way that I have initiated friendly and long conversations with people of both sexes in coffee shops. We size eachother up, look for indications of openness, somebody makes an opening salvo–a remark about something happening right then, or what I am doing there, or what the other person is doing there, and if the other person responds favorably we have a conversation, which gets more or less flirtatious or joking or formal or comfortable depending upon whether we, you know, like eachother. And then, in the dating type situation, the man (or woman, sometimes) either directly or indirectly feels out whether I would be interested, contact information is exchanged, or not, and shit, all of that while treating me like a person whose wants and desires are worthy of respect. Not only that, the successful men tend to have a respectful attitude towards their own wants and desires–part of the conversation isn’t just trying to pick me up, it is trying to figure out whether I am really the person they want to spend time with. It really isn’t any harder than making friends. And yes, I have been picked up by people who would describe themselves as socially-awkward, introverted geeks! And I am one too! And sometimes I do the picking up! Respecting the opposite sex: It ain’t rocket science.
Jeff: You have a lot of fortitude, Sam. One thing I see a lot in this discussion thread is the conflation of men in general with feminist men in particular.Feminists actually have a great deal of power in what these feminist allies think and how they behave.As such these feminist allies may feel that they need to be this way because they really have no idea how to act in a society that demands that they be the initiators of social contact coupled with their own self-instilled guilt for society being that way.So they either drop feminism discussion and revert back to patriarchial methods, or they essentially have to overprove their feminism and self-flagellate themselves so they donāt seem threatening. There is a third method which is to subvert the male social initiation expectation entirely, but I can say from observation and personal experience that this is akin to waiting in the desert for a water salesman.Being quiet and sitting in the corner goes nowhere.Society has not yet equalized the expectation for men and women to be social initiators in inter-gender socialization.And in the context of a bar scene, essentially anything a man says will be construed as a pick-up line.The lesson I take from this article is essentially that singles bars are a feminism-free zone and feminist ally men would do well to stow it and just try conventional methods of social interaction.Because, intellectually, nothing hurts worse than having your motives questioned on a subject you feel empassioned about. And I also agree with Sam about the āno cookiesā attitude, not because I think men who join deserve immediate remuneration simply for being one, but it would help to not be suspected of trying to co-op this movement for quick college hookups.When you have uninitiated men who live blindly in a patriarchy, when it comes to feminism they have three options: 1. They can remain as they are, sticking to societyās conventions in ignorance of larger meaning and unrecognized beneift. 2. They can invest whole-hog in patriarchy and its various privileges and advantages awarded to men, which is similar to #1 but involves active rejection of gender equality ideas. 3. Or they can reject patriarchy and abdicate their privileges and embrace geneder equality movements like feminism, which is the right thing to do, but can sometimes lead to suspicion of your motives and generalized disdain for simply being there. I was a therpasit in Student Development at my university.There I saw an exchange between a campus feminist and an ally (at least I hope heās still one) explode into an epic rant.He basically was tired of being treated like a skeezy loser angling for a date all the time.He was empassioned about gender equality, but I feel the suspicion may have burned him out on the subject for a long time.He had actually been in the gender equality group on campus longer than his argument opponent had, but that did not insulate him from suspicion even from people in the group that knew him for years.When he was meeting me for therapy (this was due to a breakdown that he had experienced follwing the argument), he said that it particularly hurt because he was so dedicated about helping this cause go forward.His exact words were that āIt wouldnāt hurt if I didnāt care.I do care.They know what to say to hurt me because I care.āThis goes along with what Sam asserted that among feminist ally men, feminists do have a large influence over the thoughts of said allies, and its really not fair to cajole and ridicule a man for trying to adapt and evolve into a more equitable person.Equality isnāt goling to be built tomorrow, so why should we expect newly converted men to be near-perfect almost immediately? Sure the feminist movement may not be 100% about menās issues or really even 30%, but I believe that this particular sphere of the original post and the discussion does concern men in the movement.If the goal is greater equlaity for all, then occasionally an ear should be bent for the issues of men in the movement.Obviously Iām not suggesting anything radical like offering ārewardsā for menās involvement, but patriarchy can be very tempting in its offer of endless privilege, and men donāt need to be pushed in that direction when trying to do the right thing.Men in the movement should be more useful as allies than as enemies. (Of course when I say men I mean cis-het, occasionally white.) Thank you for your read. TL;DR You two have taken a humorous little essay and completely blown all the fun out of it. Thanks a lot.
Fat Steve: TL;DR You two have taken a humorous little essay and completely blown all the fun out of it. Thanks a lot. Silly Steve, don’t you realize? š It’s the “what’s in it for the menz” hour at Feministe because of Sam and Jeff. It’s not enough that supporting the liberation and equality of women is the right thing to do, men are also entitled to not getting their fee-fees hurt in the process, and they are entitled to the attention of women who aren’t interested in them or don’t want the attention of men they don’t know, because womenfolk should be grateful for their “help” and falling all over ourselves to make them comfortable. Which is what we’ve already had to do through the centuries under patriarchy anyway…
@ Annaleigh – Actually, looking over at the Bachmann and The Help threads, it seems to be Derailing For Privileged Asshats week in general. Did Jill announce this and I somehow managed to miss it?
CassandraSays: @ Annaleigh ā Actually, looking over at the Bachmann and The Help threads, it seems to be Derailing For Privileged Asshats week in general. Did Jill announce this and I somehow managed to miss it? Yeah, I noticed the derailing in those threads too. Between this one, those that you mentioned, and the thread about James Anderson, I think you’re onto something. š
Actually given that last week we had the white people are scary thread, and things followed the same pattern there too, apparently it’s Derailing for Asshats month. Maybe we’ll get lucky and September will be Productive Discussion Month.
Sam: So whatās that supposed to mean ā that itās not possible to point oneās perception about how these groupsā discourse is causing problems as well? If required silence is the result of āchecking oneās privilegeā even when something is/appears unfair, then that doesnāt seem to be a reasonable approach to me. Sometimes? Yes, you should shut up. Because maybe it appears unfair, but isn’t. Does it mean you have to shut up all the time? Of course not. Context is key, as it is in all things. So you learn and you figure it out, like you do with every other human interaction. Sam: As for Fat Steveās textbook vs reality check, if so, why does feminist discourse lead to the phenomenon Iām describing, and I think Hugo Schwyzer is describing. Maybe there is something sweeping and over-generalizing to this kind of gender discourse as it relates to men that does cause that misunderstanding. And if so, as everyone whoās ever worked in communications is going to tell you, itās not (only) the responsibility of the recipient to parse the message in the way the sender intends. Itās also the senderās responsibility to ensure the message is correctly understood. Yup. If a message is constantly misunderstood, then there might be a problem with the message. Thing is, I don’t actually see this message being that misunderstood that often among people who aren’t committed to misunderstanding it. Does a first encounter with it sometimes result in misunderstanding? Sure. And engagement and follow through tends to clear that right up. Jeff: One thing I see a lot in this discussion thread is the conflation of men in general with feminist men in particular. Feminists actually have a great deal of power in what these feminist allies think and how they behave. OK, this might be a distinction worth exploring. Clearly, people who are actively opposed to feminism aren’t going to listen no matter how many times it is explained to them, but men who actively agree with feminist ideals would. Jeff: So they either drop feminism discussion and revert back to patriarchial methods, or they essentially have to overprove their feminism and self-flagellate themselves so they donāt seem threatening. OK, really. I need to ask. Where does this “need to self-flagellate themselves to seem non-threatening” come from? Honestly, I’m not picking a fight here, I just do not see this. How is “appearing non-threatening” some kind of self-flagellation? Do you normally go through life trying to appear threatening and so it is some massive refutation of yourself to not appear so? Jeff: And I also agree with Sam about the āno cookiesā attitude, not because I think men who join deserve immediate remuneration simply for being one, Wait. That is the “no cookies” attitude. You don’t get a cookie just for showing up. You don’t get bigger rewards for doing the bare minimum than other people get for doing the work. And you do understand the “no cookies” attitude came in because it is so easy to slip into doing exactly that, right? “No cookies” does not mean, “We will suspect your motives at all times”. You’re going to get suspicion about your motives if you show up and say, “I showed up, didn’t I? WHY DON’T I GET A COOKIE!?!?!” Jeff: 1. They can remain as they are, sticking to societyās conventions in ignorance of larger meaning and unrecognized beneift. 2. They can invest whole-hog in patriarchy and its various privileges and advantages awarded to men, which is similar to #1 but involves active rejection of gender equality ideas. 3. Or they can reject patriarchy and abdicate their privileges and embrace geneder equality movements like feminism, which is the right thing to do, but can sometimes lead to suspicion of your motives and generalized disdain for simply being there. Nice rhetorical trick with number 3, tacking on the “sometimes” and a bad result, which you didn’t bother to do with 1 and 2. Slick. Jeff: Equality isnāt goling to be built tomorrow, so why should we expect newly converted men to be near-perfect almost immediately? Shockingly, I don’t think most people do? The story of this student is very sad, but I’m not sure what to make of it. Is it a fault of feminist discourse? Is it a fault of the social dynamics of that group? Maybe they really didn’t like him, and said horrible hurtful things they knew would get to him. Maybe after he’d been there for years, if the people who knew him for years were still suspicious of him, they had a reason. Jeff: If the goal is greater equlaity for all, then occasionally an ear should be bent for the issues of men in the movement. Sure. I don’t think anyone is against that. But you know, it isn’t going to happen every time. Its almost like stopping everything else to talk about whatever the men want to talk about whenever they want to talk about it is something people don’t want to do.
Ismone: Respecting the opposite sex: It aināt rocket science. But it would be cool if it was, because then there would be rockets! CassandraSays: Actually, looking over at the Bachmann and The Help threads, it seems to be Derailing For Privileged Asshats week in general. Oh, I should be glad I just avoided the Bachmann thread, should I?
“OK, really. I need to ask. Where does this āneed to self-flagellate themselves to seem non-threateningā come from? Honestly, Iām not picking a fight here, I just do not see this. How is āappearing non-threateningā some kind of self-flagellation? Do you normally go through life trying to appear threatening and so it is some massive refutation of yourself to not appear so?” I think the idea of self-flagellation in gender discussion comes from feminist male guilt in the daily readings of unreported rapes, big bad bastards, and general exemplars of patriarchy (or kyriarchy even) and the guilty feelings of responsibility for the action even though they are obviously not responsible for nor should they be held responsible for the actions of those men. They they try as hard as they can to distance themselves from these men and that can include the depreciation of certain positive qualities those men may have despite their bad behavior, like confidence and the ability to ignore attacks to their *ahem* “fee-fees.” As for appearing non-threatening, that’s probably a reaction to an article called Schrodinger’s Rapist, in which a woman describes any man she meets as having an equal chance of being a rapist to her. So now feminist men sympathetic to this feeling now go out of their way to appear nonthreatening. But this assumes that a man can have a choice in this matter. Some men have facial nevuses and horrible scars, which damns them to always appear threatening. I myself have a muscular frame, a very heavy brow, and rather thick eyebrows, and I have been told, even by my own parents, that I appear angry all the time, even when I’m not. So I am somewhat in a fix as far as social meetings, because I feel very uncomfortable approaching people because my face itself is threatening, and yet nobody approaches for the same reason. “āNo cookiesā does not mean, āWe will suspect your motives at all timesā. ” I feel that I may not understand the origin of this phrase, but I have heard it from that student in my previous post. Apparently, despite the actual oncampus outreach and school paper articles he penned, apparently he was still being treated as having “just shown up” and thus having his motives questioned. I can only attest to how it was used in that context. “The story of this student is very sad, but Iām not sure what to make of it.” I think it’s just him venting frustration, but he did say that when newer members joined they always asked “who’s the creepy guy?” (I’ve been delaying saying this but this young man is… well… he’s been told he’s a bit chubby and he already has a receding hairline.) I’m afraid it may be as you say that they simply do not like him and attacked him where he was most vulnerable, which is his university work. What I take from it is that the feminist discourse when it comes to men has a dogwhistle effect in that the untrained and uncaring men do not hear it, but the men sensitive to the issue hear it loudly and feel like crap. “Maybe after heād been there for years, if the people who knew him for years were still suspicious of him, they had a reason. ” It was newer students in the group suspicious of him. And I doubt there was a reason because he felt compelled to seek therapy for the event. “Sure. I donāt think anyone is against that. But you know, it isnāt going to happen every time.” Well I was thinking that, considering this story was about a man’s hypothetical behavior infused with an exaggerated dose of gender studies, it would be a topic where men’s experiences would be necessary to reach an understanding of the source of the hypothetical behavior.
Jeff At the end of the day, I think your perspective is out of wack. Supporting gender equality is the ethical choice irrespective of what others believe about you. We’re not locked in some tit-for-tat game where people are required to be nice to you if you are nice to them. If some women think I’m a potential rapist, so what? I know I’m not. Their belief doesn’t alter my life appreciably. If that’s the perspective that gets them through the gauntlet of sexism they experience, then sure why not. Why would that make me feel like crap? Its not about me, its about them. In my view this “self-flagellation” occurs when you take things personally even when they have nothing to do with you or when you feel defensive about something you do that you know isn’t appropriate.
“feminist male guilt in the daily readings of unreported rapes” This assertion strikes me as one made exclusively by men who do not actually advocate feminism, claiming to read the minds of men who do. I don’t feel guilt. I feel anger at a society that is deeply messed up and actively resistant to being set right.
Thomas MacAulay Millar: I feel anger at a society that is deeply messed up and actively resistant to being set right. Seconded.
Jeff: As for appearing non-threatening, thatās probably a reaction to an article called Schrodingerās Rapist, in which a woman describes any man she meets as having an equal chance of being a rapist to her. I am familiar with the piece, and think there’s a great deal more nuance than that involved in it. Jeff: So I am somewhat in a fix as far as social meetings, because I feel very uncomfortable approaching people because my face itself is threatening, and yet nobody approaches for the same reason. And that sucks, and I’m sorry. But surely, this isn’t limited to approaching women? This is a societal issue concerning what we consider a “threatening” look, and isn’t specifically about feminists using language that demands all men self-flagellate before talking to them. Jeff: I can only attest to how it was used in that context. Fair enough. As I said, “no cookies” means (as I have always understood it) that you don’t get fawned over for just being a guy who showed up and isn’t being an asshole. There is a strong tendency to have exactly that happen – i.e. a man shows up, says some basic feminist 101, and gets praised to high heaven for “getting it”. Their conversation and opinion gets prioritized over the actual women in the group. It’s insidious, and a problem. Even more of a problem is when a man shows up and EXPECTS that kind of praise for getting some basic 101 concepts. So that’s where “no cookies” comes from. It’s you don’t get cookies just for showing up, you actually have to do some baking (and preferably help with the clean up). I can’t speak to your student feeling he paid his dues and put in his time and was still not getting any respect, obviously that’s a specific social dynamic among that group that was happening. Jeff: What I take from it is that the feminist discourse when it comes to men has a dogwhistle effect in that the untrained and uncaring men do not hear it, but the men sensitive to the issue hear it loudly and feel like crap. I wouldn’t call it dogwhistle given the specific pejorative connotations of that word, but certainly being criticized by people whose opinion you value is worse than by those who you don’t give a damn about. That’s just standard all the way through. But again, this sounds like a specific case of them rejecting him, not a secret feminist code. Jeff: It was newer students in the group suspicious of him. My mistake then, I misread what you wrote earlier. Jeff: Well I was thinking that, considering this story was about a manās hypothetical behavior infused with an exaggerated dose of gender studies, it would be a topic where menās experiences would be necessary to reach an understanding of the source of the hypothetical behavior. And most of the commentators disagreed. It happens.
4catlady: Actually, I see it as a mockery of all feminists (male and female).Its intent is to show the authorās viewpoint that feminism is absurd.Itās not being kind, folks.Itās a slam. Glad to see someone got the joke. He’s obviously saying that feminist women have created a social environment that has cultivated men in such a fashion that they themselves do not want anything to do with them. Of course the author uses hyperbole to illustrate his point (any fan of SATC should be used to this) but the truth is often best conveyed in jest. He’s basically saying “This is the type of man that you feminists want and he’s such a joke that you can’t even stand him.” Like it or dislike it but I personally think that it was creative and well-delivered.
nocdib: Glad to see someone got the joke. Heās obviously saying that feminist women have created a social environment that has cultivated men in such a fashion that they themselves do not want anything to do with them. Of course the author uses hyperbole to illustrate his point (any fan of SATC should be used to this) but the truth is often best conveyed in jest. Heās basically saying āThis is the type of man that you feminists want and heās such a joke that you canāt even stand him.ā Like it or dislike it but I personally think that it was creative and well-delivered. No, dumbass- you’ve completely missed the point. There is nothing feminist about a guy who won’t take no for an answer. If you understood subtext at all you will see that this is a guy trying to push himself on a bunch of women who aren’t interested. That drink would have been thrown in his face no matter what he said because he would not leave the women alone. The joke is on the man who thinks that talking like a feminist will help him with his non-feminist goal of using a woman like a sex object. Get it now? No, you probably fucking don’t.
Fat Steve: The joke is on the man who thinks that talking like a feminist will help him with his non-feminist goal of using a woman like a sex object. Yeah, pretty much. I’m really not understanding the people coming in here saying the post gender normative man is what feminist women expect men to act like. What feminists (generally, as always exceptions apply) want in the dating world: Someone who treats them like a person deserving of respect, and is looking for mutual satisfaction in whatever interaction they’re jonesing for. Someone who watches out for and pays attention to signs of disinterest or interest and responds accordingly and respectfully. How patriarchally inclined men (generally) treat women in the dating world: As a means to an end in sex/dating/whatev, therefore not paying attention to “no”s because he’s not concerned with her feelings on the matter. How post gender normative men (generally) treat women in the dating world: As a means to an end in sex/dating/whatev, therefore not paying attention to “no”s because he’s not concerned with her feelings on the matter. With feminism buzzwords.
oops, forgot a close tag. “mutual” and “pays attention to” should be bolded, not the stuff in between. And in case it’s not clear, I’m referring to the specific kind of “post gender normative man” described in the satire piece.
nocdib: Glad to see someone got the joke. Heās obviously saying that feminist women have created a social environment that has cultivated men in such a fashion that they themselves do not want anything to do with them. Of course the author uses hyperbole to illustrate his point (any fan of SATC should be used to this) but the truth is often best conveyed in jest.Heās basically saying āThis is the type of man that you feminists want and heās such a joke that you canāt even stand him.ā Like it or dislike it but I personally think that it was creative and well-delivered. It can’t be that obvious, if it has a thread this long dedicated to (at least in part) parsing out the minutia of what it could possibly mean. And if that is what the piece is meant to espouse, then Eisenberg did a particularly terrible job in the research part, because I don’t want a guy – any guy, one who talks about them Packers or feminist theory – coming up to me in a bar and blatantly chatting my ear off without (a) looking for some conversation in return beyond, “Sure, I’ll buy you that drink” and (b) any regard for what I may be there for or what I’m looking to get out of any interactions. So, if you or Jesse Eisenberg think feminist women want the same normal terrible interactions with assholes we were already having but now with fun feministy type language thrown into the monologue directed at them, then maybe the problem isn’t with the feminist women. Because I can tell you, that’s not what we’re going for here. It seems like part of the problem with interpreting the piece is this idea here, the idea of men saying, “If we can’t walk up to a feminist woman and start talking to her about feminist type stuff, what can we do to pick her up? Feminists are IMPOSSIBLE!” I don’t think the piece is trying to represent that viewpoint; but if that’s its M.O., it’s funny for a whole other reason – that being as if it is ever a good idea to act like this guy does in regard to any topic of conversation. The guy’s behavior is wrong. It’s off. It’s bothersome. Not because he’s overly emotional or is too egalitarian but because he’s still focusing the entire interaction on himself. It’s still about him, and what he wants, instead of placing emphasis on the other (in this case unwilling) participant in the conversation. A good rule of picking someone up? It’s the same good rule of any conversational style. Listen to the other person and allow them to either leave the conversation or be an active part of the conversation. This is true if you’re discussing baseball or politics or feminism. This is true if you’re with friends, trying to make friends, with fellow employees, or trying to pick someone up. It’s called treating others with respect. That’s what the guy in the piece didn’t do.
petpluto: The guyās behavior is wrong. Itās off. Itās bothersome. Not because heās overly emotional or is too egalitarian but because heās still focusing the entire interaction on himself. Itās still about him, and what he wants You said what I was trying to only much more concisely. Brava š
You know, because of the Politics of “Hello” thread, I’ve been re-reading Gavin De Becker’s The Gift of Fear for the first time in a few years, and the first thing to stand out in the book is when De Becker talks about now niceness doesn’t equal goodness, and quite frequently people use “niceness” as a way of getting what they want. What’s going on in Eisenberg’s story is in some ways what De Becker talks about in his book; the dude is using a lot of feminist language to make himself seem like the Nice Guy, but he is ignoring the woman’s no’s and body language, which is something De Becker warns about. The dude in the story is “nice,” but he isn’t good. And neither are men who think that their stated support for feminism should be enough to make women who don’t feel like talking to them to talk to them, or to make women who don’t know them from Adam to ignore their personal boundaries and put too much trust in them because, oh hai, dudely feminist.
LC: niceness doesnāt equal goodness I really need to read that book. It’s certainly worth reading, it tries very hard to get people to trust themselves when it comes to bad feelings about people or situations, especially women because we’re more socialized to ignore those feelings in the name of politeness, but people in general can benefit from trusting themselves more.
Your interpretation may differ from mine, and I’d love to read it, but the sooner I’m done with this hack’s work the better. Let’s look at the text! Mind if I sidle up? yes, I do. why is this guy being cutesy? I saw you over here sitting alone and I thought, thatās fine. the punchline. I noticed that you were about to finish your drink and I was wondering if I could possibly watch you purchase another one. he’s a creep. What do you do? And before you answer, Iām not looking for a necessarily work-related response. everything that follows requires such careful phrasing that it redefines one’s identity. he couldn’t fake this. I grew up idolizing male thugs like Neil Armstrong and Jimmy Carter. the Poet is mocking feminism. And if I were to find a mate, be it you or someone else here tonight, I would be more than happy to tell the proverbial āmanā that I quit so I can raise our offspring with gender-neutral hobbies, while my biologically female partner continues to pursue her interests, be they industrial, recreational or yes, even sexual with another mate. the Poet is not in any way supportive of men who actually do this. He’s saying this is what this man believes is required of him to potentially find a mate. it’s not a routine, it’s a concession. Iām thinking of launching a letter writing campaign on behalf of EJ-S or at least cold calling potential Nimba voters over Skype. yeah, nobody pulls this out of a feminism textbook and uses it to try to pick up women — this guy has some interest invested in these things, and the Poet wants you to know they are absurd. Thank you for your blunt rejection of me. not sarcasm. we’re supposed to know that either he’s spineless or she’s too assertive, because thanking someone for rejecting you is absurd. were he a pua or a fake feminist, he’d have turned it off by now. Now, if youāll excuse, Iām going to the bathroom where Iāll cry silently in a stall, questioning my body and texting my mom, but for now, I thank you for your time, which was equal to mine. women are too sensitive and feminist men are women.
groggette: You said what I was trying to only much more concisely. Brava š Hey, thanks! Funnily enough, I read what you wrote after I posted and was like, “Now it just looks like I was copying groggette!”
Yeah, I am with the camp that says this is actually sexist, and meant to say that feminist women don’t even want what we say we want. Because it was quoted by a guy to me on fb to support that argument. If it was satire, it was badly failed satire. The speaker in the piece is demonstrating extreme privilege, but that doesn’t mean the writer is aware of it.
LC, “Yup. If a message is constantly misunderstood, then there might be a problem with the message. Thing is, I donāt actually see this message being that misunderstood that often among people who arenāt committed to misunderstanding it. Does a first encounter with it sometimes result in misunderstanding? Sure. And engagement and follow through tends to clear that right up.” I don’t know. Again, I think that kind of misunderstanding is much more common than you suggest. I think it does take a lot of knowledge about feminist discourse from a guy’s perspective to be saying to themselves, let alone in a discussion “look, I know this *sounds* like they’re asking of men to act demure and constantly check for women’s temperatures, but it’s really *not* what they’re actually asking. There’s also the audience mismatch problem. Feminism sometimes needs to scream to even be heard, and as all public messages, they may overemphasize some things, so the overall message sticks. You need to learn to differentiate that from what’s actually there for you and learn to not care about the general stuff.” Hmm, maybe there’s also a online/offline thing that’s exacerbating this? Jeff, sorry to hear about the story you told. As for the Schrƶdinger’s rapist piece, I think I’m generally more with LC, I think it was one of the few laudable attempts of feminists to actually give actionable advice. Like most of feminist discourse, I believe it suffered/suffers from an immense audience mismatch: One, it’s aimed at guys who don’t care but written in a feminist blogs in language understood mostly by feminists. The guys at which it is aimed will tend to not read, the guys who read it will tend to think it’s telling them to not say hi if they’d like to say hi to a woman they’d like to say hi to. Which is not what the author intended (remembering talking to her about it) to say, but which is another indication of the problem you mention and of feminist discourse being misunderstood because feminist discourse apparently either doesn’t realize it *has* this counter-productive effect – which I think is more likely – or doesn’t care – which will exist, but will be, I think, rare. Thomas Macauly-Millar, “I donāt feel guilt. I feel anger at a society that is deeply messed up and actively resistant to being set right.” right. But we’ve already had this discussion in your “talking past each other”-thread. One, how is feeling guilt and anger mutually exclusive? And two, why should your reaction be the only admissible one? I’m not saying guilt is the appropriate reaction. But it is most certainly the most likely reaction. And the most damaging and counter productive reaction.
Sam: Hmm, maybe thereās also a online/offline thing thatās exacerbating this? Regardless of anything else, I am always willing to assume there is an online/offline difference in communication.
Ismone: Yeah, I am with the camp that says this is actually sexist, and meant to say that feminist women donāt even want what we say we want. Because it was quoted by a guy to me on fb to support that argument.If it was satire, it was badly failed satire.The speaker in the piece is demonstrating extreme privilege, but that doesnāt mean the writer is aware of it. But, if you take all the feminist lingo out and replace it with sexist lingo the guy would be just as obnoxious. For example: “I noticed that you were about to finish your drink and I was wondering if I could possibly watch you purchase another one.” Do you honestly think the writer is implying the woman would prefer something like “I noticed that you were about to finish your drink and I was wondering if I had any chance of banging you before I offered to buy you one.”? OR “What do you do? And before you answer, Iām not looking for a necessarily work-related response” is Jesse Eisenberg saying she’d prefer him to say: “What do you do? And before you answer, Iām not looking for a career woman, just someone to cook for me and have my babies”? The guy who mailed this to you on Facebook sounds like a total shithead, and I think you can pretty much go with the opposite of his interpretation of anything.
Look, Fat Steve, I disagree with you about the meaning of the piece. So do lots of other people, and you have responded pretty rudely to some of them. Like I said, at best, it is failed satire. At best. But I have seen this line before, honestly used on feminist women–men saying that we don’t really want what we say we want, and then giving an example of an interaction something like this. Hell, even my dad, who I love and who doesn’t think he is sexist, sometimes says shit along these lines. So, occam’s razor, Jesse Eisenberg is probably being one of those asshats, and if he isn’t, he is doing an insufficiently good job of sending them up. Being an actual woman who has had shit like this said to me, I actually am coming at this from some experience, although of course, YMMV.
Ismone: Look, Fat Steve, I disagree with you about the meaning of the piece.So do lots of other people, and you have responded pretty rudely to some of them.Like I said, at best, it is failed satire.At best. But I have seen this line before, honestly used on feminist womenāmen saying that we donāt really want what we say we want, and then giving an example of an interaction something like this.Hell, even my dad, who I love and who doesnāt think he is sexist, sometimes says shit along these lines. So, occamās razor, Jesse Eisenberg is probably being one of those asshats, and if he isnāt, he is doing an insufficiently good job of sending them up.Being an actual woman who has had shit like this said to me, I actually am coming at this from some experience, although of course, YMMV. Clearly I have no experience and while, I appreciate your experience, I also appreciate the experience of Jill and Shoshie, both of whom interpreted it like I did. Also, I was never rude to anyone who interpreted the piece like you, only the males who agreed with that interpretation and thought the article was a great piece of satire. I can totally respect you opinion that it’s bad satire even though I don’t agree with it.
To clarify, when i said ‘clearly I have no experience’, I meant, I have no experience of a man trying to pick me up at a bar. I wasn’t saying that you were implying i have no experience of anything,