Weekend Open Thread January 4, 2013 tigtog Please natter/chatter/vent/rant on anything we’ve missed discussing over the last few days, so we can catch up with what’s been happening during the Feministe hiatus.
http://niceguysofokc.tumblr.com/ http://hetpat.wordpress.com/2013/01/03/the-self-righteous-bullies-of-tumblr-and-their-feminist-apologists/ Other-people-who-shall-not-be-linked also have opinions.
this niec guy thing is so much of nonsense. on that tumbler they have selected a few guy who have been nice guyed and who are also write sexist and racist thing in dating profile. what this prove exactly? nothing. because there also is many genuine nice guy who dont write the sexist and racist thing and dont have entitle attitude, but they can not have girlfriend. also it is not entitle to wish to have relationship and love. most heterosexual woman wish at some point to have the boyfriend, the love, the sex, etc. would such woman be denigrate by feminist as being entitled and insincere if she be nice to man she is attracted to but is not attracted to her? i think not. only when man has done it, it is considered worthy of the mocking. use for example feministish show such as buffy slayer of vampire (i am going to say things that are in show, do not read if you think you may watch in future and dont want to know what happen). in early season, willow and xander are friend. however willow have crush for xander for long time. he unaware and she is not tell him. but still she remain good friend with him. but still sometime it difficult for her when she have these unrecipracated feeling. she want her affection return from xander. this does not mean she have entitle attitude. since she do not get back this sort of love from xander, she is happy to be friend with, but still it difficult. she is good person and sympathetic character. feminist would sympathise with she. however if gender was swapped and willow was boy and xander was girl. feminist would attack willow for be “nice guy” and consider to be misogynist and all these things. is this seem fair?
tomek, there are plenty of people in the world who go through unrequited love episodes. Of course they often feel sorry for themselves that the person whom they desire does not reciprocate. Most of them however manage to not become rage-monsters about it, and cope with actually being friends if they can or walking away if friendship is too hard for them. None of those people are “NiceGuy™” like those on the tumblr, and Willow doesn’t strike me at all as a “NiceGirl™” with respect to Xander.
None of those people are “NiceGuy™” like those on the tumblr most of on there tumblar is just guy with unrequited love. yes there are some of them with sexist comment aginst woman. but this is minority. most have not written single sexist thing! so why is this guy, whom have not become rage-monster, is called NiceGuyTim but woman in situation similar is with sympathised?
tomek, I’m not calling certain faux-nice men “NiceGuyTim” I’m calling them “NiceGuy(TM)” as in TM standing for commercial trademark, because the only evidence that they are in fact nice is their own self-advertising. I haven’t done more than glance at the tumblr, so I can’t speak for every example they’ve chosen, so the rest of my remarks here are general. “Nice” is a nothing word, other than being a default/unthinking label for “not being obviously offensive/alarming right now”. Nobody who really likes another person ever describes them to somebody else as just “nice”. Nobody deserves any special consideration for just being “nice” – it’s a default expectation of basic socialisation. If certain men have no better word to describe themselves than “nice” then they’re not actively looking to make themselves good company for other people. People who others find to be good company variously exhibit (not all of these and not all at once) these sort of positive attributes: kindness, enthusiasm, consideration, amusing banter, restfulness, adventurousness, ridiculous sillyness, nurturing qualities, compatible interests/hobbies etc. Most people make/choose friends based on enjoying something positive about certain people they meet/know – not just the absence of blatant negatives, which is all that “nice” is. There’s also something deceptive about many of these Faux-Nice guys – they’ve decided that the only way that they can get the girl they want is to pretend that they feel things that they don’t really feel e.g. pretending to like romantic movies, pretending to be a listener who actually cares, pretending that they just want to be her friend (and then getting upset when she believes them and treats them that way!). This sort of pretence rarely comes off as entirely genuine, and thus tends to backfire because others instinctively won’t fully trust the pretender. BTW – the thing about truly charming people? They might not be deeply interested in every single person they meet, but they are genuinely interested in having a pleasant conversation right there and then just because they value pleasant conversation for its own sake even if those conversations never lead to another social engagement with that person. Being a pleasant conversationalist (or even just a generous listener) also means that they keep on getting invited places because they keep other people happy, and this means they have more opportunities to meet somebody with whom they might ‘click’.
P.S. Tomek, it’s already been explained that your example of Willow is not equivalent, so stop using it and find a better argument. Willow was a genuine friend to both Xander and Buffy throughout the period where she had an unrequited crush on Xander and Xander had an unrequited crush on Buffy. They fought side by side against vampires etc and saved each other’s lives many times. There was nothing fake about that friendship triangle just because there were also unrequited romantic yearnings flying around – they all put the friendship ahead of their romantic disappointments. Then when Willow eventually fell in love with somebody else, she was still one of Xander’s best friends, proving that the friendship was a genuine one. Faux-Nice-Guys aka NiceGuys™ do not treat friendship with women they find desirable in anything like the same way.
tomek, most of the men on that tumblr are raging racists or homophobes. Believes same sex relationships are wrong = douche Believes interracial couples are wrong = douche Believes abortion is evil = douche Believes men HAVE to be the head of household = douche Believes women are obligated to shave = douche Believes there are times they are entitled to sex = RAPIST. There is no actual definition where these men are nice. period. There is no reason not to call these men out on there fuckery. period.
Tomek, the Nice Guy syndrome is referring to a particular kind of man best exemplified in this famous xkcd cartoon. It doesn’t have to do with feeling unrequited love. It has to do with thinking that women owe you sex/love because you have been “nice” regardless of those women’s actual desires.
tigtog. yes i udnerstand this what “nice” often is used for mean lack other good quality. but how is this justify putting there picture on tumbler and shame them in public internet? so you find him not charming, so you find him boring in conversation. so put him on internet and mock? what you are say is that these men deserve such treatmant because they are do bad socially or because they are not “exciting” or some such thing?
tomek, they are NOT being mocked for just being Nice and no more. They are mocked for being obviously, in their very own words, actively Not Nice yet claiming that they are Nice.
Tomek, the men deserve mockery because of the misogyny, homophobia, and racism they display in their comments and answers to questions. That is what is being mocked.
Exactly, EG. It is their very own words which they chose to publish on OKCupid in the first place which are being mocked. That’s all we have to go by. Mind you, as David Futrelle notes on ManBoobz, posting their faces seems overly harsh.
apolagy tigtog. i have considered reply now. i agree in base case with what is said about certain type of NiceGuy being crepy but i still think not it justify this exposure of they. i explain these comments they are make which are racist and sexist and such are common viewpoint held of people with such kind of upbringing. many of woman who have had traditional upbringing like this will hold similar opinion, and they will also consider themself nice. why is it then that only these men is singled out for this public attack? again we is come back to the fact what they have failed at being exciting or attractive to woman. in additional some of these these men make no racist or the homophobe comment. in these case only one bad comment is display on photo “woman should have obligate to shave leg: yes”. this is question of poor formulation because it imply obligation and lose agency (better question is “should woman use agency to shave leg”). still i am think over 90% of human (woman include) will answer yes to this question. are these 90% of human have there face post public? no. only those who are man and who also fail to be super charming guy. i think here there is a wish to find excuse to mock guy who woman (and even femanist) feel is pathetic guy, because he have failed to fulfil traditional masucline behavior trait.
I find myself in agreement with Ally Fogg that the tumblr blog is bullying and not helpful. The Nice Guy stuff these men are spouting is already on OkC, there for all to see and ignore (or respond to if desired) so what is the point of repeating it in mocking form? Some of the comments on his blog appear to be from Nice Guys doing some self-justification which is a bit sad, but his piece makes a lot of sense and I agree with the sentiment.
what is the point of repeating it in mocking form? Why not mock it? Nobody has the right to put something up on the internet and expect it to be viewed only by those who will approve.
I see no reason not to be unkind to misogynist, racist, homophobes. And it’s purposes are to expose their hypocrisy and to amuse others. It is succeeding admirably on both counts.
It’s not obvious all of the men being mocked are racist, homophobic, sexist bigots. Some of them just appear awkward and a bit odd, without having answered the racist, homophobic, and sexist questions in a way deserving of mockery. Even some of the ones who gave the “wrong” answers to the stock questions are probably ok, just a bit clueless. If you grow up in a very conservative and sheltered place and you’re asked the question “Should women be obligated to shave their legs?” you have probably never even given the question much thought. Women’s legs have always appeared shaved to you so you give the answer you expect will allow you to comply with societal norms. Not everybody is immersed in feminism and social justice issues and I personally would not want to date someone who wasn’t aware of the things I care about. It is easy to avoid dating these people given what they have posted on their profile, but I don’t feel the derision is deserved in many of the cases. These men are not some amorphous mass of undesirable maleness, they are individuals, probably lonely individuals, some of whom are clearly awful and talk about sluts and bitches while bemoaning their inability to impress either, others not deserving to be put in the same bag.
It’s not obvious all of the men being mocked are racist, homophobic, sexist bigots. Some of them just appear awkward and a bit odd, without having answered the racist, homophobic, and sexist questions in a way deserving of mockery. I disagree. Every one of them I’ve read–and I’ve been following that blog–has indeed written screeds or provided answers that are racist/homophobic/sexist: men should be heads of households, no doesn’t always mean no, I disapprove of interracial marriage. The question regarding shaving isn’t “do you prefer women to have shaved legs.” The question is “do women have an obligation to shave their legs.” Do women, in other words, owe it to you to shave their legs. You don’t have to be immersed in social justice issues to be aware that nobody owes it to you to conform to your preferences. they are individuals, probably lonely individuals No. Being single is not the same as being “lonely,” and being lonely and being a sexist homophobic jerk are not mutually exclusive. I haven’t seen a dude on there who is just “awkward.” I have seen that excuse made for any number of sexist harassers, though.
I’m not entirely sure how that blog worked. . .but it seems a bit invasive and creepy to troll OKCupid profiles for something one doesn’t like and then repost it and ridicule the original posters publicly. I much prefer it when women publicly ridicule men who actually send them creepy or insulting messages on a dating site. That seems appropriate to me because it’s self-defense and trying to cope with a painful situation. But reposting other people’s profiles without their consent when they haven’t been bothering you (if that’s what this was) reminds me too much, for instance, of anti-trans radfems who troll the blogs or Flickr accounts of random non-famous trans women and then publicly mock those trans women for imagined infractions, or perhaps just for being “ugly.” I don’t think someone is deserving of harsh treatment just because you disagree with their opinions on sexual or racial politics. That almost seems like believing in thoughtcrime to me. It’s one thing if someone is actively invading someone else’s space or abusing them or even just talking about his abhorrent opinions when you are in the same room as him. But if YOU are the one seeking out the confrontation, that puts you in the position of the aggressor, and I can’t be that sympathetic to an aggressor, even if I agree with her political views on certain key things.
@LotusBecca “But reposting other people’s profiles without their consent when they haven’t been bothering you (if that’s what this was) reminds me too much, for instance, of anti-trans radfems” that reasoning at first reminded me of marni’s a couple posts back, wherein she said (pretty much) ‘if we ruin the life of a real asshole, who will stop assholes from ruining our lives?!’ of course the answer is “no one” but why should that stop us? as for the other portion of your post i’m pretty sure that expressing racism, sexism, etc. is confrontational by nature and deserves full well to be rebuffed whenever it’s expressed, wherever it’s expressed. i’m pretty sure these profiles are public anyway so it’s not like they wanted these vile opinions to be concealed in any manner.
i should amend that post real quick by adding that i am not saying you are any similar to marni in any other respect than your curious use of logic in just that one instance. sorry.
EG where be the public shaming of all women who believe the same homophobic or racist thing that those men do? in fact if that happen to women i think u will rush to criticize people posting face. guy whom say woman should be obligate to shave leg is not sexist. he hold this believe only because 99% woman also hold this believe and force it on other woman. woman has chosen, for whatever reason, to make shave of leg on the par with having wash every day and being clean. so dont criticize guy who is simply copy that opinion to fit in.
Expressing racism and sexism is not confrontational by nature. It IS something I disagree with and pretty much find uniformly gross across the board. But two sexists who are talking to each other about their sexist views in their private residence, for example, are not confronting anyone. The point of an OKCupid profile is to attract like-minded people, not to express your views to people who will be offended by them. It’s very easy to screen out people whom you are likely to find highly distasteful on there due to OKCupid’s matching system, and most people do that. So I see no particular reason to harass racists and sexists who are just looking for likeminded racists and sexists to date. I actually do think it’s possible to have social norms that limit a little bit, if not at all prevent, infringements on people’s privacy. I don’t expect to get a majority of people anytime soon to agree with the fact that I’m a transsexual, or into BDSM, or a recreational drug user, or a radical leftist. But I might get people to respect that, as contemptible as I may be, I still deserve the right to find likeminded people on the internet to date in peace. I think standards of respect for privacy and fair play should be applied to everybody, not merely to people who are not obnoxious.
LotusBecca: I don’t think someone is deserving of harsh treatment just because you disagree with their opinions on sexual or racial politics. That almost seems like believing in thoughtcrime to me. No. Thoughtcrime would be if the government were to police and punish them for their views. This is private citizens making fun of them. Nobody’s views get to be immune from criticism. The internet is not a private residence. OKCupid is not a private residence. It is public. And this is the risk we all take by posting personal information and photos on it. It would be one thing if she were posting real names and contact info; then I would agree that this was an invasion of privacy. But she’s not. If somebody wanted to take elements of my OKC profile and post it on a blog called, oh, “Ugly Feminists of OKCupid,” that would be pretty much the risk I took by making that information available. EG where be the public shaming of all women who believe the same homophobic or racist thing that those men do? Feel free to start that blog if you like. It’s not the responsibility of NGofOKC’s founder to cover all the hateful people in the world. guy whom say woman should be obligate to shave leg is not sexist. he hold this believe only because 99% woman also hold this believe and force it on other woman. Bullshit. Women do not have some kind of mind-meld with these men. They are responsible for their own beliefs.
Ugh, sorry, I forgot to delineate when I stopped responding to Becca and started responding to Tomek. Apologies.
Today in Let’s Compare Shall We: Nice Guys of OKC: Posts bits of voluntarily uploaded profiles verbatim, does not give out usernames, does not give out addresses or RL information. Posts a picture. Potential Prostitutes: Posts pictures, telephone numbers, email addresses and real-life addresses and names. All information of unknown provenance. Demands $99.95 for women to unsubscribe themselves. But please, let’s keep talking about how we should be more KIND to the douchebags of the world. So I see no particular reason to harass racists and sexists who are just looking for likeminded racists and sexists to date. How nice for you that you don’t have to worry about the kinds of things that happen in places where many racists set up family with many other racists!
But reposting other people’s profiles without their consent when they haven’t been bothering you (if that’s what this was) reminds me too much, for instance, of anti-trans radfems who troll the blogs or Flickr accounts of random non-famous trans women and then publicly mock those trans women for imagined infractions, or perhaps just for being “ugly.” I don’t think it’s the same thing at all. Unless you consider “obligations” to have sex and hatred of gay couples to be an imagined infraction. I have a whole lot of straight friends who I hope like HELL would never go out with someone who thinks gays should burn in hell or whatever. As someone who uses OKC with her wife – though obviously not for finding potential spouses – not everyone on OKC wades through all the questions people have answered, before starting chatting (some of them answer 500-800 questions! who reads all of those?). Hell, not many people read the whole profile. How do I know? Because at least once a month someone decides to write an ode to my Dusky Beautifulness despite the fact that – well, you know me, you can imagine what the profile says! Having a handy-dandy resource of Fuck No helps. And if I or my friends can avoid going on six dates with someone only to find out they’re a Fred Phelps fan because we saw their asshattery besplattered across the internet, hey, that’s a win in my book!
But I might get people to respect that, as contemptible as I may be, I still deserve the right to find likeminded people on the internet to date in peace. If I were looking for anyone…I wouldn’t find you contemptible for any of those things about yourself! So even if I saw your post being mocked on, say, Radfem Hub, my immediate – and delayed! – instinct would be to wade in and defend you. Similarly, I have no doubt that the vast majority of forced-birth gay-hating racist fundie douchebag women out there would not change their feelings one jot because they found out that a guy…is exactly as big a forced-birth gay-hating racist fundie douchebag as they are. That said, I DO NOT like the fact that NGOKC puts up faces. It’s not a private blogger posting Christmas photos or a news site using a stock image or whatever.
EG and Mac. . .I can see where both of you are coming from. So I’m going to first defend what I was saying a bit, but then also talk about how I’m very likely wrong here anyway. Because right now, I feel sorta ambivalent about this. Mac, since you have an issue with the posting of faces, too, we might actually not be that far apart on this. I don’t know if I would have reacted the way I did to the blog if it hadn’t posted faces. I think something that educated the public about how many people can feel so comfortable expressing bigoted sentiments on a dating site would be helpful and educational. I just am uncomfortable when the people’s names and photos are being used. There are billions (literally) of people in the world who hold racist or sexist or homophobic views. To me it makes no sense to go after random individuals just because they hold these views. Kyriarchy is an systemic problem with systemic causes, it is not a personal problem with personal causes. I support going after people if they are committing abusive actions toward others and going after public figures who hold oppressive opinions. But I’m uncomfortable with going after one of the billions of people in the world who holds an oppressive opinion just because they express that oppressive opinion on their personal profile on an internet site. And EG, I think in our current age of so many people spending so much time on the internet and so much surveillance technology being out there and cheaply available, someone’s OKCupid profile, while obviously not as private as their bedroom, is about as private as their front porch or yard. I wouldn’t drive around neighborhoods looking for people who are out in their front yards and seem like people I’d dislike, and then if I observe them discussing offensive things with their friends in their front yards at regular conversational volume, surreptitiously recording video of it and posting it for thousands to see and mock on the internet. And I see the NGOKC as basically analogous to that. I just think a generous and expansive notion of personal privacy in society is a good thing, and it will actually benefit marginalized people the most in the long run. Even if it means not going after random oppressive jerks in as aggressive a way as might feel satisfying. As someone who uses OKC with her wife – though obviously not for finding potential spouses – not everyone on OKC wades through all the questions people have answered, before starting chatting (some of them answer 500-800 questions! who reads all of those?) Try 1000 questions! At least in my case–that’s how many I filled out (yeah, I spend too much time on the internet!) So this will kinda go against my other earlier point, but I want to acknowledge that I’m sure my personal experience is coloring and perhaps distorting my perspective on all this. Being anti-oppression is very important to me. I filled out a LOT of political/ethical match questions on OKCupid. There is no way that any of these Nice Guys of OKCupid would EVER pop up for me automatically unless I specifically went looking for them. Our match percentages would be way too low. So there is a 0% catch I’d be at risk for going on a date with a “Fred Phelps fan.” When I was using the site a lot, I was more worried about whether socially liberal but apolitical people or mainstream progressive Democrats were being effectively screened out for me. I had no doubt that fundamentalist Christians or open racists were being screened out. That said, I have a lot of bizarre traits and proclivities that I could see lots of people in our prejudiced society having a problem with and going after me for. And I am open about the way I am, in life and on the internet, even though it often leads to harassment. So maybe I just had unwarranted sympathy for these douchebags and applied some sort of misguided Kantian categorical imperative to this situation. I was thinking about how I would feel if a similar site existed going after people like me. And yeah, it wouldn’t ruin my life or be that huge of a deal, but it wouldn’t feel good and it would just another slap in the face. But perhaps the difference is that racists and sexists and homophobes don’t normally get any grief for their notable traits, whereas I do get grief for mine. So in that sense, maybe NGOKC is not analogous at all to the radfem anti-random-trans-women sites and so on. NGOKC is not going after particularly vulnerable people, and that’s a big difference. So yeah! There you have the mixed messages of my thoughts on the matter!
I wouldn’t drive around neighborhoods looking for people who are out in their front yards and seem like people I’d dislike, and then if I observe them discussing offensive things with their friends in their front yards at regular conversational volume, surreptitiously recording video of it and posting it for thousands to see and mock on the internet. But Becca, an OKC profile isn’t the same as a private conversation. Posting, say, a private message from someone to someone on OKC without blurring faces/usernames would be equivalent. This is more like seeing a large offensive billboard in someone’s backyard – it’s put up for public notice, to attract like-minded people, and as a statement of personal belief on the part of the person who’s erected it. They are explicitly trying to attract potential mates/lovers/FWBs/friends through the questions they choose to answer and display on the internet, so no, mocking them for that isn’t intruding on a private space at all, any more than posting and mocking images of a Westboro Baptist poster would be.
@EG, Mac, Becca, I made my initial response to the post with the same ambivalence as Becca. I certainly don’t see myself as a defender of Nice Guys. Like Becca I view the stock questions as filters more than anything else, and I think on a dating site one should be free to express one’s preferences without being vilified for them by people one probably is not reaching out to anyway. It’s not clear to me whether one has to answer all the questions or not. From what Mac says, perhaps no, in which case my objection loses strength as the questions could just have been ignored if they were unimportant to the person when making his profile. I think it is the posting of the photos that made me most uneasy. I do think there is a valuable message in the tumblr blog, and one from which the less challenged individuals featured on NGOOKC could probably benefit (though of course it’s not anyone’s job to teach them), but the photos blur the message. I think posting the contrast between the “Oh I’m such a nice guy” and the problematic answers to the questions in such a way that the archetype was made obvious without singling out the individuals would have achieved the same goal, but of course this would not be nearly as entertaining and would not have allowed the ongoing exercise of the tumblr blog. Which is where I have the problem. The point has been made, and individuals are still being selected on an ongoing basis. Because some (I picked out two actually) of the guys would not imho have made the cut had it not been slim-pickings that day, or if their profiles were seen in isolation from the tumblr blog, I can’t help feeling that there is an exploitative aspect to the blog in its mocking of these individuals. The show must go on, even if there is not much to see… so let’s find someone to mock even if they’re not in the same bag as the others. Becca, I made the same extrapolations as you about condoning the mocking leading to marginalization of less mainstream identities and proclivities, although I do see that racist, homophobic, and misogynistic answers to stock questions are not in the same category as these identities and proclivities. Anyway, it all made me uncomfortable.
From what Mac says, perhaps no, in which case my objection loses strength as the questions could just have been ignored if they were unimportant to the person when making his profile. BBB, you have the option to avoid answering any question you want on OKC. We skipped the relationship-y ones, so I know this for sure. You also have the option to state that you find a question Not Relevant. So anyone expressing pretty much any opinion on OKC is doing so because they’re invested to some degree in the subject.
@Donna, There were some legal issues the blog author was facing. She said it was possible she would have to take down the blog.
I think posting the contrast between the “Oh I’m such a nice guy” and the problematic answers to the questions in such a way that the archetype was made obvious however these problamatic answers are shared by huge many people (men and woman) who consider themselves to be nice and other who share those opinion to be nice people. so the problem for such men is not that they are not nice. to kind of traditional-upbringing woman they are probably being NiceGuy to, she will consider them genuine nice guy, because she hold these views too. these men therefor are confuse about why they get not date. woman whom they are friend of often say thing like “i need guy whom will listen to me good and have good respect”. i am hear this a lot from woman too. so guy wil natural be confuse. he is do these things, but still she prefer guy who do not do these things. case what NiceGuy does realise not is that woman actually most want guy who is high masucline, and such guy tend not to be the nice guy type whom will listen and thing. maybe woman even not realise this sheself, which is why she talk of want nice guy. so natural this is confusing situation for all involve. guy end up be take advantage of by girl because he does not understand him personality type make him out of running in dating girl. NGOKC is not going after particularly vulnerable people, and that’s a big difference. right guy whom is awakard and constant rejection by other people and attack public on internet. he is not vulnerable at all. Feel free to start that blog if you like. It’s not the responsibility of NGofOKC’s founder to cover all the hateful people in the world. you think anyone buy this? it is only by coincadance that the racist/homophobe people whom have been attack here is awkard shy guy from dating site? there are no site which pick out girl and post public picture for saying racist or homphobic thing. why, because people realise this is bullying mean behavior just like in NiceGuy case. but it is fine to do it to awkward guy who dont charm woman good. remember he dont have feeling or vulnerabilaty.
This is more like seeing a large offensive billboard in someone’s backyard – it’s put up for public notice, to attract like-minded people, and as a statement of personal belief on the part of the person who’s erected it. Exactly. OKC isn’t a private space. The answers to these questions are not private. And actually, the photos aren’t private. There might be copyright issues regarding the photos, I guess, but I have no moral problem with their use. you have the option to avoid answering any question you want on OKC. Yep. I refuse to answer any of the ones about my sexual desires and practices specifically because I don’t want that information available on the internet. These men had that option; they chose to put the info up there. If they’ve been on the internet in the past year, they know precisely how much privacy they can expect and they put their answers up anyway. Caveat douchebag.
it is only by coincadance that the racist/homophobe people whom have been attack here is awkard shy guy from dating site? Why on earth do you assume that these men are awkward and shy? guy end up be take advantage of by girl because he does not understand him personality type make him out of running in dating girl. How precisely are these guys being taken advantage of by women? Not fucking someone is not taking advantage of them.
@LotusBecca when i said “i’m pretty sure” bigotry is confrontational by nature i was being sarcastic since i’m actually positive bigotry is confrontational by nature. anything you state that underlines an opinion which regards someone as worth less than you based simply on orientation, colour, et al, is absolutely taking the first swing. just cos they didn’t walk up to someone and say “i think you’re less of a human than i am” directly to their face does not mean they’re avoiding conflict. and if this passive-aggressive racism doesn’t becomes more direct racism it will at least make more direct racists feel comfortable in acting. so i don’t see any problem mocking them, whether you happened to hear them say things in a private place or a public one (as OKC is).
Not this again. V_V because there also is many genuine nice guy who dont write the sexist and racist thing and dont have entitle attitude, but they can not have girlfriend. Yes, they do have an attitude of entitlement. They think that being nice to the girls they like should be rewarded with intimacy. And that is decidedly misogynistic and creepy. also it is not entitle to wish to have relationship and love. No one is saying otherwise, you dumbass. Your straw man arguments will not convince anyone here.
I realize that I probably don’t have the right to comment on this (being an asexual in a committed partnership), but, Most of the men there complain about being in the “friend zone” (whatever that means). I think they are lying. I (and most feminists I know) would certainly never be friends with that kind of trash. They are not “nice guys”.
Other-people-who-shall-not-be-linked also have opinions. Heh. Thank you for that. I hope I’m not stomping on any blog etiquette by posting this… but for anyone who’s interested, here is a blog post that includes a most excellent (in my not-so-humble opinion) Storified Twitter rant from one of my favorite bloggers on the subject of the-person-who-shall-not-be-linked in response to his opinion piece on this subject: http://arewomenhuman.me/2013/01/04/feminist-abuse-culture-and-enabling/
I haven’t seen that blog before; thanks for linking. Also, holy shit. I wish I could write that well in stream of consciousness.
I sometimes feel like I’ve got some kind of pathological fixation, because whenever he-who-must-not-be-named’s name comes up — which it does with depressing regularity — I feel like a never-imprisoned Hannibal Lechter just walked in the door. (Even though, being male, I don’t have to worry about him seeing me as prey.) It’s gotten to the point where I use a blogger’s position on him-who-must-not-be-named as a sort of litmus test. People who still have him on their blogroll, or who reference him favorably, I generally find are also patriarchy-friendly at some level. They come across to me like the guy who seems like a decent guy but is still best buddies with a guy he knows is a rapist.
Do not want to rehash the HS arguments. No more reference to the old discussion on HS, and no further links from anybody to posts authored by him on this thread.
Yes. Clearly performing an attempted murder-suicide and then claiming it never happened is “dramz”. That said, yes. Plz to not link to Voldeschwyzer.
Nipping this in the bud now, please. No more reference to the old discussion on HS, and no further links to posts authored by him on this thread, since it is most unlikely that anybody will be saying anything new about it.
Believes abortion is evil = douche Some of the OKC questions are a bit problematic in there phrasing, for instance: “For you personally, is abortion an option in case of an accidental pregnancy?” For any male, abortion is not a “personal option” for obvious reasons, but even moving past semantic snarkiness the question sucks. I am about as pro-choice/pro-reproductive rights as they come, but I would never encourage someone I was with to pursue an abortion in the case of pregnancy. I would support them if that was their decision, but I actually have the “what if you get pregnant convo” with women I sleep with and we have always mutually decided we would keep the child should BC fail us. The fact that I personally don’t want to abort an accidental pregnancy doesn’t say shit about my larger stance on the legality and availability of abortion. On the larger issue of Nice Guys of OKC, I am a fan. As someone else said, mockery is just part of the price you pay for posting your dbagerry on the internet. And if we are going to start pushing for less offensive discourse on the internet, there are roughly 7 billion terrabytes of crap more egregious than NG of OKC out there.
…not related to your actual point, but. Fuck, are there actually anti-choice trans men out there? Please, fuck, gods, tell me no.
@macavitykitsune: Sadly, yes. I haven’t met more than a couple of them- it’s pretty hard to get dogmatic about other peoples’ right to bodily autonomy when you’re up against the gatekeepers yourself- but some of us *do* have the extra-special powers of hypocrisy it requires 🙁
(In light of the Voldemortizing, I have to say I find it slightly surprising that Fogg is being welcomed with such open arms by Anglo-American feminist bloggers these days. It was only a few years ago he was hounding Cath Elliot on C-i-F, trolling Julie Bindell, and voicing not only a strongly anti-feminist but an openly misogynist perspective.)
Not that I’ve welcomed Fogg anywhere yet, but up until the link shared on this post by BBBShrewHarpy I’d never heard of him. while reading that post, I had assumed that Ally Fogg was a woman, not that being one would make hounding/trolling feminists or voicing anti-feminist/misogynist perspectives any more acceptable [ETA: assuming (in light of comments below) that I found myself agreeing with you that this is what Fogg has actually done].
I’ve read a couple of his pieces. There was one where, I’m paraphrasing, he said he’s pissed off both MRAs and feminists which he considered a good sign. That made me grit my teeth a little. The truth is not in the middle, obviously. HOWEVER, that article was an excellent, excellent takedown of the GMP’s rape articles, and IIRC it hit on some points that Jill and Thomas hadn’t touched yet. It seems like on the big important issues he “gets it.” I’m wary, though.
I’m not super-familiar with him myself, although I have appreciated his perspective on a number of threads on Feministe and I enjoyed his article on Emma Goldman linked from his blog. So I would hardly say my arms are open to him, but I haven’t found him villainous thus far and I do enjoy his writing style. I’ll look for the articles you mention, though. It is nice to have a complete picture when one links to someone, and it may be that I don’t have such a picture yet.
I’d rather form my own opinion on Fogg. because the way you casually mention Julie Bindel — one of the more loathsome people to put pen to paper on a regular basis — as if her name is supposed to evoke positive associations, and as if we’re supposed to think that “trolling” her is a bad thing, doesn’t incline me to trust what you say. Bindel is, and has been for years, openly, consistently, and virulently transphobic; she goes way beyond clueless ciscentrism, and is almost certainly the most transphobic “mainstream” journalist in the UK or USA . Period. I know nothing about Cath Elliot, and have no interest in trying to find out, given how many times I’ve been burned when I start reading a recommended feminist writer. But you’re going to have to do better than citing Julie Bindel if you want to warn people about Fogg’s alleged anti-feminism and misogyny.
The first thing a google search of “Cath Elliot transphobic” turns up is a fairly icktastic article quoting… Julie Bindel. God, please don’t start reading her.
My searches were a bit different but led me to a very scary site that has scarred my psyche enough to call it a day, hug my kitty, and go out in search of chocolate. Yikes.
Ally Fogg has not to my knowledge ever been anti-feminist or misogynist, and I have read his comments of CiF (where he has been a very frequent writer both above and below the line) for years. This is not some general endorsement (since I do not always agree with his positions), but Chingona’s comment seems very biased. (Also: I agree with Donna that his attacks on Bindel is hardly something that should be seen as negative – she is repugnant). The article linked above is from his own blog, so obviously anyone can browse it and form their own opinion.
Welcome back! I am in the USA at the moment, which is a… strange experience. I’m sure a lot of the things that are jumping out at me would be less jarring if I was more familiar with San Francisco, but at the moment it’s all about the GIANT PORTION SIZES and WEIRD MEDICAL ADVERTISEMENTS.
Can I ask where you’re from originally? ‘Cause there are days — weeks — where I’d like to be somewhere where that stuff is a little less familiar.
My mother – who has lived in the U.S. since she was 16 – has still never quite adjusted to the GIANT PORTION SIZES in American restaurants. Particularly the cheaper chain restaurants common in parts of the midwest, where instead of a plate, they bring you a platter. Not to mention a “medium” size fast food meal will easily net you 1600 calories. And my grandfather always gets pissed off about the medical advertisements when he visits the U.S., as he’s a physician and finds them morally objectionable.
A great Australian friend of mine came over to study in Los Angeles for a year and noticed much the same thing. There was something else, too, that gave him a bit of a shock, but it’s slipped my memory. I hope you enjoy your stay.
I’ve lived near the US border for my entire life. The medical ads never stop being weird – for drugs *and* various insurance companies and “provider networks”. I sometimes wonder how many stress-related deaths per year can be correlated with the worries caused by a lack of health coverage or massive financial costs not covered by insurance. With a report that insurance companies are still seeking 20%+ premium increases, I worry for the health and happiness of my neighbours down south.
Uninsured and unInsurable. I rely on the charity of the government (ha ha) for my psych meds. Most of the time I am without. And everywhere are the ads telling me to ask my doctor if xxx is right for me. What doctor?
“The medical ads never stop being weird – for drugs *and* various insurance companies and “provider networks”. Really? I get spam mail almost daily from Canadian pharmacies trying to sell me drugs. And get spam from insurance companies in both the US and Canada.
A friend from the former USSR commented on several things she found odd about the US: our refrigerators are huge, “sour cream” has its own shape, and people put their kids in sports that they’re bad at.
Radiant Sophia, you are correct. That was server propagation hinkiness rather than moderation though – a few comments seem to have gone through on the older version hosted at the old server, and then the DNS switched back to the new version of the site at the new server, and then switched back to the old server again, and then back and forth a few more times. So I’ve put the older version into site maintenance so that no more comments can be made there, and eventually the server propagation will sort itself out to be more consistent, and it won’t be a problem any more.
I just checked, not expecting anything, and saw that you’re back. Thank you! It was really tough going cold turkey the last few days.
OMIGOD. Thank you for your hard work getting everything back up. Apparently, I can’t go that many days without a feministe fix.
Welcome back! I would be curious to know what happened. When you just went down I assumed as server crash and that you were bringing up a backup on a new server, but since you are now saying that the old server still exists (and even ate some posts), I am slightly confused.
We were due to migrate to a newer shinier server soon anyway, and then the old server got overloaded suddenly before that got started. So we had to bring the migration forward, it took a while to get the admin side of it sorted out through the webhost, and it involved new IP numbers, so DNS propagation came into play.
You’re back. I can breathe again. There’s a whole bunch of gross ass rape culture stuff, from Steubenville to the overturning of a rape conviction in CA because a woman wasn’t married. Also, because they’re never done being bigoted assholes, the House GOP didn’t pass VAWA.
Lauren, you echo my thoughts exactly. I feel like there is a huge rock on my chest right now for all that is recently in the news for this country (rapes, Republican f####ers against women, mass shooting) and other countries (gang rapes in India). My brain just refuses to move on and be happy right now. I have a daughter and I greatly fear the future for her. Given my own experiences with rape and abuse, it is hard to be optimistic for her right now.
Yeah, I was just having a conversation today about how helpless I feel raising children in this sexist, racist environment…which exists everywhere. I feel at a total loss when it comes to raising my daughter and I just don’t even know what I would do if my son or my brother…I just can’t even say it…just to even talk about the rape in Ohio and that the kids were laughing about it…I just feel sick thinking about it. I talk to my brother (who is in college right now) about treating women that he interacts with the same way he’d treat his niece, his sisters, and his mother…but does he even hear it? I hope so. I don’t know. I’m honestly worried about keeping my daughter safe.
That California judge needs to be disbarred. OK, so this wasn’t specifically covered in rape statutes, by the letter of the law. It’s still fraud, and he didn’t convict on fraud, even though he had that option. As uninvited physical contact, it’s still battery, and he didn’t convict on that charge. You know, I know, what a plea bargain is. This bozo could have sentenced for either of the above charges. The judge is a rape apologist. Indian women are after the death penalty in the gangrape/murder of a med student by five strangers. Given that willing sex and transactional sex are so easily had in America, there is no excuse whatever for rape. Exterminate rapists: sounds good to me. And: Two children are dead in my county, after their mother ran a stop sign and hit a semi. Auto accidents are the single largest cause of death in children. [Content redacted by moderator: ableist abuse] drive cars. We license drivers but enormous numbers of unemployed are driving unlicensed because their insurance was cancelled. Do we ban cars because they kill people?
Given that willing sex and transactional sex are so easily had in America, there is no excuse whatever for rape. Exterminate rapists: sounds good to me. [Content redacted by moderator: gratuitous insult used in expression of strong disagreement] 1) sex is not easily had by guy. and many guy do not want to do transaction for sex. 2) sex being hard to have not excuse for rape 3) would you advocate of deaht penalty if a woman is rapist?
Given that willing sex and transactional sex are so easily had in America, there is no excuse whatever for rape. ….so if I couldn’t get as much willing/transactional sex as I wanted, that would be an excuse for rape? So people in, say, India (where I’m from, by the way) have excuses to rape? WHAT THE ACTUAL FUCK? Do you have any idea how offensive you’re being?
Given that willing sex and transactional sex are so easily had in America, there is no excuse whatever for rape. Rape is fundamentally unjustifiable.
You seem to be misunderstanding the California ruling. He threw out the ruling of the lower court because it was not in accordance with California law and ordered a retrial. So: He was not acquitted – he got a retrial. Others have commented on the the “no access to sex” = “excuse for rape” implication, so this is perhaps a bit redundant, but still: WTF was that?
No ableism was intended. My mind was still in North Murray County, and I used a local colloquialism. I apologize for any hurt I might have inflicted by my thoughtlessness.
On a serious note: Jay Smooth’s awesome Storify collecting links and resources on Idle No More. http://storify.com/jsmooth995/idle-no-more-links-and-resources On a less serious note: how is Alessandra Stanley still allowed to be the TV critic at the NY Times? Between calling Ethel Kennedy a brood mare and her latest “I watched the trailer for the new season of Downton Abbey and guess what guys, it’s just like 50 Shades of Grey!”, I’m having many WTF moments. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/04/arts/television/downton-abbey-begins-third-season-on-sunday-on-pbs.html
Zero Dark Thirty: new torture-glorifying film wins raves The Hollow Glory of “Zero Dark Thirty” A letter to Kathryn Bigelow on Zero Dark Thirty’s apology for tortureNaomi Wolf guardian.co.uk, young women in film were inspired as they watched you become the first woman ever to win an Oscar Five Reasons Why Torture Did Not Help U.S. Forces Find Bin Laden Human Rights First
Sooo… I’ve done something scary but potentially fun. I’ve made a HAES, feminist forum! It’s a naff little free thingy, all default settings and very little going on, because I have no money and no idea what I’m doing and am just figuring things out. Would appreciate any advice, feedback, and help people are willing to offer!
Well, I’m getting more and more sick of the Atlantic’s website. I came for Ta-Nehisi Coates (whose blog remains excellent) and I’ve always liked their print magazine, Christina Hoff Summers’ articles on feminism excluded. But recent web-only content has been pushing all my buttons. First was a post about the best podcasts of 2012, where, when commenter asked why no women were included, the author of the piece asked for suggestions (reminiscent of “binders full of women,” imho – he really couldn’t think of ANY?). Then there was Jeffrey Goldberg using “high-functioning deranged people” as a synonym for folks with mental illness who are capable of purchasing firearms. At this point, I think I’m just going to scale bag to reading Coates occasionally. Also: Django Unchained is a weird movie, and while individual scenes were powerful, the movie as a whole – with its wildly varying tones and attitudes – was a hot mess, imho.
http://endofcapitalism.com/2010/10/17/revolution-and-american-indians-marxism-is-as-alien-to-my-culture-as-capitalism/#more-1730
I know! I’d never read the whole thing, only seen quotes here and there so when I saw it last night (3 freaking 30, couldn’t sleep) I had to post it.
It is so, so awesome. I’ve bookmarked the hell out of it. And about 50 ideas for short essays on decolonisation/ ecofeminism just leaped into my brain, because he’s stated so many things so perfectly that it sparked my own thinking.
It reminded me of what I was trying to explain on that election thread. Only he said it much better than I ever could.
I can’t think of a better recommendation for something that if someone said “Pheenobarbidoll posted it, Macavitykitsune loved it, and Jadey bookmarked it”. I’m gonna get dinner in the oven and then read my little heart out.
Truly an excellent speech, except for the anti-science rhetoric, but I realise this was the ’80s, when pretty much all science was philosophically materialist.
It’s less anti science and more anti “use science to further eradicate cultures and promote European culture”. Think of- just because we can doesn’t mean we should. In the context of his speech, there’s a point behind it that’s not boiled down to anti science. Where religion was once used to justify genocide of cultures, science has now replaced it. The problem is that science is being used as the tool, not that science exists.
Oh I completely agree that science is used as a terrible tool and has been since the ancient Greeks. Just wanted to clarify that Newton himself is not the enemy, even if he did inadvertently solidify materialism in science due to the influence of the church. Unfortunately I remember how anti-science things were in the ’80s. Scientists have always fought the terrible uses of their investigations, eg. Oppenheimer on atomic weapons. Sadly the scientific mind, which exists in all cultures, is often politically and socially naive. Newton and Descartes, mentioned in the speech, are interesting examples. We have to remember the time they lived in. It was only in the late 1400s that the europeans started relearning Greek science from the rediscovered books, but this was under the authority of the church and the church hierarchy soon realised that it needed to combat the dangerous, ancient anti-patriarchal ideas. There is a reason that Bruno was burned at the stake and Galileo was not: Galileo promoted materialism, which served the church’s purposes, while Bruno promoted completely demolishing the symbolic meaning of the Holy Trinity by remembering the ancient pre-Greek origins of symbolic thinking.
So it looks like it *may* be John Kerry for State, Chuck Hagel for Defense, Jack Lew for Treasury, and Tom Donilon for Chief of Staff. Obamas top Cabinet positions will all go to white men, or at least all men if you count Eric Holder at Justice. Supposedly Obama trusts Lew, a former budget director, even though he has no finance sector experience ( which is going to be important to get over the debt ceiling crisis ) because the built a personal rapport. But how much of building a personal rapport with the president involves golfing or shooting hoops together?
Malala Yousafzai went out of the hospital a few days ago. It’s as good a time as any to remind of the petition to make her the next recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize.
… the 2009 Sweeting study that showed a leap in anxiety and depression in 15-year-old girls between 1987 and 2006. “They are probably the most mentally ill single group of people in the country: a staggering 43% of them are depressed or anxious and 27% are suffering a full-scale mental illness. And that was the more privileged girls.” quote from this stupid article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2013/jan/05/aunties-girl-teens-consumer
Which of course leaves open whether what is being studied is actually in increase in anxiety and depression, or an increase in the diagnosis of those. Certainly when I’ve spoken to people older than me, they make clear the increase in the availability of mental health care in the last few years (not that it’s anywhere near where it should be, as I know personally).
On a completely unrelated note: I have to write a short essay on “everything I know about being a man/woman I learned from….” (with some options like movies, TV, an experience) for a class I’m taking on gender and sexuality. Right, because clearly there’s no non-binary people in Alberta, and clearly there’s one supreme source of information of gender that can be identified, and even one definition of any given gender that can be unquestioningly and unproblematically accepted. And because everyone’s just so clueless and coming to a senior sociology course with no background whatsoever in feminism, or gender studies, because lol undergrads amirite? or something. FUCK I hate this assignment. So far, I’ve got “Everything I learned about being a person who doesn’t fit in either pole of the gender binary, I learned by becoming incredibly angry with every media specified on that list.” Probably going to fail the hell out of the assignment, but I don’t even care, I’m so pissed off.
I am reading The Queer Art of Failure by Judith Jack Halberstam at the moment and that sounds totally like something worth failing.
Seconded. This sounds like a great opportunity for opening minds, perhaps resulting in a redefinition of the assignment by the prof for next year’s class. [As long as it doesn’t end up in a let’s-silence-mac-or-make-her-work-really-hard-to-enlighten-us chore]
Exactly. On an exam in my undergraduate history class we had to answer three essay questions. One of the questions was, “Would you have supported the fight for independence during the Revolutionary War? In what ways?” I said something about how being a Black woman in the south didn’t give me much of an option outside what my master would say. From then on, people got to pick which essay questions they wanted to answer. 🙂
I would be most interested to hear what Feministe thinks of the situation with the Iowa correctional officer and the showing of violent and/or sexually explicit movies and tv to inmates. Obviously some serious stuff she experienced and reported was not taken seriously, and the supervisor who said she was getting harassed because of her outfits (i.e., the standard uniform) is a sexist butthole, but thoughts on the larger issue? Just curious. It brings so many issues up. Sexual harassment, misogyny, complaints from a woman on the job being repeatedly dismissed and ignored, the question of rehabilitation for violent sex offenders, the problems with the US prison system… thoughts? http://news.yahoo.com/iowa-prison-lonely-battle-against-sex-movies-091857054.html
Well, I don’t have much to report, but over on Facebook there’s a really annoying page calling itself Women’s Rights News which is posting almost nothing but sentimental memes full of gender essentialism. I’d love it if it could get re-named/categorized.