In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

No, call me Tom of Finland.

piny

No offense, Jack, but the gay community has already done effemiphobia to death. There’ve also been approximately eight gazillion new pseudo-clinical greek/latin-derived terms coined in an attempt to get rid of the older, dingier, somehow-more-stigmatizing kind. In fact, for at least half of “androphilia,” you need to send a check to the estate of Harry Hay. But don’t take my word for it. I’m sure nineteen-year-old homos in bars across the union are coming to the exact same conclusions you are about how awesome it would be if all the other gay men could just stop acting so gay. It’s sort of like the, um, androphilic version of the “Why won’t women figure out what an awesome catch I am and stop being such stupid bitches?!” syndrome, except with more internalized hatred. Call it the Nice Gay. You should go find yourself some nice leather bears and ask them to relieve some of that anxiety.

161 thoughts on No, call me Tom of Finland.

  1. You’ve just given me all the excuse I need to pass along my favorite stupid joke I ever made up:

    “You hear about the new Tom’s of Finland toothpaste? It’s the same stuff as Tom’s of Maine, but it comes in really really big tubes.”

    Thank you, I’ll be here all week. Try the veal.

  6. Sure, they’ve done effemiphobia–but has Satanism been added to the mix before?

    Gay Republican? Yawn. Gay Republican Satanist? Comedy gold.

  7. I only really have two links to annotate this with:

    Now that tolerance for homosexuality is widespread and oppression is minimal, the next step in sexual liberation is to challenge the idea that sexuality creates ethnicity—to do away with the assumption that a man who prefers men is a separate, essentially different sort of man, a gay man, whose sexuality determines his interests, his politics and the way he expresses his gender.

    And if you’re wondering what kind of sex and porn “androphiles” might prefer

    And, ya know… the cover of his book features two gladiator helmets.

    Draw your own conclusions.

    OMG FROT IS HOT!!! (warning, explicit content in that link)

    The similarities to tribadism and exorcism-of-everything-male in certain old-school fundamentalist lesbian feminist schools of thought is striking, really. But this is so much worse because it’s so damn misogynist, efemmiphobic, and bizzarely entitled.

  8. “…the gay community has already done effemiphobia to death.”

    Who’s afraid of the Big Bad Femme? Nobody. The Peel Hotel, a gay club in Australia, had to put a ban on all heterosexuals because even straight chicks feel totally safe bullying fag patrons (and on their own turf no less!), so I doubt your average androphile is shaking in his boots at the thought of all those yam-colored, lip gloss queens prowling the night. Perhaps you meant fear of effeminacy in general, as a trait one might exhibit? If that’s the case, I don’t know what gay community you’re a part of, but you could fit the masculinity I’ve encountered in all my experiences with gay clubs, churches, and organizations on one carefully lacquered fingernail. As for masculine types themselves, did it ever occur to you that they reject the behavioral mode you’ve accepted, not out of fear, but because it simply doesn’t appeal to them?

    “…except with more internalized hatred.”

    I’m sure you believe this nonsense, but could you deviate from the script once and a while just to keep things interesting? This kind of pansy apologia, along with full-frontal personal ads and shrill gurrrl!isms, is starting to chip away at our alluring mystery. (I’m assuming you’re a gay man. If not, then a preemptive OMFG).

    “You should go find yourself some nice leather bears and ask them to relieve some of that anxiety.”

    Speaking of things brought out for the approximately eight gazillionth time, looks like you’ve decided to dismiss a contrary viewpoint with the old “You just need to get laid” argument. You know, the one used to paint all feminists as frustrated spinsters in need of a good pumping or men’s rights activists as greasy-haired, celibate losers. Tell me, exactly what makes you think your contribution to this old chestnut is any less moronic than all the others?

    “Gay Republican Satanist? Comedy gold.”
    Do you even know what a Satanist is or believes?

  9. I’m tempted to think that this might be some sort of parody, or troll.

    I mean, a gay republican satanist? … Buh?

    *tries to figure out contradiction; brain fizzles*

  10. Who’s afraid of the Big Bad Femme? Nobody. The Peel Hotel, a gay club in Australia, had to put a ban on all heterosexuals because even straight chicks feel totally safe bullying fag patrons (and on their own turf no less!), so I doubt your average androphile is shaking in his boots at the thought of all those yam-colored, lip gloss queens prowling the night. Perhaps you meant fear of effeminacy in general, as a trait one might exhibit? If that’s the case, I don’t know what gay community you’re a part of, but you could fit the masculinity I’ve encountered in all my experiences with gay clubs, churches, and organizations on one carefully lacquered fingernail. As for masculine types themselves, did it ever occur to you that they reject the behavioral mode you’ve accepted, not out of fear, but because it simply doesn’t appeal to them?

    Right, because wanting to bully people is never a sign that you feel threatened by what they are and what they represent.

    I’m part of one of the biggest gay communities there is, and it runs the gamut from butch to femme. We’re all hippies out here, though, so there’s a lot more crunch acros the board.

    If femininity doesn’t appeal to you, that’s perfectly fine, just as it is perfectly fine that (one particular brand of) masculinity doesn’t appeal to Rufus Wainright. And if masculine men are being driven out of homosexuality because their enormous biceps and sexually agressive personae aren’t welcome, well, that needs to change.

    The problem is the argument that there’s something wrong with femininity, that it represents self-hatred whenever gay men exhibit it, that it is grotesque and disgusting. That’s where the charge of internalized hatred comes in: you’re pathologizing a set of queer signifiers and–see below–you’re using classic homophobic slurs to delineate them.

    I’m sure you believe this nonsense, but could you deviate from the script once and a while just to keep things interesting? This kind of pansy apologia, along with full-frontal personal ads and shrill gurrrl!isms, is starting to chip away at our alluring mystery. (I’m assuming you’re a gay man. If not, then a preemptive OMFG).

    I have been. I’ve also been part of a few other queer communities who all had this sort of problem with femmes and feminine people. None of them, oddly enough, had a terribly low concentration of masculine people. Heck, you don’t even need to stick with the gays–fear of effeminacy has plagued anxious wannabe revolutionaries all over the place. You’re the one with the script.

    Speaking of things brought out for the approximately eight gazillionth time, looks like you’ve decided to dismiss a contrary viewpoint with the old “You just need to get laid” argument. You know, the one used to paint all feminists as frustrated spinsters in need of a good pumping or men’s rights activists as greasy-haired, celibate losers. Tell me, exactly what makes you think your contribution to this old chestnut is any less moronic than all the others?

    We pretty much do paint men’s rights activists as greasy-haired, celibate losers. It’s nicer than “fraudulent, abusive, controlling, misogynist fuckwads.”

    That wasn’t my point at all. My point isn’t that you’re celibate–I’m sure you have sex all the time. My point is that you’re confusing your libido’s preferences with some deep insight into the worth of femininity and masculinity for gay men.

  11. “I doubt your average androphile is shaking in his boots at the thought of all those yam-colored, lip gloss queens prowling the night.”

    “…on one carefully lacquered fingernail.”

    “This kind of pansy apologia, along with full-frontal personal ads and shrill gurrrl!isms, is starting to chip away at our alluring mystery.”

    Way to just show up and confirm everything that’s already been said about you, by mocking femininity. It doesn’t matter if you’re making fun of guys or girls, gay or straight, it’s just plain misogynist and gross, and you might as well wear a t-shirt with “OH GOD I’M SO INSECURE” emblazoned on it.

    I do feel really sorry for you if you’re having trouble finding communities and groups of men-loving-men who are masculine enough for your tastes. But seriously, move somewhere else, look harder — groups of very manly guys are NOT hard to find unless you’re actually holding them to much higher expectations of conformist masculinity than straight guys are. Bears? Leather bars? Gyms, for god’s sake? Think about it, it’s not surprising when groups of people stigmatized around gender issues get held to more demanding, even double-binding standards of gender performance, but it’s just as much bullshit as a stereotype of all gay men as feminine.

    Your arguments about how femininity holds sway in gay communities are unlikely to get more than a jaw-dropped “what the fuck is he talking about?” as long as it’s the more feminine men who are receiving the brunt of physical abuse, harassment, violence, as long as there are legions of personal ads in every corner of the internet looking for “straight-acting guys” and as long as bodybuilder images of idealized masculinity hold sway in gay porn and in what gay male communities believe they’re supposed to look like. Your points about some of these visions being very narrow is valid — so why don’t you actually talk about that in a positive, expansive way instead of bashing feminine guys, which the rest of the homophobic world is already doing ALL THE TIME. It makes you look like an asshole who’s happy to get his hands dirty doing the work of the homo-hating, femininity-hating, woman-hating, trans-hating system.

    I don’t even want to know what you think of trans people, MTF or FTM, intersecting with gay communities.

  13. “tu quoque”?
    Oh, sweetie. You’re adorable.

    And here I thought one of the best parts about masculinity was using your strength to protect the vulnerable folks in your community. Y’know, instead of joining in with the folks going after them.
    Shit, honey, I have a manicure right now that I’d be happy to mess up in a good brawl to look after my own, so what’s that say?

    Oh, wait: that I’m not crushingly, desperately insecure. I saw that photo of you in the Willamette Week with the baseball bat and the tie and the train tracks trying to look pissed off, and I had a good laugh. What really masculine man would have to try so very hard to look growly? I mean, some of those queer samurai you’re so enamored of went into battle in makeup, and they weren’t scared of shit, you know? And the Spartans, by all accounts, took their sweet time before Thermopylae combing and dressing each other’s hair.

    Real toughness, and real masculinity–in men or women–involves getting over all that superficial nonsense and taking care of the people who need you. You know, like those fags you sneer at because even women are willing to whup ’em, or something. I mean, yeah, the Spartans killed weak babies–but they also never figured out indoor plumbing.

  14. Ahh, now. You can be a Satanist is BRILLIANT NON-GOTH COLOR!!

    All it really requires is that you be a manipulative asshole with an enormous ego. It’s sort of like Objectivism meets The Seduction Community, with all the built-in hilarity that combo implies.

    Really… comedy gold.

  15. Let’s leave aside, were I to put on my nerd helmet, that Spartan warrior-culture was made possible by the subjugation of an entire slave race and organized and permeated by constant fear of a helot uprising. When you’ve got people who you force to do degrading dances in silly costumes doing all your food production, housework, and construction for you, it’s easy to go off to Big Scary Summer Camp and fight wolves and have hot man-man loving. And when those people outnumber you and could topple your precarious little aristocracy at any time, yeah, you’re going to spend a lot of time doing pushups and posturing.
    Is it responsible, or the foundation of a healthy, long-lasting society? Hardly. Sparta is gone for reasons.

    Did you actually read history books, or just jack off to the pictures of well-oiled men in armor with big spears?

  16. Did you actually read history books, or just jack off to the pictures of well-oiled men in armor with big spears?

    Come on, little light. We all know that it’s raining 300 men is what we really need for our well-oiled Spartan fix.

  17. “I doubt your average androphile is shaking in his boots at the thought of all those yam-colored, lip gloss queens prowling the night.”

    While we’re at it, let’s take a little poll: who would you rather have backing you up in a serious bar brawl with some homophobes? Manly Man Malebranche Masculinio, or your choice of a yam-colored lip gloss queen, Chris Crocker from the next thread up, or anyone from the party line full of “flaming black men, black drag queens, and trannies from Compton” that Chris hangs out on? Go!

  19. I mean, some of those queer samurai you’re so enamored of went into battle in makeup, and they weren’t scared of shit, you know?

    My personal historical favorite is Philippe, the Duc d’Orleans, who was the younger brother of Louis XIV and a fearless (and successful) general.

    As his wife said, he was far more afraid of ruining his complexion with too much sun than he was of bullets or cannon fire.

  20. You know, I can buy the masculine/feminine dichotomy. I can even buy the claim that male human beings tend to be masculine and female human beings tend to be feminine. But how on earth do you get from there to the claim that all male people should act in a masculine way, and all female people should act in a feminine way? “Masculinity” is not a male domain, “femininity” is not just for people with vaginas.

    The claim “I am male and masculine and am attracted to male and masculine people” need not contain a denigration of femininity or female people. Not everyone is like you. This is okay.

  21. For the record, “tu quoque” was not me. This is.

    Androphilia isn’t even remotely an argument for the re-establishment of Spartan culture and systems of government, so while some of your critiques there are based on valid history, you’re essentially arguing with yourself. Though it’s interesting that you would defer to the collapse of Spartan culture as a basis for dismissing elements of that culture. Based on roughly the same logic, one could say that there are good reasons why women and queens have traditionally not been allowed to manage anything of significance. I’m not making the argument that they should or shouldn’t, here, merely pointing something out. But one could say there are reasons why clearly defined gender roles exist, and why no real matriarchies have become successful civilizations.

    With regard to grooming and makeup–what you’re talking about is not the same as tarting yourself up for a night on the town.

    With the samurai, half the rationale behind meticulous grooming was to leave a corpse behind that the enemy could respect.

    I know that many women and fags believe that any man with an interest in masculinity is “crushingly, desperately insecure.” It’s a cliche that you can repeat to re-assure each other and make each other feel more powerful and righteous. Ultimately, that’s at least as much a sign of insecurity as anything men do–it’s the same need to identify others as “less than” to make yourself feel better.

    Everyone is insecure except you and people who agree with you, right? That’s a 14-year-old girl level of psychological analysis.

    “He must be, like, totally insecure, OK?”
    “Like, totally. What a jerk.”

    The idea that any men who talk about masculinity in a positive way, adhere to their assigned gender role, who are aggressive, or who enjoy things that men traditionally enjoy are really scared little boys with some sort of psychological problem is a feminist bedtime story on par with the “Big Truck=Little Dick” bumper sticker.

    Anyway, “effeminophobia” is not the reason my book seeks to separate effeminates from androphiles. I’m not scared of queens. I used to date them. Some of them are witty and entertaining. 75% of the time, they’re just sad clowns who have issues dealing with other men, who retreat to the gay ghetto and align themselves with women because it’s easy and safe. I have no problem with them doing that. I’m actually not a Republican (though I do have right-wing moments), and I generally believe that people should be legally free to do what they want. I draw the line when they advance the notion that they should be able to do so without being challenged or getting their feelings hurt by people who have a different worldview. Like me. I believe that effeminate behavior is rarely productive and that it isn’t in the best intrest of most men to promote it. This viewpoint is irreconcilable, obviously, with the viewpoint that celebrates effeminacy, which is the viewpoint of the gay community. It’s a conflict of interests. That sort of conflict necessitates a different ideological grouping and a seperate subculture.

  24. I know that many women and fags believe that any man with an interest in masculinity is “crushingly, desperately insecure.”

    Oh no, I know and respect quite a lot of men who are masculine, who have a strong interest in masculinity.

    What we’re talking about here is men who think the best way to shore up their masculinity (because somehow it’s under assault, even though in general, men still run the world and masculinity is more valued) is to attack femininity. THAT is what screams insecurity. If you’re masculine, be masculine through masculinity. Through being strong in a masculine way, whatever. What’s totally unmasculine and insecure is needing to beat up on others to prove what a man you are — whether it’s through misogynyist intellectual arguments or outright name-calling like tu quoque’s or vague, fearful disparaging like “effeminate behavior is rarely productive.” Right.

  25. With regard to grooming and makeup–what you’re talking about is not the same as tarting yourself up for a night on the town.

    With the samurai, half the rationale behind meticulous grooming was to leave a corpse behind that the enemy could respect.

    Then they have even more in common with the queens than I realized.

    I know that many women and fags believe that any man with an interest in masculinity is “crushingly, desperately insecure.” It’s a cliche that you can repeat to re-assure each other and make each other feel more powerful and righteous. Ultimately, that’s at least as much a sign of insecurity as anything men do–it’s the same need to identify others as “less than” to make yourself feel better.

    An interest in masculinity–like at least one commenter has said at least once in this very thread–is no problem at all. Not to point out the obvious or anything, but if you’re on a blog talking to a bunch of queer feminists, then chances are that you’re talking to at least several masculine male people. The problem is the hierarchy–when you argue that masculinity is better for men than femininity.

    Everyone is insecure except you and people who agree with you, right? That’s a 14-year-old girl level of psychological analysis.

    14-year-old girl?

    You’ve done a fair amount of attributing insecurity to your critics, just from a quick perusal of your blog–and you’ve got no basis for that besides the, “Jesus, what a mook!” tone of most of the responses.

    The idea that any men who talk about masculinity in a positive way, adhere to their assigned gender role, who are aggressive, or who enjoy things that men traditionally enjoy are really scared little boys with some sort of psychological problem is a feminist bedtime story on par with the “Big Truck=Little Dick” bumper sticker.

    Nope. Again, these are not the people you’re interacting with here. There are masculine men in this little community, and masculine men in our communities IRL. It’s not masculinity that’s the problem–it’s the belief in oppositional sexism as a guiding principle for men in general. And people aren’t ridiculing you for being dudely, they’re ridiculing you for what they see as a great deal of anxiety around your masculinity. The belief, for example, that gay men–excuse me, androphiles–won’t be free to be masculine unless they have a new safe space to do it in.

    Anyway, “effeminophobia” is not the reason my book seeks to separate effeminates from androphiles. I’m not scared of queens. I used to date them. Some of them are witty and entertaining. 75% of the time, they’re just sad clowns who have issues dealing with other men, who retreat to the gay ghetto and align themselves with women because it’s easy and safe. I have no problem with them doing that. I’m actually not a Republican (though I do have right-wing moments), and I generally believe that people should be legally free to do what they want. I draw the line when they advance the notion that they should be able to do so without being challenged or getting their feelings hurt by people who have a different worldview. Like me. I believe that effeminate behavior is rarely productive and that it isn’t in the best intrest of most men to promote it. This viewpoint is irreconcilable, obviously, with the viewpoint that celebrates effeminacy, which is the viewpoint of the gay community. It’s a conflict of interests. That sort of conflict necessitates a different ideological grouping and a seperate subculture.

    Maybe it’s that little meme about the meaning of -phobia that’s causing people to confuse you with a right-winger.

    But yes, you are effemiphobic. If you feel comfortable describing seventy-five percent of a group of people as sad clowns who can’t deal with other men, then you do harbor irrational prejudice towards them. This is by no means a minority viewpoint in the gay community, nor a particularly marginalized one–there are gay men who hate femmes all over the damn place.

    It’s not that gay men and femmier people are prejudiced towards masculinity. Many gay men are masculine; they just happen to inhabit a kind of masculinity that is often one option among many, in a community that’s also relatively accepting of femmier personae. They’re having a negative reaction–an entirely sensible one–to your obvious oppositional sexism. The idea that you can drop compulsory heterosexuality from the roster of acceptable male behaviors while carrying the rest of the traditional project forward intact–let alone that you should–will be received by most people as an insane idea because it really, really is. Oppositional sexism is the foundation of homophobia, as you are happy to demonstrate.

  26. Holly–

    I have to agree. I have a lot of friends who are gay men. Most of them don’t seem very effeminate at all. None of them feels the need to tell other people that they’re acting too masculine, or too feminine, or too Mexican, or too *whatever*.

    None of my friends acts like that, because if they did, they wouldn’t be my friends anymore. Who wants to hang out with a person who’s always whining about how other people act?

  27. Pingback: Ha! at Hoyden About Town

  28. “Right, because wanting to bully people is never a sign that you feel threatened by what they are and what they represent.”

    I’m sure people bully for a host of different reasons, but let’s get real here. Bullies, for one thing, choose easy targets. Easy target =/= threatening, and effeminate men (gay or straight) are the quintessential easy targets. Let’s take the Peel example. One of their biggest problems was the “hen nights” that groups of women had, during which they treated the gay patrons like “zoo animals.” Do you really think there was some underlying fear of gender atypical men that motivated that behavior, or is it more likely that they were familiar with the stereotype of gay men as being frivolous, irreverent, sycophants and treated them with the dignity such a stereotype would require?

    “The problem is the argument that there’s something wrong with femininity, that it represents self-hatred whenever gay men exhibit it, that it is grotesque and disgusting. That’s where the charge of internalized hatred comes in: you’re pathologizing a set of queer signifiers and–see below–you’re using classic homophobic slurs to delineate them.”

    First of all, I don’t believe that homosexuality and effeminacy are necessarily, if at all, linked, so the charge of self-hatred is for the most part misapplied. And I’m not “pathologizing” anything; I’m simply judging certain behaviors exhibited by a lot of gay men as negative based on my own personal criteria. Hatred, internal or otherwise, has nothing to do with it. Tell me exactly what’s positive about solipsism, extreme vanity, and cattiness.

    “I have been. I’ve also been part of a few other queer communities who all had this sort of problem with femmes and feminine people. None of them, oddly enough, had a terribly low concentration of masculine people.”

    I’ve lived in mostly low-populated, conservative states, so that may have something to do with the difference in experience.

    “My point isn’t that you’re celibate–I’m sure you have sex all the time. My point is that you’re confusing your libido’s preferences with some deep insight into the worth of femininity and masculinity for gay men.”

    I guess I should have made it clear that I’m not Jack Malebranche. I’m not even what would be classified as an androphile.

  29. What’s totally unmasculine and insecure is needing to beat up on others to prove what a man you are

    In fact, it makes you inhuman. “effeminate”, Jack, much as you want to make it a synonym for “bad” or “wrong”, isn’t, and that’s why your misogynist ass is getting called out.

  30. Easy target =/= threatening, and effeminate men (gay or straight) are the quintessential easy targets.

    Wow, man. “I go after easy targets to make me feel better about myself, which isn’t threatening and it’s toootally what men do.”

    Come to think of it, you may be right that “men” in our culture are conditioned to go after the easy target, because it’s a quick fix. Now a quick fix for what?

    Hint: Insecurity and fear that you, yourself, are not good enough. Fear is a very real element. You’re afraid of who you are, and you need to make sure everyone else feels as bad about themselves so you aren’t so alone. Misery loves company.

  33. It’s important to recognize the difference between femininity and effeminacy. They are actually really different if you observe a queen and a woman side by side. Stereotypically gay behavior is about as authentically feminine as professional wrestling is authentically masculine behavior.

    Stereotypically faggy behavior is a caricature of femininity that should be offensive to any woman with an ounce of dignity. I know plently of women whom I respect, and none of them act like fags at all.

    If you feel comfortable describing seventy-five percent of a group of people as sad clowns who can’t deal with other men, then you do harbor irrational prejudice towards them.

    Am I prejudiced or phobic? Or is there no difference?

    You really cheapen the concept of a “phobia” when you throw it at every sentiment you don’t agree with.

    What we’re talking about here is a legitimate prejudice based on experience and a personal evaluation of the motivations for the behavior of others based on observation. Not every prejudice is irrational.

    You’re kind of doing the same thing with me. You’re saying, “this sort of behavior is bad, and it is motivated by [something insulting].”

    You’re free to disagree with my evaluation of a behavioral pattern, and I certainly disagree with yours.

    Many gay men are masculine; they just happen to inhabit a kind of masculinity that is often one option among many, in a community that’s also relatively accepting of femmier personae.

    Right. A neutered, harmless, feminist-approved selection of meaningless postmodern “masculinities.” Which means they can grow a beard and get a tattoo and work out and emulate a masculine stereotype through dress and manner, but they must agree that no value can be placed on a behavior as to whether it is productive or non-productive, because that might hurt someone’s feelings. Masculinity can never be an aspirational ideal, it can only be an outfit.

    The idea that you can drop compulsory heterosexuality from the roster of acceptable male behaviors while carrying the rest of the traditional project forward intact–let alone that you should–will be received by most people as an insane idea because it really, really is.

    Why? As gender studies types are quick to remind me, cultural codes of masculinity change over time based on the needs of a particular society. We have plenty of people and don’t need to produce endless supplies of warriors and farmboys. We can afford to have a segment of the population that engages in non-reproductive sexual behavior.

    You’re confusing fear of emasculation with fear of homosexuality. They certainly are related, but not inseperable–especially on an interpersonal level. It has been my experience that masculine straight men can and will often shrug their shoulders at homosexuality if the rest of the puzzle pieces are in place. If you look at the wide range of behaviors that are attributed to masculine men, sexuality is only a part of that.

    Basically, it’s not an insane idea. It’s just not compatible with your worldview and social agenda. Which is a different thing entirely.

  34. Am I prejudiced or phobic? Or is there no difference?

    There maybe a difference, but that does not mean you cannot be both. And as the whole “caricature of femininity” nonsense, that implies that there is a definition for femininity that doesn’t change from person to person, which is ludicrous. There maybe a stereotype you have in your head that represents femininity, but that is just your own worldview. Bottom line is you have a problem with people being as they wish to be. Why is that? What interest do you have in telling others how they should or should not act based your own ideas of set standards for men and women? If you cannot answer that logically, I humbly submit that your willingness to portray others in the light you have says a great deal more about you than anyone else.

  35. Hint: Insecurity and fear that you, yourself, are not good enough. Fear is a very real element. You’re afraid of who you are, and you need to make sure everyone else feels as bad about themselves so you aren’t so alone. Misery loves company.

    Actually, what I am doing is saying that the gay community doesn’t get to define “who I am” based on the stereotype they publicly celebrate. And neither do you.

    This is really a great gimmick you kids have going with your “homophobia,” because no one can ever prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that they don’t hate themselves secretly.

    “You hate yourself.”
    “No, you hate yourself.”

    I could just as easily say that men who embrace radical feminist theories about gender are lashing out at the type of men who excluded them and made them feel inferior. As in, “sour grapes.” Masculinity is bad because someone called me a sissy, or because the jocks in high school were mean, or my daddy never thought I was manly enough. It seems equally as plausible if you’re going to reduce everything to individual pathology.

    I could tell you that I’ve never been happier. That I’ve never felt as comfortable in my own skin as I do now. That I’ve never been more secure. But you wouldn’t believe it, because that would force you to re-examine your…prejudices.

  36. It’s not an insane idea. It’s just not compatible with your worldview and social agenda. Which is a different thing entirely.

    Completely false. That’s not different at all, when the choices of worldviews are trying to bully and threaten people into acting the way you want them to and allowing them to be who they are. You most certainly have a problem with the later, which is insane.

  37. That I’ve never felt as comfortable in my own skin as I do now.

    People who are indeed like this don’t need to make a living saying other people should feel uncomfortable in their own skins, because they do not fit the correct mold. Other people existing differently than you do does not negate your existence, and you’re entire argument is predicated on the premise that it does.

  40. Come to think of it, you may be right that “men” in our culture are conditioned to go after the easy target, because it’s a quick fix. Now a quick fix for what?”

    The example I brought up pointed out a case of female bullying, so I don’t know why you took that as a critique of men, though I believe bullies of either sex do choose easy targets. Also, nowhere in my post did I claim that such a choice, especially with regards to men, was culturally conditioned. Society conditions men at least at much to act in the opposite fashion. Pick on someone your own size, never hit a woman, etc. I think mistreatment of the weak is a natural instinct. (And before you object, I don’t think natural=good)

    “Hint: Insecurity and fear that you, yourself, are not good enough. Fear is a very real element. You’re afraid of who you are, and you need to make sure everyone else feels as bad about themselves so you aren’t so alone. Misery loves company.”

    I love, not only how maudlin this is, but the inherent irony. Aren’t you just postulating the bully as a pathetic, fearful individual so you don’t feel so bad about yourself? Haven’t studies shown that bullies have higher self-esteem than the average person anyway? The strong members of humanity pick on the weak probably for the same reasons wolves do: to prevent the weak and unfit from having influence and power within the group.

    “But you’re not a misogynist, oh no.”

    Misogynist? For a word used by a group of people who are usually against prostitution, it sure gets pimped out all the time.

  41. The strong members of humanity pick on the weak probably for the same reasons wolves do: to prevent the weak and unfit from having influence and power within the group.

    I think we understand a bit better now. “Effeminiate” = “weak” = “unfit”. Evo-psych is all well and good, but using it to justify bullying and threatening, as much as you imply that you think “natural” != “good”, is quite telling.

    And misogyny has a very real meaning, and the above argument is de facto woman-hating.

  42. Oh, and I thought I had stopped comment #38 in time, as I fucked up again, but obviously I didn’t. Lo siento for the bloggerhea.

  45. Evo-psych is all well and good, but using it to justify bullying and threatening, as much as you imply that you think ‘natural’ != ‘good’, is quite telling.

    I said: And before you object, I don’t think natural=good). Better hone those reading skillz.

    “Effeminiate” = “weak” = “unfit”.

    That is the general perception, which goes to explain why people treat them the way they do. I’m not advocating it, just pointing it out.

    And misogyny has a very real meaning, and the above argument is de facto woman-hating.

    Concerning yourself primarily with what you assume is the emotional state of the person your arguing with is very telling. Since it only leads to ad hominem attacks, it shows that you rely on rhetoric, not logic, to win an argument.

  46. Actually, it isn’t. Sorry I missed that one too, but I’m a little worn out from work.

    But it’s so much better than speculating about someone’s psychology and then using that as if it were a sufficient rebuttal against them, right?

  47. Stereotypically faggy behavior is a caricature of femininity that should be offensive to any woman with an ounce of dignity. I know plently of women whom I respect, and none of them act like fags at all.

    oh, MARY.

  48. Pingback: Feministe » Performance Anxiety
  49. Pingback: Feministe » Performance Anxiety

  50. “Strong members.” Hee.

    oh, MARY.

    I didn’t realize it was the goal of this blog to be a second-rate Datalounge.

  51. Since it only leads to ad hominem attacks, it shows that you rely on rhetoric, not logic, to win an argument.

    False dichotomy. “Rhetoric” has logic built into it. Mysogyny isn’t an insult, it’s a state of mind, and calling figs, “figs”, is not attacking figs. It’s calling things out as they should be called out. Me saying “Nietzsche was a nihilist” to people who think that nihilism is wrong is not actually an ad hominem towards Nietzsche.

    That is the general perception, which goes to explain why people treat them the way they do. I’m not advocating it, just pointing it out.

    No, it doesn’t go to solely explain why they treat them the way that they do, because if it did, you would imply that these people who bully have no valid ethical system. “Might makes right”, as I just told a bunch of wingers, is not part of any reputable ethical system. Thus, if you are here to defend Jack, which you most certainly are, you defend an unethical person. Now, this does not imply in anyway that Jack is not a misogynist, nor does it imply in anyway that you are not a misogynist. Working logic is tough, I know, and learning about what “ad hominem” really means is also tough. We all struggle with it sometimes, and I hope you break out of it.

  52. But it’s so much better than speculating about someone’s psychology and then using that as if it were a sufficient rebuttal against them, right?

    My point is that evo-psych is bunk. Bully psychology is well documented and has obtained a level of credibility that evo-psych hasn’t, and most likely never will.

  53. Omigawd, not the dreaded Agenda! Because surely you don’t have an agenda of your own.

    Y’know, I do have an agenda: to work towards a world where nobody has to be afraid to be exactly what they are. That includes really femme gay men, really butch gay men, transfolks, straight folks, childfree women, athiests, Christians, folks with brown skin, white skin, what-fucking-ever. Without anybody getting to say “It’s your fault they hate us normal men-lovin’ men, ya fuckin’ poofs!” Which is, at bottom, what the point seems to be. Because I know a whole lot of really (sexy as hell) butch gay men who manage to like queens without having to qualify that with “75% of the time, they’re just sad clowns who have issues dealing with other men, who retreat to the gay ghetto and align themselves with women because it’s easy and safe.”

    Just in case y’all hadn’t noticed, the “but some of my best friends are _________” argument doesn’t hold a great deal of water. And yeah they should be exactly what they are without you challenging them or hurting their feelings so you can feel more secure in your masculine dick-loving self. If you have to denigrate someone else to make your point, you need to rethink your argument. There are perfectly valid reasons to be a masculine gay man and to love masculine gay men. Find those for yourself, and leave the queens out of it. Stop feeding the stereotypes of femme gay men as less valid men that lead to half the ads in the queer personals specifying “must be straight-looking and -acting.”

    If you’re going to make an argument that requires describing any large group of people as “75% sad clowns,” grow a thicker skin and expect some mockery.

  54. because if it did, you would imply that these people who bully have no valid ethical system.

    Ooo, worded this poorly. Should say “you also imply”.

  55. False dichotomy. “Rhetoric” has logic built into it.

    You can use rhetoric to deliver a logical argument persuasively, but rhetoric does not have logic “built into it.” And refrain from giving lessons plz. I know that labelling someone is not an ad hominem, that’s not what I said. I said that concerning yourself with someone’s supposed emotional state leads to ad hominem attacks. I’ve seen it happen a thousand times before-someone dropping the “M” bomb and then responding from that point foward as if that had refuted the opposing argument.

    No, it doesn’t go to solely explain why they treat them the way that they do, because if it did, you would imply that these people who bully have no valid ethical system

    People don’t adhere perfectly to their own ethical systems, not even the good ones. Did the women at the Peel believe it was ethical to degrade people? Probably not, but their desire to pick on some freaks, coupled with an assumption that they wouldn’t be punished for it, won out.

    Thus, if you are here to defend Jack, which you most certainly are, you defend an unethical person.

    Actually, I came here to argue with piny. I don’t consider myself an androphile, though I do agree with a lot of what he says.

    Working logic is tough, I know, and learning about what “ad hominem” really means is also tough. We all struggle with it sometimes, and I hope you break out of it.

    Sorry, but you’re going to work on your parting shots. They’re a bit weak, unfit even. Seriously though, you’re decently civil which is appreciated.

  56. Right. A neutered, harmless, feminist-approved selection of meaningless postmodern “masculinities.” Which means they can grow a beard and get a tattoo and work out and emulate a masculine stereotype through dress and manner, but they must agree that no value can be placed on a behavior as to whether it is productive or non-productive, because that might hurt someone’s feelings. Masculinity can never be an aspirational ideal, it can only be an outfit.

    Thanks for providing us with your bigoted worldview in a nutshell. You’re advocating, quite clearly, that some people have “non-productive” genders, which from the deep angle you’re obviously looking down your nose, is obviously just code for “lesser than me.” Wow, what a new concept: that men ought to be masculine? Next you’ll be telling us that women ought to be feminine. This is oppositional sexism at its finest, good show, good show, little clown. Seriously, take a look around you — is anyone telling you that you can’t be masculine? No. You’re complaining that your quest for masculinity isn’t being VALORIZED enough for your taste because some people have the audacity to say hey, alternatives to masculinty are OK too. I’m so, so sorry if the general approval of the masses for masculine = men, masculine men, isn’t enough for you, and you want every gay, queer, everyone who’s been outsidered by gender or sexuality, also to line up and clap and agree that your version of male gender is the best of all time.

    You know, if you really want a trophy so bad, why don’t you look to some real ideals that have been held up as masculine throughout the ages: doing it for yourself. Independence. Hard work. Finding your own way. Making your own meaning. Pat yourself on the back, why don’t you? If you were really secure in your masculinty, you wouldn’t need to whine that your version isn’t being “valued” enough. Get that beam out of your eye before you write another book.

  57. rhetoric does not have logic “built into it.

    Um, who’s definition of “rhetoric” are you using? Because there’s rhetoric, and then there’s pseudorhetoric that tries to live up to rhetoric. Rhetoric is persuasively speaking with an attention to truth, which means that one must follow valid logic and include an ethical system which is also logically sound. Rhetoric without valid logic is sophistry.

    And using the phrase “leads to ad hominem” is ambiguous at best, as it further implies that “you are a misogynist” is not a logical criticism at the outset in this particular debate. It is.

  58. There maybe a stereotype you have in your head that represents femininity, but that is just your own worldview. Bottom line is you have a problem with people being as they wish to be. Why is that? What interest do you have in telling others how they should or should not act based your own ideas of set standards for men and women?

    Actually, that’s the same thing you’re doing. Are you not telling me how I should think and behave based on your own worldview?

    At the end of the day, I’m just a guy with a set of opinions based on research and life experience, and I present myself as such. I’ve found that one direction is more functional for me than another direction, and I think it might be more functional for others and for society as well. This is what people do. That is part of the essence of virtually any ideology. Including feminism, egalitarianism, hippie-dippie “why can’t we just celebrate our diversity and learn to love each other,” socialism, buddhism, Christianity, Tony Robbins, evangelistic atheism (see Sam Harris), Wicca, good sportsmanship, masculinity–just about everything.

    It all comes down to a difference in understanding of the world, and a different set of working assumptions.

  59. Wait…I’m confused…aren’t like 3/4 of the comments about me ad hominem?

    That’s what I expect of course, but if you’re going to attack people for making ad hominem attacks, you’re gonna be just a bit more credible if you refrain from making them.

  60. Um, who’s definition of “rhetoric” are you using?

    The definition I’m using of rhetoric is “the art or technique of persuasion.” What is attempted to be made persuasive can either be true or false.

    And using the phrase “leads to ad hominem” is ambiguous at best, as it further implies that “you are a misogynist” is not a logical criticism at the outset in this particular debate. It is.

    Um, how? Even if we were arguing gender issues, the misogynistic status of the person arguing is still irrelevent. To say that their argument is wrong or weakened because they are a misogynist is an ad hominem.

  61. …even if we *are* arguing gender issues, the mysogynistic status of *either* person arguing…

  62. Even if we were arguing gender issues, the misogynistic status of the person arguing is still irrelevent.

    Nobody’s saying “you’re a misogynist, so your arguments suck.” Folks are saying that your arguments themselves are misogynist. Because, you know, they are.

    The idea that solipsism and vanity and “cattiness,” for instance, are effeminate, and thus non-masculine, traits is a misogynist idea.

  63. the misogynistic status of the person arguing is still irrelevent

    When their argument is based on misogyny, no, it isn’t. That’s like saying a bigoted argument is not predicated on the fact that someone is a bigot.

    The definition I’m using of rhetoric is “the art or technique of persuasion.”

    This is a weak and ambiguous definition. You are aware of where the science of rhetoric comes from, right? Albeit, those Greeks were misogynists in their own right, and thus considered misogyny logical, but their definitions of rhetoric apply today, using different, more ethical and logical systems that do not include hatred of other people.

  64. dude, ad hom only works if there’s an actual argument to engage with.

    as opposed to making fun of a pretentious dweeb, in which case “ad hom” is pretty much, y’know, the entire point.

    *koff*

  65. as opposed to making fun of a pretentious dweeb, in which case “ad hom” is pretty much, y’know, the entire point.

    I thought this seemed like a snatchy, substance-free pointless sorority bitch session designed to affirm the righteousness of the in-group, but thanks for clearing it up.

    Feminists never disappoint.

  66. substance-free pointless sorority bitch session

    Thanks for clearing up that “Jack Malebranche is a complete misogynist” is a substantive and valid critique, if we needed more evidence.

  67. It’s important to recognize the difference between femininity and effeminacy. They are actually really different if you observe a queen and a woman side by side.

    I don’t see why Queen Elizabeth is at all unfeminine.

    Honestly, where do these people COME from?

  68. *snatchy!*

    Malaprop, -have- you tried the MRA’s? It sounds like you’d fit right in, apart from the whole gay panic thing; maybe y’all could bond over brewskis and make fun of figure skaters, circle jerk, you know…

  69. Er…is that not what it reads like?

    Anyway, I don’t hate women, I don’t believe they are obligated to serve me, and I don’t wish any for any harm to come to them…so I really don’t fit the classical definition of “misogynist.”

    I do fit the feminist definition, which basically includes any male who acknowledges some general differences between men and women (allowing for exceptions), questions the validity of a feminist argument, or who looks at a feminist funny. Kind of like “homophobe” applies to anyone who questions any aspect of a gay man’s behavior.

    But that’s OK.

    “You do you”.

    Stay true to type. Makes my job easier.

  70. Feminists never disappoint.

    You know, it isn’t as if any one of us has your balls in a jar or something.

    What I am reading here is that binary gender construction as it appears in the early 21st century, you know, sucks for a whole lot of people who don’t quite feel comfortable in either construction. Not surprising, given the inherent limitations of binaries. I prefer grey to black and white for example,

    The wonderful thing about trying ot break down gender binaries is that it allows everyone to express their gender in a way that is fitting – for some it means allegiance to those socially constructed “masculine” traits, which I say, “yay! good on you”. Just as I would say “yay! good on you” to someone with a less socially approved gender construct for themselves.

    So, the point is that there is room for all gender expression in a post-binary gender-iffic world –so no need to take sides, there aren’t any sides to take, everyone’s personal gender expression is legit, because it is their own construction of their gender, rather than gender being determined from outside the individual.

    I think this sounds pretty good –and I would think, given your unwillingness to conform to some outside standard of what gay men look like, sound like or walk like, even when it came from other gay men, because it simply didn’t fit you– such a world where you are free to express your gender and orientation as you are comfortable, would sound good to you too.

    But I am sensing resistance, and that resistance sounds like bigotry and misogyny, which is kinda what you were objecting to in the first place right? Other people telling you, that you weren’t “gay” in the right way?

    Femmes (at least IME) are your natural allies, then because we aren’t “lesbian” in the right way either. But when you deride “feminine” traits as less desirable traits in men or women, then we are back in the land of women hating, and that it is not so good for alliances.

    If you are just mad about having to justify your right to be masculine in a way that suits you in the first place, then that is ok too. It sucks to be rejected by your community when they’re the only game in town. But then that is about you, not so much about individual expression of gender by other gay men, but about where we fall down as a community and should work to be more inclusive and accepting as we ask the straight community to accept us in a similar way.

  72. Kind of like “homophobe” applies to anyone who questions any aspect of a gay man’s behavior.

    It does, because it assumes he is doing it wrong. Much like when people call you out on assuming that “effeminate” is an incorrect way to exist will call you a misogynist. Granted, there’s much more evidence to assume you are a misogynist, namely you assume that people calling you out is being “catty”, calling people bitch, which I assume you think is substantive, and all around not approving of anything that is not devoted to gender essentialism or your own definitions of femininity or masculinity, fluid ideas that are different things to multiple people.

    Oh, and arguing “most people think like I do” is not actually a logical argument, in that it appeals to the people, an entity that is neither present and able to substantiate your argument, nor demonstrably in possession of the truth.

  73. and no, “MRA” is a bit more specific than that. But I mean, why would you take a bunch of lowly feminists’ and gay’s opinion of what an MRA is over their own very butch self-assessment? Really, I think you ought to try to be better friends. Think of all the masculine bonding you’re missing out on! Plus the chance to exchange slurs! You can teach them “snatchy,” and they can teach you “mangina!” It’ll be HAWT.

  75. You know, it isn’t as if any one of us has your balls in a jar or something.

    Well, now that you mention it…

    I -did- think that it was a bit strange-looking for gefilte fish, but then i never liked the stuff much anyway, so i didn’t think about it. Sorry about that, dude.

  78. Wow. Jack, you amaze. If you don’t hate women and all things feminine, you do give a very good impression of doing exactly that. What did feminists do to you to provoke such rage?

  80. But I am sensing resistance, and that resistance sounds like bigotry and misogyny

    Well, be fair; he could also just be a generally unsocialized, bitter and lonely misanthrope.

  82. Nobody’s saying “you’re a misogynist, so your arguments suck.

    Glad to hear it.

    Folks are saying that your arguments themselves are misogynist. Because, you know, they are.

    No, they’re not. Wow, I think I’ll use your method of arguing more often. So simple.

    When their argument is based on misogyny, no, it isn’t.

    First of all, misogyny refers to an emotion, not a belief, so how an argument can be based on misogyny, at least in the sense that arguments are based on premisses, needs to be clarified. Also, emotions are neither right or wrong, since they don’t make claims. So how is pointing out someone’s emotional state relevent at all to determining the truth of an argument?

    This is a weak and ambiguous definition.

    No, it’s just broader. It’s also the one used in the Rhetoric class I took in college, which was more about history than technique. I also checked three dictionaries, so it appears that my definition is the modern lexical one. Definition are accepted not true or false. Just because yours is older does not make it more correct.

    Good night for now.

  83. So how is pointing out someone’s emotional state relevent at all to determining the truth of an argument?

    Misogyny is less about emotion and more about a mindset. Same with racism. When one constructs arguments in the context of racism, one assumes certain ideas about other races that are not logically valid because the situation is seen through a lens of racism, which makes the person see aspects that are purely there because of the way the person views the world, not the way the world actually is. Similarly, a misogynist sees being an effeminate man as being some contradiction, and, more importantly, that “effeminate” has some correlation to incorrect behavior in men. This is seen as a fault, one that should not exist, and since being a biological man is not part of the reasons stated by Jack as to the wrongness of being an effeminate man, the logical conclusion is that being effeminate is wrong. Being effeminate is a fluid state, I grant, though Jack’s language shows the fact that he sees “effeminate” as being equivalent to being insufficiently male to distinguish one from a female. Which must be done at all costs. Couple this with a further insistence that women making arguments somehow diminish the credibility of said argument and a willingness to use language appropriated by misogynist culture to shame women, misogyny is readily seen in Jack’s argument.

    No, it’s just broader

    You are aware what weak and ambiguous means, right? Persuading someone to a false system of understanding is ethically wrong, which means that rhetoric, for it to be valid within human existence, must maintain adherence to truth, necessitating adherence to logic and ethical principles. Otherwise, we are not engaging in philosophy, but sophistry. To slip into dictionary definitions here is, again, illogical because these are actually based on misinterpretations of readings of Plato. Plato unambiguously says that without logic and ethics in rhetoric, it’s merely babble that contains no wisdom and teaches nothing, and is therefore sophistry.

    Again, despite the fact that you have attempted to call the arguments here “rhetoric”, the word you look for is “sophistry”, and that is a completely incorrect assessment, as the only real sophist here is Jack Malebranche, in that his argument is not based on a dedication to truth, but a dedication to his own gender essentialism.

  84. 1. You disapprove of something.
    2. The method you choose to convey this disapproval is by calling it “effeminate” or otherwise implying it has to do with women in part or exclusively.
    3. The logical conclusion is that you think (even if not on a conscious level) that things-having-to-do-with-women are bad.

    How is this not misogyny?

  85. It’s important to recognize the difference between femininity and effeminacy. They are actually really different if you observe a queen and a woman side by side. Stereotypically gay behavior is about as authentically feminine as professional wrestling is authentically masculine behavior.

    Stereotypically faggy behavior is a caricature of femininity that should be offensive to any woman with an ounce of dignity. I know plently of women whom I respect, and none of them act like fags at all.

    Then you need to meet more women. I hear variations on this assertion constantly–and so do many of the other regulars–and it’s nothing but selection bias every time.

    Am I prejudiced or phobic? Or is there no difference?

    You really cheapen the concept of a “phobia” when you throw it at every sentiment you don’t agree with.

    You really don’t know what “-phobia” means, do you? No, as a matter of fact, there isn’t much difference between prejudiced and -phobic as in homophobic or effemiphobic. Take it up with the lexicon, at least as it functions outside of the Free Republic.

    What we’re talking about here is a legitimate prejudice based on experience and a personal evaluation of the motivations for the behavior of others based on observation. Not every prejudice is irrational.

    No, we’re talking about your willingness to attribute the behavior you’re describing to cowardice and immaturity rather than, say, affinity and courage. That is irrational.

    You’re kind of doing the same thing with me. You’re saying, “this sort of behavior is bad, and it is motivated by [something insulting].”

    What sort of behavior? None of your mannerisms are the issue here, and neither is your personal preference for masculinity, like people keep saying. I’m using the way you conceive of masculinity and effeminacy to evaluate your feelings about effeminate gay men and manhood, and to determine whether or not you’re sexist. You’re using negative feelings about effeminacy–and oppositional-sexist beliefs about which signifiers are appropriate and natural for men and which are imitative and unnatural–to make all kinds of judgments about why effeminate men act the way they do. And you come down on the side of pathology every time.

    Right. A neutered, harmless, feminist-approved selection of meaningless postmodern “masculinities.” Which means they can grow a beard and get a tattoo and work out and emulate a masculine stereotype through dress and manner, but they must agree that no value can be placed on a behavior as to whether it is productive or non-productive, because that might hurt someone’s feelings. Masculinity can never be an aspirational ideal, it can only be an outfit.

    When you argue that masculinity is better than femininity, then you are being sexist. So, yes, people will argue that you’re being sexist. No one here is talking about hurt feelings–you, remember, are the one arguing the need for safe space for your gender presentation. But yeah, if you argue that x behavior is worthless, that it indicates cowardice and immaturity and dysfunction, then people who exhibit that behavior will tend to complain. If I’d said, “seventy-five percent of all masculine men are scared little boys at heart” then you’d be right to take offense.

    Why? As gender studies types are quick to remind me, cultural codes of masculinity change over time based on the needs of a particular society. We have plenty of people and don’t need to produce endless supplies of warriors and farmboys. We can afford to have a segment of the population that engages in non-reproductive sexual behavior.

    I can’t believe you’re making a social-constructionist performative argument in favor of aspirational idealized masculinity. Either certain behaviors are simply unproductive and wrong, or masculinity should be one choice among many, no more or less healthy than effeminacy. Not both.

    You’re confusing fear of emasculation with fear of homosexuality. They certainly are related, but not inseperable–especially on an interpersonal level. It has been my experience that masculine straight men can and will often shrug their shoulders at homosexuality if the rest of the puzzle pieces are in place. If you look at the wide range of behaviors that are attributed to masculine men, sexuality is only a part of that.

    Oh, I have no trouble believing that straight-acting gay men are sometimes more palatable to straight people than the gay-acting kind. You’re not the only one who’s covered. I’m talking about the sense of embracing these value judgments as your own ideal.

    Basically, it’s not an insane idea. It’s just not compatible with your worldview and social agenda. Which is a different thing entirely.

    What agenda do you think I have, Jack?

  86. It does, because it assumes he is doing it wrong

    Are you kidding me? You’ve got to be kidding. It’s invalid to question a gay man’s behavior? I mean I have always assumed that was implied in the “homophobe” argument but in the several years I’ve been arguing about this with people, I don’t think anyone has said anything that ridiculous ouright.

    I don’t even think most gay men believe that–to their credit.

  87. You’re not -questioning.- You’ve (apparently) declared yourself the abiter of what is and isn’t proper behavior and comportment for all (other) cock lovin’ dudes. Generally speaking, this is what’s known as “being an asshole.”

    or did you have the idea that in fact there -is- an HQ somewhere, and that you alone, like some proud Randian hero, are bucking the COMMAND to CONFORM? You -rebel-!

  88. It does, because it assumes he is doing it wrong

    “doing it” means “existing as a gay man”.

    If you think that certain behaviors are unnatural, useless, and pathological when gay men and only gay men engage in them…yes, you’re homophobic.

    It can be difficult to sort out all these shifting partial subcultural signifiers from the thing they often refer to, particularly when a lot of these connections are imposed by the straight world. That doesn’t mean that we’re reducing all this to a stereotype and saying that you’re a self-hating gay if you’re not effeminate. It means that we’re reading these arguments in the context of those stereotypes–that is, starting from the premise that internalized homophobia looks kind of like the plain old externalized kind.

  89. It does, because it assumes he is doing it wrong

    “doing it” means “existing as a gay man”.

    If you think that certain behaviors are unnatural, useless, and pathological when gay men and only gay men engage in them…yes, you’re homophobic.

    It can be difficult to sort out all these shifting partial subcultural signifiers from the thing they often refer to, particularly when a lot of these connections are imposed by the straight world. That doesn’t mean that we’re reducing all this to a stereotype and saying that you’re a self-hating gay if you’re not effeminate. It means that we’re reading these arguments in the context of those stereotypes–that is, starting from the premise that internalized homophobia looks kind of like the plain old externalized kind.

  90. Are you kidding me? You’ve got to be kidding. It’s invalid to question a gay man’s behavior? I mean I have always assumed that was implied in the “homophobe” argument but in the several years I’ve been arguing about this with people, I don’t think anyone has said anything that ridiculous ouright.

    I don’t even think most gay men believe that–to their credit.

    He’s saying that it’s invalid–and homophobic–to question a gay man’s behavior as a gay man, as though there were some special standard for them that didn’t apply to, say, women. He’s not saying that you can’t ever question a gay man. We’re questioning you, remember?

  91. I do fit the feminist definition, which basically includes any male who acknowledges some general differences between men and women (allowing for exceptions), questions the validity of a feminist argument, or who looks at a feminist funny. Kind of like “homophobe” applies to anyone who questions any aspect of a gay man’s behavior.

    Dude. The book you just wrote attacks a big group of exceptions. You aren’t merely perceiving difference, and you aren’t content with a general distinction. You’re telling people that they should create and increase difference against their clear inclination, and you’re making very specific demands for a very particular boundary line.

  92. Right. A neutered, harmless, feminist-approved selection of meaningless postmodern “masculinities.”

    Isn’t anyone going to address the fact that he is explicitly saying that masculinity needs to be harmful?

    Or is it too easy?

  93. It’s invalid to question a gay man’s behavior?

    For one, what piny said. For another, your entire argument is based on the premise that there is a correct way for a gay man to present himself and a wrong way. The wrong way, you relate to being effeminate, and much as you claim to say you’re cool with women, you want to relate that aspect to behaving like women. Therefore, not only do you have a problem with the way certain gay men exist, you have a problem with women. Guess which adjectives describe these two worldviews.

  94. Or is it too easy?

    Personally, I naturally assumed that his misogyny included a harmful, vindictive and, hateful idea of the world and, specifically, women. Though I see the point extremely clear.

  95. Then you nee

    d to meet more women. I hear variations on this assertion constantly–and so do many of the other regulars–and it’s nothing but selection bias every time.

    Wow, maybe YOU are the misogynist! I’d never cast women as being as rediculous as the stereotypical queen.

    http://www.bartleby.com/61/10/P0251000.html
    An intense, abnormal, or illogical fear of a specified thing: xenophobia.

    That would be different from a justified disapproval based on personal experience and/or substantial evidence and dispassionate evaluation. If I see some guy doing a crip-walk on a dark street, I’m going err on the side of caution and assume he’s violent. It’s not a “phobia.” It’s common sense. If I see a bunch of queens who are obviously competing for attention and who quickly become bored and ratchet down their behavior when they are not the center of attention, I’m going to say that queens generally take things over the top for attention. Just because you don’t like that evaluation based on considerable experience doesn’t make it a legitimate phobia in the way that people who are clausterphobic have a phobia. Calling a prejudice a phobia is melodramatic.

    No, we’re talking about your willingness to attribute the behavior you’re describing to cowardice and immaturity rather than, say, affinity and courage. That is irrational.

    Is it? Or are you just spinning it to make it sound better than it is?

    Simply calling something courageous doesn’t make it so. Putting your life in danger is courageous. Wearing an outfit people might not like is a fashion choice.

    None of your mannerisms are the issue here, and neither is your personal preference for masculinity, like people keep saying.

    Actually, that is exactly what is at issue. The fact that I’m stating a preference–which is actually a value judgment. The problem is that I am saying “I think this is better.” As long as I say “I like this” but “everything is the same and nothing is better than anything else” I am golden.

    No one here is talking about hurt feelings–you, remember, are the one arguing the need for safe space for your gender presentation.

    When did I argue for that? I’m not asking for anything, actually. At heart, my argument goes something like, “our values are irreconcilable, I disagree with your values, and therefore I don’t want to be associated with you and I want to go over hyah.” It’s not like I asked for a grant to build an androphile community center for disenfranchised masculine homos. That would be the opposite of anything I’d advocate for, and all of the guys who like my work would drop me like a hot potato–they’d be right to. My book is actually not addressed to the general public seeking some sort of acceptance, it is addressed to homosexual men who feel the same way I do. If you notice, I’m not exactly doing the talk show circuit. And I think you’ll agree that this could be packaged in a freakish enough way to get that sort of attention. If you and the gay community think what I’m saying is rubbish…well…if you don’t, I screwed up somewhere. You’re not supposed to like it. Your negative opinion is a plus.

    And you come down on the side of pathology every time.

    Pathology as defined by…people who want to cut off their own body parts? Feminists? I’m sorry, who is doing the defining here? They people who scream the loudest?

    I can’t believe you’re making a social-constructionist performative argument in favor of aspirational idealized masculinity. Either certain behaviors are simply unproductive and wrong, or masculinity should be one choice among many, no more or less healthy than effeminacy. Not both.

    That’s a dichotomy you constructed. That’s your irrational belief, based on your own moral system.

    My argument is not and has never been that only men have y traits and only women have x traits. It’s not either/or.It’s that more males have y traits and that living in a male body predisposes one to certain behaviors that are beyond the reach of feminist reprogramming. Men tend to respond to things differently, and a lot of them flounder or self-destruct without the structure and discipline that traditional models of masculinity offer. They become AJ on this week’s episode of the Sopranos. Impotent. Childish. Weak. Self-involved. Your type is against any sort of masculine/feminine dichotomy because it oppresses a minority of women who are a little bit more like men. You deconstruct everything to work out your own issues and anger, but you never look at what that construction is holding up or why it was there. It is all too conveniently explained away by the “malevolence” of the male oppressor.

    Oh, I have no trouble believing that straight-acting gay men are sometimes more palatable to straight people than the gay-acting kind.

    I’m not really a big fan of the term straight-acting. To use “JackGoff”‘s language, it implies that you aren’t doing it right. That a certain kind of behavior is appropriate for heterosexuals and a certain kind of behavior is appropriate for homos. It implies that stereotypical gay behavior is the correct mode of behavior for homos. I thought you were against that sort of thing.

    I’m talking about the sense of embracing these value judgments as your own ideal.

    Not sure I get what you’re getting at there. Yeah, I am embracing these value judgments as my own ideal. And I am advocating that others do the same, if they are so inclined. I don’t have a gun to anyone’s head. You are still free to disagree and do your own thing, to construct and follow your own ideal. If you’re really secure about your point of view, the opposition really doesn’t matter. I’m going to go on doing what I’m doing whether it appeals to you or not. You are free to do the same. You started this post by mocking me. Which is your right. I never said you shouldn’t be allowed to. I’ll mock you right back, because I think you’re rediculous. And my peers would, too. So there you go. Welcome to the free market of ideas.

    What agenda do you think I have, Jack?

    Something tells me that no matter what I say here, you’re going to dislike the word I used to describe it and shout “triumph!”

    But here goes.

    I think you’re a leftist feminist who will suspend disbelief and honest observation to perpetuate the idea that there are not significant differences between the majority of men and the majority of women, because that makes the world more comfortable for you, a self-described “queer twenty-three-year-old transguy” who posts on a blog titled “Feministe.” I’d say that your objective is to subvert traditional gender roles because you think they are oppressive and believe no good can come from them. I’d peg you as a pacifist who believes that if we engineered everything just right, people–who really want to do the “right” thing–will get along like the noble savages you believe them to be.

    That’s just a guess off the top of my head.

  96. We’re questioning you, remember?

    Yeah, but I’ve already been identified as both insane and the enemy, so I wouldn’t fit into the protected category.

    Which, by the way, is totally fine.

  97. That would be different from a justified disapproval based on personal experience and/or substantial evidence and dispassionate evaluation. If I see some guy doing a crip-walk on a dark street, I’m going err on the side of caution and assume he’s violent. It’s not a “phobia.” It’s common sense. If I see a bunch of queens who are obviously competing for attention and who quickly become bored and ratchet down their behavior when they are not the center of attention, I’m going to say that queens generally take things over the top for attention. Just because you don’t like that evaluation based on considerable experience doesn’t make it a legitimate phobia in the way that people who are clausterphobic have a phobia. Calling a prejudice a phobia is melodramatic.

    Sorry. You’ve still got the derivation wrong.

    When you see a bunch of queens who hang out with other queens and assume that they do so because they’re cowards–unlike masculine gay men like you, who seek out other masculine gay men for laudable, sensible reasons–then you’re holding them to a different, bigoted standard.

    Is it? Or are you just spinning it to make it sound better than it is?

    Simply calling something courageous doesn’t make it so. Putting your life in danger is courageous. Wearing an outfit people might not like is a fashion choice.

    ..Then how do you get from that neutral definition to the idea that it’s somehow pathological? Again, you are the one attributing all sorts of deep meaning to these fashion choices, and all of it negative.

    Actually, that is exactly what is at issue. The fact that I’m stating a preference–which is actually a value judgment. The problem is that I am saying “I think this is better.” As long as I say “I like this” but “everything is the same and nothing is better than anything else” I am golden.

    If you say that something is better than something else–rather, that one thing is valuable and another thing is completely lacking in value–people will challenge those statements. A preference is something personal: your feelings about masculinity in your own life. If you say, however, that masculinity is something all gay men need to embrace against their will and without much evidence that masculinity is great for men in general or gay men in particular, then people will question your right to make those pronouncements on everyone else’s behalf.

    When did I argue for that? I’m not asking for anything, actually. At heart, my argument goes something like, “our values are irreconcilable, I disagree with your values, and therefore I don’t want to be associated with you and I want to go over hyah.” It’s not like I asked for a grant to build an androphile community center for disenfranchised masculine homos. That would be the opposite of anything I’d advocate for, and all of the guys who like my work would drop me like a hot potato–they’d be right to. My book is actually not addressed to the general public seeking some sort of acceptance, it is addressed to homosexual men who feel the same way I do. If you notice, I’m not exactly doing the talk show circuit. And I think you’ll agree that this could be packaged in a freakish enough way to get that sort of attention. If you and the gay community think what I’m saying is rubbish…well…if you don’t, I screwed up somewhere. You’re not supposed to like it. Your negative opinion is a plus.

    Oh, what a load of crap. Your argument goes, “effeminacy is damaging gay men.” You aren’t just arguing that gay men who feel like you should establish separate space elsewhere. You’re arguing that all gay men should be masculine, and the ones who don’t are fucked up. Not unpleasant or irritating company. Not ideological opposites. Fucked up. Bad for each other and themselves. That’s different. People who just happen to like masculinity are as unhealthy as the screaming queens, by your logic.

    Pathology as defined by…people who want to cut off their own body parts? Feminists? I’m sorry, who is doing the defining here? They people who scream the loudest?

    Only certain body parts.

    We aren’t pathologizing your gender expression, your mannerisms, your personal relationship with masculinity–heck, even your choices about what’s best for your body. We’re reacting to your understanding of us as “unproductive.” Or cunty, or whatever the neologism was.

    That’s a dichotomy you constructed. That’s your irrational belief, based on your own moral system.

    My argument is not and has never been that only men have y traits and only women have x traits. It’s not either/or.It’s that more males have y traits and that living in a male body predisposes one to certain behaviors that are beyond the reach of feminist reprogramming. Men tend to respond to things differently, and a lot of them flounder or self-destruct without the structure and discipline that traditional models of masculinity offer. They become AJ on this week’s episode of the Sopranos. Impotent. Childish. Weak. Self-involved. Your type is against any sort of masculine/feminine dichotomy because it oppresses a minority of women who are a little bit more like men. You deconstruct everything to work out your own issues and anger, but you never look at what that construction is holding up or why it was there. It is all too conveniently explained away by the “malevolence” of the male oppressor.

    You’ve just said that men in general have no capacity to exhibit feminine mannerisms–x traits–in a healthy way. But clearly, these men do have an affinity for feminine behavior; it’s not a matter of wishful feminist thinking for them, or a matter of having a male body. Traditional masculinity is no defense against self-destruction or immaturity, either, and you don’t need a feminist to tell you that. And no, this isn’t about dykes or masculine women–although it kind of makes me wonder how you feel about women who take on masculinity without the traditional structure that would supposedly stabilize their development. Are women just superior to men? More flexible, more sane, more self-reliant?

    I’m not really a big fan of the term straight-acting. To use “JackGoff”’s language, it implies that you aren’t doing it right. That a certain kind of behavior is appropriate for heterosexuals and a certain kind of behavior is appropriate for homos. It implies that stereotypical gay behavior is the correct mode of behavior for homos. I thought you were against that sort of thing.

    No, it points to the obvious reason that masculine gay men are more palatable than effeminate ones: the mainstream associates effeminacy with homosexuality, and is therefore far more comfortable with men who aren’t effeminate. It’s not an assertion that there’s any set of behaviors that are intrinsically heterosexual.

    I think you’re a leftist feminist who will suspend disbelief and honest observation to perpetuate the idea that there are not significant differences between the majority of men and the majority of women, because that makes the world more comfortable for you, a self-described “queer twenty-three-year-old transguy” who posts on a blog titled “Feministe.” I’d say that your objective is to subvert traditional gender roles because you think they are oppressive and believe no good can come from them. I’d peg you as a pacifist who believes that if we engineered everything just right, people–who really want to do the “right” thing–will get along like the noble savages you believe them to be.

    That’s just a guess off the top of my head.

    You’re…almost completely wrong, but some of that is my fault. I need to update my profile, don’t I? I do appreciate you reading it.

    I get the sense that you think that the commenters here don’t have or recognize their own gender expressions–personally, I am relatively unmasculine* for reasons that are entirely related to upbringing and personal preference. Femininity isn’t a queer thing for me, or related to a desire to smash the gender binary or do away with gender roles (I mean, these days that’d be a pretty assbackwards way of going about it, but it wasn’t ever a political choice). It’s just what I happen to like and what happens to make me comfortable. These days it’s probably reactive, but some of that is making up for lost time. I don’t need to surround myself with other feminine people to feel supported, but I do like spending time with them sometimes.

    I do not, however, feel about femininity as you seem to believe we all do. I do not believe that it’s inherently better for any group of people, either women or men. I do not believe that it’s healthier, more productive, more natural, or less dangerous–or vice versa. I believe that lots of people latch onto it for lots of reasons. I do think that any attempt to argue that either gender should stick with either role–in the spirit of tradition or the spirit of perversity–is misconceived. I also think that there’s a difference between speaking in general and arguing that one group of men must conform to that general standard.

    *I say relatively because I’ve been shifted from feminine to femme to androgynous to irrepressibly butch without actually changing any of my behavior or appearance. I’m comfortable saying that I am and have long been less masculine than you, that I am more feminine than many women but less feminine than many others.

  98. That’s cute, Tu. I say folks are calling your arguments misogynist “because they are,” and you shoot back an “are not” response, chiding me on my content-free argumentation.

    Except you snipped out the part where I explained which of your arguments I found misogynist, so that you could defend yourself on substantive grounds if you chose.

    Again: The idea that solipsism and vanity and “cattiness” are effeminate, and thus non-masculine, traits is a misogynist idea. Any time you want to present an argument against that proposition, you know where to find me.

  99. Amen, piny.

    Seriously, Jack — do you not understand the difference between saying “masculinity is right for me and you need to respect that” and “masculinity is right for all male people, and anyone who says otherwise has been brainwashed/is weak and effeminate”?

  100. First of all, misogyny refers to an emotion, not a belief

    Ur, no, misogyny is not an emotion. Anger, fear, disgust, joy, and so on are emotions. Misogyny is an illogical dislike of things coded as “female”. As such, it is indicitive of both a belief system and, likely, a few of the aforementioned emotions – including fear, disgust, and anger.

  101. It’s important to recognize the difference between femininity and effeminacy. They are actually really different if you observe a queen and a woman side by side. Stereotypically gay behavior is about as authentically feminine as professional wrestling is authentically masculine behavior.
    Stereotypically faggy behavior is a caricature of femininity that should be offensive to any woman with an ounce of dignity.

    I’m actually a bit amazed this little treasure slid by unremarked. The first paragraph is more or less completely accurate; while the second one is so logically flawed as to be ludicrous. The “logical leaps” to get from one to the other are astounding.

    True, “effeminate” is a completely different animal from “feminine.” It is why nobody mistakes a flaming queen for a soccer mom, and why, for example, Dustin Hoffman in Tootsie didn’t come off as gay, but rather as a fairly convincing woman. So, either congratulations or a great big duh are in order for noticing this.
    But since they are so completely different and easily distinguishable, why in the world would any woman (dignity or no) even assume effeminacy has anything to do with her, much less take offense to it?

    Whatever the actual word origins might be, it is pretty obvious in usage that “effeminate” means “not masculine” and “feminine” means “not masculine. But it in no way follows that therefore they must both be the same as each other, or that, being different, one must be a caricature of the other. It just makes the (wrongheaded) assumption that “masculine” is the norm from which everything else is measured.

    Canada is not the US, and Mexico is not the US. That doesn’t mean that they are the same as each other, nor that one is a caricature of the other because they have cultural differences.

    Nope, it doesn’t follow. It is, in fact circular. You decided in advance that “faggy” behavior is bad, then constructed a false trail to “prove” it. But even flawed as it is, it doesn’t work, because even if every woman really were offended by effeminate men, that has as much to do with their standards and prejudices as it does about the effeminate men. We wouldn’t buy the logic that the statement “every white person with dignity is offended by black people” has some actual meaning with regards the value and dignity of black people.

    You don’t like “faggy men” – fine. You don’t want to behave in ways that make you feel like you are being “faggy.” Again, fine. Knock yourself out.

    But get over yourself that you’ve come up with something new, or that by being some sort of cultural Gestapo for all gay people you’re doing anyone a favor. If your way is the best way and the only way to be happy, let everyone else figure that out for themselves, or not, as they choose.

  102. Seriously, Jack — do you not understand the difference between saying “masculinity is right for me and you need to respect that” and “masculinity is right for all male people, and anyone who says otherwise has been brainwashed/is weak and effeminate”?

    I’m having the weirdest sense of deja vu…

    Seriously, isn’t this always the bottom line, when it comes to this sort of assholery?

    I AM THE COSMOS, GOO GOO CA CHOO

  103. …speaking of “solipsism.” Because, that’s exactly what that -is.- Convenient as it would be to peg it as a “feminine” thing and thus not something Rod McManlypants here could ever partake of.

    Projection is always part of it too, of course..

  104. I disagree with your values, and therefore I don’t want to be associated with you and I want to go over hyah.

    Um, who’s stopping you, and in that case why are you HERE? Surely a manly fellow like yourself doesn’t care what a bunch of nelly queens and vagina dentata’d feminists think of you?

  105. True, “effeminate” is a completely different animal from “feminine.” It is why nobody mistakes a flaming queen for a soccer mom, and why, for example, Dustin Hoffman in Tootsie didn’t come off as gay, but rather as a fairly convincing woman. So, either congratulations or a great big duh are in order for noticing this.
    But since they are so completely different and easily distinguishable, why in the world would any woman (dignity or no) even assume effeminacy has anything to do with her, much less take offense to it?

    Whatever the actual word origins might be, it is pretty obvious in usage that “effeminate” means “not masculine” and “feminine” means “not masculine. But it in no way follows that therefore they must both be the same as each other, or that, being different, one must be a caricature of the other. It just makes the (wrongheaded) assumption that “masculine” is the norm from which everything else is measured.

    I don’t agree. Soccer moms are different from flaming queens, but they’re also different from high femmes; gay male femininity is as varied as when women do it. All “effeminate” means is, “femininity displayed by someone who isn’t a woman.” It doesn’t refer to a certain set of behaviors or to any degree on a spectrum. It’s like “mannish,” which is never used to describe men: the distinction is between the genders of the people involved, not their mannerisms. And it takes for granted that certain groups of people have no right to display certain cues.


  107. don’t agree. Soccer moms are different from flaming queens, but they’re also different from high femmes; gay male femininity is as varied as when women do it. All “effeminate” means is, “femininity displayed by someone who isn’t a woman.” It doesn’t refer to a certain set of behaviors or to any degree on a spectrum. It’s like “mannish,” which is never used to describe men: the distinction is between the genders of the people involved, not their mannerisms. And it takes for granted that certain groups of people have no right to display certain cues.

    Yeah. That.

  108. I don’t agree. Soccer moms are different from flaming queens, but they’re also different from high femmes; gay male femininity is as varied as when women do it.

    I agree with that statement, but I’m not sure why it constitutes disagreement with my point. Of course there is a wide variety of behaviors within each group, and I never intended to imply otherwise, nor that there aren’t other groups out there. If anyone got that out of my post, I’m sorry. My point was quite the opposite.

    I was objecting to Jack lumping all effeminate gay male behavior and all female behavior into one bucket, and gave two examples to show their differences and the difference between that and his single form of “masculinity.” I didn’t intend to say that all women are soccer moms and all gay men are flaming queens. Hardly.

    Of course there is a huge variety of female styles, with a lot of overlap, and a lot of distinctions. And there is a similar wide variety among gay men on the femme side of things, from the arch bitch queens to the beautifully gentle and delicate waiflike fellows, the Quietly Artistic, and the happily faaaabulous.

    And, of course, though Jack will never see it, there is just as much variety among the guys at the butch end of the scale. There are the obnoxious ones, and the classy ones, the walking testosterone time bombs and the gentle bears. And everything in between and all along the spectrum.

    My point was the same as yours – there is a lot more variety than Jack’s view allows for. Conveniently for him, he seems to be able to lump all of humanity into People Just Like Me and Scum Not Worth Considering.

    I just have to wonder what his life experience is that he can even consider lumping all gay men together as sad pathetic “faggy” clowns and feels he has to “invent” a whole new form of gay masculinity. Has he never, (just to use a single example, of which I’m sure there are plenty of others) hear of the whole Bear phenomenon? (I know he completely wrote off leathermen, who he’s obviously never met either.)

  109. Peter:

    Of course there is a huge variety of female styles, with a lot of overlap, and a lot of distinctions. And there is a similar wide variety among gay men on the femme side of things, from the arch bitch queens to the beautifully gentle and delicate waiflike fellows, the Quietly Artistic, and the happily faaaabulous.

    And once you’ve said that, it seems remiss not to point out that the same thing applies to us hetboys, too. Lots of us present as flaming, in one way or another.

    And then once you’ve said that, you’ve said that effeminacy comes in all sorts of colors, and can be found among women, gay men, and men who aren’t gay. And it’s about that time that you realize you’ve forgotten what the question was.

  110. Seriously, isn’t this always the bottom line, when it comes to this sort of assholery?

    I AM THE COSMOS, GOO GOO CA CHOO

    Hey, you figure Camille has a secret son out there? I definitely see the resemblance.

  111. Brooklynite,

    I have to assume you are now doing it deliberately.

    I didn’t say that everyone is effeminate. That is something you came up with. Nor did I ever say that straight women are effeminate – I went out of my way to say the exact reverse.

    I didn’t forget the question. But never mind. You’ve decided to misunderstand me regardless of what I write or don’t, so you just go on making up stuff that you think I’d say. You don’t need me.

  112. Peter, I think the disagreement is largely about whether there is in fact a substantial difference between “effeminate” and “feminine.”

  113. I just have to wonder what his life experience is that he can even consider lumping all gay men together as sad pathetic “faggy” clowns and feels he has to “invent” a whole new form of gay masculinity. Has he never, (just to use a single example, of which I’m sure there are plenty of others) hear of the whole Bear phenomenon? (I know he completely wrote off leathermen, who he’s obviously never met either.)

    I think he has–they’re everywhere–although I think his reaction to them was just as colored by his preconceptions as his reaction to the femmier gay guys.

    Here’s the thing: his personal vision of masculinity is incredibly traditional in one overriding respect, that is, its oppositional sexism. Any masculinity that does not present itself as an ideal, that does not explicitly define itself as better than femininity, that does not reject femininity, is merely a “fetish.” The leathermen and the bears–excepting all the ones who, y’know, kinda do hate femmes, since that’s quite common–are too accepting of the alternatives to satisfy his definition of real masculinity. For them, it’s just a damn cigar.

    Sorta like works without faith, I suppose.

    I didn’t say that everyone is effeminate. That is something you came up with. Nor did I ever say that straight women are effeminate – I went out of my way to say the exact reverse.

    Actually, I was arguing that straight women are effeminate, just as straight men are mannish.

  114. IOW, it’s kind of like how it’s possible for me to go from femme(ish) to butch(ish) by changing gender from male to female. “Effeminacy” does not connote discrete behaviors, but relative position. And look at how Jack uses it: he refers to gay men as effeminate rather than feminine and then goes on to say that their version is parodic and ridiculous. Feminine is a legitimate expression of those cues we associate with women; effeminacy is illegitimate.

    Mind, I used it in a lazy way throughout the comments thread.

  115. I didn’t say that everyone is effeminate. That is something you came up with. Nor did I ever say that straight women are effeminate – I went out of my way to say the exact reverse.

    Okay, yeah. I was responding to your most recent post, and missed the earlier context. Let me go around again.

    You said that women present a wide range of qualities that you’d call “feminine,” and gay men present a wide range of qualities that you’d call “effeminate.” Are you saying that those two wide ranges have no overlap at all? Because if there’s overlap, then there are effeminate women and feminine gay men. And, I’d add, straight men who are effeminate, and straight men who are feminine.

    You seem to be saying that only women can be (or are) feminine, and only (gay?) men can be (or are) effeminate, and that seems weird to me. Weird and easily falsifiable.

  116. OK, as someone who has had my own behaviors described as both “effeminate” when someone was interpreting me as male, and the exact same behaviors described as “feminine” when someone was interpreting me as female, I can vouch for the fact that yes, there is a lot of overlap, in fact quite a lot of the time “effeminate” and “feminine” are describing the exact same things. It’s just that we are so, so used to unconsciously looking through lenses of gender when interpreting someone’s qualities, behaviors, etc. that identical behaviors can be cast in a totally different light — even from the exact same person (i.e. me). And I’m not talking about cases in which anyone thought I was transgender, either.

    “Feminine” simply refers to traits and behaviors that are considered “natural, normal, automatic, inherent” and “effeminate” refers to a lot of the same stuff (and maybe some particular things that aren’t part of “feminine,” it’s possible) when they’re considered “artificial, affected, unnatural, weird.” To be able to make this distinction at all basically requires that you think some people have these behaviors and traits “naturally” and others are “affecting” them, and it’s usually along gender lines. And seriously, this is not about some “flaming” gay guys being over-the-top or campy either. There are plenty of feminine women who are just as over-the-top and campy about their gender, and will even say so themselves, with pride even (because what’s not to be proud of when it comes to a gender expression that’s fun, that says something, that you’ve adopted yourself?) — but a whole lot of people are mentally incapable of seeing them as having a very similar gender expression as a feminine gay guy.

    This is all just another form of sexism (oppositional sexism, to be precise.) “Effeminate” is just a derogatory term for feminine people who we don’t think should be feminine. A friend just told me, totally unrelated to this thread, that she actually got detention in high school for referring to herself as “effeminate” because a teacher considered it a bad word, slurring herself, describing herself in terms only suitable for a verboten class, femmey gay men, etc.

    Of course there are plenty of jerks out there who will deride both femininity and effeminacy with all sorts of misogynist insults and implications of inferiority. It’s been going on for ages. And just that is bad enough. Slurring effeminacy, on top of that, also carries with it the idea that you must perform your gender in proscribed ways, or that it’s inherently better / “more productive” (what a bullshit term) to do so, according to how a doctor assigned you at birth, or your genitals, or your legal status, or your gender identity, or whatever. And that’s transphobic in addition to misogynist.

  117. Brooklynite, Apologies.

    I assumed that people would read previous posts before attacking. My mistake.

    Let me summarize. The moron that the actual original post was about has written an entire book on the idea that all gay men (except the very, very few that have encountered him and his ideas) are all exactly the same, and that there is exactly one kind of being gay, which is “effeminate” and that is, pure and simply, and offensive knockoff on the equally exactly one kind of real femininity that he seems to acknowledge.

    I personally never use the word “effeminate” in any context, but since it was the going phrase, I called the idiot on his idea that what HE called “effeminate” was exactly the same as what HE called “feminine,” just badly done, and a sad, pathetic, and offensive attempt at that.

    I called him on the fact that even by his own admission, anyone paying attention can tell the difference between the mannerisms of an “effeminate man” and a woman, and that HIS conclusion that they were the same, or at least an attempt to be the same was not only not logically founded, but deeply flawed, and based on HIS clear belief that only a certain, specific, straight-modeled masculinity is the norm, and that everything different from it (women, “fags”, etc) must all be the same. I called BS.

    So, for those like you who don’t read the whole thread, let me start over, and start by rejecting the word “effeminate” once and for all. There is an entire, multifaceted, broad-ranging, and varied spectrum of male experience, for both gay men and straight men. There is also a rigid, narrow definition that some people (of all genders) buy into that is supposedly the only acceptable one for all men.

    BS. And, just because the behaviors, identity, and/or experience of any particular man doesn’t fit that rigid definition, it not only doesn’t mean it isn’t “masculine,” but it most decidedly does not push it into some category of “feminine” simply by virtue of being different, for any reason whatsoever, but most especially not because there is something inherently inferior in things that actually ARE feminine (in all of THOSE myriad forms.)

    Straight male is NOT the norm to which everything else must measure up. Not women, not gay men, and not any particular subset of either. Or anyone else, for that matter.

    And, dear God, of course there is overlap. I’m not a complete idiot. But just as two things different from a third are not automatically the same as each other, two things that are noticeably and validly distinguishable from each other don’t have to be completely separate in all respects. What world do you live in?

    But there is a real, distinct, and genuine experience of being human that is what Jack calls “effeminate” (or “faggy”), and it isn’t the same as being a woman, or a straight man, or one of several sorts of more butch gay men. And it is a valid experience, that is just as real, and multifaceted and genuine, with its own joys and challenges, gifts and potholes as any other experience of being human.

    And, while God knows there is absolutely NOTHING wrong with being a woman, in any of the huge diversity of expression encompassed by that (pardon the phrase) broad concept, it IS a belittling of those men to claim that their experience is a sad, pathetic attempt at being a woman, when it is in fact its very own life experience, to be experienced and judged on its own merits, not by the standards of a completely (yes, with overlap) different one.

    Just as while there is nothing wrong with being a man, it IS belittling to a woman to claim that being ambitious, confident, professional and successful is a pathetic attempt to be “a man” rather than a genuine part of the variety of experiences that make up a genuine life for her.

    What set me off is that this clown — as a gay man, for God’s sake — has bought into the idiocy of “the one right way” that has to be enforced for everyone, and that all the heretics have to be marginalized, if not burned at the stake. As though the people he has set up as his own role models wouldn’t take him down in a heartbeat and not think twice about it.

    End of rant. Good night.

  121. But there is a real, distinct, and genuine experience of being human that is what Jack calls “effeminate” (or “faggy”), and it isn’t the same as being a woman, or a straight man, or one of several sorts of more butch gay men.

    You can cut it that way. Or you can say that there are two, or five, or sixteen distinct experiences of being what Jack calls effeminate, since you yourself said there’s “wide variety among gay men on the femme side of things.”

    All I’m saying is that you can defend men who don’t meet Jack’s ridiculous standards without declaring gay male effeminacy (with or without scare quotes) a single “real, distinct, and genuine” category of human experience, and that there are good reasons not to do so.

  122. Misogyny is less about emotion and more about a mindset.

    It is entirely about an emotion, as it is defined as and literally translates to hatred of women. To attach an entire mindset to the definition is an idiosyncratic stipulation on your part-one that I am under no obligation to accept.

    When one constructs arguments in the context of racism, one assumes certain ideas about other races that are not logically valid because the situation is seen through a lens of racism, which makes the person see aspects that are purely there because of the way the person views the world, not the way the world actually is.

    This is completely circular. It implicitly concludes that the “lens of racism,” a fancy term for “racist viewpoint,” is illogical since it leads to illogical assumptions. However, by concluding that it does lead to illogical assumptions you’ve already assumed beforehand that the “lens of racism” is illogical. By presenting this argument your still left with the burden of proving that racism is illogical, though I’m sure if you word it in a convoluted enough fashion you could trick someone into believe that you actually proved something. I could easily just replace “racism” with “feminism” or any other ideology and it would not, on its own, be any more or less unfounded.

    Similarly, a misogynist sees being an effeminate man as being some contradiction, and, more importantly, that “effeminate” has some correlation to incorrect behavior in men.

    Again, I don’t accept your definition of misogynist or your assumptions of what a misogynist necessarily believes.

    To slip into dictionary definitions here is, again, illogical because these are actually based on misinterpretations of readings of Plato.

    Dictionary definitions are base on common usage, not some undergrad’s cocked-up interpretation of Plato. Terms rarely remain unchanged through numerous translations and two thousand years of usage. Living language, remember? An illogical definition of “rhetoric” would be “the coalition of married bachelors.”

    Plato unambiguously says that without logic and ethics in rhetoric, it’s merely babble that contains no wisdom and teaches nothing, and is therefore sophistry.

    I don’t care what Plato said. Definitions are accepted, not inherently correct or incorrect. When I engage in an argument, my only obligation is to use definitions that my opponent should reasonably be aware of. I did, as you have not done with “misogyny.”

    Again, despite the fact that you have attempted to call the arguments here “rhetoric”, the word you look for is “sophistry”, and that is a completely incorrect assessment, as the only real sophist here is Jack Malebranche, in that his argument is not based on a dedication to truth, but a dedication to his own gender essentialism.

    Are you seriously asserting my assessment incorrect because it does not follow using your definition, even though I was using a different one that, one, was correct in the context of my assessment, and, two, I was completely justified in using, only to use that as an opportunity to call Jack a sophist? Which is ironic since Plato, who you brought up as an authority, was a greek and most likely misogynist himself and therefore a sophist by your criteria. So, if even the granddaddy of rhetoric can’t get right in hindsight, maybe you should refrain from determining who can.

  123. Except you snipped out the part where I explained which of your arguments I found misogynist, so that you could defend yourself on substantive grounds if you chose.

    LOL. Are you for real? You didn’t explain anything. You merely said that my arguments (it doesn’t matter that you stated the specific ones) were misogynist and left it at that. You made an a positive assertion, so the burden of proof is on you. The fact that you’re under the impression that you can lable someone’s argument and then leave it up to them to refute the charge when didn’t even support it in the first place is what’s cute. No wait, actually it’s just sad.

  126. I’m sorry, Tu. You know what that music means.

    Are you the fat lady in this scenario and can I choose the tune?

    Seriously though, you made the claim. Now follow the rules of debate and support it.

  128. Tu, it was an obscure sitcom reference. The thread’s fallen off the front page.

    But since you’re sticking around, here’s a question:

    In what sense is solipsism an effeminate or feminine trait?

  129. Which is ironic since Plato, who you brought up as an authority, was a greek and most likely misogynist himself and therefore a sophist by your criteria

    True, but misleading. His definition of rhetoric was not predicated on his misogyny, just his ethics, which are not our ethics. Anyway, I’m very aware that your definition of rhetoric does not include logic or an ethical system, as has become apparent. I do understand better now why you would define it as so. I do like it when you attempted to make feminism and racism morally and logically equivalent. Very telling.

    Hatred may include visceral emotion, though it’s causes and why hatred exists is due to a mindset, meaning in the context of misogyny, a person may physically feel hatred towards women, yet that fact alone does not explain why he feels that way, and it’s disingenuous to assume that the way some views the world and certain people are not the primary causes.

    Again, believe what you will, appeal to the people, etc. Basically, we’ll have to agree to disagree here.

  130. Anyway, I’m very aware that your definition of rhetoric does not include logic or an ethical system, as has become apparent. I do understand better now why you would define it as so.

    Don’t be clever, Jack. I didn’t define anything. As I have stated numerous times, I accepted the modern dictionary definition of “rhetoric” because it was familiar to me and familiar to most people. For you to, also, imply that it indicates something about my arguing as a whole is bunk, and has the unfortunate effect of making you seem desperate.

    I do like it when you attempted to make feminism and racism morally and logically equivalent. Very telling.

    Assert a little more reading comprehension, plz. My point was that your argument was based on circular reasoning, which means that not only was it insufficient to prove racism illogical, but also anything you could substitute in its place like feminism or any other ideology. Remember how I said “any other ideology”? REMEMBER?

    Basically, we’ll have to agree to disagree here.

    Heh, good one.

  131. But since you’re sticking around, here’s a question:
    In what sense is solipsism an effeminate or feminine trait?

    Ho.Lee.Shit. Do people really fall for this tactic? I ask you to actually support a drive-by claim that you made involving a term that gets bandied about so casually on this thread, and instead of, you know, actually providing that support you ask me a question?
    Please, prove that you are responding to me in good faith and not just making basing charges for the hell of it. I might then feel obligated to answer your questions.

  133. Tu, you called out solipsism and vanity and cattiness as negative, effeminate traits. What you’re doing is conflating character with gender presentation, and tarring effeminate men with vices that have been pinned on women since time immemorial.

    “Vanity” is only an effeminate trait if you denigrate traditionally feminine forms of vanity while ignoring or lauding traditionally masculine forms. And yes, it’s misogynist to denigrate traditionally feminine forms of vanity while ignoring or lauding traditionally masculine forms.

  134. basing should be *baseless*

    Sweetie! We don’t give a fuck! Try making real arguments, and then we’ll bother with your syntax.

    What Brooklynite said. Vanity is another one of those position-not-behavior terms: it connotes illegitimate pride. Men aren’t illegitimate, ergo men aren’t vain. Even when they curl their hair and powder their faces.

    Tu, you called out solipsism and vanity and cattiness as negative, effeminate traits. What you’re doing is conflating character with gender presentation, and tarring effeminate men with vices that have been pinned on women since time immemorial.

    Which is, incidentally, misogynist.

  135. Vanity is another one of those position-not-behavior terms: it connotes illegitimate pride. Men aren’t illegitimate, ergo men aren’t vain. Even when they curl their hair and powder their faces.

    Of course they’re vain when they curl their hair and powder their faces, silly. They’re not vain when they get manly tattoos and spend Saturday detailing their pickup trucks.

  136. Of course they’re vain when they curl their hair and powder their faces, silly. They’re not vain when they get manly tattoos and spend Saturday detailing their pickup trucks.

    Heh.

    Don’t forget those biceps.

    Ninepearls has the more entertaining thread, btw.

  137. Remember how I said “any other ideology”?

    Which implies all ideologies can be logically equivalent. And the idea of circular reasoning implies that a given term in a premise cannot be defined, like racism or feminism, in terms that are logically sound. And we’re back to the definition of rhetoric that you are using being inappropriate and sophistic, as misogyny, racism, feminism, these things can be defined logically, and have been. You want us to define them specifically for you, and these definitions are subject to your personal approval. This is, again, an exercise in futility. I would say why it is, but that’d be ad hominem, at least to you.

    Heh, good one.

    Not at all. It’s actually pretty bad that it comes to that, but when one cannot discuss someone else’s misogyny because of some vague notion that it attacks the person rather than the misogyny, misogyny gets a free pass, as if misogyny is indistinguishable from the person. That this does not enter into your understanding is a problem, one that stems from the corrupted definition of rhetoric you are using.

    When it comes down to it, if your worldview is thus, then what I mean by “agree to disagree” is that you’ll have to deal with us attcking misogyny, which you will see as ad hominem. It really isn’t, but whatever, it’s ad hominem and that is a fallacy to you. I guess it’ll just have to be us evil jerks insulting people then. Clutch the pearls tightly, now, so us little simpletons know that you are outraged! OUTRAGED, ZOMG!!!!!

  138. Ho.Lee.Shit. Do people really fall for this tactic? I ask you to actually support a drive-by claim that you made involving a term that gets bandied about so casually on this thread, and instead of, you know, actually providing that support you ask me a question?

    Well, I didn’t make that drive-by claim, I don’t think, and I’m also curious as to the answer to that question. Why is solipsism “effeminate?”

  139. And yes, it’s misogynist to denigrate traditionally feminine forms of vanity while ignoring or lauding traditionally masculine forms.

    Oh, Lordy. Well, at least you tried, I can appreciate that. Even though you made unfounded assumptions about what I believe concerning male vanity, without showing in any way how it necessarily follows that I believe such, let’s just assume that you’ve accurately described my position; I’ll even simplify it in your favor. Your argument is as follows:

    P1: Misogyny is the hatred of women.

    P2: Your argument applies a double standard concerning male and female vanity (masculine vanity being positive or neutral, feminine vanity being negative).

    C: Your argument is misogynistic.

    This is a complete non-sequitur. My position, as defined by you (I’m only accepting it for the sake of argument), could reasonably faulted for Special Pleading, but you did not fault it for that, you claimed it was misogynist. I can see only two alternate possibilities here. Either you assume in P2 that a double standard must be caused by hate because it’s self-evident to you and you expect it to be self-evident to me, which is totally weak. Or, you’re stipulating that by definition my assertion is misogynistic, in which case your trying to prove your charge tautologically. At that point, you’re just playing word games. Again totally weak.

  140. Which implies all ideologies can be logically equivalent.

    No, it implies that all ideologies would be equally unfounded by your argument because your argument is circular.

    And the idea of circular reasoning implies that a given term in a premise cannot be defined, like racism or feminism, in terms that are logically sound.

    Again, no. Your argument wasn’t circular because a term couldn’t be defined (huh?), it was circular because one of your conclusions was assumed in the premiss that was used to support it. I explained that quite clearly.

    And we’re back to the definition of rhetoric that you are using being inappropriate and sophistic, as misogyny, racism, feminism, these things can be defined logically, and have been.

    Repeating yourself does not make what you say more credible. I justified my choice of definition, and you have not addressed those justifications. Saying my definition is “inappropriate and sophistic” makes no sense.

    I would say why it is, but that’d be ad hominem, at least to you.

    It would be an ad hominem. You failed to show how calling someone a misogynist is relevant because your argument was faulty.

    That this does not enter into your understanding is a problem, one that stems from the corrupted definition of rhetoric you are using.

    Your obsession with the fact that I used a dictionary definition of “rhetoric” when it only applies to 2% of this conversation is seriously bizarre.

    Clutch the pearls tightly, now, so us little simpletons know that you are outraged! OUTRAGED, ZOMG!!!!!

    Heh, I love your parting shots, they’re so endearingly novice. It’s like you’re on the first chapter of the Datalounge/LiveJournal E-flame Handbook. Anyway, you’re too adorable to incite my rage. Kinda like a puppy-you may nip at my heels at times, but I’m totally like “Awwww!”

  141. Sweetie! We don’t give a fuck! Try making real arguments, and then we’ll bother with your syntax.

    HAHAHA. Syntax refers to the order of words in a sentence; I changed my spelling. Make friends with a dictionary before you dispense with the snark, ‘k sweetie?

  142. Ninepearls has the more entertaining thread, btw.

    I think the mistake here is that anyone took them seriously enough to try and debate.

  143. I think the mistake here is that anyone took them seriously enough to try and debate.

    Heh. That much should have been obvious, though what can I say? I’m an idiot.

  144. HAHAHA. Syntax refers to the order of words in a sentence; I changed my spelling. Make friends with a dictionary before you dispense with the snark, ‘k sweetie?

    You’re right, that’s the wrong word. I don’t give a fuck about your spelling, either. But I wasn’t actually talking about “basing.” I was talking about your word usage in general–although, to be fair, you haven’t corrected most of the little quirks. “Dispense with,” for example. It irritates me, but mostly because I don’t like you. It irritates me more to see comments threads cluttered up with edits.

    P1: Misogyny is the hatred of women.

    P2: Your argument applies a double standard concerning male and female vanity (masculine vanity being positive or neutral, feminine vanity being negative).

    C: Your argument is misogynistic.

    Wrong! The definition of misogyny is not limited to the literal translation of its roots. On the contrary, misogyny is the hatred of women because they are women as well as any belief system that supports the idea that women are deserving of hatred by virtue of being women. And you don’t have to be frothing at the mouth, either–somewhat milder forms of ill feeling towards women qua women are also misogyny. That’s why misogyny and sexism are used interchangeably so often: they tend to depend on each other. It’s difficult to find a misogynist belief that cannot also be called sexist, and vice versa.

    Therefore:

    P1: Misogyny is the hatred of women because they are women or the belief that women are deserving of hatred by virtue of being women.

    P2: Your argument applies a double standard to concern with one’s appearance and other superficial things. When it involves traditionally feminine concerns, it’s vain, or negative. When it involves traditionally masculine concerns, it is not called vain, and is either neutral or positive.

    P3: There’s no difference between the importance of things like bicep and breast size.

    P4: The only difference between the two behaviors is that one is traditionally feminine–associated with women–and one is traditionally masculine–associated with men.

    P5: Your argument denigrates something feminine simply because it is feminine–that is, because it’s associated with women.

    C1: Your argument is misogynist.

    Now, this argument is also sexist, because it implies that only women should exhibit certain behaviors. This is oppositional sexism, which is the belief that the two sexes are different and should behave (or appear, or be treated) differently.

  145. “Dispense with,” for example.

    Dispense can be a synonym for distribute, so it works. Really, find a copy of the American Heritage. Take it to dinner, have coffee with it, get to know it. Oh, and “It irritates me” =/= “I don’t give a fuck.”

    …but mostly because I don’t like you.

    But, but, what would the community think?

    Wrong! The definition of misogyny is not limited to the literal translation of its roots. On the contrary, misogyny is the hatred of women because they are women as well as any belief system that supports the idea that women are deserving of hatred by virtue of being women.

    Words don’t necessarily have to be limited to their literal translations, but “misogyny” happens to be one of those words where the definition is no more elaborate than what it literally translates to. Check dictionary.com, which compiles definitions of words from various sources. The six entries for “misogyny” are basically “hatred of women” except for one that’s only slightly different. What you’re doing is adding your own personal amendment to it.

    That’s why misogyny and sexism are used interchangeably so often: they tend to depend on each other. It’s difficult to find a misogynist belief that cannot also be called sexist, and vice versa.

    Beliefs can invoke emotions but they do not have inherent emotional qualities. Saying a sexist belief is a misogynistic belief is like saying, “Most people are essentially good,” is inherently a happy belief because some people might react to it with happiness or because someone might be inclined to believe it because they’re a generally happy person.

    C1: Your argument is misogynist

    *headdesk* God, Aristotle must be in Limbo somewhere crying his eyes out. You essentially made the same argument as the one before only ten times as wordy and about 10^14 times as butthurt, but the conclusion is equally a non-sequitur. Ugh, I can’t believe I’m about to construct for you a sound (but still false) argument for your case, but I’m getting a bit tired of this discussion. I’m going to rename Ps 2-5 “Bonfire of the Vanities” cause I don’t want the post to be ten screens long. Here goes:

    P1: All arguments based on the hatred of women or the belief that women are deserving of hatred by virtue of being women are misogynistic.

    P2: All arguments that employ a Bonfire of the Vanities are based on the hatred of women or the belief that women are deserving of hatred by virtue of being women.

    P3: My argument employs a Bonfire of the Vanities.

    C1: My argument is misogynistic.

    See how aesthetic a tidy syllogism can be? Tidy, but still false, since P2 is a completely unsupported assertion. I love how even if I accept your imaginary version of my position, your stipulated definition of misogyny, and construct a proper syllogism for you, your argument is still wrong.

  146. The six entries for “misogyny” are basically “hatred of women” except for one that’s only slightly different.

    The one that’s “only slightly different” is the first, and it’s this one: “hatred, dislike, or mistrust of women.”

    So based on your own source, and on your own “for argument’s sake” position, you need to explain why special pleading on behalf of men can’t be plausibly ascribed to hatred, dislike, or mistrust of women before you go any further.

  147. The one that’s “only slightly different” is the first, and it’s this one: “hatred, dislike, or mistrust of women.”

    Dictionary.com always puts it own definition at the top, do you think that somehow makes their definition better than American Heritage’s or the Oxford English Dictionary’s? To choose the somewhat non-conforming entry over the other five that agree completely simply because it’s at the top of the page makes no sense whatsoever.

    So based on your own source, and on your own “for argument’s sake” position, you need to explain why special pleading on behalf of men can’t be plausibly ascribed to hatred, dislike, or mistrust of women before you go any further.

    I don’t know if it’s due to some misunderstanding on your part, but you’ve committed the Burden of Proof Fallacy now twice already. You’re requesting that I prove the negative claim that there is no valid argument that can confirm the argument in question as being based on misogyny. Negative claims cannot be proven logically so it’s ridiculous for you to request I do so. From the beginning, you’ve claimed that my position was misogynistic, and you still are, only now you’re trying to hide it in clever wording. It doesn’t matter if the argument in question commits special pleading. Special pleading is special pleading; it isn’t anything more. If you still want to say the argument is misogynistic, you’re maintaining a positive claim. placing the Burden of Proof squarely on you.

  149. placing the Burden of Proof squarely on you

    Nobody has a burden of anything here, much less a Burden. We’re all free to walk away unburdened.

  150. Dispense can be a synonym for distribute, so it works. Really, find a copy of the American Heritage. Take it to dinner, have coffee with it, get to know it. Oh, and “It irritates me” =/= “I don’t give a fuck.”

    Yes, dispensing snark means distributing snark. “Dispense with,” on the other hand, means setting aside snark–that is, not being snarky. The dictionary might have failed you there.

    I said that the grammar irritates me, but because I dislike you. If you weren’t a jackass, you could show up with all the malaprops and typos you liked, and I wouldn’t mind at all. The edits irritate me regardless.

    Words don’t necessarily have to be limited to their literal translations, but “misogyny” happens to be one of those words where the definition is no more elaborate than what it literally translates to. Check dictionary.com, which compiles definitions of words from various sources. The six entries for “misogyny” are basically “hatred of women” except for one that’s only slightly different. What you’re doing is adding your own personal amendment to it.

    And this is where the dictionary falls short. Misogyny as used in discussions of the hatred of women and the mindsets supporting it is a lot broader and a lot more elaborate. It has to be, since it’s actually possible to hate women without being misogynist or sexist. It wouldn’t be possible to discuss the status of women with a definition as obtuse as simple “hatred of women.”

    Look at the example given on dictionary.com:

    “Every organized patriarchal religion works overtime to contribute its own brand of misogyny” (Robin Morgan).

    Which is actually,

    “Although every organized religion works overtime to contribute its own brand of misogyny to the myth of woman-hate, woman-fear, and woman-evil, the Roman Catholic church also carries the immense power of very directly affecting women’s lives everywhere by its stand against birth control and abortion, and by its use of skillful and wealthy lobbies to prevent legislative change. It is an obscenity — an all-male hierarchy, celibate or not, that presumes to rule on the lives and bodies of millions of women.”

    See? She’s talking about a philosophy, not an emotion.

    Beliefs can invoke emotions but they do not have inherent emotional qualities. Saying a sexist belief is a misogynistic belief is like saying, “Most people are essentially good,” is inherently a happy belief because some people might react to it with happiness or because someone might be inclined to believe it because they’re a generally happy person.

    No, it’s kind of like saying that a given racist belief also illustrates hatred of non-white people. They aren’t easily separated: a belief in inferiority leads to contempt, and contempt must be justified by a belief in inferiority. There’s no such thing as decontextualized hatred of a class of people, and misogynistic hatred is not merely an emotional response to women. Misogyny is hatred supported by the belief that women are deserving of hatred. Talk about arguments: try describing the function of misogyny without any reference to misogyny as a mindset. And then try to pretend that misogyny can’t apply to things associated with women–it’s lots of fun, you end up at concepts like “pregnant person.”

    The assertion is not unsupported. Here:

    First of all, I don’t believe that homosexuality and effeminacy are necessarily, if at all, linked, so the charge of self-hatred is for the most part misapplied. And I’m not “pathologizing” anything; I’m simply judging certain behaviors exhibited by a lot of gay men as negative based on my own personal criteria. Hatred, internal or otherwise, has nothing to do with it. Tell me exactly what’s positive about solipsism, extreme vanity, and cattiness.

    See? That’s effeminacy you’re describing right there. You have a special animus towards behavior when it’s tied to traditionally feminine concerns, and you haven’t offered any good reason why.

    Would you prefer it if we just called you sexist?

  151. I don’t know if it’s due to some misunderstanding on your part, but you’ve committed the Burden of Proof Fallacy now twice already.

    Actually, no, as the proof presented to you has been deemed incorrect by you solely because you are equivocating and bringing up a weak and vapid definition to say that the evidence does not support our assertion. So sure, you’re sexist, then, if that’s where you want to go with it, though that still doesn’t explain why you are sexist, nor does it explain why you assign pejorative quality to something by virtue of it’s relation to effeminacy.

    In short, what piny said. Which is why agreeing to disagree here may be best for you, before you say more sexist and misogynist tripe.

  152. The dictionary might have failed you there.

    Maybe it was the same one you used to look up “syntax.”

    If you weren’t a jackass, you could show up with all the malaprops and typos you liked, and I wouldn’t mind at all.

    Calling me a jackass only brings me down to the level the average poster on this thread. Wait, that is pretty bad.

    And this is where the dictionary falls short. Misogyny as used in discussions of the hatred of women and the mindsets supporting it is a lot broader and a lot more elaborate.

    I have no problem with people stipulating a definition that they feel is more appropriate and useful in the context of a particular discussion and can prove that it is so. But it was idiotic of you to claim my definition was Wrong! and state yours as fact when I was merely using the generally accepted definition. And it’s all moot anyway since I already accepted for the sake of argument the definition you stated in your “syllogism.”

    No, it’s kind of like saying that a given racist belief also illustrates hatred of non-white people.

    My point was that you cannot claim a belief supports hate simply because it might engender it in some people, particularly if is not advocated within the belief itself.

    They aren’t easily separated: a belief in inferiority leads to contempt, and contempt must be justified by a belief in inferiority.

    “Most people enjoy the inferiority of their best friends.” Lord Chesterfield

    They are completely separate, a point which relates to the previous point. Children are perceived as inferior in many respects. Do we therefore feel contempt for them as well? If someone takes the belief that children are too immature to take care of themselves as justification for their contempt for them, does that mean that a belief that children are immature is a contemptuous belief? No. That person is using a belief to justify something completely beyond the scope of that belief. If someone does the same with a sexist or racist belief, they are committing the same error, so I don’t accept your assertion, especially if you’d say the same concerning hate.

    Talk about arguments: try describing the function of misogyny without any reference to misogyny as a mindset.

    Your position, gathering from this and other points quoted already, seems to be that misogyny cannot exist without a mindset that causes and justifies it. If misogyny is caused by a mindset, it cannot precede it, only be preceded by it. It follows then that a mindset cannot be based on misogyny and positions derived from that mindset also cannot be based on misogyny. Therefore, any argument that my position is misogynistic because it is based on misogyny is inherently self-contradicting. Also, consider what consequences this has for the definition of “misogyny” you’ve provided: hatred supported by the belief that women are deserving of hatred. Are you really claiming that people who do not hate women actively formulate beliefs that support and invoke misogyny in themselves and other people?

    The assertion is not unsupported.

    Yes, it is. I already accepted for the sake of argument that the position employed a double standard, so quoting that post doesn’t support anything. What you need to prove is that employing a double standard is based on “the hatred of women because they are women or the belief that women are deserving of hatred by virtue of being women.”

    You have a special animus towards behavior when it’s tied to traditionally feminine concerns…

    Making a value judgment =/= animus.

    Would you prefer it if we just called you sexist?

    Do you relinquish your claim that my position is misogynistic?

  153. Nobody has a burden of anything here, much less a Burden. We’re all free to walk away unburdened.

    Please, Brook. No, you’re not under legal fiat to support your case, but Burden of Proof rule is there for a good reason. But, consider yourself as unburdended as you like.

  154. Actually, no, as the proof presented to you has been deemed incorrect by you solely because you are equivocating and bringing up a weak and vapid definition to say that the evidence does not support our assertion.

    I deemed them incorrect because their arguments were non-sequiturs. Did you read the posts at all? Perhaps you’ve caught some interweb disease that translates everything you read into something that proves you right.

    In short, what piny said. Which is why agreeing to disagree here may be best for you, before you say more sexist and misogynist tripe.

    I see you’ve given up defending your original circular argument, so why are you still responding to me? Or are you just here to play cheerleader?

  155. Tu, I’m not interested in having an argument with you about whether I’m following the “rules” of debate. We’re having a discussion. You can’t dictate the form of a discussion by appeal to the “rules,” as if conversation were Parcheesi.

    I think we’re done here.

  156. Or are you just here to play cheerleader?

    Keep it up. You still haven’t said “echo chamber” yet, like all good concern trolls. And I haven’t given up defending anything. You’ve been answered adequately, it has come down to the fact that your ethics are different than ours (hint: truth is not merely a function of the logic one has used to arrive at a conclusion, there’s ethics involved too.)

  157. Tu, I’m not interested in having an argument with you about whether I’m following the “rules” of debate. We’re having a discussion. You can’t dictate the form of a discussion by appeal to the “rules,” as if conversation were Parcheesi.

    Discussions should be engaged in to test our ideas against the ideas of others, otherwise the whole enterprise is essentially frivolous. How else are you going to argue the correctness of tested ideas other than with established rules? Intuition?

    I think we’re done here.

    And a good day to you too, sir.

  158. Keep it up. You still haven’t said “echo chamber” yet, like all good concern trolls.

    Since when do trolls construct proper arguments for the opposition for the sake of the discussion? Don’t embarrass yourself with cheap shots.

    And I haven’t given up defending anything.

    Okay, so explain to me how my argument that your argument committed circular reasoning is wrong.

    You’ve been answered adequately, it has come down to the fact that your ethics are different than ours[.]

    This claim = LOL X *headdesk*

  159. Okay, so explain to me how my argument that your argument committed circular reasoning is wrong.

    This has already been done, and since your ethics include misogyny as a valid way of thinking, as shown by your rhetoric, it appears fraudulent to you. This is where the sticking place in the argument usually lies, when someone is so enamored with the idea that everything must be defined to his own satisfaction, so as to allow him to discount his own personal biases, which are never in doubt for him (they are nonexistent) and never assumed to be legitimate.

    This claim = LOL X *headdesk*

    Funny. I could have written that reply to any number of your comments, but I gave you the benefit of the doubt. I’m very sorry for having done so, as it was unwarranted.

  161. This has already been done, and since your ethics include misogyny as a valid way of thinking, as shown by your rhetoric, it appears fraudulent to you.

    As, I’ve already told you numerous times, the reason why your argument is circular is because one of your conclusions was assumed in the premiss that was used to support it. Re-read the following:

    This is completely circular. It implicitly concludes that the “lens of racism,” a fancy term for “racist viewpoint,” is illogical since it leads to illogical assumptions. However, by concluding that it does lead to illogical assumptions you’ve already assumed beforehand that the “lens of racism” is illogical. By presenting this argument your still left with the burden of proving that racism is illogical, though I’m sure if you word it in a convoluted enough fashion you could trick someone into believe that you actually proved something.

    Funny. I could have written that reply to any number of your comments, but I gave you the benefit of the doubt. I’m very sorry for having done so, as it was unwarranted.

    (LOL X *headdesk*)^2

Comments are currently closed.