"Damned if You Do, Damned if You Don’t"

[bloom]

With all of these men who take such pleasure in aguing with women in the Women's Rights - it seems like a good time to post a rant about them...

Thursday, May 4th, 2006
There's a phenomenon I've noticed about certain critics of feminism. These are people - usually men - who identify as "liberal" or "leftist", and thus, allies of the common good. Since the left nominally is opposed to overt sexism, leftist men cannot bring themselves to directly attack the goal of feminism, which, as any non-moron knows, is to attain legal, economic, and social equality for women. So instead, they attack on other grounds. One attack in particular I like to call "Less Ethnocentric Than Thou". LETT can be used in one of two ways:

1. An American feminist woman writes or says something opposing an offense against women abroad - for example, the horrific practice of female genital mutilation, where little girls, sometimes even infants or toddlers, have all or part of their genitals removed. This can range from "merely" removing the visible portion of the clitoris (thus virtually ensuring that sex will NEVER be pleasurable for her), to removing the clitoris, labia, and sewing her vagina shut (thus not only ensuring that sex will be miserably painful, but also greatly increasing the likelihood that she will have a difficult or fatal childbirth experience later in life.) LETT users then protest, "Ah, but you just don't understand the CULTURE that comes from!" "Women there are the main proponents of continuing this practice!" "You can't judge someone's religion!" "Boys are circumcised too!" Never mind the hypocrisy and obvious overstatements involved here - namely that leftists criticize other's cultures and religion all the time when it affects them negatively - criticism of American fundamentalist Christians and their attempts at establishing an American theocracy being just one of the many examples I could use - or their deliberately ignoring the fact that male circumcision, while it may well be cruel (and I believe it is), in no way impairs sexual function or causes lifelong health problems. They want to criticize feminism because they don't really believe that women are people deserving of equality with men, but they know if they say that, their misogyny will be exposed, so they hide behind a self-righteous veneer of non-ethnocentrism.

Another example is one that I personally experienced in my personal journal. You may well have heard about the misogyny of the Bush administration and its supporters slipping from behind its facade when, several months ago, they were talking about the new Iraqi constitution and how it does not guarantee the rights of women to vote. And an administration apologist explained that gee, we had a nice democracy here in America for a long time and women couldn't vote until the early 1900s, so what's the problem? Naturally, I was enraged by this, as it shows how little they think of women as people - if democracy is "government by the people" but women, who are slightly over half of people, can't vote, there is no democracy. Well a self-righteous "true liberal", who "really cares" about the poor and gays and minorities, took me to task for "trying to shove Western Feminism down Iraqi women's throats." "Those women" don't care about feminist issues (like us spoiled Western women, who have it all yet don't appreciate it or misuse it) - they care more about their culture! They have no problem with being subservient to their men and not having a voice in their government because they have more important things to worry about - like whether or not their men are free. He went so far as to tell another feminist (who called him out for his ridiculous assertions) that "Reading Lolita in Tehran" was not representative of how Middle Eastern women felt - of course he, as a white American man, knew much more about what women in the Middle East really feel and really want than - a woman who was born and raised in the Middle East. He went on to accuse any women in Iraq who wanted to fight for their own rights to vote and otherwise continue to have the freedom they had before the US invasion as "spoiled" and "elites" whose opinions weren't worthy of consideration.

2. LETT is also used when American women are NOT talking about women's rights in other cultures. Whenever a leftist man feels a feminist has gone "too far" in demanding equal treatment, the LETT guilt card comes out: "How can you be so focused on your little insignificant problems when women are so much more oppressed in other places?" American feminists are supposed to immediately drop this carping about abortion rights - after all we still have some rights (although there is little access to abortion outside of major cities and pharmacists are being given a free ticket to refuse up birth control and several states have laws in process to try to outlaw abortion entirely) and drop our selfish career climbing and focus on women in other countries with REAL problems, like… FGM and not being able to vote. We do so and the whole cycle starts again. Yet leftist men have no problem with focusing on relatively insignificant slights to their privileges positions, such as fighting for "sexual freedom" (i.e. the right to have no negative consequences from buying pictures or movies of women being humiliated and hurt, and the right to fuck 14 years olds without consquence because hey, she looked 18 and besides, she wanted it) or fighting for the right to travel by aircraft without having their bags unneccesarily searched or their IDs checked, or the right to consume recreational drugs in their own home without being arrested. They don't expect to be maligned for focusing on their needs while people in other cultures suffer much more stringent restrictions on their civil liberties. Yet when women fight for something "insignificant", like equal pay or contraception access (which is hardly insignificant to any woman I know), it suddenly becomes a criteria for accusations of being "spoiled".

While they don't want to admit it, leftist men are almost as misogynist as right wing men. Just because their sexism is cloaked as humanitarianism or communism or civil libertarianism doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Don't buy the guilt trip.

http://amananta.wordpress.com/tag/leftist-misogyny/

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

1. Great idea.

Further isolate yourselves and piss off every ally you might have. Fucking brilliant. Have fun with that. :eyes:

[bloom]

2. Rape apologists are not allies.

Sexual harasser apologists are not allies.

The men who come around to insult us are not allies.


We know who our allies are.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

8. Every fucking leftist male is a rape apologist?

You know what? It's a good thing I don't think all women think like you do, or else I'd have an exceptionally low opinion of them. :grr:

[bloom]

11. You need to learn to read

because I didn't say that.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

14. It's the title of your post!

Are you living in another world or something? Or has your insanity left you incapable of remember what you yourself wrote? Or are you intentionally being a jerk?

[bloom]

15. The title of my post "Rape apologists are not allies."

That seems pretty clear to me.

Are you a rape apologist? If so - you are not my ally.

I didn't say "Every fucking leftist male is a rape apologist"



So - who is being a jerk?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

16. The article, to which you refer, speaks of ALL leftist men.

Stop trying to get yourself out of it. Your hateful comments speak for themselves.

[Warpy]

24. Better read it again, slowly this time

because the word "some" was prominently displayed.

I know some ears are burning here on DU.

It had to be said. Many leftist males would much rather we all just shut up about our reproductive rights and equal pay and full civil rights as human beings so they could create the perftect society, bring me another beer and a burger would be nice.

Sorry, but we're over half the human race and we are not going to sit down, shut up, and make nice with the great and powerful party men.

The party hasn't won without its working class base. What makes you think it can win without its WOMEN???

[hfojvt]

31. at the start it said "certain critics of feminism"

but the word "some" was not mentioned here

"While they don't want to admit it, leftist men are almost as misogynist as right wing men. Just because their sexism is cloaked as humanitarianism or communism or civil libertarianism doesn't mean it doesn't exist."

Is that where we are? Any man who argues with any woman about women's issues is a misogynist or a sexist? Men are not allowed to say anything except "yes ma'am"?

I think you missed Vash's point. Women are over half the human race, but PROGRESSIVE women are not. If progressive women are going to advance their issues, it is likely they need help from progressive men. A double standard, that says it is wrong for them to ask you to sit down and shut up while at the same time expecting them to be meek and silent water carriers for your issues, is no more valid than any other double standard.

[Nikia]

32. You have to understand why some feminists might be hostile

Towards men who criticize women's issues.
If you have never been female, you don't know what it is like to be female. There are some people who are extremely empathetic who might try to imagine what is like to be something other than themselves, but even they don't know as well as those who actually are. Those who are white don't know what it is like to be black. Those who are stright don't know what it is like to be gay. Those who have no serious disabilitites don't know what it is like to have those disabilites. Those who were never poor don't know what it is like to be poor. This could apply to several things in which one's group membership makes one a better judge of things that directly affect them than those who don't have those things directly affect them.
You might have an opinion. You might to to be empathetic, but you cannot say that you know better than most women how certain issues affect them.
For example if a man says "There is no reason that women should be offended if another woman is called a bitch." is an ignorant position because he is not a woman and doesn't know how it feels to be a woman in that situation. Some women might be offended and some might not, but he should listen when a woman tries to explain why she feels that way rather than discounting her feelings on the issue.
There also is a history of women's rights taking a back seat to more important men's concerns. For example, women of all classes and races were discouraged from pressing for the right to vote in America and other countries because it was more important that men, who had not gained the right to vote because of their group status, vote than them. It was certainly right that poor men, black men, and other disenfranchised men vote but women were told that asserting their rights would hurt men and was therefore wrong. Even at my college,not so long ago, where men had fraternity houses and women didn't, sorority women were told that they shouldn't fight for sorority housing because it might cause men to lose their houses.
You still might not agree with the authors point or DUers that support her position, but try to understand. I think that you should take a similiar approach to all issues that don't directly affect you or people like you (in gender, race, orientation, religion, etc.).

[Donald Ian Rankin]

35. One part of this I see claimed often, and disagree with.

"If you have never been female, you don't know what it is like to be female...

... This could apply to several things in which one's group membership makes one a better judge of things that directly affect them than those who don't have those things directly affect them."


I think this argument - that first hand knowledge is the only or by far the most valid knowledge - is usually overstated. I think that if you've been around people of the opposite gender all your life then it's probably possible to make a reasonably accurate guess at what it's like to be one of them, and the same for most other categories where one has known lots of members for a long time. I can't imagine being blind, but I suspect that if I had a blind sibling I'd be able to; I do have a sister and a mother.



It's also worth noting that, on the issues of differences between how society treats men and women, a man's POV is exactly as objective as a woman's.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

37. No it wasn't.

The only use of the word "some" in the OP was "after all, we still have some rights". It occurs nowhere else in the post, prominently displayed or otherwise, as I checked using a search. Vash read it correctly, for all I know to the contrary; you evidently didn't.


It makes the following claims, not about "some leftist men", or even "most leftist men", but "leftist men", without one single exception, every last one of them.


"Leftist men cannot bring themselves to directly attack the goal of feminism, which, as any non-moron knows, is to attain legal, economic, and social equality for women. So instead, they attack on other grounds"

"Whenever a leftist man feels a feminist has gone "too far" in demanding equal treatment, the LETT guilt card comes out"

"Yet leftist men have no problem with focusing on relatively insignificant slights to their privileges positions, such as fighting for "sexual freedom" (i.e. the right to have no negative consequences from buying pictures or movies of women being humiliated and hurt, and the right to fuck 14 years olds without consquence because hey, she looked 18 and besides, she wanted it)"

"While they don't want to admit it, leftist men are almost as misogynist as right wing men. Just because their sexism is cloaked as humanitarianism or communism or civil libertarianism doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Don't buy the guilt trip."


The Democratic party clearly couldn't win without the support of women; equally clearly, it couldn't win without the support of men, and especially not without the support of "leftist men", the group the OP is such an unqualified attack on every single member of.

[Greyhound]

34. No, it doesn't. You are wrong and are being an ass about it.

You owe Bloom an apology.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

36. Yes it does. It contains the following claims:

"Leftist men cannot bring themselves to directly attack the goal of feminism, which, as any non-moron knows, is to attain legal, economic, and social equality for women. So instead, they attack on other grounds"

"Whenever a leftist man feels a feminist has gone "too far" in demanding equal treatment, the LETT guilt card comes out"

"Yet leftist men have no problem with focusing on relatively insignificant slights to their privileges positions, such as fighting for "sexual freedom" (i.e. the right to have no negative consequences from buying pictures or movies of women being humiliated and hurt, and the right to fuck 14 years olds without consquence because hey, she looked 18 and besides, she wanted it)"

"While they don't want to admit it, leftist men are almost as misogynist as right wing men. Just because their sexism is cloaked as humanitarianism or communism or civil libertarianism doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Don't buy the guilt trip."


Every one of those is applied not to "some" leftist men, or even to "most" leftist men, but to "leftist men", without any exception whatsoever. The post doesn't contain one single disclaimer to the fact that it's not true of most leftist men, or even that there exist leftist men it's not true of, or even any mention of the possibility.

[Morgana LaFey]

43. You know what?

That tone, in fact the whole construct sounds SO much like the typical abuser spoiling for a fight.

Women who have suffered domestic violence say that when it's "time," there's NOTHING they could say or do to forestall or eliminate the violence that's about to happen. Their husbands come home "in the mood," and that's that. THey come home belligerant, ugly, sometimes drunk. Wife can say and do nothing right. That's part of the pattern. Nothing she says or does can stop what's coming. It's just a matter of how soon he can gather up enough steam and enough "justification" in his own mind so he can think and later claim (incorrectly, of course), "She asked for it."

You're just spoiling for that same kind of fight, and I would strongly, STRONGLY encourage women who frequent this forum to completey ignore you. They've probably already figured that out -- in which case I wish they'd follow it.


Oh -- for those who may not be familiar with it, the cycle of abuse looks something like this (without looking it up):

ABUSE --> PROFUSE APOLOGIES (and gifts) --> HONEYMOON PERIOD --> DETERIORATION OF THE HONEYMOON --> EVEN MORE TENSION --> ABUSE (and so it begins again)

I doubt we're getting any of the apologies and honeymoon from this poster.

[Boomer]

3. Right on cue.

n/t

[Morgana LaFey]

42. Ally?

And who would that be? It's certainly not you.

Maybe women, esp. DU women, would be wise indeed to shrug off the kind of "help" coming from men who imagine themselves -- always wrong, as it turns out -- to be such champions of women.

And yet they can't get it about ANYthing that women write. You condemn yourself via your non-cooperative, non-sympathetic, antagonistic, innately hostile and knee-jerk-like attitude.

[Kipling]

4. That's some damn paranoid stuff there.

Neither of these points happens often, and to be quite honest I don't believe that many liberal men hold those views at all. Leftist men rarely question the big, important feminist issues: equal pay, abortion, better dealing with rape. No movement will never achieve anything if it spends all its time attacking those who agree with 90% of what they say (if they even do) instead of the actual opposition.

[bloom]

5. I wasn't assuming she was attacking ALL leftist men

Just the ones who do those things. The ones who have an argument with feminism, for instance - though some are more obvious about it than others. (Really - I think they are more likely to be libertarians than to consider themselves liberal).

And they are pretty plentiful on DU and even more so other places.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

9. Oh really? This line doesn't make any kind of qualifier whatsoever:

"While they don't want to admit it, leftist men are almost as misogynist as right wing men. "

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mongo]

18. Wow. Hustler ripping on Ann Coulter

How awful! :sarcasm:

It must be really hard to see your hero in such a compromising position.

[noamnety]

19. think about what you're implying

I think what you're implying is that if I oppose using Coulter as a tool to promote a culture of rape, it logically follows that I view her as a hero.

Thought to ponder: I oppose prison rape; that doesn't mean I condone the actions of murderers who might be rape victims in prison. I oppose the CULTURE of rape.

Take a look at http://www.hustlingtheleft.com/ if you have a chance.

[mongo]

23. They are not promoting a "culture of rape"

sat·ire n.

1.
1. A literary work in which human vice or folly is attacked through irony, derision, or wit.
2. The branch of literature constituting such works. See Synonyms at caricature.
2. Irony, sarcasm, or caustic wit used to attack or expose folly, vice, or stupidity.

[noamnety]

25. take a look at the link I posted

scroll down to the bottom image on the right side. Can you explain to me the wit, irony or sarcasm in that image?

[mongo]

26. Well, we were talking about the cartoon before

And we could talk about that image, but not without most likely you and a whole slew of other DU'ers bashing a particular kink.

But all I can say is that I know a few women who would find the image highly erotic. They most likely wouldn't want to emulate it, but it would trip their trigger none the less.

Kind of suprised that was in Hustler, that theme is more for Taboo (also owned by flynt).

[noamnety]

27. I wasn't just talking about one cartoon

I posted one cartoon (since deleted - sorry mods and anyone I offended by bringing that into the discussion), but I was talking about the magazine promoting a CULTURE of rape - meaning the one example I posted was indicative of the type of images they regularly publish - presenting sexual violence against women as acceptable, as humor, as erotica.

If you changed the victim of that sort of attack to something other than a white woman, would the heroes of democracy still view it as acceptable?

If the magazine featured primarily images of white men raping black women, for example, I think they would recognize that it was racist and inappropriate (as they should), and they would refuse to write for such a magazine. We wouldn't be hearing the excuse that it's all good because some women find it erotic for a white male to play at raping a black female, or that black women fantasize about being raped by white men.

But when race is taken out of the equation, all you are left with is the gender issue - man using force to rape a woman. When the only issue is gender, it suddenly becomes acceptable, normal, something we view as desirable, unless you're a sexually repressed prude. That's what I mean by promoting a culture of rape - people scramble to defend the idea of violence against women as an acceptable form of erotica and a part of our accepted culture.

[Orrex]

28. I haven't seen a Hustler in years, but...

I seem to recall that it also featured quite shockingly racist cartoons, prehaps as recently as the early nineties. Someone with more active familiarity with the magazine can speak to its current policies, but IIRC racism was another ugly aspect of Hustler's "humor." Your concern is valid, and IMO the presence of either tasteless component only serves to exacerbate the other.

I have a sincere question along these lines, too: how do the covers of so-called "bodice-ripper" books of romance fiction fit into the "culture of rape?" Granted, violence and forced penetration are pretty much absent from mainstream visible books, but images abound of swooning, scantily dressed women at the mercy of pirates and other scoundrels. Are these, by virtue of their format, less culpable, or are they yet another symptom?

Thanks for your thoughts.

[mongo]

29. Hustler is still full of "racist" cartoons

but their motivation is satire.

[bloom]

6. Get your morning misogyny

As an example - I open DU this morning and the top thread reads:


Michael Smerconish is a pussy. A big gaping pussy.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=1166662

(the thread title was later changed)

...Because that was the language used in the article at Huffingpost. And the DUer was just repeating it. And it gets repeated all over the place.

Just like Stephen Colbert and his balls. He might be making a joke about how stupid the Republicans are about it - and then the next thing you know - people think it's a legitimate compliment to go on and on about balls (and in the next breath use the word pussy as if it's the worst insult they can think of.)

And this is from our friends. Feh.


(and then I come to the women's rights section to find someone insulting me who refuses to own up to sexual harassment and see women doing anything about it - and the women who defend that action - as an insult to himself.)

Like I said - we know who are allies are.

[mongo]

7. Gee, you've hit the nail on the head

Because if you don't joing the militant word police, then you must not be for abortion rights or equal pay for equal work.

NO, most liberal men do see equality for women as a goal. Where we part company is when the shrill voices start trying to enforce ideological purity in our language and culture.

There is a difference between feminists and nannyists

[MountainLaurel]

10. Oooh bloom, you're being "shrill"

How dare you complain about part of your anatomy being a slur?

[Cherry Blossom]

12. Er, I see both sides of the argument.

There are liberal men who hold rather misogynistic views. Hell yeah, that is true. However, I don't think it is this widespread problem or anything, and liberal men aren't the only "liberal" rape apologists, as I've seen liberal women do the exact same thing. I just think things get obscured when you box liberal men in this way as if it is particularly showcased by them. Misogyny (overt or otherwise) is present in liberal men, liberal women...and I feel others get a free pass when you focus on just one group. Also, broadly stating "liberal men" is a little insulting. Why not just say "hypocritical misogynist" as opposed to liberal men? It hits the nail far harder.

But let us not allow this to draw away from the original post's message of excused misogyny, and don't dismiss her concerns in regard to female genitalia being used as an insult. Though, this is done to male genitalia too. Oh, bah. I'm confused.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

38. I think that argument is foolish.

I refer you to the words "asshole" and "dick". Clearly, having part of one's anatomy used as a slur is not ipse facto something it's reasonable to object to.

[bloom]

17. On a related note: What’s Behind The Insistence....

What’s Behind The Insistence That Women Frequently Lie About Being Raped?
Posted by Abyss2hope | May 12th, 2006

As I read yet another blogger rant about how they know with absolute certainty that many women do lie about being raped, I noticed the implication that those of us who dare to take all allegations of rape seriously are 1) deluded 2) man haters.

Those who habitually align themselves with alleged rapists don’t see sexual exploitation as harming anyone except those charged with sex crimes. How can they if their heroes are those who give a 16-year-old girl alcohol then use her as a child porn movie prop and their villain is the girl who blacked out and testified that she couldn’t remember what happened? They seem to feel justified in doing this because none of the convictions in this case were for the crime of rape.

Just because they can’t see something doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. Just because I told no one about being raped for two decades doesn’t mean it didn’t happen or that I have no right to call myself a rape survivor because my rapist was never charged or convicted.

I could counter specific faulty statements, but I’ll leave that for other posts. I want to get to what I see as a driving force in those who habitually align themselves with alleged rapists.

In any area we are in one of these states:
1) Unconscious incompetent
2) Conscious incompetent
3) Unconscious competent
4) Conscious competent

To move from state 1 to states 3 or 4, you have to go through state 2. But state 1 can be very comfortable while state 2 is the most uncomfortable and sometimes hopeless state...

http://www.amptoons.com/blog/archives/2006/05/12/whats-behind-the-insistence-that-women-frequently-lie-about-being-raped/

[omega minimo]

20. Interesting the predominance of replies from

hostile males using the same (familiar, repetitive) bullying and baiting tactics that the OP is commenting on-- behaviors that are unfortunately too familiar to liberal women, no matter what liberal group we're in or "leftist" board we may be on.

And Kipling sounds reasonable, saying "Neither of these points happens often, and to be quite honest I don't believe that many liberal men hold those views at all." And he is not aware of how common those behaviors are "even on DU."

"While they don't want to admit it, leftist men are almost as misogynist as right wing men. Just because their sexism is cloaked as humanitarianism or communism or civil libertarianism doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Don't buy the guilt trip."

Of course, she did not say "ALL leftist men." There's no indication she meant ALL leftist men. What if she is exagerrating (in her meaning) -- does that invalidate the overall point that is being made. Does it matter HOW MANY that applies to? Is she over/generalizing? HOW DOES REACTING WITH VIOLENT INDIGNATION AND BAITING PROVE THAT WHAT SHE IS SAYING IS UNTRUE?

And if we were adults and progressive Democrats on a discussion board where we could discuss this, we might ask, Is There Any Truth To That Statement?

Women in the "leftist" heyday of the 60's-70's had to deal with sexism in the "movement." Those guys didn't want to hear how "uncool" they were either. What has changed since then? After the 80's Backlash, do *some* "leftist" men think that sexism disappeared from liberal men entirely? That the situation has improved for women?

The author Bloom quoted could have said "some" leftist men. It might have made a difference in the way it was received. Or not.

The point is that there are these similar tactics and cliches and attitudes and phrases that *some* leftist men use to discredit and dismiss women. The fact that the cat is out of the bag-- that this is a universal leftist phenomenon, with universally recognized cookie-cutter lines, acknowledged and witnessed by women NOT just on DU, might give *SOME* leftist men something to think about.

....:think:
:bounce: :bounce:

[Warren DeMontague]

33. "While they don't want to admit it, women are fritzwardle framigoshhes"

...what?

Of course, I did not say "ALL women." There's no indication I meant ALL women.

In fact, merely by objecting to that statement, women display the very framigoshish traits that make *SOME* of them so darn fritzwardle.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

39. I don't think that's the case.

"Bullying and baiting" are both subjective terms; I don't see that any of the posts disagreeing with the OP qualify as either, although the OP itself is pretty clearly "baiting", I think. If you launch a stinging attack on an entire gender (or, to be fair, on all "leftist" members of an entire gender), then a large amount of disagreement is not a surprising result.


You say

"The author Bloom quoted could have said "some" leftist men. It might have made a difference in the way it was received. Or not."


If the OP had used (repeatedly) the word "some" then her claims would have been *true*. As it is, they are *false*. That makes a big difference, at least to me. It would have also been true if she'd used the phrases "a few" or "a small but non-zero minority of". The claims


"Leftist men cannot bring themselves to directly attack the goal of feminism, which, as any non-moron knows, is to attain legal, economic, and social equality for women. So instead, they attack on other grounds"

"Whenever a leftist man feels a feminist has gone "too far" in demanding equal treatment, the LETT guilt card comes out"

"Yet leftist men have no problem with focusing on relatively insignificant slights to their privileges positions, such as fighting for "sexual freedom" (i.e. the right to have no negative consequences from buying pictures or movies of women being humiliated and hurt, and the right to fuck 14 years olds without consquence because hey, she looked 18 and besides, she wanted it)"

"While they don't want to admit it, leftist men are almost as misogynist as right wing men. Just because their sexism is cloaked as humanitarianism or communism or civil libertarianism doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Don't buy the guilt trip."


Refer very clearly not merely to some leftist men, but to leftist men, without any exception whatsoever. When you say "There's no indication she meant ALL leftist men" you are wrong - that's what she said, and she left no possible ambiguity whatsoever.


The simple fact of reacting with violent indignation doesn't, of course, prove a thing; the arguments that the indignation is expressed by, however, do. Claims like the four listed above are clearly false. I think that *not* reacting with something approximating "violent indignation" to a post viciously attacking an entire gender like the OP is wrong, though.

If we insert the missing word "some" (which is *not* merely a cosmetic change), then the relevant question becomes "how common are the two tactics described?", and this is a more interesting one.

I've seen DUers defending all manner of unpleasant practices, sexual and otherwise, in other cultures, on a regular basis, (her "1") on a fairly freqent basis, on grounds similar but not identical to the ones she uses. What the OP appears to be alleging is people claiming "there's nothing wrong with practices like these". I think this is a fundamental misunderstanding; what I've often seen argued is "it's not our place to judge whether practices like these are wrong in other cultures". I think that's a cowardly and indefensible position, but I don't think it's anything to do with sexism - it's not people saying "that's sexist but not immoral", or "that's not sexist", it's people saying "lalala I'm not going to think about that", which, while silly, is not (usually explicitly) sexist.

I've never seen a DUer (or anyone else) advancing an argument remotely like the OP's "2". I'm sure it *does* happen on occasion, simply by the law of averages, but it's not common on DU in any meaningful sense of the word, and must indeed by very rare indeed. The argument "There are worse forms of sexism in other cultures than ours, so opposing what sexism there is in our culture is wrong" is one I've never seen in my life.

[Triana]

21. I know at least one of these "liberal" men...

....DO NOT bring up the issue of unequal pay with this guy. He calls it "urban legend". Discrimination against women in the workplace? Doesn't exist.

[Orrex]

22. Not all "Leftist Men" think this way

Despite the likely perceptions of those with whom I may disagree on some issues, some leftist men actually have opinions quite opposed to those described in the article.

1. Genital mutilation: this is so self-evidently horrific that and I can't imagine any reason why anyone would condone it. Bullshit about "it's another culture's values" is exactly that--bullshit, and hypocritical besides. As a nation we've intervened in numerous circumstances that could as readily be dismissed as "another culture's values," not least among them being the Holocaust. There is no excuse for tolerating this brutal practice. While we're at it, let's throw "honor killings" and public stonings for (female) adultery onto the heap, too. All of these are sadistic and inexcusable crimes that never had any place among human beings, much less in the 21st century.

2. The fallacy of the unfought crusade: in essence, this amounts to saying "unless you can totally and permanently eliminate all problems simultaneously, then you have no business trying to reduce any one of them." You might as readily say "unless you right now eat all the food you're ever going to eat, you have no right to have dinner today." I would think that anyone with a functioning brainstem should be able to identify that as an idiot's argument, but the fact that it is proffered again and again suggests that I am mistaken in this regard. Advancing equality in any regard is an improvement in its own right, and if a person can only take on a single issue at a time, then that's how you do it.

I don't dispute that there are allegedly "leftist" men who think as described in the article--I have known several who fit the description very well. But these are posers and should be derided as such.


Sorry if this seems contrary to anyone's expectations of my views.

[Nobody]

40. Thanks for giving me something to think about

You mentioned "The fallacy of the unfought crusade". I see your point but I don't agree with all of it.

I've heard it voiced as "Choose your battles." I'm also familiar with the tale of the camel's nose. The story goes that there was a cold desert night, a small tent, a camper, and a talking camel. The camel asked please please pretty please it's cold out here I want to just put my tiny little nose in. The camper reluctantly said yes, warning the camel that the tent was too small for both of them. The night progressed and the camel wheedled its entire body into the tent body part by body part. It ended with the camel in the tent and the camper shoved out in the cold night. The lesson I got from this was that if you don't eliminate problems right away, they become worse and harder to deal with.

No one person has the energy or the resources to fight all of the battles on the front lines. If you can multitask, you can work for change in a number of areas.

Not everyone can multitask, and those who can't fight every battle can at the very least acknowledge the importance of the struggles to be left to others. Far too often women have been told that Issue X is more important right now and that ladies should wait until Issue X is resolved before they march for their own rights. Issue X makes progress, but wait, Issue Y has just popped up and it's a doozy. Sorry, ladies, you'll have to wait your turn, Issue Y is too important to go to the end of the queue. I doubt I'd have gotten to cast a ballot on Nov. 7 if Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Sojourner Truth, and so many others didn't combine their anti-slavery movement with winning the right to vote for women. They were told to wait their turn and they refused.

Imagine being in a wedding buffet line with a limited amount of food and you're at the end of the line. Now imagine that the wedding reception has a lot of stragglers coming in late. Watch the ushers allow and encourage the latecomers to cut in front of you. Then the wedding party wants seconds and they also are permitted to go before you. When do you get to eat and will there be any food left when you do get to the head of the line? At some point, you become fed up with being unfed and you cut in front of the stragglers.

There has to be a better way.

[Nikia]

30. I see these things often on DU

There is at least one poster, usually more, who chime in on pertainent threads with these sexist arguements. Nice article.

[smirkymonkey]

41. The usual suspects always appear on these threads - on cue.

I think they must PM each other.

What is even more notable is how FEW men show up with any support. God, I am so sick of self-absorbed men who have to make everything about THEM PERSONALLY.

[Triana]

44. A supposedly "Liberal" man once called me...

..."a spoiled brat with a Princess Syndrome" when such issues (and others) came up. He referred to the pay gap between men and women as "urban legend - urban myth". Honestly, he was as mysogenist as any Republican I can think of. So, to dispel the "myth" that "liberal" men are always supportive of women or women's rights (HERE or anywhere else) -- they're not always - maybe much of the time - but not ALWAYS.

Many of them are as mysogenist as Jerry Falwell himself. They can't SAY that, but it does, as the OP indicated, come out in OTHER ways - their attitudes show, regardless.

"Liberal" != "pro-woman's rights" It just doesn't. Not always.