[Discussion] Men talking to men about Feminism

This thread is for people who believe that when it comes to feminism it's important for men to listen to women and to talk to men.

In this thread we assume Feminism is something you wholeheartedly support or want to support. Questions about the validity of Feminism are for somewhere else.

MrDeVil909 wrote:

If you don't see how that's relevant to the post above Cheeze's and what it's saying I'm not sure there is even a common ground for discussion.

It reads:

Oh and finally, it should be a clue that the people worried about tone only bring it up after their attempts to deny oppression fails. They move from "what are you talking about? That's not real"

like Sally said:

I am talking specifically GWJ, specifically this discussion. Frankly, I think that about 90% of us all have the same views, and at this point we are talking about how we talk about going forward.

It seems you didn't even bother to read and understand what you quoted beyond "hey, I'll just call any discussion of how people treat each other 'tone policing' and here's something that has the phrase 'tone policing' in it."

edit:

But to answer your question in good faith, my aim is to get people to examine their discomfort and see that overcoming this is their path to growth instead of retreating into their feelings.

I don't doubt that. I just think it's telling that you don't pay attention to even thing things you ask others to reflect upon in trying to accomplish that goal.

Well, that is unfortunate if you don't see how you brought up tone policing in a thread where almost all the posters who are participating in the discussion are cis-het, white dudes, who share basically the same privilege, and if you read the intent of vast majority of posters(again, not all - some people need to be woke), we are all in agreement and we are talking about how we talk.

Take a look at how both you and I responded to Jay's response to 16blue. We both read his words the same way, but you responded with aggression - I responded with compassion. I think Jay's initial response to you(didn't read prior to edit, so this is conjecture) was to fire back at you. After he read mine, he edited the post and I think got it.

I am just saying, different situations require different tactics. You aren't wrong, we should absolutely all examine our own discomfort, but if you want to be a good ally - that cuts both ways.

Let's be clear, we both(all?) want the same thing.

MrDeVil909 wrote:

If you don't see how that's relevant to the post above Cheeze's and what it's saying I'm not sure there is even a common ground for discussion.

But to answer your question in good faith, my aim is to get people to examine their discomfort and see that overcoming this is their path to growth instead of retreating into their feelings.

MrDeVil, are you trying to say you are *only* referring to that one post, and we're misinterpreting you as making a more generalized statement?

bekkilyn wrote:

men here sometimes say some pretty stupid things

It's a solid 38% of what I do on this site.

MrDeVil909 wrote:

https://twitter.com/YaaAsantewaaBa/s...

Policing of "tone" is a popular deflection tactic powerful people use to escape accountability because they know society cares more about their "feelings" than the humanity of marginalized people. Pass it on

So basically if you're harping on tone when addressing marginalized folk, I don't trust you

Oh and finally, it should be a clue that the people worried about tone only bring it up after their attempts to deny oppression fails. They move from "what are you talking about? That's not real" to "well you should have said it nicer". It's a deflection tactic

It is a waste of time and effort to talk at people who aren't listening. And the onus also shouldn't be on marginalized people to do this. That's what so called allies are for

So you think both of the posts are essentially the same except for tone, and that Stengah is trying to win an argument by pointing at its tone instead of its content and not really pointing out how unhelpful performative wokeness can be? Huh. That's a different perspective.

Something that's just rattling around in my head that's maybe relevant: when guys talk to each other about feminism, no one is speaking with authority. Authority doesn't come from knowing through thinking, it comes from knowing through living. (edit)

It's not *really* something new, the question "can men be feminists?" has been kicking around for decades, but the focus on lived experience doesn't so much answer that question as it makes that question irrelevant. We throw that term 'ally' around, but it's not accurate. Allies are part of, you know, an alliance. Instead, it's that you can do a better or worse job of helping by paying attention to the conversation.

Guys at this point it feels like we've descended into arguing-about-arguing and that is never particularly productive. Shall we take a step back?

cheeze_pavilion wrote:

Something that's just rattling around in my head that's maybe relevant: when guys talk to each other about feminism, no one is speaking with authority. Authority doesn't come from knowing through thinking, it comes from knowing through living. (edit)

Well I don't think men are well placed to speak from a position of authority on the lived experience of being part of the subordinate group in some systemic dominance hierarchy (c.f. racism, homophobia, etc...). But... that doesn't preclude men from understanding the aims of feminism, the nature of patriarchy, the way misogyny operates and being able to develop sufficient understanding to have actual valid authority about those. Though in general I'd raise an exceptionally sceptical eyebrow towards any man making bold claims about being an authority on said.

It's not *really* something new, the question "can men be feminists?" has been kicking around for decades, but the focus on lived experience doesn't so much answer that question as it makes that question irrelevant.

Well this somewhat depends on what we think feminism (and by extension 'a feminist') is. If feminism is merely the project of an oppressed class claiming power and throwing off their subjugation then sure, men probably can't be feminists. But I think that is an incredibly narrow reading of feminism, and a reading that plays directly in to reactionary and conservative views of feminism. Namely, if we reduce feminism to little more than a power grab then there is little wonder the conservatives of the world will reject it out of hand.

If feminism is the project of dismantling patriarchy and remaking the (gendered) social contract then surely all people can be feminists. There is something that it is to be a man and have the lived experience of being part of patriarchy. It brings with it manifest benefits and harms. To my mind if you consider the harms of patriarchy sufficiently bad that you wish to end it (and are also working to do so) then that makes you a feminist. That doesn't mean you can talk with authority about all aspects of patriarchy, feminism and other's experience of those.

Also as I mentioned in the first post, patriarchy has specific and damaging impacts on men about which we can and should speak with authority.

I agree, danb. I'm a feminist primarily because my father was an embodiment of toxic patriarchy spawned by generations of abuse. I was beaten and ostracized, and from an early age decided to never grow up to be him. After my first eight years my parents divorced and I was brought up by my mother, who saw people as people. Visits to my father were like booster shots against the man who at the time was a monster to me.

Now I'm a father who looks askance at the idea that anyone would 'need' a father or male role model at all. I don't know what that feels like. My role models continue to be people who embody aspects of what I aspire to be, and exactly zero of those are based on their gender. I do my best to be a good parent to my kids, but my gender is disconnected from that in my own head. Whether it has meaning for them is up to them.

Being male means I'm treated in ways that sometimes make me uncomfortable even when they're intended as positive. When sought out for father's-only groups because my contributions are seen as valuable, I'm extremely stressed. I am not woke. Many of my views are products of abuse. Dealing with man sh*t is about as far from fun as I can get. I deal with it because maybe I can help, and I'm quite aware of having privilege others don't despite not wanting any of it.

Sure, no objections worth noting with any of that, hence ending with "Instead, it's that you can do a better or worse job of helping by paying attention to the conversation" which I didn't think was a great way to put it, but it's the best my brain could do at the time.

cheeze_pavilion wrote:

Sure, no objections worth noting with any of that, hence ending with "Instead, it's that you can do a better or worse job of helping by paying attention to the conversation" which I didn't think was a great way to put it, but it's the best my brain could do at the time.

There's absolutely a balance to be sought there, and it will be different for each person even though it's not always dictated by them (provided they listen).

Merriam Webster defines feminism as "the belief that women and men should have equal rights and opportunities.

The Cambridge English Dictionary defines a feminist as "a person who believes in feminism, and tries to achieve change that helps women to get equal opportunities and treatment."

Men who believe in feminism can absolutely be feminists.

RedJen wrote:

Men who believe in feminism can absolutely be feminists.

The trick is remembering our job is not to drive the bus, it's to get around the back and push.

Dang you, Certis, you made me reflect on my feelings. Dang you all to heck.

I began to learn about feminism the same way bears learn about electricity: getting a painful shock by doing the wrong thing. When somebody expressed a negative reaction to something I did, it kicked off the shame cycle that kept me from doing it again.

This wasn't learning about feminism per se; this was more remedial, the "treat women like human beings" prerequisite.

Later, in university, I had Third Wave friends and got my fill of poststructuralist feminist literary theory. I began to learn the "what" of feminism and feminist perspectives.

Then came the Montreal Massacre. That's when I started to learn the "why."

I've spent the 30 years since trying to integrate all of this and square it with my idea of me-as-man.

LouZiffer wrote:
cheeze_pavilion wrote:

Sure, no objections worth noting with any of that, hence ending with "Instead, it's that you can do a better or worse job of helping by paying attention to the conversation" which I didn't think was a great way to put it, but it's the best my brain could do at the time.

There's absolutely a balance to be sought there, and it will be different for each person even though it's not always dictated by them (provided they listen).

Very true. It's going to be different for everyone. I think part of it is that I've had to reassess everything regarding how I politically relate to even those I ultimately agree with when it comes to the world we'd like to see.

RedJen wrote:

Merriam Webster defines feminism as "the belief that women and men should have equal rights and opportunities.

The Cambridge English Dictionary defines a feminist as "a person who believes in feminism, and tries to achieve change that helps women to get equal opportunities and treatment."

Men who believe in feminism can absolutely be feminists.

By this definition, I would bet that every person participating in this thread is a feminist. It’s important to remember that we’re all on the same team here.

Maq wrote:

Guys at this point it feels like we've descended into arguing-about-arguing and that is never particularly productive. Shall we take a step back?

If it helps establish some ground rules then it can be productive.

I have a suggestion. We should all assume that a poster in this or any other thread, but especially this thread, has good intentions. We come here to discuss the merits of feminism and how to become better feminists. Hostile accusations and outrage will do more harm than good. If your goal is to impart wisdom to a potentially misguided poster, your message will be much more eagerly received if it’s delivered with grace and dignity.

Am I committing “tone policing” by suggesting this? Personally, I don’t think so. It’s a call for civility in this thread. If you want to shout down a dickhead misogynist in public, go right ahead. But I think that’s a bit out of place here.

Alas, I have but one like to give.

SallyNasty wrote:

Alas, I have but one like to give.

Same.

Changing topics for a bit, I got really nervous today to see an alert on my phone that Ruth Bader Ginsburg had missed oral arguments at the Supreme Court -- and for the first time in her career. As the Washington Post reports, she is recovering from surgery and will participate in the cases by reading briefs, filings, and a transcript of the court sessions.

I'm posting this here, rather than in the politics thread, because I was reflecting on law school and thinking about how I don't know enough about Justice Ginsburg. Just due to my profession, I probably know more about her than many laypeople in the US, but when we talked (in school) about people who shaped Supreme Court jurisprudence, her name was not necessarily considered in the same way as, say, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Earl Warren, Felix Frankfurter, Hugo Black, or even then-current Justices Scalia and Kennedy[1]. Some of that could be implicit gender bias in teaching, or in the academy's thinking about whose opinions count most, but I also wonder if Justice Ginsburg had to go about her job in a way that made sure she was taken seriously, and thus was less able than her male colleagues to bloviate.

I want to try to learn more about her and her body of work, so I've put the following on hold at my library:
Ruth Bader Ginsburg: A Life - Published in 2018
Notorious RBG - Published in 2015
My Own Words - A collection of her writings and speeches

If anyone's interested, I'd be happy to share my thoughts on these and what I might learn from them.

[1] I think Justice O'Connor may have gotten about as much play as Kennedy, given that they both occupied the relative center of the court at the time.

If someone who you know in real life is being an asshole, it's really easy to go up to them and say, 'hey, pal, you're being an asshole.'

It's only online where the need for 'civility' is so pervasive that people will spend way more effort decrying that than any asshole behavior.

RawkGWJ wrote:

Am I committing “tone policing” by suggesting this? Personally, I don’t think so. It’s a call for civility in this thread. If you want to shout down a dickhead misogynist in public, go right ahead. But I think that’s a bit out of place here.

OK, my guy that is literally tone policing.

I am happy to -- and long since have -- take on board your point regarding speaking nicely but given your entire contribution to the discussion to date has been to say "this is how we should speak here" I would really appreciate you having a think about what you're aiming for here, and to spend a good few minutes thinking over what tone policing is and why people object to it.

I am not trying to slap you down here but since one thing that bubbled up from the conversation is that there should be more polite explanation of important factors regarding feminism I think it's worth addressing directly.

I made a point -- and I freely admit I made it aggressively and rudely -- about assholish behaviour. Not one person addressed my point. There were several pages taking me to task for how I said it but not one person engaged with the substance of what I was saying.

That's tone policing. Know it when you see it.

Tone Policing

"It’s simple, really. Tone policing describes a diversionary tactic used when a person purposely turns away from the message behind her interlocutor’s argument in order to focus solely on the delivery of it.

Still confused? Well, allow me to elaborate…with an example!

White person: Wow, you are surprisingly well spoken!

Person of color: For a black person, you mean? That’s really insensitive and I can’t believe you thought you had the right to say that to me.

WP: Why are you so upset? I just gave you a compliment.

POC: Do you not even realize what you said and how racist it is for white folks to pat black folks on the head for ‘speaking so well’? Seriously, think before you say things to people.

WP: You need to calm down. No one is going to listen to what you have to say if you’re this angry about it. There’s no reason to attack me over nothing. Have you considered the fact that you could be overreacting to this?"

I'm specifically commenting on this because of the nature of the thread. It's mainly men talking to other men about feminist practices and thought, and when we're defending the positions and rights of women, WE are NOT the ones under attack or who bear the brunt of the injury nor the burden. So what's wrong with saying to cool down the rhetoric in that situation?

Maq wrote:

I made a point -- and I freely admit I made it aggressively and rudely -- about assholish behaviour. Not one person addressed my point. There were several pages taking me to task for how I said it but not one person engaged with the substance of what I was saying.

That's tone policing. Know it when you see it.

I believe it's a combination of most people agreeing with the core messaging, and also because it appeared like you were just repeating what other people had already said.

And 4-5 pages of calling for civility were not repeating what other people had already said?

LarryC wrote:

I'm specifically commenting on this because of the nature of the thread. It's mainly men talking to other men about feminist practices and thought, and when we're defending the positions and rights of women, WE are NOT the ones under attack or who bear the brunt of the injury nor the burden. So what's wrong with saying to cool down the rhetoric in that situation?

+1

The discomfort should come from facing the hard truths, not because someone of the same group can't be bothered to take the usual care they would in talking to another person.

Maq wrote:

And 4-5 pages of calling for civility were not repeating what other people had already said?

This entire thread is 95% litigating what people said, 3% jokes and 2% discussion about feminism.

Thread title needs to be changed to "Men talking to men about talking about feminism."

Accordingly, I've largely stopped reading the thread. Watching yet another multi-page diversion over how something was said instead of what was said has gotten real f*cking old.

This might provide some interesting food for thought, as it does a very nice job of examining a lot of the issues at the heart of the debate happening here:

Boundary Setting vs Tone Policing

I have many, many related thoughts, but not enough time today to adequately express them, and I apologize for that as the topic deserves more than a simple link dump.

But, the short version is that that I strongly agree with many of the points being made in that piece, and I really hope that folks here take time to read it and consider how it applies to this specific context. I think people on all the various sides of the discussion will find things that fall in line with the points they are trying to make, as well as things that might change some of their thinking and approach to what happens in this thread. (Not to mention, of course, in practice in the broader world.)

I know it’s tiring to see the same territory trod over and over again, but I think there’s still value in continually re-examining how we communicate, particularly around challenging issues and ideas.

Some links that can better express my thoughts on tone policing than I can myself.
Boundary Setting vs Tone Policing

This is why this issue is best approached from multiple angles. Plenty of people, myself included, have written pieces about what to do when you’re called out for saying or doing something oppressive, and we all encourage folks to do their best to set aside pride, defensiveness, and shame in order to learn from the experience. This piece is not my final or only word on the issue. Just as people have a responsibility to respect others’ boundaries, including in discussions about social justice, people also have a responsibility to do their best to hear others’ criticisms and do better. Maybe if we approach the issue in this two-pronged way, we can reduce the incidence of people avoiding difficult conversations out of discomfort.

You’re not being tone policed, you’re just an a**hole (the title absolutely isn't being directed at anyone here)

My Facebook feed has become a bear pit, where people who could be working together are constantly jumping down each other’s throats. Please note: this kind of crass telling off is not the same as challenging – challenging is good, but doing it in a way that the person can hear, rather than in a way designed to put a person down and make them feel so small they instinctively want to fight their way back up, well that’s a skill – one I strive for, but admit I don’t always manage. I understand that it’s not always easily done, but let’s not pretend because it’s difficult that it isn’t valuable.

Words For Cutting: Why We Need to Stop Abusing “The Tone Argument”

Outrage has a valuable place; it is the natural reaction to injustice, to a severe moral breach that must offend every nerve ending of one’s sensibilities. To look at our world at present there’s much to be angry about, and there’s some wisdom to the idea that outrage is better than a placid acceptance of our present condition, better than becoming desensitized to the cavalcade of moral crimes that litter the daily newspapers. But like any emotion or tool, there are right and wrong ways to deploy it, and when we uncritically suggest that all rage is valid so long as it is expressed by activists we thereby foreclose all strategic discussion of the utility of rage.