Monday, December 19, 2011

The Male Commenters You Meet On The Internet Regarding Feminism

The Men's Rights Activist

"Please. The feminist machine has made the male a species on the run, raising our boys to be self-hating, sissy DORKS! How can you say women get raped? That's a myth. We are in the dark age of misandry here, men. Not since Boudicca and the Amazons have we been so victimized and demonized in society."

The Moderate

"See, I don't understand why we can't just be equals, here. Feminism was good, but it's run its course and has accomplished its goals. This just feels like henpecking, to me."

The "Good Man"

"Hey, I'm not a rapist or abuser or anything, but I don't need to be a feminist to be a good man. See, women are such beautiful, nurturing creatures of grace and beauty, and it's wrong to do ANYTHING to them. That's why we men are gifted with strength and quiet resolve, to protect our women and make sure nothing ever hurts them."

The Troll

"Go back to the kitchen!!!!"

The Orator

"I believe, ma'am, that your criticism is very off-base and I will respectfully take the time to guide you by the hand on a wondrous discourse of logic and rhetoric so that you may learn, at the seat of pre-law undergrad genius, of where your worldview vis-a-vis gender is wrong and imperfect."

The Charmer

"I know where you live, and I am going to rape you."

The Rape Apologist

"Rape is just so over-used, these days. I hear some of these stories, and I don't think a lot of them are rape so much as they are 'sex-regret' stories. Okay, maybe 'gray rape' can apply, but I just think some of these girls use it to cover up their mistakes."

The Ex-Husband

"My ex-wife used to say this shit all the time, and she robbed me blind in the divorce, and turned my kids against me! Yeah women have it so hard, but all they gotta do is tell the judge I beat them and cry a bit to their lawyer, and they get the world! Bitches."

The Wounded Soul

"I just don't understand it! Why do feminists hate men so much? What have we done, as a collective sex, to engender such hatred?"

The PUA-Fodder

"Why do all women seem to think this way? I mean... I'm decently attractive, and can kind of dress myself, and no matter what you women tell me I can never seem to get you women to talk to me! What is so wrong with gender relations when a guy can't even get girls to talk to them no matter how hard he tries??"

The Contrarian, Feminism Expert Male

"Actually, honey, you seem to be getting this backwards. Here, let me explain what feminism REALLY says about this ..."

The Lukewarm Privilege Dude

"I really want to like feminism ... but then I read stuff like this, and I'm like, 'how could I ever be a feminist if all of you believe this kind of stuff?' It just seems so extreme to me..."

The Guy Who Obviously Doesn't Talk To A Lot of Women

"Hey, I know a LOT of girls, and none of them think like this. Why can't more of you feminists be like THAT?"


"Feminism is a socialist, anti-family, political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians."*

The Evangelist

"God made men and women the way he did for a reason, and I think that stuff like this is just temptation to keep women from their divine duties as women."

*Direct quote from Pat Robertson

Saturday, December 17, 2011

Hitchens is Dead, Long Live Hitchens

Christopher Hitchens passed away last night at the age of 62. I was never exactly partial to him. Actually, I was largely troubled by him. It was somewhere around when he declared that women aren't funny, or when he defended the Iraq War well past the salad days of its efficacy and popularity.

Hitchens belonged to the largely repellent secular libertarian philosophy of stringent logic and reason. He believed in what he saw, and was able to make damning, thrilling sport of critically dissembling many of the backwards oddities he saw in society, most particularly religion. It was always clear that he was thinking. It was always true that he grew, and developed his opinions. This was one of his greatest strengths as an intellectual and as a writer: you could trace a trajectory of his thought, and his personal philosophy remained internally consistent.

However I disagree, very strongly, with a lot of his conclusions and his haughtiness. He cheered the war in Iraq as a way of extinguishing the flame of dreaded religion, and create a secular state of reason. Islam was the dreaded boogeyman rising over his perspective on our involvement in the Middle East, a never-ending war against a faith that allegedly seeks the murder and extermination of 'infidels.' It was the same propaganda as the conservative machine, the very same as he once professed disdain for, spread as a way of turning people onto imperialism, 21st century style.

Yet it was his piece, linked above, on why "women weren't funny" that sealed it. A cheeky piece of the faux-pro-women chauvinism where women can't be funny because they are attuned to a higher calling, or something. It's the same weird backwards sexism where putting a woman on a pedestal, on which is inscribed her essential duties and traits that, as a woman, have been inscribed to her by evolution (which could easily have been replaced with 'divine plan' in the Hitchens' article*). Of course, his general attitude of "I'm such a stinker!" it grating or ingratiating depending on how you view it.

Hitchens' flavor of secular libertarianism is generally a viewpoint that I take umbrage with frequently. It's a perspective that favors real, tactile events as opposed to the more covert and subtle operations of human interaction, like language and experience and narrative. Hitchens would have rolled his eyes and drolly dismissed anyone who suggested that, perhaps, evolutionary perspectives on gender are greatly influenced by the essentializing characteristics to men and women based on cultural heritage and - yes - sexism. He would have further chortled at the notion that maybe he, himself, is perpetuating structural sexism without really thinking about it. But, libertarians of that sort don't see themselves as beholden to such social factors, and don't suspect socialization has formed them one way or another. They're "individuals," and social structure has no bearing on who anyone is, period.

So, this is why I never got behind Hitchens fully. But I have to give him credit for two positives of his career. One, his facility with words was incomparable. He was a talented writer, and his logic at least had an internal consistency so that you knew that no matter how obnoxious his opinions, it was clear he had given it a major focus of his mind. His polemic was not from rank, unreflective bile, but rather a desire to stimulate conversation, and then to steamroll said conversation with his own self-righteousness.

But, that steamrolling is my second point, and that point is that Hitchens was a part of a dying breed, the public intellectual. Once, people clamored to see Albert Einstein think. Thomas Paine inspired a nation. Voltaire chilled with the political and social elite of his time. Compare that to today, where the government defunds NASA, shrugs at scientific innovation, and proudly claims ignorance on the Internet while seeking to pass specific regulation of it. People support the defunding of universities that promote humanities, social science, and other "unpractical" studies as Rick Scott would call them. The words of academics and great minds are assailed as words from on high, from the ivory tower. Yet we build this ivory tower, not as a lordship but as a prison.

We're in a wilderness of anti-intellectualism, and it's not just about proper respect given to those of intellectual stature. Rather, American society is rapidly devaluing critical insight and discourse. The Internet has made it simpler for us to gain information, yet we don't think critically about this information. The economy, further, is pushing fields of discourse and criticism out in favor of "practical" studies and "hard sciences." This promotes the incestuous nature of academia, as no one there has no desire to break out and into the mainstream as people once did.

That's why we chortle when we see a person's title as "sociologist" or "cultural linguist" or "philosopher" in a Washington Post article. The climate is tough on thought, these days. We don't want to hear it, and the intellectuals don't want to talk about it. Hitchens, although a big of a gloryhound, was motivated by that impulse to spread his thoughts and insight as far as he could. I may have disagreed with him, but I was comforted to know that he was taking himself public rather than shielding himself in jargon and journals.

We need more Hitchens', to the extent that we need more people taking the intellectual and making it accessible and, frankly, cool. We need more Gloria Steinems, and Neil DeGrasse Tysons. We need more (sigh, yes) Richard Dawkins' and Cornel Wests. We need younger people, too. We need to make it cool to be smart again, a gift that Hitchens had in spades.

*Just saying.

Wednesday, December 14, 2011

If I Were A Poor Black Kid

You know, I really wanted to lead this off with a hypothetical situation in response to Gene Marks's privileged and incredibly condescending article "If I Were A Poor Black Kid." I was going to illustrate structural racism through the situation of an actual poor black kid faced with that reality. Then, I remembered why the original article was pernicious and awful on its face: like Marks, I am not a poor black kid. Yeah, I grew up economically disadvantaged in some ways but my parents made alright money. Plus, I'm white, so I had that privilege going for me.

Much ballyhoo has been made over addressing the patent ignorance in this article. But, reading it, I imagined many of my white friends going, "I don't get what's wrong with this... these all sound like good points to me." The article is the same 'gumption and work ethic' snake oil that the rich/successful among us peddle when they've lost all perspective on their life and the world around them. It presupposes that rosy, Hanna Barbara idealism that we're all really equal anyways, and we're only put down by bigotry and poverty when we let ourselves be.

The article isn't really to black kids, no. Although Marks may have thought of himself as dispensing the sacred wisdom of the successful to those poor, unfortunate proles not seeing themselves as future Forbes writers, there's a deeper reason that articles like this are written. Poor black kids don't read Forbes. This article is the privileged, the financially successful, to remind them that they got to where they were purely on their own hard work and merit. This article is to swaddle the wealthier among us, to assuage them that they do not sit high within an economic system that constantly disenfranchises the poor.

It's telling that he admits a few times that he doesn't know what he's talking about. What's more telling is that he does not explore that. Has he talked to a poor black kid? Has he talked to a poor any kid? Why not Latino, or East Asian, or Indian, or even a poor white person? Has he explored how people of color are oppressed through differential law enforcement, and immigration law, and the myriad social institutions that white people take for granted? Has he gone into any of these difficult urban schools to talk to any actual kids?

No, of course not. Being blind to privilege means that you don't accept being underprivileged as a barrier, because you cannot conceive that society has given you opportunities based on something you cannot help. White privilege, male privilege, hetero/cis privilege, ableist privilege, all of them function so that those with privilege see themselves as inherently 'normal', 'baseline' people whose success shows that obviously, anyone who uses inequality as an explanation against success is just blaming the successful for their failure.

Let's talk about structural racism. A poor black kid is more likely to be suspended or arrested than white kids committing similar offenses. A poor black kid is more likely to access the internet via phone, than computer. Standardized tests, like the SAT, favor white people by use of white vernacular. Your schools are likely to be less funded, and closer to prisons than places of learning. The educational system is based on hammering the achievements of White America into you K-12, to further remind you that black people have only been passive in the construction of the nation, and that you're truly helpless to do anything about it.

Factor in the decades of practically non-existent social mobility, a welfare system that doesn't exist to really benefit you, and an indifferent world outside, and see that the faults are without, rather than within, you.

Of course, Forbes isn't the place for this critical writing. Forbes lists successful business people. Forbes is what people read to congratulate themselves on having won the privilege lottery. The audience for this article walked away from it with relief, having been reminded of the myth of American Meritocracy.