Some time ago, Visible over at Smoking Mirrors analyzed the corporate media (dis)information machine in a post entitled “The Hydra-Headed, Blood-Sucking Bitch Media” (not linked for reasons to be revealed below). The post covered media corruption and control, closing with “Every one of you is a warrior for truth… or should be.” Yet, problematically, the post suggested that truth warriors are male and the media is a hydra-headed, blood-sucking bitch.
Visible writes,”The most pervasive and insidious enemy of the people and the truth is Bitch Media. This is the control booth that forms mass opinion and precipitates the impetus that fires the engines of war.”
I agree that we no longer have a free media, and that our media is a “control booth” perpetuating massive disinformation while inducing consumerist apathy. However, I take issue with the choice of terminology. I said as much in the comment I posted to the blog:
“I agree with your analysis of the corporate dis-information media machine. However, I am wondering why you chose the terms ‘bitch’ and ‘hydra’ to describe it.
Bitch is a term most often used to denigrate females — or to insult men by equating them to the feminine.
Moreover, the hydra is often represented as a many-headed female water snake. Thus, both of your descriptors, ‘bitch’ and ‘hydra’ equate the media with a monstrous femininity.
Seems to me the ‘raping phallus media’ would have been more appropriate — especially as the media is controlled by those with penis privilege, rather than vice versa.”
Visible replied,
“I’m sorry professor. I should have a sign on my blog but I don’t. This is a ‘PC-free’ one. We consider PC thug action to be easily as bad as anything else faced by humanity.
I’m wondering if you get after the hip-hop and rap artists or are they allowed more latitude for the obvious reasons?”
Well, it would have been nice if Visible had addressed my question rather than merely informing me the site is “PC-free” in a comment dripping with sexism and racism. This tactic of dismissal by way of using the catch all idea that political correctness is “thug action” on par with say genocide or imperialism is an interesting (if unproductive) form of evasion. While I readily admit that what is known as political correctness has its limitations, I also would point out that most who condemn political correctness as a totalitarian mind control come from the far right, or that side of the spectrum that calls feminists “victims” and POC “complainers.”
Moreover, my comment resulted in an onslaught of hateful comments and threatening emails. The animosity and violence displayed in these missives was the worst I have experienced in blogland; hence, I purposely did not hyperlink the post as I really do not relish the idea of more emailed threats to my person.
As to the question posed above, whether I “get after the hip-hop and rap artists,” well, yes, I do, at least to those who promote racism, misogyny, and other forms of hate. The notion that latitude would be given for “obvious reasons” puzzles-is this meant to imply that obviously ALL such musicians are black and therefore I, as a VICTIM FEMINIST would give them a “get out of misogyny free card” ?
Others responded in the thread by calling me “Professor Dickhead” and told me to “Stop acting like a bitch.” Yeah, original. When you call someone out on sexist terminology, they use more sexist terminology to attack you with (without, I might add, one shred of analysis.)
I support the 911-truth movement (of which Visible is a part). However, I would prefer my 911-truth and truth-seeking without the misogyny. Unfortunately though, a hypermasculinist undercurrent seems to run through much of the truth-seeking blogosphere. When I read many of the blogs of this ilk, I find myself questioning why women writers and activists are hardly ever included. Instead, we have descriptions of women like those at Smoking Mirrors such as “bimbo with the short skirt” or quotes like “You are Charlie Brown. Lucy is Bitch Media and the truth is the football.”
Call me a victim feminist (or bitch) if you will, but I would prefer warriors for truth that employ non-misogynstic weaponry.
Professor, What If...? 
Don’t you think its a little hypocritical for you to complain about their usage of bitch while you compare the mass media to a rapist? I think its more harmful to woman to equate every trivial problem to sexual assault than it is to use the term bitch.
@oleander – Where was the mass media / rapist comparison?
It is true that many of these sites are somewhat sexist or racist and don’t quite get the concept that most -isms are just meant to divide us so that we will not unite against oppressive authority. The best thing that women can do is to use their voices and try to be patient while creating good discussion.
Seems to me the ‘raping phallus media’ would have been more appropriate — especially as the media is controlled by those with penis privilege, rather than vice versa.”
That sounds like a mass media/rapist comparison to me.
FYI, “hydra” isn’t a term used to denigrate women.
You mostly just make yourself look ignorant and reactionary when you try to associate it.
Hydra is a mythological monster, wherein every time you cut off one of it’s heads, two more replace it.
Therefore, to refer to a problem or thing as a “hydra” implies that no matter how much you try to stop it, every time you fix one thing, two more spring up in it’s place. It’s mean to symbolize the impossible-to-defeat.
Not meant to symbolize “women”.
Oleander,
I do not find that using the term “bitch” is equal to using the term “raping phallus media.” Further, as I pointed out, the latter would be more appropriate due to the fact males, not females, control the MSM.
Meep,
Thanks for the point about -isms working in a divide and conquer manner. So true.’
David,
Perhaps you missed this part of the post:
“…the hydra is often represented as a many-headed female water snake. Thus, both of your descriptors, ‘bitch’ and ‘hydra’ equate the media with a monstrous femininity.”
The hydra, in mythology, is almost always represented as female, as are, if you hadn’t noticed, most ‘monsters’. The hydra, like Medusa, isn’t only meant to symbolize “the impossible to defeat” but also the (supposedly)castrating threat of the female. Heard of the “monstrous feminine”?
I am curious as to how David knows what Visible “meant” by his use of terminology. Nonetheless, when word usage is ambiguous and open to multiple interpretations it is not incumbent upon those who might be offended to just not be offended.
At the very least, Visible could have responded to Professor’s comment by explaining what exactly he means by “Bitch Media.” Completely discounting Professor’s reaction, which I share, does nothing to explain how and why his terminology is not insulting to women/femininity.
It’s always disappointing when those with whom we share positions with on other issues discount the concerns of women.
Rapists are after control and full of disrespect because they are afraid.
The male-dominated mass media presents (to name one example) ever weirder beauty standards for women. Why? ***Because the media are after control and because they are afraid.**** If you look at the evolution of beauty requirements in western society, you can see that they closely parallel the emancipation of women, which threatened the patriarchal corporate world and caused them to lash out against women in the only way they could–by making us feel bad about ourselves and distracted over trivialities (cellulite!) that we lost time we could be dedicating to climbing up on the podium next to men.
SO that’s why I think if we *had* to choose a metaphor to describe the mass media, we should choose the phallus/rapist one: but I don’t believe PWI was saying that we must ascribe one or the other–what I took from her post was that the male would be closer to the truth (though still not necessarily an ideal descriptor).
Disclaimer: I am too leery to go read the actual Smoking Mirrors post because I don’t want to pick up on the vituperative energy of those comments PWI describes. So I am commenting *only* based on what I see in this post.
CC
Further, as I pointed out, the latter would be more appropriate due to the fact males, not females, control the MSM.
So equating male = rapist is okay in your eyes, but not female = bitch?
Interesting.
but also the (supposedly)castrating threat of the female.
What about Medusa (turning humans to stone) or the hydra (killing people) involves “castration”?
I think you overvalue femininity, and attempt to make yourself too important. The phrase “get over yourself” comes to mind.
I am curious as to how David knows what Visible “meant” by his use of terminology.
Because when something in modern speech is referred to as a hydra, that’s what it means. If a problem is a hydra, it’s because it’s nearly insurmountable, and the more you stamp out, the more springs up.
For instance, the insurgent forces in Iraq have been referred to as a hydra. Why? For every one of them killed, two more (or more) get recruited, so no matter what our military does, it’s not going to get better by staying and fighting. (Only by leaving).
It’s always disappointing when those with whom we share positions with on other issues discount the concerns of women.
Feminists very frequently discount the concerns of men, and expect no ill effect from it. Turnabout is fair play. Someone cannot be made to care about your concerns if you trivialize theirs.
David,
I did not say either was ok (as Fannie points out) but that one is more apt of a description than the other.
Greek mythology is full of woman hating — if you are not aware of the castration fears that shape patriarchal imagination, I suggest you might want to point that “ignorant” comment at yourself.
The way something is now used does not erase its historical connotation, and there is a historical tendency to equate monstrosity and evilness with femininity.
As for your claims about the so-called insurgents, I think it would be more apt to refer to the US military as the hydra-type monster — we are the ones that keep growing monstrous heads and insisting we need to militarize the world with our soldiers/bases.
Not all feminists discount the concerns of men, nor do all 911 truth-ers portray the misogyny of Visible. Nowhere in my post or comments do I trivialize the concerns of men — this, I think, is a knee-jerk reaction typical of someone who wrongly stereotypes all feminists as man-haters.
if you are not aware of the castration fears that shape patriarchal imagination, I suggest you might want to point that “ignorant” comment at yourself.
Nice dodge. Again, answer how being turned to stone or killed in any way is parallel with castration. You can’t, so you dodged, and simply said “If you don’t know, I’m not going to tell you, neener!”
The way something is now used does not erase its historical connotation, and there is a historical tendency to equate monstrosity and evilness with femininity.
And much in your quickness to apply “rapist” to “male”, feminists tend to quickly equate evil with masculinity.
The double standards are glaring.
As for your claims about the so-called insurgents, I think it would be more apt to refer to the US military as the hydra-type monster — we are the ones that keep growing monstrous heads and insisting we need to militarize the world with our soldiers/bases.
Ah, so you hate the US? That’s interesting. I’m fairly certain Al Qaeda isn’t some benevolent group of freedom fighters. I’m also fairly certain the common citizenry of Iraq would rather they not be there.
Not all feminists discount the concerns of men, nor do all 911 truth-ers portray the misogyny of Visible.
Many do. “Feminist” in and of itself means to value women, and the opinions thereof, moreso than men.
Moving on to the second part, if you’re the type of person who believes “the government did 9/11” or something…well, I’ve no time for conspiracy theorists and lunatics.
If that’s the case with you, then I would bid you good day and not return.
Nowhere in my post or comments do I trivialize the concerns of men — this, I think, is a knee-jerk reaction typical of someone who wrongly stereotypes all feminists as man-haters.
You certainly did.
When one commenter pointed out the problem with you assigning “rapist” to “male”, you immediately dismissed it, and considered YOUR concerns to be more valuable and important, and his to be irrelevant.
Again, in order to value women as a priority, it automatically implies you value men (and their thoughts) less than.
You can’t really be for equality with a movement named after femininity/women. The name alone already establishes that it has a preference, and a priority. If I said “Support ‘masculism’, because it means equality!” would you buy what I was selling? I highly doubt it.
David,
This is off-topic from Professor’s original post, but you display a common misguided rejection of feminism.
There is no universal definition of feminism and feminists are not a monolithic group of people who all think exactly alike. I’ve found that those opposed to feminism reject feminism because they believe, as you do, that ““Feminist” in and of itself means to value women, and the opinions thereof, moreso than men.”
Yet, to most feminists (except perhaps the most radical) feminism generally means something along the lines of a href=”http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/feminism”>”the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes.” Do you reject that theory and those aims? Or, rather, do you reject calling those aims “feminism”?
I’m glad to see that you brought this up, Professor.
This is *one* of the reasons why I’ve had to stop frequenting “9/11 truth” blogs and events.
From my personal experience it is a mostly boys club and there are very few people other than white people that participate. I don’t blame this on the essential cause though. I think it has more to do with the 9/11 truth “leaders” (a problem in itself) and participants’ ignorance to other social justice movements.
I was often interested in discussing exploitation and oppression as the over-arching issues surrounding 9/11 related issues and tried to press other issues such as racism, sexism, homophobia, classism, speciesism, etc. and was basically shunned, after receiving many angry rants in my direction.
Even if 9/11 truth (whatever that is) comes out tomorrow (highly unlikely) we will still be left with a world full of oppression and exploitation of others because not many truthers are striking at the root of the problem. Disrespect to other social justice causes and movements will only “illegitmize” (if I can use that term) the cause of 9/11 truth and turn many other people off to the so called “movement”. (PC thugs??? that just sounds like some ignorant shit that privileged people, such as white men, can say to validate their prejudices and keep their constructed privilege in society)
I won’t be suprised if I receive a nasty response to this. I’m so used to it by now that it’s expected.
PC thugs??? that just sounds like some ignorant shit that privileged people, such as white men, can say to validate their prejudices and keep their constructed privilege in society
PC thugs would be people like feminists, that attack those that say “cunt”, “bitch” and “pussy”, while they themselves use words such as “dick”, “bastard” and “cock”.
No one likes the language police, except the language police.
David, I notice you have discounted my comment. I understand that everyone’s time is limited, but you are acting like a typical MRA troll in failing to concede any valid point that a feminist makes while compulsively bringing everyone’s attention back to Oh Dear God How the Men Are Harmed!!!111!!
One could say the same about you. You are acting like a typical obtuse feminist, in failing to concede any valid point that a male makes while compulsively bringing everyone’s attention back to Oh Dear God Everything A Woman Says Must Be Given Immediate Attention!!1111!
Your problem, as I see it, is that you assume “feminist” = “valid point”. Not the case. Being a feminist doesn’t make your opinion any more valid than anyone else.
Again, if you find the need to discount someone’s concerns because they’re male, while demanding said males acknowledge YOUR concerns…yeah, not happening.
Grow up David. Thus far the bulk of your comments here have been along the lines of “I know you are but what am I”? Just as Visible did to Professor, you dismiss feminists’ ideas without actually addressing them. Perhaps you aren’t aware that that’s not argumentation.
My point in commenting here was to address Professor’s post, not walk you through all of your juvenile misconceptions about feminism, and yes you do hold many. For one, you cry that feminists here discount your concerns or the concerns of others just because they’re male. But to any outside observer it is your concerns that are getting quite a bit of attention here. Somehow, you’ve taken a post about someone else’s misogyny and turned it into a conversation about how wronged males are. Is this really the most relevant place for that? It’s just not germane to the original blog post to hijack a thread and make it all about The Men.
Furthermore, I don’t think that any of my beliefs are valid just because they’re feminist or just because I’m a feminist. Is that really the simplistic view of the world you have? My point about feminism a couple comments ago is valid because it’s logically correct.
Now, if you want to stop being a waste of time, you can answer this question:
Do you reject the theory of the equality of men and women? Or, rather, do you reject calling that theory “feminism”?
Otherwise, it’s been real.
Thought Criminal,
Thanks for reading and sharing many valid points about the 911 truth movement. I too have encountered what you describe. I have also noticed a narrow vision in many of the sites/writers/’leaders’ that acts as if 911 truth is the ONLY thing that matters and everything else is distraction. There also seems to be a certain hubris in the movement wherein those who are not “believers” are immediately written off for trying to widen the scope of the argument or are told they are in denial. While I do think it is important to discover what really happened (the name, of course, of an important truth blog), I don’t think focusing on 911 at the expense of other social justice issues is the answer — we need to fight against all forms of disinformation, oppression, etc at once. The monster indeed has many heads…
Fannie,
I admire your efforts to attempt to dialogue with David. You are a more patient feminist than I… I have chosen to not further engage as I don’t feel I have the time or energy to deal with the hostility, trolling, and obvious lack of knowledge about feminism/social justice his comments contain. But, I applaud you for doing so and appreciate your attempts to keep the thread civilized and on point. I need to hang out in your room more often!
Just as Visible did to Professor, you dismiss feminists’ ideas without actually addressing them. Perhaps you aren’t aware that that’s not argumentation.
Well, I’ll keep saying it as long as you keep doing it. When a feminist dismisses a man’s concerns as “ONOES WUT ABOUT DA MENZ!!111”, men are going to turn right around, remembering that, and tell you to shove your concerns up your ass.
Turnabout is fair play, whether you like it or not.
Do you reject the theory of the equality of men and women? Or, rather, do you reject calling that theory “feminism”?
I reject anything that starts with someone saying “I deserve”.
No one deserves anything.
Equality is all well and good, but feminism doesn’t go about it in any sort of the right way. It creates sectioned-off special rights for females, separate-but-equal situations, and denigrates males in the process.
(Such as VAWA – special rights for women, education: “boys do badly, bad boys. Girls do badly, bad schools.” and so forth.)
Also, it’s not up to you to consider me a “waste of time”. Boo hoo, I don’t fall in line and immediately agree with all your opinions and views. How sad.
Feminists are filled with such raging entitlement.
The only person raging here is you, David.
I don’t know or particularly care what sort of moral code you live by, but “they do it too” is rarely a valid justification for your own misbehavior. That being said, I don’t regularly dismiss men’s concerns. I personally only do so when men such as yourself come into feminist space, and in the midst of a discussion about misogyny, demand that everyone stop talking about an instance of misogyny (I believe you told Professor to “get over [her]self”) and instead talk about men’s concerns.
Men do have valid concerns, I would probably agree with you about some of these concerns and disagree with you on others. Many feminists would, so you’d do better to stop creating these femi-nazi caricatures in your head. Yet, there is a time and place for discussing the concerns of men. My point in making the “What about the Menz” comment was that, within a conversation about someone using misogynist language, it is not is not the place to ignore a woman’s point and start talking about how men sometimes deal with shit too. If I entered a men’s rights forum, I sure as shit wouldn’t begin my comments by calling the men names, dismissing their concerns, and then demanding a conversation about feminism.
Speaking of which, you would get a warmer reception from women and feminists if you didn’t begin your comments by calling people “ignorant,” “reactionary,” and ego-centric for caring about things that harm women.
Because you have a very black-white view of the world and see things through a really generalized lens (“[all] feminists are____”), I do think it’s waste of time to continue this conversation. And, it speaks only to your own sense of entitlement to say that I can’t even have an opinion about that.
I wish you well and I sincerely hope you find a more productive way to deal with your anger at feminism/feminists in the future.
it is not is not the place to ignore a woman’s point and start talking about how men sometimes deal with shit too.
Except the woman made her point with misandrist language.
I thought you said “they do it too” was an invalid way to conduct ones self?
If I entered a men’s rights forum, I sure as shit wouldn’t begin my comments by calling the men names, dismissing their concerns, and then demanding a conversation about feminism.
I find that hard to believe. Though, you might just bookmark the forum, link it on a feminist site, and denigrate them from a (safe) remote location.
Because you have a very black-white view of the world and see things through a really generalized lens (”[all] feminists are____”),
Judging by the original poster’s comment of equating “male” with “rape”, that’s pretty generalized.
I wish you well and I sincerely hope you find a more productive way to deal with your anger at feminism/feminists in the future.
That’s the problem, really. At some point, you stop believing your opinions are just that, and start assuming everyone who doesn’t share your exact thoughts deserves some share of your pity.
David,
To clarify, I never equated “male” with “rape.” I used the phrase “raping phallus media” – the ‘phallus’ is not about individual men, nor is “penis privilege” about individual men — it is about the system of male power, or patriarchy. Phallus, in effect, is short-hand for the negative ramifications that result in having an unequal system of privilege based on valuing the male over the female. This is not about blaming (or hating) individual men — it is about critiquing a heirarchical system. As to your continued claim that I “trivialzed the concerns of men” in the original post, can you clarify where you see me doing this? Can you also clarify your intent in continuing to comment — are you genuinely trying to discuss these issues, or are you merely trying to hammer us over the head with your (phallic) point(s)?
So you’re using a word for penis as shorthand for “bad”, and you think describing it as such makes it better?
Bitch media is inappropriate to you, because it sounds related to women, but your version is apparently okay to you.
I find it shocking you don’t notice the hypocrisy in that.
David,
Professor’s point in making the “raping phallus” metaphor was to argue that, since the media is male-dominated and controlled, it would have been more apt for Visible to gender the Media male (“phallus”), rather than female (“bitch”). She was using the metaphor to make a point, not to use it in sincerity.
Although your comments are full of anger, ignorance, and misunderstanding, I don’t actually pity you. To re-iterate, I hope you find more productive ways to converse with feminists in the future. Your hostile showing here hasn’t given anti-feminists much credence or respectability. If you’re trying to convince anyone who doesn’t already agree with you about these things, that’s a problem.
She was using the metaphor to make a point, not to use it in sincerity.
If men aren’t allowed to do such, then neither is she.
Controlled by men or not, the media is often used BY women to damn men. The innocent Duke boys, anyone? Tried and convicted by the media alone, before ever standing before a judge.
Although your comments are full of anger, ignorance, and misunderstanding, I don’t actually pity you.
Disagreeing with your views =/= ignorance, sorry.
I could easily say your comments are full of ignorance.
Your hostile showing here hasn’t given anti-feminists much credence or respectability.
Your blatant disregard for your own hypocrisy hasn’t given feminists much respectability.
If you’re trying to convince anyone who doesn’t already agree with you about these things, that’s a problem.
If you’re trying to convince anyone who doesn’t already agree with you about these things, that’s a problem.
I am not going to acknowledge anything David has said, because I don’t believe in feeding the trolls *wink
This was a great post, and you raise excellent points. Personally, I don’t like using sexual assault metaphors because I think that it dilutes the issue of sexual violence. Although I do recognise how metaphors equating power and dominance can be useful. This isn’t a criticism of your article, professor – just my personal preference.
It never ceases to amaze me how “the left” (used broadly to refer to any social justice and anti-government organizing) continues to use misogynistic, racist, ableist, etc. languaging, and how vehemently this discourse is defended.
I recently wrote a zine on anarcha-feminism and within it, I included a list (written by someone else) which suggests way to essentially fark with gender. One of the suggestions was to remove Gender Identity Disorder from the DSM.
A transman took the time to tell me that he was uncomfortable with this, as removal of this “disorder” would mean people here in Canada couldn’t get hormones and gender reassignment surgery paid for by the gov’t. (So this was not only a trans issue, but a class issue).
When he gave this valuable feedback, I recognized a feeling in my body that felt strange; it wasn’t quite anger and it took me a minute to figure out what it was – it was defensiveness, essentially coming from my cisgender privilege.
So I had two choices here – defend my choice to include this piece, or listen to what he had to say, apologise for the harm he articulated that I was causing to his community and make the changes. I am not saying I am perfect and always make the right choice, but in doing the latter, I believe I did.
I give this example as to how I believe a website such as the one you describe, professor, should deal with feminist criticism when they use sexist language.
We all make mistakes but it is important to own up to our privilege.
“What if” we humbly (and in a non-defensive manner) took criticism from marginalized groups (whose role is NOT to educate us, but we should be thankful when they do) and changed accordingly?
David,
You reflected my sentiment:
“If you’re trying to convince anyone who doesn’t already agree with you about these things, that’s a problem.”
The thing is, you see, is that you’re in feminist blog space. Many people already do agree with me about these things. It’s all about knowing your audience, David.
I haven’t ever commented at an MRA blog, but if I did, I would begin by making concessions where appropriate, not immediately denigrating those with whom I disagreed, and not utterly dismissing their concerns just because Women Are Harmed Too. So, you can “doubt” that I’d act like this all you want, but once you understand these basic rules of civility, you might find your “conversations” with feminists to be infinitely more productive than this one.
I haven’t ever commented at an MRA blog, but if I did, I would begin by making concessions where appropriate, not immediately denigrating those with whom I disagreed, and not utterly dismissing their concerns just because Women Are Harmed Too. So, you can “doubt” that I’d act like this all you want, but once you understand these basic rules of civility, you might find your “conversations” with feminists to be infinitely more productive than this one.
Considering whenever a feminist blog finds a site it disagrees with, they tend to encourage bombing them with comments, and/or attempting to get the host to delete the entry they disagree with, again, I find your words hard to believe.
So all feminists are exactly alike, think the exact same things, and act exactly alike then? And, just because some feminist bloggers (not blogs, btw), find sites they disagree with and “bomb” them with comments, it means all feminist bloggers do so, including me? And, just because some feminist bloggers are rude to “men’s rights activists,” it justifies YOUR OWN current misbehavior here?
Thanks for making that clear, although you make yourself look unbelievably ignorant when you admit that your worldview is so generalized, petty, and hostile.
So all feminists are exactly alike, think the exact same things, and act exactly alike then?
I never said all, I said “tend to”.
But if you want to go that way, would you like me to find a list of every single time a feminist blog pigeonholed and stereotyped “men” into “monolith”?
I assure you, it’s done on a daily basis, and unapologetically so.
And, just because some feminist bloggers (not blogs, btw), find sites they disagree with and “bomb” them with comments, it means all feminist bloggers do so, including me?
The exceptions only serve to prove the rule.
And, just because some feminist bloggers are rude to “men’s rights activists,” it justifies YOUR OWN current misbehavior here?
Like you’re being? Newsflash: Having a penis doesn’t make you an “MRA”, or whatever you’d like to label.
Thanks for making that clear, although you make yourself look unbelievably ignorant when you admit that your worldview is so generalized, petty, and hostile.
That, coming from a feminist, is actually rather comical.
So, to recap here:
Professor wrote a post about someone using misogynistic language, of calling that person out on such language, of being verbally harassed after doing so, of receiving threatening emails, and of being completely dismissed in return.
Our friend David’s response to this scenario has been to call the blog author “ignorant” and “reactionary,” to tell her to get over herself, and to completely discount her concerns because “turnabout is fair play” and he believes that (all? most?) feminists discount the concerns of men and are really seeking to raise women above men.
Well done, David. Maybe people have forgotten the original question: What if so-called “truth warriors” put down their misogynistic weapons?
Professor wrote a post about someone using misogynistic language, of calling that person out on such language, of being verbally harassed after doing so, of receiving threatening emails, and of being completely dismissed in return.
Professor also turned around and used misandrist language in her response. Why do you continue to gloss that over?
Our friend David’s response to this scenario has been to call the blog author “ignorant” and “reactionary,” to tell her to get over herself, and to completely discount her concerns because “turnabout is fair play” and he believes that (all? most?) feminists discount the concerns of men and are really seeking to raise women above men.
If someone discounts my concerns, I discount theirs. And, considering the name of the movement is “feminism”, not “humanism”, yes, I’d find it safe to say that it’s seeking to raise women above men. The entire thing is named after women.
Well done, David. Maybe people have forgotten the original question: What if so-called “truth warriors” put down their misogynistic weapons?
Who knows? What would happen if so-called “equality feminists” put down their misandristic weapons?
“Why do you continue to gloss that over?”
It’s pretty clear, Man in the Mirror, that I didn’t gloss that over. As I said before, unlike Visible, Professor wasn’t using the gendered metaphor in sincerity. Her point wasn’t that the media is a “raping phallus,” but rather, considering the fact that the media is male-dominated, it would have been more apt for Visible to gender the media male, as opposed to female.
Your concern there has been addressed numerous times.
That it is you who completely discounts the explanation is not the failing of anyone but yourself, and certainly not of feminists.