15 January, 2008


Posted in Alas a Blog, Privilege at 7:13 am by Daran

In the following I use italics for pheeno’s words, and bold for Ampersand’s and joe’s. My words aren’t marked up.

The conversation started here:

I should clarify. I wouldn’t want [Condoleezza Rice] to win [a hypothetical run for Presidency], but it would be way cool if the final face-off were between two women or two blacks.

Two blacks??

Two black WHAT, if you don’t mind?

Her point was well made, and I conceded it immediately:

Two black people.

The matter could have ended there, but it didn’t:

Then try describing them with the fact they’re PEOPLE in mind and not a just a freakin color.

Now I was already a bit irritated, because I didn’t think that I did have this in mind. But I nevertheless Stayed calm and took the criticism seriously. To quote Amp:

…do not dismiss it without thinking about it. Especially if the criticism comes from a person of color – people of color in our society tend by necessity to be more aware of racism than most Whites are, and pick up on things most Whites

So I check my privilege:

OK. I checked my privilege. Now what?

Now stop acting like you don’t know better.

I’m not acting. If it looks like I don’t know better, then I either don’t know better, or I just don’t agree with you.

In this case, I do agree with you that it is better to say “black people” than “blacks”, which is why I responded as I did in #26.

I don’t agree with your #28 to the extent that it implies that I think of them as colours rather than people. I do not. I do agree with #28’s criticism of my language use, but I already conceded that. It was from laziness, not from thinking of them as colours, that I wrote “blacks” instead of “black people”, and I will try not to be so lazy in future.

Is there anything else that I should have understood from this conversation?

There was a brief digression, then the conversation continued:

The point Daran is that you did objectify. It doesnt matter that you did it because you were lazy, the affect is still the same. Your reasons or excuses for that language are irrelevant. They don’t change it, they don’t soften it, they don’t excuse it.

I understand that. But … [i]f my reasons are irrelevant, then why mention them in the first place? I stated the real reason, not as justification or excuse, but to correct your misstatement of my reasons. It is important to me that my reasons for saying the things I say are not misstated. If you wish to take me to task for my language without getting into an argument with me about my reasons, then do not misstate them. Either state them correctly, or do not state them at all.

To sum up:

I acknowledge that I used objectifying language to refer to Rice and Obama. My reasons for doing so are irrelevant. I have stated that in future, I intend to use non-objectifying language when referring to black people. That intent is also irrelevant except in so far as it leads to my actually using non-objectifying language in future.

Is there anything further we need to discuss?

Telling you to keep it in mind means

dont be fucking (lazy, ignorant, forgetful, priveleged, jackassy) from now on. It doesnt matter if it was lazy, ignorance, privelege or jackassery when you wrote it. Just fucking stop it.

Get the difference yet?

Now Amp intervenes, allowing pheeno the last word:

Since Daran has already said a couple of times that he does intend to keep it in mind, I think that should be an end to it.

Well thats nice. I dont.

Once again, inent was thrown out there as if it changes anything.

It doesnt.

Here’s joe:

Daren never said that his intent changed anything. He said that its only relevance was to correct your statement about his thought process.

Which I’ve explained doesnt matter. It’s merely another show of privelege to go onto to “correct” my statement about his thought process. That’s one of the affects of one’s words. That is part and parcel of the impact his words had. POC are no longer obligated to “understand” white people’s laziness, mistakes, ignorance or hate. We’ve been well aware of the myriad excuses for some time now. Trying to “correct”us or explain it to us just continues on with the insult. We aren’t the ones in need of racism education.

Finally Amp shuts it down again, having given pheeno three free shots at me.

Yes, but this isn’t your blog (and I note that you didn’t disagree with me that the argument had become circular).

I agree with you entirely, by the way, that intent in a case like this doesn’t matter. Which makes it even odder that you refuse to drop the subject.

The subject of Daran’s intent is closed on this thread. Next person to bring it up, either to defend Daran or to attack him, is banned from the thread.

I also agree with her entirely, so what exactly is pheeno’s problem?

The answer lies in the last thing pheeno says here. This has nothing to do with my entitlement, and is all about hers. She apparently feels entitled to comment on my thought processes, without me responding. Moreover, she seems to feel entitled to do so on someone else’s blog, even after the owner has told her to stop.

Who exactly is the privileged one here?

Discussion reopened.

Update: Contrast the following remark made by me in the comments:

More interesting to me is the entitlement she asserted to appropriate my authority to represent my thoughts.

which is a statement about what she did, with this remark from the post:

She apparently feels entitled to comment on my thought processes, without me responding. Moreover, she seems to feel entitled to do so on someone else’s blog, even after the owner has told her to stop.

In which I speculate about her thoughts.

Continuing with that speculating, its possible that she doesn’t feel safe enough to respond here. If so, then this post has had the practical effect of appropriating her authority to represent her own thoughts.


8 January, 2007

Are Men Oppressed? Part 2 – Systematic Mistreatment

Posted in Feminist Criticism, Feminist Issues, Gender Issues, Male Disposability, War at 3:36 am by HughRistik

In Part 1 of this series, I observed the tendency of feminists to throw around the term “oppression” without defining it, or explaining why only women are “oppressed,” but never men. Yet I have encountered a few feminists who do believe that men can suffer gender oppression. In this post, I will discuss a differing feminist view.
Read the rest of this entry »

4 January, 2007

Tools of the Patriarchy

Posted in Q Grrl, Rape Culture, Richard Jeffrey Newman, Survivors and Survival at 2:40 pm by Daran

I said:

Here’s where I think feminists have a point: Women are constantly being told “watch out, you’re at risk”. Men don’t get that message, despite the fact that we’re the ones at most risk. Consequently, women fear violence more than men, and it curtails their behaviour in a way that men’s aren’t.

Of course, it’s the feminists doing most of the fearmongering…


That has not been my experience at all. All the wacky “advice” about how to prevent stranger rape and abduction has come from my very conservative family.

“Most” was a baseless, and hence Odious Comparison, and I withdraw it. I should have said “some”. As Robert said, it comes in variable formats. Here are some feminist birds in your garden:

Maia worries that a newborn girl might be victimised some day. She worries that a newborn boy might become a victimiser, but it never occurs to her to worry that he might be victimised, even though the risk to him is higher than for a girl. Not content with scaring her own readers, she posts the same on Alas. Q Grrl posts rape stats higher even than found by Koss, twenty years ago. The incidence of female rape has fallen in America by a third since then. Richard Jeffrey Newman says that “women, as a class, have to worry about being raped and sexually assaulted in a way, and to a degree, that men as a class do not”. Not merely that they worry more, (which is true), but that they have to.

Your very conservative family may have given you wacky advice, but at least they don’t blame other people for their own fearmongery.

So what’s the real situation for men and women? The National Violence Against Women Survey, a study which didn’t survey prisons, nor the homeless, nor others living in institutions where these attacks are most common, still found one male rape victim for every three females raped during the survey year. (Thanks to David for reminding me of this) When you take this undercounting into consideration the ratio is probably closer to 1:2 or even 1:1. Then consider that men are much more likely to face non-sexual violance and about 20 times more likely to be murdered.

But Richard is still right about men. They don’t have to worry, and neither do women. Rape is a truly crap thing to happen to anyone, but it only one of many crap things that happen to everybody at some point in their lives our lives. But you can recover from it. It’s not the end of the world. It’s not the worst thing in the world. It’s not even close.

So don’t listen to the wacky advice; take sensible precautions instead. Then go out and enjoy yourself. Enjoy your female privilege which is your relative immunity to violence. (I don’t begrudge you that. I object to feminist denial of it, but I woudn’t want women to face more violence, just to make it eeequal.) Then, if your taste runs to men, go out and find some nice ones, and have yourself a good time with them.

Do all of this in the certain knowledge that at some point in your life, and probably more than once, something really, really crappy is going to happen. It probably won’t be rape, but it will be something. Be prepared for that, but don’t worry about it, because whether it’s rape or something else, you will be able to deal with it when it happens.

Are Men Oppressed? Part 1 – Double Standards

Posted in Feminist Criticism, Feminist Issues, Gender Issues at 4:56 am by HughRistik

I’ve always been confused the notion of “oppression” ever since I started hearing the term. When I was growing up and getting bullied, I was hearing how girls have all the problems. It seemed that just about anything bad that happened to women could be considered “oppression,” no matter how minor. Men were never said to be “oppressed” no matter what bad things happened to them.
Read the rest of this entry »

31 December, 2006

Misunderstanding Patriarchy

Posted in Daran, Feminist Issues, Gender Issues, Patriarchy at 5:51 am by HughRistik

I just ran into an interesting essay by bell hooks entitled “Understanding Patriarchy”. hooks argues that patriarchy is damaging to men in ways that not only men themselves, but also feminists fail to recognize. hooks’ analysis makes some important points, but is also limited by some of her assumptions about what “patriarchy” is and about how men experience victimization in such societies.
Read the rest of this entry »

30 December, 2006

“Privilege” and “Disadvantage” as sexist framing devices.

Posted in Alas a Blog, Ampersand, Male Disposability, Privilege, Reposts at 11:26 am by Daran

(Originally posted at Creative Destruction.)

Both here, and at Alas, Barry has been responding to criticism of his “Male Privilege Checklist“. Most of these criticisms have been directed at particular items on the checklist, which regardless of the merit of the substantive objection, opens his critics to the countercharge of not seeing the wood for the trees. The most cogent objections, in my opinion, apply to the list as a whole and seem to have been missed by these recent critics.
Read the rest of this entry »

Denying, Dismissing, Minimising, and Ignoring the Harm to Men

Posted in Alas a Blog, Feminist Issues, Male Disposability, Reposts at 10:28 am by Daran

(Originally posted at Creative Destruction.)

Me (in the context of the war in Iraq):

[F]eminists typically do view the harm solely in terms of its impact upon women, while denying, minimising, and ignoring the harm to men.

I should also have said “dismissing“. I should clarify that by “feminism”, I mean mainstream feminism, as exemplified by the bloggers and typical commenters at Alas. I also mean radical feminism, as exemplified by the bloggers and typical commenters at the Margins. I do not mean to include such individuals as Christine Hof-Sommers, Wendy McElroy, and Cathy Young. I think that’s a fair exclusion, because mainsteam feminism itself appears to reject these people, and their ilk.
Read the rest of this entry »

23 December, 2006

Throwing Rocks at Boys, and Pushing Girls through Windows

Posted in Abyss2hope, Alas a Blog, Antifeminist and MRA Issues, Crossposts, Feminist Issues, Marcella Chester at 7:15 am by Daran

The latest flare up in the gender wars concerns a pair of T-shirts, which, so their respective critics complain, justify and encourage violence against males and against females. In addition, those on the Men’s Rights Activist Side have criticised feminists for failing to condemn the anti-boy shirt, while feminists in turn are questioning the motives of MRAs.
Read the rest of this entry »

22 December, 2006

ms_xeno’s Last Post?

Posted in Abbott and Costello, Alas a Blog, Feminist Issues, Flame Wars, ms_xeno, Survivors and Survival at 2:38 pm by Daran


This will be my final post on Alas. While I wouldn’t go so far as to say that Daran’s behavior is unique on this board, it is pretty sadly representative of all the things on this board that have come to completely outweigh any good it still does my soul.

I’m sorry if you feel you need to leave on my account. It is ironic that the one time I feel you are talking to me rather than at me, you’re probably not going to read my reply.
Read the rest of this entry »

21 December, 2006

An Ironic Derailment

Posted in Alas a Blog, Feminist Issues, Richard Jeffrey Newman, Survivors and Survival, toysoldier at 3:32 pm by Daran


One cannot escape the irony considering that it was implied no feminist would ever derail a thread about male rape. However, rather than focus on this interesting contradiction, it is important to examine what was stated.

It is indeed, however as toysoldier has already done an admirable job “examin[ing] what was stated”, it’s worth spending a little time to “focus on this interesting contradiction”, starting with the link he identified:
Read the rest of this entry »

20 December, 2006

Excluded Survivors’ Thread

Posted in Alas a Blog, Male Disposability, Privilege, Richard Jeffrey Newman, Survivors and Survival, toysoldier at 7:45 am by Daran

(Note that the original text and title (still visible in the URL) of this thread pertained to male survivors only. However, in the discussions both here and at toysoldiers, I have remarked that feminism’s normative construction of abuse excludes some female survivors whose experiences do not fit into that framework. These survivors are doubly-excluded, since they are both exiled from what is purportedly ‘their’ survivor movement, and not admitted to the nascent male survivor network. In addition, transgendered survivors, whose particular difficulties I do not purport to understand, may also feel excluded. Since I advocate a wholly inclusive approach, it was wrong of me to exclude these people, hence this broadening of the focus.)

This thread is for excluded survivors to discuss issues relating to their exclusion, including but not limited to issues arising from Richard Jeffrey Newman’s posts here, here, and here. A parallel discussion, more narrowly focussed on male survivors of sexual abuse is also taking place on Toy Soldiers.
Read the rest of this entry »

13 December, 2006

Excellent Discussion about Patriarchy, Rape Culture, Etc.

Posted in Abbott and Costello, Abyss2hope, Aegis, Alas a Blog, Creative Destruction, False Accusations, Great Comments, Humor, Marcella Chester, NYMOM, Q Grrl, Rape Culture, Richard Jeffrey Newman, Tom Nolan, toysoldier at 5:27 pm by Daran

(I have renamed the post to reflect the discussion in the comments, which are far more interesting than the post itself. The following tags are for the post: Humor, False Accusations, Abbott and Costello, Alas a Blog, Abyss2hope, Creative Destruction, Marcella Chester. All other tags pertain to the Great Comments discusson. Follow the link for an explanation of what this means. The post slug remains the same, so that incoming links are not broken.)
Read the rest of this entry »

7 December, 2006

And another thing…

Posted in Abbott and Costello, Alas a Blog, Feminist Issues, Flame Wars, Humor, ms_xeno, Radfem at 1:28 am by Daran


The feminists at Alas continue to derail their own thread2


2Their ownership of the thread is self-proclaimed.

Here’s where “they” (to be precise, ms_xeno) proclaim it.
Read the rest of this entry »

6 December, 2006

And so it goes on

Posted in Abbott and Costello, Alas a Blog, Feminist Issues, Flame Wars, Free Speech, Jake Squid, ms_xeno, Radfem at 10:49 pm by Daran

The feminists1 at Alas continue to derail their own thread2


Ho hum, another thread that’s all about the men.

Ho hum indeed. Let’s have a look at who’s been taking part in this discussion “all about the men” since she made that comment: ms_xeno, Jake Squid, ms_xeno again, and then who’s this? Golly Gosh! It’s Radfem!! Then come ms_xeno. And Radfem again! ms xeno. Radfem!

Seriously I don’t object to Radfem talking about me, or even about other men (I’m not the jealous type), but it’s a bit rich for her to blame me for her own behaviour.
Read the rest of this entry »

Thread Derailment

Posted in Abbott and Costello, Alas a Blog, Feminist Issues, Flame Wars, Free Speech, Jake Squid, ms_xeno, Radfem at 1:29 am by Daran

For reasons I which will become clear below, I can’t respond to this over at Alas, and there’s no reason to involve Creative Destruction, but I’ve got this underused and unread little personal blog, so here goes…

There’s a thread derailment going on over at Alas. It started with this post by ms_xeno launching an abusive unprovoked attack on a former poster:

I remember what an obnxious twit “jaketik” was when he was here, and yet I don’t recall a single woman poster who said that he could not possibly have been a victim of a sexual attack, that he could have done more to prevent it, he was surely lying, yadda yadda yadda…

Read the rest of this entry »