I'm a "DU Man"...Have I been attacked, or not?

[Ken Burch]

It's sort of hard to keep track.

What, exactly, are we "DU Men" being attacked for(assuming we ARE being attacked)?

[Schema Thing]

1. being too much like Jimmy Carter

[Ken Burch]

87. But I haven't tried to negotiate Middle East peace in weeks now.

And I rarely wear cardigans or use the word "malaise".

(Oh...did you mean something else?)

[arcane1]

2. I'm feeling very un-attacked, personally.

[pipi_k]

33. Hmmm...

You are not trying hard enough

[hfojvt]

37. yeah

well, your a knee-biter.

Merry Christmas, Wowbagger, wherever you are.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

3. My wife once threw a baggie of bean sprouts at me...but that had nothing to do with DU.

[TreasonousBastard]

4. Seems like it's just for being men...

but, superior beings that we are, we can take it.

One edit:

Screw the attacks-- there's cheesecake a couple of posts down

[shraby]

5. I've been here a long time and what I've seen from the DU men, is great support for the women of the

world. They've for the most part stood behind and beside them in their issues they've had with the right to lifers, the legislatures of the various states, the courts and anyplace women have been sidelined.
What's been going on here at DU does not reflect the DU men's attitudes. I think some posters should lighten up and lay off.

[NuclearDem]

6. DU men aren't under attack.

Certain behaviors and attitudes are, and there are people here who see those and "manhood" as inseparable. Therefore, they assume "men" are under attack.

[Orrex]

13. Exactly how do you define "manhood?"

Who gets to determine what "manhood" really is?

[NuclearDem]

15. Not being a sexist rape culture enabler and acknowledging my privilege as a cis straight white male.

Just how I look at it. Doesn't apply to every male of course.

[Orrex]

34. How exactly do you define "manhood" outside of a string of catch-phrases?

Your response raises more questions than it answers.

[NuclearDem]

39. How is that difficult to understand?

It's not a series of buzzwords, it's the foundation and heart of rape culture.

I'm a human being was born male, straight, and cis. I acknowledge that just by virtue of that I am inherently privileged by not having to deal with certain difficulties someone not straight, cis, white, or male has to deal with, and I view the world through that lens.

Part of that means seeing how behaviors and attitudes I was raised to believe we're acceptable may in fact be detrimental to women.

That's manhood.

[Orrex]

45. It's less simple than you seem to think.

"Sexism" is debated here on DU every day.
"Rape culture" is debated here on DU every day.
"Enabler" is a term of such vague definition that it defines nothing in this context.
"Acknowledging" is likewise a vague term in this context that adds little of substance.
"Privilege" is debated here on DU every day.

"Cis" as a concept is entirely valid, but the word doesn't yet appear in Merriam Webster online or in Dictionary.com. Further, if you ask 10,000 people at random, I would guess that fewer than 100 of them would be able to define it for you with the denotation that you intend in this context. It is problematic to use a word of such limited familiarity to define a word that itself much more familiar to the public at large.

Each of those terms describes a broad spectrum and is subject to much discussion, all the moreso when used in combination as you've done here. It is untenable to insist that they are the simple and straightfoward concepts that happen to match your particular definition.

[Major Nikon]

53. To the knight in shining armor it is simple

At least until you find out there's no dragons and distressed damsels.

[NuclearDem]

56. Really, the white knight nonsense?

Why not just take the gloves off and say mangina or gender traitor?

[Major Nikon]

66. Because your definition of "manhood" speaks for itself

Just sayin'

[NuclearDem]

68. So what's yours?

Nevermind, I've got a feeling I already know. Favorite group: Men's.

Next I'll be getting accused of white guilt or something. Substitute any other minority into your rhetoric and tell me you wouldn't see that on Stormfront.

[Major Nikon]

72. I doubt you'd be interested

But I can tell you it would have more to do with what sets men apart from women (which besides the plumbing isn't much really) and not some word salad I thought might impress a feminist.

Just sayin'

[NuclearDem]

73. Ah, right, I'm just doing this to impress the feminist ladies.

Nope, no other reason at all.

Seriously, how do you not see your crap as just the gender equivalent of screaming "race traitor"?

[icymist]

62. I thought CIS meant CompuServe Information Services...

Made me wonder how he was born with it.

[intaglio]

83. Right from the MRA playbook

Ask for definitions then deny they apply or claim it is more complicated.

Basically people want creeps to behave like responsible adults and not spoilt 6 year olds told they cannot act any way they want.

[Orrex]

86. Ah, so now I'm an MRA. Whatever.

Asking for a definition doesn't mean mindless acceptance of any answer you get.

FWIW, your answer is better because it's concrete and straightforward and doesn't hang on a bunch of hotly contested buzzwords.

It's also a quite reasonable suggestion, on par with asking that people not play the persecuted victim whenever someone doesn't give in to their demands, much like a spoiled six year old will do.

I'm as much an MRA as you are a Dworkinite, so maybe we can dispense with the clumsy attempts at insult.

[intaglio]

105. No you were not called an MRA

you were accused of using a tactic from their playbook.

[Scootaloo]

90. Those things are debated on DU like evolution is "debated" in Texas textbooks

[Half-Century Man]

44. My father gave me a poem at my Bar Mitzvah many moons ago (492 to be exact).

It gave me a target to strive for. It might be a little outdated and Victorian, but I think it still has value.

"IF" By Kipling

If you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you,
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,
But make allowance for their doubting too;
If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,
Or being lied about, don't deal in lies,
Or being hated, don't give way to hating,
And yet don't look too good, nor talk too wise:

If you can dream - and not make dreams your master,
If you can think - and not make thoughts your aim;
If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster
And treat those two impostors just the same;
If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,
Or watch the things you gave your life to, broken,
And stoop and build 'em up with worn-out tools:

If you can make one heap of all your winnings
And risk it all on one turn of pitch-and-toss,
And lose, and start again at your beginnings
And never breathe a word about your loss;
If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew
To serve your turn long after they are gone,
And so hold on when there is nothing in you
Except the Will which says to them: "Hold on!"

If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue,
Or walk with kings - nor lose the common touch,
If neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you,
If all men count with you, but none too much;
If you can fill the unforgiving minute
With sixty seconds' worth of distance run,
Yours is the Earth and everything that's in it,
And - which is more - you'll be a Man, my son!

Rudyard Kipling (1865-1936)

[madinmaryland]

22. This way...

Donald Rumsfeld is giving the president his daily briefing. He concludes by saying: "Yesterday, 3 Brazilian soldiers were killed."

"OH NO!" the President exclaims. "That's terrible!"

His staff sits stunned at this display of emotion, nervously watching as the President sits, head in hands.

Finally, the President looks up and asks, "How many is a brazillion?"

Errr --> Actually that is the opposite definition.

[hfojvt]

32. Mick Jagger does.

It is defined as those who smoke the same cigarette as he does.

So get off of his cloud.

[Eleanors38]

113. "Satisfaction" has been described as a major consciousness-raising song...

appealing to many middleclass people who questioned market-driven conformity and rewards, but had no political articulation about social matters.

[hfojvt]

31. how exactly does a "male gaze" NOT apply to ALL men?

Imagine these titles

"German PSA takes on the female hysteria"
"Brazilian PSA takes on the female innumeracy"
"Australian PSA takes on female superficiality"
"Azerbaijan PSA takes on female drivers"

I am sure that all women would completely understand that those headlines are NOT talking about "women" that they are just talking about certain behaviors and attitudes.

You simply cannot write something like "this is how men are bad" and not have it apply to all men.

Is it really THAT hard to insert a qualifier like "some" or even "many"?(which still allows me, the dear reader, to fool himself into thinking he is one of the few, and the proud).

[NuclearDem]

36. Well if you understand male gaze doesn't apply to all men

And the feminists who posted it know it doesn't apply to all men, then where's the big deal?

Male gaze is a behavior associated with men because of millennia of patriarchal societies and treating women as men's property and as objects to be enjoyed by heterosexual men. Of course it doesn't apply to every man, but it's institutional and culturally ingrained that most people accept it without a second thought.

No one here is under the impression that all men are guilty of this or are malevolent in their behavior. This is just raising awareness of something that happens and pointing out how it contributes to objectifying and repressing not just women but anyone who doesn't meet the standards of "manliness." That's it.

[hfojvt]

46. all I have to do then

is to understand that words don't mean what they clearly mean.

All men are male
Socrates is a man
ergo, Socrates is male.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

88. And here I thought it was looking too long AKA staring.

That seems a simpler and more easily understood definition.

[NuclearDem]

100. Staring and ogling are a byproduct of that

The media and culture program people to treat women like objects to be enjoyed by men, and then that attitude turns into staring and ogling in the real world, because the woman in the movie/ad was portrayed as liking or inviting the behavior.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

101. Or more than likely it's biological

In spite of all that feminism has claimed when it comes to sex men are usually still the initiators. Do you agree or not?

[NuclearDem]

102. Less biological and more societal and cultural.

Evo-psych does get used to justify male sexual aggressiveness, but men are more programmed by society than biology to be the initiators.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

107. Are you a man?

If not quit trying to speak for us.

On reading further I see you are. However I reject the societal programming bullshit. I think it's more of how one is brought up. What did your parents teach you? Are you taught to respect people or thump your chest and bully people to get your way?

[NuclearDem]

108. Parents, friends, TV, school, how is that all not societal programming?

It's still nurture, not nature. Parents and family are hardly the only influence on someone's upbringing.

[geek tragedy]

41. Same way an Italian can cook Chinese food. nt

[Egalitarian Thug]

7. There's a small group of men that have been emboldened by the relaxed standards in GD.

They've come out of their He-man-women-haters clubhouse and gone on a spamfest to incite and enrage.

[Comrade Grumpy]

18. And there's an increasingly large group of people sick of the constant shit-slinging.

You know, stuff like "he-man-woman-haters." I wonder how long my post would stand if I referred to the ultra-feminists as "man haters."

And speaking of "spamfests to incite and enrage," look in the mirror. That's exactly the kind of language you're using.

[geek tragedy]

20. feminists get accused of being man-haters all the time here, and juries vote to 'keep' in virtually

every instance. Some jurors even chime in with the 'man hating' commentary.

It's pretty much open season here on women who say stuff that make men uncomfortable. In other words, just like the rest of the Internet where insecure men feel a need to mark their territory.

[Orrex]

48. So, are internet discussions full of insecure women who are likewise "marking their territory?"

Or do women, by definition, discuss these issues while uncomfortable men piss on everything?

How do you respond when a woman's argument is dismissed as "PMS-ing" or the like?



Why do you embrace the sexist term "marking their territory?" Why the obvious double standard?

[geek tragedy]

51. Quite frankly, I am not qualified to assess the motives of women in their

dealings with men beyond what they tell me.

As a general rule, men who profess to know what and why women are thinking re: their dealings with men are the least reliable sources for such analysis. I have about a 60% understanding of my own wife, beyond her nothing.

The "man-hater" slur thrown by men against women is not something that well-adjusted, pro-equality men use. It's a tired cliche that's of the same stock as "Feminazi." It tags the user.

Animals of both sexes mark their territory. Not sure where you're seeing the misandry there.

[Orrex]

57. Murkier and murkier

As a general rule, men who profess to know what and why women are thinking re: their dealings with men are the least reliable sources for such analysis.

That's fine, but DU positively abounds with posts telling men how they think about certain subjects, why they act certain ways. Such speculation is inferential at best, whether it's done by men or women. Do you agree?

The "man-hater" slur thrown by men against women is not something that well-adjusted, pro-equality men use. It's a tired cliche that's of the same stock as "Feminazi." It tags the user.

Presumably, then, a woman who uses a term like "he man woman-hater's club" is equally poorly adjusted and anti-equality. Do you agree?

[div class="exerpt"]Animals of both sexes mark their territory. Not sure where you're seeing the misandry there. Didn't call it misandry. I called it sexist, which is not the same. See? The definitions aren't as clear-cut as you tried to pretend upthread. Further, I have never once heard the term applied to a woman except ironically, and I have never heard the term applied to a man except pejoratively. YMMV.

[geek tragedy]

63. I do not view things while pretending that male privilege does not exist.

If women raped/murdered/battered/harassed men at the same rate it goes in the other direction, if women got paid more, if men were viewed as an extension of women and incomplete without women, then sure one could play this game.

Online harassment of women by men is a real thing, documented over and over and over again; the reverse is not.

And no stating that men who are explicitly anti-feminist (they sneer at 'rape culture' and 'male privilege' and deny that the patriarchy exists) and who only care to discuss gender issues insofar as they can try to undermine women's attempts to be heard--no they do not get to play victim when they get called out for being 'he man woman haters" any more than the Duck Dynasty crowd does not get to complain about intolerance from "the homosexual activists."

[Orrex]

69. I notice that you didn't address any of my points.

Care to try again, or are we done here?

[geek tragedy]

71. I did but the point apparently did not get through.

Men who try to exploit their priviliege by trying to harass women into silence--men with a clear record of misogyny and hostility towards feminism, who tell women who don't like being harassed to wear a fucking burka--are fucking he man woman haters. That's what they are. They're hostile to true equality. They fucking lift their talking points from the goddamn Taliban!



Women who complain about the problem of male privilege are not hating on men, they're hating on the system.

So, your equivalence was false on a number of levels.

[Orrex]

74. Well, that's one way to spin it.

Men who try to exploit their priviliege by trying to harass women into silence--men with a clear record of misogyny and hostility towards feminism, who tell women who don't like being harassed to wear a fucking burka--are fucking he man woman haters. That's what they are. They're hostile to true equality. They fucking lift their talking points from the goddamn Taliban!

Feel better? That still doesn't address my points, but you're welcome to your catharsis.

Women who complain about the problem of male privilege are not hating on men, they're hating on the system.

So, your equivalence was false on a number of levels.

Well, no. I'm not discussing women who stuggle against male privilege, so your response is irrelevant on a number of levels.


Look, I don't profess to know how women think, but I've read enough of your material to predict with reasonable confidence how you'll reply to pretty much anything on this subject. I'm done here, but feel free to continue if you wish.

[smirkymonkey]

120. Thank you. I don't know how much clearer you could have stated that very simple concept

but for some reason a number of people here seem to have a very difficult time wrapping thier tiny little minds aroud it.

[Silent3]

60. Isn't it possible that sometimes men aren't "uncomfortable", but simply don't agree...

...and casting their disagreements as them being "made uncomfortable" is simply a convenient device for dismissing whatever they have to say?

And even if some men are truly made to feel uncomfortable, does it follow that all male discomfort is discomfort that has been earned, is deserved, and/or is necessary to advance the equality of women?

[geek tragedy]

67. This dynamic plays out where there is a privileged group--

some white people of all ideological stripes get angry--ANGRY--when black people say stuff about race that makes them uncomfortable.

and some men do get their noses bent out of joint when women say stuff about gender relations that they don't want to hear.

It's really easy to play the enlightened role for a member of a privileged class when the non-privileged agree with them,

But, when black people disagree with white people on race, women disagree with men on gender, etc, then the privileged often get very defensive and play the victim. "They're playing the race card" etc etc.

Sure there is honest disagreement. But there's also quite a few men on this site who simply don't want to listen to anything women have to say if there's a disagreement. They hide behind juvenile insults, etc.

I mean, there was a PSA from India regarding men harassing women by ogling and undressing them with their eyes. Seemingly unremarkable stuff.

But, a certain group of men responded by saying that women who don't want to be treated that way should wear a burka, etc.

And then we hear that women are the problem at DU.

[Silent3]

75. I haven't seen that PSA yet myself, so my comments are more generic.

Yes, there are annoying things that "privileged groups" say, fail to see, don't respond well to, etc.

On the other hand, it also becomes way, way too easy sometimes for someone speaking on behalf of a non-privileged group to dismiss any and all disagreement with what they have to say as a problem of privilege.

Sometimes a privileged person can be right, and a non-privileged person can be wrong. Pretty obviously true, yes?

But when it comes down to a specific issue that someone is passionate about, if they can apply the "privilege" filter in their favor, if they can posit privilege as the reason someone else won't fully accept what they're saying, they'll quickly settle on that, "knowing" there's no real reason to bother listening to what some privileged asshole is yammering on about.

[geek tragedy]

77. well, sure, just because a woman and a man disagree doesn't make

the woman automatically right (insert marriage joke here) and just because a black person says 'that's racist' doesn't mean something is.

To me, the most important thing that privileged group members can do is not what they say, but actually and actively listening.

"Do I do that?" is something I as a white man ask myself when questions of privilege come up.

[Silent3]

79. While "actually and actively listening" is of course good, that doesn't mean...

...there's no room for also stating disagreements.

This comment of yours does get at what I think is often a problem, however. The fact that someone even bothers to voice a disagreement, regardless of whether their disagreement has merit or not, is taken as the opposite of "actually and actively listening", and therefore IS NOT WELCOME.

In other words, "I don't care what objections you have, what clarifications you might want to make, what defense you might have to offer, because you aren't at this moment being actively supportive of the non-privileged group, you're being a privileged asshole for bothering to think your objections are important enough to even mention. Thinking your objections are important enough to mention just shows your contemptible privileged attitude!"

[geek tragedy]

81. How that disagreement is expressed matters.

You seem intent on driving home the point that men are the victims of women trying to bully them here, that these women just play the 'gender card' no matter how amazingly thoughtful and thorough and respectful a man is in explaining his position. I must say I am not sympathetic to that viewpoint.

[Silent3]

84. I made no comments about anyone being "victims" of anything.

I suppose if you want to get technical about the definition of the word "victim", such that a person who experiences any sort of even mild unpleasantness is a "victim" of that unpleasantness -- such as having one's comments treated dismissively, turned into straw men, etc. -- then perhaps the word applies. But I wouldn't trivialize the word "victim" that way myself.

It is perhaps telling, however, that you lean toward viewing all of this through the lens of competing claims of victimization. I have no desire whatsoever to complete in the Victim Olympics.

...that these women just play the 'gender card' no matter how amazingly thoughtful and thorough and respectful a man is in explaining his position. I must say I am not sympathetic to that viewpoint.

1) The "gender card", and pre-filtering practically everything through competing impressions of "privilege" is not exactly the same thing.

2) In some cases, it's simply not possible to be "thoughtful" or "respectful" enough for some people, who view with contempt that you're even bothering to speak up for your supposedly privileged ass.

[geek tragedy]

85. We're done here. Your grievance is women who use claims of privilege as a means

of silencing men. When I see this as an observable phenomenon, I'll be more than happy to discuss it.

You've been droning on this topic for years now.

http://sync.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8548006&mesg_id=8556646

OK, I guess I can't resist stirring up a little trouble...
...in a thread where everyone is congratulating everyone else posting here, and decrying unnamed others not making a peep in the thread, unnamed others who keep DU from being absolute feminist heaven.

In pursuit of the laudable goal of gender equality and support for women's issues, I do think some people on DU occasionally err on the male-bashing side of things. Yes, there is a real thing called male bashing.

Just saying that, however, I can already hear the angry retorts that I would even dare mention such a thing. There seems to be a distorted logic that just because men typically have it better than women in our society (and they do, overall) that this means men should just shut the fuck up about anything anti-male, as if men are obligated to quietly endure any anti-male issue until such a time ever comes when all men could claim an overall state of oppression.

Post a news story where a woman uses physical violence against a man, and there will be a lot of "You go girl!" cheering for the woman "standing up" to the man, almost without regard to the specific details of the story. Cutting off male genitalia is always good for a laugh, for instance.

One woman assaulting one man is one woman standing up for all women.

Post a news story where a man uses physical violence against a woman, and not only is the reaction that this is the most heinous thing possible (perhaps short of child abuse), but no matter how specific the reasons for the one man in the hypothetical news story leading to the attack of one specific woman, the story will be interpreted by many DUers as men, in general, repressing all women, in general. The idea that the man could possibly have been justified, or at least understandably pushed over the edge when he ideally should have been more controlled, would hardly ever be considered, no matter the details of the story.

One man assaulting one woman is all men assaulting all women.

I remember one specific DUer (finally tombstoned after quite a while) for whom practically every issue in the world was a matter of power and dominance. Agree with her, and you were her wondeful, enlightened friend. Disagree, and you were The Oppressor, almost certainly a white male Oppressor, and her attitude and language toward you became immediately venomous. I haven't seen too many as bad as her in a while, but shades of that attitude do occur with other people who post here.

Same m.o after all these years, play lip service to inequality and then spend paragraphs talking about the real problem--man-bashing feminists who use privilege as a rhetorical weapon against men, complete with mocking feminist rhetoric etc.

To the point, horror of horrors, that women aren't as sympathetic to men who commit domestic violence against women as you would prefer--see bolded language.

Last word is yours. Due credit for your stealth MRAism.

[Silent3]

97. Thank you for perfectly exemplifying the quick-categorize-then-dismiss style of argumentation.

But first, to get this out of the way, you say:

Your grievance is women who use claims of privilege as a means of silencing men.

You haven't even identified my "grievance" (your term) correctly. My argument here is more of an observation with a bit of distaste for a stupid and obnoxious style of argumentation, something which hardly amounts to a "grievance". Nor have I noted much "silencing", but a cause for lots of loud back-and-forth bickering, that results in people shouting past each other instead of talking to each other.

As for the rest of the post, you simply cited an old post of mine (which I'd still stand by), but you never voice any particular objection to anything particular that I said. Just that I've said it is apparently more than enough to have me categorized and ready for quick dismissal. And so much for any thoughtfulness being rewarded -- that's easily and quickly dismissed as "play(ing) lip service to inequality".

Then you create a straw man version of what I've said (in your mind, it's not a straw man, of course, you're just oh-so-cleverly deducing what I must really mean), about what I must think is a "horror of horrors". Oh, yes, you've got me pegged! You know where I'm coming from, I can't fool you! You've seen straight through to my "stealth MRAism"!

[beevul]

104. Only as much as the way what they're disagreeing with is expressed.

That cuts both ways.

[Eleanors38]

114. "IS NOT WELCOME" sums up the problems I have with discussing feminism & male I.D. Issues. nt

[Egalitarian Thug]

29. The minute you've walked a mile in 4-inch spiked heels through a daily gauntlet of

open assault knowing you have no option but to take it until you can get away, I might give your whining some credence.

Your post seems to be just fine labeling women as ultra-feminists, which you clearly intend as derogatory, so even that weak argument is invalid.

If you want to disassociate yourself from the men we all know and from what they're doing, you could do so by refusing to propel their bullshit. Until then, you'll just have to endure the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune.

[DragonBorn]

47. Hyperbole much?

The minute you've walked a mile in 4-inch spiked heels through a daily gauntlet of open assault knowing you have no option but to take it until you can get away, I might give your whining some credence.

I think this is one of the major problems DU has been going through the past few weeks (months?). Everyone wants to speak in hyperbole.

The men here are thinking the leering thread means you can't look at a women in a low cut blouse. I'm pretty sure the women are just trying to say dont stare at my breasts.

I've seen both sides do it. Men taking offense a post that was benign and women posting way that makes it seem as if they are accusing the entire male population of being creeps.

Then there have been the whining thread wars.

The "If only a handful of feminists are responsible for all that ails DU", "At the risk of annoying a lot of DU females", "I admit it..... I fantasize (a lot) about women....." , If you want to look at women with lust in your hearts, learn from cats ", "In light of the threads about "creep-shaming" and socially awkward men, plus related insecurities..."


All of that crap is from the front page on the General Discussion. All of that shit is flame bait and people being trolls. Its coming from both sides, neither has their hands clean.

[Egalitarian Thug]

70. You seem to be operating under the assumption that since everyone has an opinion,

all opinions are equal. Do you debate whether or not a black person has really experienced racism, when she tells you she has? Does a wealthy white southerners' opinion on the state of race relations in the south carry the same weight as a black southerners'?

Women have told me that it is reality my whole life and I've seen it every day, how on earth can my personal belief that "I'm not like that" trump the overwhelming reality that someone else tells me exists? Why would she lie?

[lumberjack_jeff]

49. You have my permission to wear different shoes.

"Daily assault"? I thought this shitstorm was about the male gaze? In my understanding of the word "assault" eyes are not capable of it.

[NoOneMan]

59. Best response yet

[grahamhgreen]

52. Why would you wear those shoes?

[SMC22307]

103. My only option is to take it until I can get away?

Fuck that -- I'm way too confrontational. Me in my sensible shoes.

[lame54]

8. This...

[Comrade Grumpy]

11. What are these guys' DU user names?

[Whisp]

17. I know who the ugly one is.

[Iggo]

9. I know I ain't being attacked.

It's more of a smell't-it-dealt-it situation.

[SOteric]

10. I don't have the energy to attack any dudes.

...Not even in a good way.

[hfojvt]

12. some apparently think we are not men

we are Devo.

[WinkyDink]

112. You didn't let me down!

[hfojvt]

116. anytime Bruce

Is it alright if I call you Bruce?

Who the EFF is Bruce anyway?

Some dude's sled, or what?

But dang it, the song is "bring me down" not "let me down"

Although I strongly suspect that your reply is meant to "put me down".

[WinkyDink]

117. Hee! I'm more Patti than Bruce! And NO, it was not a put-down~!

[hfojvt]

118. but everyone is called Bruce

just to avoid confusion

[demmiblue]

14. No, but we can get Skittles on the case if need be!

[Skittles]

106. I hate whiners

seriously, I do

[whatchamacallit]

16. Can't get too worked up

Maybe my experience of (mostly) good relations with women has inoculated me from feeling grief'd.

[geek tragedy]

19. From what I know of you, you have not been attacked or even mildly criticized by

women over the past few days.

There are men, though, who have suggested that men such you and myself have low testosterone and elevated estrogen levels. Yes, they actually played the 'girly man' card.

[Scootaloo]

21. Have we been accused of "white knighting" on DU yet?

I was pretty out of it last night so I may have missed it, if so

[geek tragedy]

24. Oh, I'm sure in PMs I get called that and worse.

The MRAs have their own terms for those they consider apostates.

[NuclearDem]

80. Sure have.

[The Straight Story]

23. I dunno, maybe someone is staring at you. But generally, men are unable to be attacked.

We have privilege so we can't be abused, sexually an object, etc.

To be safe though, here is a handy list:

1. Don't open a door for a woman, even if you do so for men. She might not know you have done so and think you are treating her different and therefore see you as sexist (unless, like me, you keep a photo journal of all the men you have held open a door for and show her that and explain, and apologize, before opening said door).

2. Don't compliment a woman on how she looks or dresses. Women only wear things for themselves, not to be noticed by others. If you pay attention to one, look at them with more than a glance, compliment them on it - you are probably subjecting them to harassment.

3. Don't view porn. Ever. No woman wants to make porn. Nor do they enjoy it. If you find you must sneak about and watch some make sure it is missionary position only and don't stare at the woman in it.

4. Don't help change a tire. It is the oldest pickup attempt in the book. Any man helping is wanting 'payment' from said woman in some fashion or other. It is degrading to render aid (unless it is your job, like being a tow truck operator - notice though, most of those are men who get into said job in hopes of finding women in need to take advantage of).

5. Know which causes to talk about. Don't mention femen, they protest without shirts. Whatever cause they are for, be against.

There are many more, bottom line is a woman does not know your history or intentions and will assume they are for one purpose and one purpose only - you want sex. Men only ever want sex. Period. No sudden movements, stares, or speech (unless you are spoken to first, then you should inquire as to what they want to hear as a reply and use that to reply).

It's simple really

[NuclearDem]

25. Jesus, not this crap again.

[geek tragedy]

28. The League of Men Oppressed by Imaginary Feminists., nt

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

89. Agreed

[geek tragedy]

26. I am going to bet you can't produce a single post from a DU feminist advising men:

Don't open a door for a woman, even if you do so for men

or

Don't help change a tire

[Glassunion]

35. It's the it happened once, therefore it must happen all the time theory.

Personally I had been admonished once for holding a door, and another time for complimenting an outfit. This does not mean that women are the problem. It means I had met two assholes. It's no different to me, than some asshole guy telling me to piss off for any other reason.

This one to me, seems to project this onto all women.

[hfojvt]

38. here's another handy list of don'ts

[lumberjack_jeff]

42. stop mansplaining

[seattledo]

43. Sounds like something Faux Knews would publish...

as real news. The Onion confuses them all of the time.

But, amusingly this part is correct:

"Any man helping is wanting 'payment' from said woman in some fashion or other."

I never say yes to help from a male any longer after more than a dozen horrible experiences in a row.

[Iggo]

61. You're right about one thing.

It is simple.

[Squinch]

78. Hey, TSS! LOOK! A beaten dead horse is holding a door open for you!

Just breathe. Take it one step at a time. You'll be fine.

[NuclearDem]

82. It's dead? Damn, it just helped me change a tire too.

[Squinch]

98. That can get smelly.

[MrScorpio]

109. That's a really bad list

Just saying

[rrneck]

27. DU is all words.

Just words. If I want I can walk away at any moment with no harm done. The worst that can happen to me is that someone will say something mean to me or I will have some illusions shattered and learn something.

It's just not that big a deal.

[hughee99]

30. You didn't miss anything...

A point is made... Generalizations and accusations are added, labels are thrown out and people complain that the DU is a place where the "other side" has an unfair advantage. The occasional person steps in and attempts to play peacemaker and one or BOTH sides call them out for either "changing the subject" or being on the wrong side of the issue. Tempers flair, and shit stirrers come out of the woodwork on both sides. Everyone wants to "have a discussion" (provided that discussion has no dissenters). People who didn't originally have an issue get sucked in and new threads are created when the old threads become unmanageable.

The usual stuff. Like I said, you missed nothing.

As for being attacked, though, if you're willing to look hard enough, you're ALWAYS being attacked by someone on the DU, regardless of your race, gender, orientation, beliefs, job, income level or political views.

[lumberjack_jeff]

40. Apparently if you're not a creep, they aren't all simultaneously talking at *you*.

They have some other DU'er in mind.

Besides, "creep" isn't a gendered insult like shrew or harpy; those are insults that can't be explained away as in "if you're not a harpy, you shouldn't be so defensive and whiny".

Does that help?



Here's the thing. If you've given anyone the power to significantly affect your life by saying something stupid on an online message board (or by even looking at you wrong, ffs) then life is going to suck.

[Tien1985]

65. Creep isn't a gendered word

Some women do act creepy and its pretty disconcerting no matter who does it.

Not being creepy is pretty easy to do.

[Lost_Count]

50. Depends if you observed women fox an undetermined amount of time...

[valerief]

54. I love these threads. I know right off who to put on Ignore. nt

[grahamhgreen]

55. I really don't understand. I thought women dressed sexy in order to get us to look at them.

At least it was true for many of my lovers

[NoOneMan]

58. Recently, all men have been characterized as raging if a women chooses not to sleep with them

Not some men. Not 1 man. All men. Its how all men think apparently. And no, this isn't a straw man.

If you have been paying attention to threads regarding feminists issues, you would feel attacked simply due to the gross unqualified generalizations and hate expressed in them. And apparently, the best way to be attacked is to simply challenge such sexist prejudice.

For some reason, there are some people who cannot post an issue about feminism without simultaneously insulting an entire gender. I am absolutely concerned about such feminist issues, but I cannot let the sexism go unchecked first. This is not how to start civil discussion or reach consensus.

[klook]

64. My hair is a bird.

Your argument is invalid.



I hope there's not a limit on the number of threads a DU member can trash, because if so I must be getting close.

[Squinch]

76. You didn't notice us outside your kitchen window with the pitchforks?

DID WE GO TO THE WRONG HOUSE???????

Do me a favor, and step outside the front door, or flicker the lights or something, would you?

[sabrina 1]

92. I think it's because there are criminals in the world, as we know. Some of them

single out women in particular, they abuse them, which is a crime. You are a man, some men are criminals .... that seems to the gist of what I am being told.

Eg, when I stated that as a woman I can handle idiotic behavior, I was told about pedophiles and children, not once, but twice so far.

What pedophiles have to do with the average law-abiding man is beyond me, but when you point that out you get attacked, whether you are a man or just woman who prefers to separate crime from normal human behavior.

[seabeyond]

93. your post is totally off point creating something that is not. but, that is a norm.

please do not give me this as my argument. you could not be more off base in reiterating what the issue is.

[sabrina 1]

95. Please do not tell me what I experienced right here on DU. Two people told me that

the reason why women, I hope they meant SOME women, do not want men to look at them is because of the way men have abused little girls. We were talking about grown women I thought. And I am aware of some women who have been traumatized as children by CRIMINALS.

To even bring that into a conversation about what is essentially normal, if sometimes irritating behavorior, demonstrates why this whole thing is basically ignored by most rational people.

If you want to talk about criminals, then do so. But do not equate normal human behavior even by remote suggestion, to criminal behavior or imply that woman are born victims who cannot handle some occasional idiot who gets a little out of line. WE CAN and DO.

[seabeyond]

96. whatever sabrina. i did not even make it past your title. nt

[Boudica the Lyoness]

99. I found your posts a refreshing and sensible change

from the utter rubbish that has been posted here by others.

[pacalo]

119. +1! Sabrina's one of the best.

[BainsBane]

94. I feel quite certain I haven't attacked you

Can't speak for anyone else. I'm glad to see you haven't taken it that way.

[Aerows]

110. Can we start moving these posts into the Gender and Orientation groups?

Why do we need to have 80 threads like this in GD when we can have it in Gender, etc. or the Lounge? This is getting ridiculous.

[Eleanors38]

115. Jeez. And I thought it was just guns & the Mid East.

[WinkyDink]

111. Depends. Do you WANT to be attacked, wink, wink, nudge, nudge?