-Tibetan Buddhist Gendun Chopek

You talk at great volume here about intent — intent isn’t magical. If you aren’t willing to face the fact that there is NEVER anything innocent about hatred of women, whether it reaches out and slaps you in the face, or it takes a while to sink in and register with you with the feeling of OUTRAGE I feel every day for how I am treated (and have been) for the simple condition of being born with two X-chromosomes, you are not an ally, and you do not deserve to call yourself one.

Not every ally needs to be radical, but every one needs to stop making and accepting excuses for hatred of women and racialized people. Full stop.

Please read:
http://haifischgeweint.wordpress.com/2012/05/22/whites-who-oppose-racism-heres-how-to-stop-doing-it-wrong/

Pay special attention to the part about a racially privileged person who has hurt feelings because a racially oppressed person yelled at them for being privileged. If you are that privileged person, you just need to grow a backbone and get over your momentary discomfort — and realize that the person who is yelling at you has been THAT UNCOMFORTABLE by matter of FORCE for the entire duration of their lives. Oppression isn’t history — it’s still very much ongoing, and it’s because of people like whiteys who defend their hurt feelings on the principle of “well now people of colour are so privileged!”

You state:

“If you want to take part in working against misogyny, you just need to get used to being made uncomfortable.”

and

“While I can completely empathize with any guy who is actively trying to wrap his head around misogyny in the abstract sense”

And I agree with those who want to “actively” work against misogyny. I would count myself among them and try (though sadly do fail at times) not to be ‘man-centric’ and if you have read my writings you would see I am a tireless promoter of equality in all context. That said, we are not talking about ME or those who wish to actively change society…I was addressing the problem of THEM and THOSE.

By those, I am referring to the real pure breed; who think it their cosmic right to be dominating…Misogynist with at capital “M”. F$#K them, we waste our time trying to change someone who does not want to change….we have every right to be as aggressive towards them and their actions as is possible.

The other kind, small “m” misogynist do not get a pass. I think I stated many times that ‘innocent’ misogynist don’t get a pass either on their behaviour. As you state, the act is vile. What I was discussing was the need to understand where the ‘actor’ of such behaviour is coming from. I should also point out that I do not think this is a ‘women’s’ issue in that it falls solely upon their backs to correct male behaviour. As you point out the onus is on us all…and I think more so on men although, again as you state, we are less equipped to do so (i.e. not experiencing life as a woman).

You point out my analogy to racism and think I said it was different than sexism. It is not. My point was that it took several generations to eliminate (?) racism…and that a significant part of the battle was not removing from people’s minds ‘hard’ racism but the innocent racism as expressed in jokes. Those who said those jokes did not mean to be raciest…they were, but innocently. To vilify THEM would not have helped the cause…to explain and educate them that the joke should be vilified…that is where progress is made.

We can call upon the evidence of history. This is not the first equality movements. In the past vilifying all ‘offenders’ equally has proven counterproductive; conversely being tolerant of behaviour has also proven unhelpful. There is a balance between vilifying the behavior while educating the innocent offender.

In the same way, I think the skeptic community needs to understand where a large number of these people are coming from. To tie in the ‘affirmative action’ comment, which is important, to the context for many people the status quo is okay…comfortable…they might say “I don’t discriminate…why should we change the way things have always been done, I like the club the way it was” or something. Being pragmatic (and perhaps in this context men are better suited to have this conversation with other men) saying “That’s just wrong and it’s always been wrong, isn’t that obvious?” will cause people to be defensive and resistant to change. People then start not discussing the problem but feeling personally attacked (on all sides but not to an equal degree, it is still an unequal culture) and striking back…often inappropriately. I would like to believe that many of the vile hateful things said to the leaders of the gender equality movement were like ‘little kids lashing out’ at what is perceived to be a personal attack on them and their way of life. This does not excuse their behaviour. As I have reiterated many times, the acts are not acceptable.

The pragmatism I was expressing was to reach THEM, we need to understand that when they say such statements it is out of innocence and that effort needs to be taken to education them. Some will be easy, others more traditional and set in their ways (“I don’t mean it as insulting, it’s only a joke”) will take more time and effort. It may well be generations before it is a minor problem…the USA elected an African-American president and yet racism is still alive and well there.
The skepticism I was expressing is that we should take a scientific approach to identify what needs to be changed in the specific (saying we just need to get people to be more respectful is good but ‘un-actionable’). The debate about ‘women’s safety’ at TAM is a good example where people are talking past each other and missing the opportunity to set down an action plan to identify the specific issues and create a plan of specifics to at best deal with issues.

I am not proposing a solution or even a plan for a solution. I simply intended to ask the skeptic community to use the tool kit we so easily apply to other issues and apply it to this one. We could come up with a 1000 rules but still miss the underlying issues. I think, believing most people, and skeptics more so, are rational and desire equality, there is a deeper issue that needs to be addressed. Maybe it’s the great society we are embedded in and we need to find ways to inoculate our groups…maybe it’s…well that is what the scientific method is intended to uncover.

Don’t mistake my calls for patience to mean “be quiet and wait”. Justice and equality should never have to wait; patience is easy for those on the high ground. I mentioned that a ‘full spectrum assault’ is required. You need the ‘soft-sells’, the hard sells. You even need the radical, loud and ‘condescending’ people to push the boundaries forwards…in their wake is room for the rest of us to move to the right place. They will eventually go too far but will be pulled back as people stop filling in the space they created…the vacuum of consensus restores all boundaries

There are two points I would like to respond to.

First, and I think this minor in one way but indicative of the struggle ahead. You commented that

“Don’t ever use the term “reverse discrimination” again unless you are willing to actually treat the subject matter with some sort of analysis that demonstrates that you are aware that this is a myth perpetuated by the privileged in order to retain their social position.”

I think you may have misunderstood me. I acknowledge that affirmative action is a good and necessary thing. Perhaps you would prefer I use the term “reversing discrimination”? Now traditionally the dominate group (however defined) have enjoined (/enjoys) both direct and indirect advantage. To keep it simple and brief let’s use a university point system for entry. In that past the dominate group would get more points because they came from the ‘right’ school and were the ‘right kinda fella’. The dominated group faced discrimination because they could not take advantage of this ‘point’ system because of socio-economic conditions. The take-way so far, is one group received “a benefit that gave them an advantage over the other.

‘Reverse discrimination’ is an appropriate term (in historical context) because now the dominate group cannot take advantage of benefits (points for being a minority) given to the dominated group. I agree this is a good thing. This advantage is necessary to counter-act the systemic/institutional/cultural/historical advantages the dominate group gains innately. So, in the bigger context it is not discrimination but equalization. HOWEVER, to the individual who does not get into university not because of his ability but because of his social group…to that person it feels like discrimination. To the individual, the larger context is harder to see.

Again, if you understood my position, I was not saying that we should stop it…nor even see it as discrimination but to that individual it is seen as such, that is your starting point. You must accept they see it that way, once you accept how they feel…then you can begin the education process. Help them understand that they have been benefiting for institutional advantages for generations…that what looks like to them NOW is not discrimination but equalization.

So, I may use that term as I choose provided the context is appropriate, there we may disagree. I was not making the case that ‘reverse discrimination’ was equivalent to “ discrimination”, just that understanding how people feel is important if you are going to get them to change.

There is nothing innocent about sexism, misogyny, racism, etc. And That’s not vilifying people. It’s vilifying their oppressive ideas. You seem to be able to make that distinction in the case of racism — why not sexism/misogyny as well?

Consider reading this, which I prepared a while ago specifically because I realized how many people I know who are guys who just don’t “get” how to deal with the issue. Resistance to being uncomfortable is PART of that issue.
http://haifischgeweint.wordpress.com/2012/05/16/guys-who-oppose-misogyny-heres-how-to-stop-doing-it-wrong/

Also, please do the entire world a favour, and don’t ever use the term “reverse discrimination” again unless you are willing to actually treat the subject matter with some sort of analysis that demonstrates that you are aware that this is a myth perpetuated by the privileged in order to retain their social position. And intent is never magical.