Tag Archives: feminism

I Don’t Hate You

I have a friend who liked to debate difficult subjects on facebook. Often it led to fiery disputes among his friends in the forum that was his facebook comments.

It is now with mild chagrin that I inform you, that he feels silenced by hate.

“Well I admit defeat. I have tried hard to open debate and discussion about various topics. Granted Facebook might not have been the best platform for it but I found it was a platform in which people would actually respond with their view. I have been utterly overwhelmed with the responses I have received. Some of you have been great and offered different opinions that I could use to enhance my own and I appreciate it greatly. However I am too weak a person to deal with all the daily hate I receive for expressing opinions contrary to current popular belief. Iv’e always loved Socrates and his search for knowledge and truth and I always tried to channel him but I am not as strong a man as he was. I cannot deal with all the social shaming I receive. It makes me go to a place I do not like to go. So anyway I will not be posting anymore opinions on topics. I’ve accepted that as the minority opinion I have to just keep my mouth shut. Ultimately I value friends and social standing over my search for truth and knowledge. I’ve let you down Socky old buddy. Please forgive me.”

Here is my response:

I’m not trying to start an argument here, but your opinions are popular with plenty of people, just not necessarily the people you are Facebook friends with.

Another thing to consider is that certain arguments that you have made have suggested that you‘re on the side of those who your Facebook friends consider “systematic oppressors.” Even if your statements where intended as, “let us debate the merit of this position!” They were often understood to be your personal opinions. Appearing to be an opinionated, white, cisgendered male, complaining about your right to free speech or (intentionally or unintentionally) marginalizing/undermining the struggles of those that are not your demographic… Has implications. To a person of color or a feminist or a socialist living in a left-leaning liberal part of the country, you can appear to represent the members of the current establishment who do not understand their positions or care to. This can lead to a feeling that you as an individual could be without sympathy or even empathy for someone whom you refer to as a Facebook friend, or people like them that you don’t know.


“This person is sitting here comparing what I view to be two unequal injustices as though they are equivalent– does that mean they believe that just because everyone struggles, inequities in those struggles are irrelevant/invalid?”

In short. I think what you interpret to be hate is actually just resentment of what people fear you represent.

I’ll leave you with this. Next time someone attacks what you believe, ask yourself if logic is defending your idea or if you are defending the logic of your idea.

Example:
“Feminists are oppressive.”
This is a decades old “dogma”, that truly needs to be supported with facts in order to have any merit. Arguments over what oppression is, what feminism is… Are those perceived as not being empowered capable of oppression? Is oppression a state that exists because of a feeling it evokes or can it be defined independently-… Et al.
The speaker presents potentially as opposition to feminism and provides nothing of intentional value to the “feminists.”

However,

Example:
“If self-proclaimed feminists allow themselves to present a misandrous agenda, and care only about dismantling the oppression of women, then this is not only hypocrisy but they’ve failed to provide a mutually beneficial replacement to the system in place.”

This statement points out an understanding that feminism is about changing the status quo… but the speaker cares about what it will cost the other parties. Whether the change will be a true improvement or simply an endless power struggle.
The speaker presents potentially as ally to the “feminists” and provides constructive criticism.

Sometimes people care so much about things, they forget to show they care about each other.”

It’s nice to hear what those who disagree with you think about your views. And whether or not your views can stand the crucible of criticism.

It is not, however, nice to have your character attacked because of what you believe. And so I want to make sure that is never the way in which I engage another human being.

Indirect Language.

George Carlin had a great moment where he talked about “shell shock” in World War 1. He was upset with America and their use of euphemistic language. He found that surrounding the issue of mental illness in soldiers in euphemism was a great deal of bullshit. Shell shock was to the point.

It was direct and it told you basically everything you needed to know about the issue at the time. Your nervous system was stretched to it’s limits and it was at a point where it had or was about to snap.

Then in WW2 it became “battle-fatigue.” It was more syllables, much less direct, and didn’t sound like such a terrible condition to be suffering from. Perhaps you needed more naps.

Heading into and out of the Vietnam War the term became “Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.” Not only did he find this incredibly long winded.. But it was a past tense sounding description of a present tense problem. While this may be more politically correct and applies to more people than soldiers, it still takes the urgency out of the issue. My friends have mild forms of PTSD from their childhoods.

There is a poetic and despicable irony in the way that our brains will associate these two groups of people and color our experiences of their suffering, in some cases trivializing or negating it.

The reason this even came up was because I was watching a brilliant Ted talk about “Leadership Training” over “Sensitivity Training.”

The speaker talked about a linguist who illustrated how the human mentality is naturally inclined towards victim blaming with 4 sentences.

1. John beat Mary.

2. Mary was beaten by John.

3. Mary was beaten.

4. Mary is a “battered woman.”

I like the first sentence. It’s direct, clear, and the perpetrator of the action Is the first thing you witnessed, followed by his actions, followed by his victim.

If you follow the order of nouns in the sentences and ask why this happened you may notice something interesting. In the first sentence. The question posed would look like this:

“Why did John beat Mary?”

In any of the subsequent cases, we start asking about the victim. Victims are not the ones who take the action that they are a victim of… So why do we shift the blame on to them. And why do we describe them in ways that divorce them from the actor’s will?