A Facebook friend recommends we fellas read and discuss this NYT op-ed on “The Unexamined Brutality of the Male Libido.” The article makes some points worth discussing, but it wanders off into a fog of calling for conversations about masculinity:
I’m not asking for male consciousness-raising groups; let’s start with a basic understanding that masculinity is a subject worth thinking about. That alone would be an immense step forward. If you want to be a civilized man, you have to consider what you are. Pretending to be something else, some fiction you would prefer to be, cannot help. It is not morality but culture — accepting our monstrosity, reckoning with it — that can save us. If anything can [Stephen Marche, “The Unexamined Brutality of the Male Libido,” New York Times, 2017.11.25].
Perhaps I feed Marche’s critique of our supposedly unexamined natures, but I’m not persuaded that we men need to talk about manhood more. Instead of more below-the-navel-gazing, we men just need to stop being brutal dicks. We men need to recognize and uproot the animal impulse to dominate others. We men need to stop ourselves from treating women like objects. We men (and this one easily applies to all humans) need to adopt the attitude that living healthily and morally means refusing to indulge any sexual impulse that is not firmly coupled to a well-established and mutually respectful personal relationship.
Evolutionary impulses push us to pig out on ice cream. I don’t need a long conversation to understand the biology behind my impulses and then to tell myself to leave the Blue Bunny in the cooler.
Call me old-fashioned, but unlike Marche, I think morality can save us and change the culture. Instead of “accepting our monstrosity,” we can recognize it and control it, if not change it. How hard is that, fellas?
In my dissertation (generally on the Sermon on the Mount), I wrote a section on the Matthew 5 passage about lust/adultery and Tolstoy’s and Gandhi’s treatment of it. My section is titled “Sexual Self-Disarmament: Tolstoy’s Eccentricity on Sex and Marriage.” [FYI: Tolstoy spent the last 30 ears of his life trying to follow the Sermon on the Mount. I argue his views weren’t all that eccentric, but rather in line with both Jesus and Paul on the subject. Tolstoy’s main takeaway from the Sermon on the Mount was non-violence and Gandhi was his most famous disciple.] Thought you’d be interested in this section of my work as it relates to male libido. Sorry all the formatting and notes are lost when I paste it here:
Tolstoy’s most famous disciple – Gandhi, “read the story (The Kreutzer Sonata) literally, loved it, and recommended it widely” – so stated Martin Green in the first of his three books comparing and contrasting these two mahatmas, Tolstoy and Gandhi. Green referred to Gandhi as the Indian Tolstoy, and to Tolstoy as their master’s great master. A couple of his comparisons as influencing factors in their (somewhat) similar views on sex are quite reaching – “both were notably unhandsome” – and even untrue; for example that they both had miserable sex lives in marriage. That is perhaps true only in the case of Gandhi. Further, comparisons of Tolstoy and Gandhi fail if there is no mention that Gandhi was far more extreme, and hypocritical. Gandhi “refused to admit that there could be mutuality in sex, and asked his followers for sexual self-disarmament.” Tolstoy focused primarily on male sexual passions but not to the extent that women were not mutual participants. He even viewed women as more powerful in this regard, entrapping men in their own lusts. Unlike Tolstoy, there is a stain of hypocrisy in the aged Gandhi as Green recounted:
Bose, who was Gandhi’s secretary during his heroic pilgrimage to Noakhali in 1946-1947, resigned the post in protest against some things Gandhi did, including his sleeping in the same bed with women coworkers. Bose did not accuse Gandhi of lust, but of secrecy, and of allowing the women to involve themselves in a psychological situation beyond their capacity to handle, which fostered a possessiveness in them toward him, and a hysteria.
Green complained Gandhi “encouraged Hindu sex-guilt… the young women who came under his spell were seduced into chastity.” Importantly, Tolstoy was never the creepy old man. Interestingly, Green drew in a third generation notable adherent to Gandhian/Tolstoyan non-violence in Martin Luther King Jr.; “King was no Mahatma, and that was his strength; he was a guide in a movement with many leaders. He was a visionary but no Utopian, a man of God but no saintly eccentric. He felt no need to give up smart attire, good food, or sex, to be effectively non-violent.” In the area of sexual purity and integrity, comparing the three apostles of non-violence –King, Gandhi and Tolstoy – perhaps surprisingly, Tolstoy was most saintly.
Another wee bit from my project that I you may enjoy reading….
As regards to the relationship between sex and non-violence, Gandhi became more of a feminist than Tolstoy, “encouraging women to say no to their husbands sexual initiatives.” And, he concluded that “non-violence is the inherent quality of women.” Green noted that some of the women admirers of Gandhi “have commented on Gandhi’s literal womanliness and motherliness as elements in his attraction for them.” Green quoted Gandhi as saying in 1944;
I have repeated several times without number that nonviolence is the inherent quality of women. For ages men have had training in violence. In order to become nonviolent they have to cultivate the qualities of women. Ever since I have taken to nonviolence, I have become more and more of a woman.
Reading Tolstoy’s Letter to Women makes it seem possible he would have agreed with Gandhi on this point considering he ended his letter this way; “Therefore, in the hands of these women lies the highest power of saving men from the prevailing and threatening evils of our times. Yes, ye women and mothers, in your hands, more than in those of all others, lies the salvation of the world!”
Isn’t this another example of privilege? It seems like the same song — different verse of a realization some of us are having that there are those in the US that have enjoyed (and abused) privilege for so long but are now being called out for that. Any power: wealth, immigration status, sex, opportunity . . . , should be checked in context of its effect on others — especially others who do not enjoy the same privilege.
Policy seems to be driven by an attitude of suppression of the weaker, the poorer, the less entitled, so why are we suprised that in this context sexual harassment, bullying, and racism thrive?
I think he is talking about suppressing the powerful to have a more sane culture and world to live in. Do what is right when it is right, not out of selfishness. The world would be a far better place.
That article reads like an apology – I think the author has some internal issues to work out.
Enough with the stereotyping already. This “we men need to…” baloney that is everywhere lately is over-broad and unhelpful. People who assault other people should be held accountable for their actions. Nobody should touch anybody without permission. If somebody is being treated differently than other people because of their race or gender or disability or whatever, that should be dealt with. If all the people quietly complain about injustice would stand up and speak up when stuff happens, these criminals might not have the freedom to continue running around committing crimes. But instead, people want to sit back and blame some faceless mass of guys who control the actions of all men.
There is no social group of women-hating men that runs the world. There is no “we men.” Nobody calls me for a vote on any topic or to pick my brain about how “we” should behave. I take no responsibility for the actions of anybody other than myself and my minor child. I hope my child grows up to feel responsible for her actions, too, rather than looking forever outwardly for a scapegoat to blame everything on.
Ryan has me thinking about the “we men” (or any other we+group). It does seem like a ploy to draw others into a group of bad actors when not all individuals (maybe even not most or not many) in that group are bad actors. Somehow a big enough group diffuses/deflects the condemnation of the individuals.
However, you lost me with, “There is no social group of women-hating men that runs the world.” Although not absolute, I think it is prevalent now, especially now. Not just woman-hating, but hating of all those with less power/wealth/status, and it is pervasively male.
The whole “we men…” thing is a classical psychological maneuver used to lower the defenses of a person you are about to criticize. It’s supposed to feel less like criticism that way because the speaker is putting himself in the group being chastised. It does not feel genuine in this article (or in most of the situations it is used) because it isn’t genuine. I doubt Cory thinks he needs to work on whether or not he objectifies women. I doubt he thinks he needs to uproot his animal impulses. I doubt he thinks his attitude regarding his own personal sexual impulse control needs adjustment. He, like most other men, is probably a good person who only has sex with people who want him to do so, and he probably treats other humans with respect regardless of their gender. He is saying “we men…” because it doesn’t sound as condescending as “you men,” but that’s what it means.
The problem isn’t “men,” though. The problem is bad people. Men do good things. Men do bad things. Women do good things. Women do bad things. How about just deal with the person doing the thing, not a group of 4 billion people to which that actor just happens to belong?
I would argue that this lumping all men in with bad men does more to hurt “the cause” than it does to help. It seems to send a message to sexual predators along these lines: “You aren’t responsible for your actions, it is the culture, it’s biology; all men need to work on this…blah blah blah…” It perpetuates a lack of accountability for the person doing the thing, which is a step in the wrong direction in my humble opinion.
We can have this discussion without accusations of individual personal issues. I’ve seen enough male behavior to know that Marche’s brutal libido, aggressive and passive, is sufficiently pervasive that we can discuss it as a general problem among men. Even a decent role model like Jimmy Carter (see my final link) could admit to manifestations of that brutal libido.
I stand by my words. Every man who objectifies women needs to stop. Objectification opens the door to other forms of disrespect for women as equals. Women do not exist for men’s physical, emotional, or visual gratification. We men all have an obligation to resist such behavior.
Ryan, you find it “unhelpful” that I refer to “we men”? What “unhelp” will my use of that phrase do, make good and decent men who have properly checked their libidos decide to rebel and objectify women?
I am not seeking a scapegoat on whom to blame my behavior or on whom to divert blame from any prominent political figures. I share Ryan’s belief that I am responsible for my own actions. I disagree that I’m sending a message to the worst predators that they aren’t to blame, that they are just living out their nature. That’s actually part of why I came away feeling negative about the Marche article: I don’t think Marche says clearly enough that our nature is not normative—i.e., that the existence of the brutal libido does not excuse the bad behavior resulting therefrom. We should recognize the harmful parts of our nature and drill into every boy’s and man’s head and heart the moral sense to resist and be better than those harmful parts.
All men do need to work on it. No man has an excuse for not working on it or for allowing it to harm others.
The sensible O does lay out an interesting middle ground between Ryan’s position and mine (which themselves aren’t that far apart, since we appear to agree on how all men ought to behave). Does recognizing the pervasiveness of brutal impulsiveness inherently reduce the blame borne by those who act most egregiously on those impulses? May I analogize to Nazi Germany: does recognizing that the German people facilitated the rise to power of the Nazis inherently reduce the blame borne by Hitler, Himmler, Goebbels, Mengele, or any Nazi camp guard for the atrocities each individual committed?
To follow your anology, do the atrocities of the Nazi regime indicate that Germans everywhere need to work on their religious tolerance?
Do the actions of radical Muslims indicate all followers of Islam need to work on not being terrorists?
Do the actions of some men indicate all men need to work on their behavior?
“Nopes” across the board.
I just simply Love this post and comments. Cory, you nailed it.
However, I do not believe the objectification of that which (those who) an individual finds ‘acceptionally sexy’ is possible to prevent in a capitalist society – at least until the day when brands and products are no longer endorsed by (or spoken for on behalf of) well-recognized people.
One semantic problem, in society: Individual facial and physical features are seen as attractive. When one person refers to another person as a super-sexy object, they are intending to refer to the physical or facial features (or set of objects) they see on the outside.
Every time we tell our significant other they have beautiful eyes, or what not, we are all enjoying a bit of objectification in our lives – and there’s nothing wrong with that. It’s not like every healthy marriage is built on nothing more than an intense psychological relationship.
I think objectification needs to be allowed in moderation, and as long as we truly recognize that love is a different thing, objectification has a viable role in society – and it’s permanent and pervasive throughout all of nature.
Ryan, actually, yes, I would suggest that, because of their fall into fascism, all of the German people after WW2 had a responsibility to reëaxmine their consciences and actions and work to ensure that Nazis never rose again. We could say the same of American voters: we allowed Trumpism to rise: we all have an obligation to use our language and our voting wisely to end Trumpism (before the Allies have to come and do it for us) and make sure it does not gain power again.
As for Muslims… http://madvilletimes.com/2015/01/lamour-est-plus-fort-que-la-haine-et-apparemment-que-lislam/
Ryan also missed the main question posed in my analogy about whether recognizing mass guilt in any way dilutes or absolves individual guilt.
I’m not convinced that any level of objectification is harmless, although I may grant the exception Adam specifies, the admiration of the physical beauty of a significant other. Recognizing, speaking of, and acting on the sexiness of your significant other fits into the criterion I laid out above, that expressions of sexuality be “firmly coupled to a well-established and mutually respectful personal relationship.” Otherwise, I’m willing to contend that we men have no business referring to any women as “sexy” or “hot” (synonyms) unless we have already entered into relationships with those women.
I contend that the use of sexiness in advertising is another part of the overall problem.
Hickey is starting to speak Gaelic.
One Johnny Cash captured the essence of male Libido doing one of his albums from California prisons (San Quentin or Folsom). He spoke of the raw machismo of the stud on the prowl. That is paraphrased. I believe it was on the back of an album or in the liner notes. This was back in the mid 60’s.
Cory, I just can’t agree that innocent members of a class are obligated to do anything whatsoever in response to other members in that class who have done something wrong.
And how in the heck can somebody who voted for Hillary “make sure” another trump isn’t elected? Vote twice? So every man needs to hold himself personally responsible for the actions of others over whom he has no control or authority? These are impractical, impossible, and silly standards to set.
To be specific, if a man does not take advantage of women, or assault them, or hurt them in any other ways, and he doesn’t agree with people who do or condone any such activity, what exactly should that guy do differently? How is he guilty of perpetuating anything at all just by being born with certain genitalia?
Now, here’s the kicker: What are we using as the definition of “men”? If somebody is born with a penis, is he obligated to repay a debt to people born without penises who were harmed by unrelated men with penises? What if he later identifies as a female or non-gendered person? Is he absolved of male guilt? Or what about somebody born with a vagina who identifies as a man? Is that person part of the “problem” being solved here?
To answer your question, no, I don’t think people are less culpable for their terrible actions just because others committed the same terrible actions. Everything I have said about this issue, and most issues I comment on from this blog, is about personal accountability. Until each person is held accountable for what they do, there will always be a finger to point and a goat to scape (is that a thing? probably not).
In a democracy, are any of us innocent if we do not resist a tyrant or call out those around us who advocate tyranny?
In a civil society are we good fathers and husbands innocent if we do not call out men who treat women with disrespect?
You may be overstating what I’m calling for. I’m not even sure your “personal accountability” concern has any refutatory bearing on my statement of the moral duties of all men. I’m not saying you and I should go to jail for Gene Abdallah’s disrespectful behavior. I’m saying we men need to resist brutish sexual impulses and abuses of power. If you’re innocent, great. Don’t slip up, don’t become guilty, and don’t countenance the behavior of the guilty.
Now, can you acknowledge that we men all have brutish impulses—sexual, physical, aggressive—that we all must check with rational, moral behavior?
This discussion sounds a lot like the objectification of men and that seems to be Ryan’s primary objection.
Meanwhile, however, perhaps our human consciousness can only see others, male or female, individuals or discrete groups, as objects upon which we focus our subjective internal being. How can we ever know another’s subjectivity, absent some speculation and guesswork about what is inside the minds of other people?
I can say that I certainly have cave-man like impulses from time to time, sure. I actively control my impulses to the best of my abilities. I can’t speak for all men, and I don’t think you should either, because I would guess there are some that have little or no impulse issues like the “average” man is presumed to have. Some guys are asexual or non-sexual. Some are very much not aggressive and would avoid physical contact at all costs. But that comes back to my central point that it is not OK to lump billions of men into a category of a small minority of those men who do bad things.
But it seems to me that these ways of “men being better” are all things that apply, or should apply, generally to all people who already don’t victimize others. If the point of this post really was, as you suggest in your most recent comment, “we men need to resist brutish sexual impulses and abuses of power. If you’re innocent, great. Don’t slip up, don’t become guilty, and don’t countenance the behavior of the guilty.” that would be one thing. But this isn’t about decent guys continuing to be decent guys. This post is about decent men being indirectly accused of being brutal dicks, and disrespecting women, and objectifying people. I agree with you that fathers have an obligation to raise their children to be good people, but don’t mothers have an equal duty to raise their children to respect others? Shouldn’t women also be good spouses, parents, and “call out men who treat women with disrespect”?
In this post and comment thread, you seem to support all men taking a part of this “solution,” whether or not they are involved in any way. In a previous comment on a related post, I suggested that encouraging people to stand up to violent criminals is a good thing and may help reduce future crimes. You thought it too much to ask of people at that time to stand up to brutes in order to prevent these assaults. So, is it your position that an otherwise “innocent” man has more obligation to prevent crimes which he has no knowledge of than somebody with specific, relevant information about a perpetrator? You spent a lot of time defending the decisions of victims who remain silent because it can be difficult for them personally and professionally if they come forward, but doesn’t that same thought process apply to men who try to intervene when a powerful person assaults a less powerful person? If not, why not? You seem very quick to tell innocent men what to do while defending the inaction of innocent women. They are a part of this “democracy” that requires resisting tyrants and calling out tyrannical advocates, are they not?
My get up and go got up and left as far as the opposite sex is concerned. Severe nerve damage around yer lower spine is said to have that affect.
Then again, I am a human male and I’m certainly not angelic or perfect.
Bearcreekbat, I see a difference between objectification and generalization. I’m not objectifying any men, not treating any men as objects without individual human dignity and worth. I’m saying that the nature of men appears to include brutal animal urges that all men have a moral duty to resist. I may be mistaken—there may be some men who have no such animal urges. However, even such (I will contend unusual) men, if they exist, have the same duty to discourage other men from acting on such objectifying, objectionable urges and holding accountable those men who fail to check such urges.
Ryan, your defensive what-aboutism continues to puzzle me.
Don’t forget: I’m a man. I share my house with a wife and daughter. I think I’m doing a pretty good job (though always could do better) in my husbandly and fatherly roles (child still has all limbs and no complexes—mission accomplished, right?). I am keenly sensitive to any objectification of my wife and daughter and will need to resist my impulse to fisticuffs toward any man who dares to objectify them. (My wife will probably beat me to the punch with her mad judo skills—consider yourselves warned.)
I would thus probably qualify as one of the “innocent” guys whom you, Ryan, seem to think will collapse in tears or rage or political resistance at the critique I’m so wildly flinging here. Why am I not taking umbrage at my own critique of myself? I’m not being any harder on anyone else than I am on myself. If I can take it, why can’t you?
When I say, “We men just need to stop being brutal dicks,” the proper response is not to quibble about one’s individual innocence; the proper response is to use that sentiment to fight the undenied widespread brutal dickery. When Democrats say, “South Dakota needs to stop allowing corruption in state government,” I don’t cry about the fact that I’ve never stolen money myself from the government; I focus on finding, reporting, and eliminating that corruption. When Black Lives Matter says, “Black Lives Matter!” I don’t kvetch that I’ve never shot an innocent black man so stop picking on my; I say, “O.K., let’s talk about the institutionalized racism that puts millions of Americans darker than I at risk, and while we’re at it, I’ll keep an eye out for any racist impulses that may creep into my behavior.”
Keep in mind, my response springs from reading the Marche article. He was talking specifically about male behavior, which logically leads me to talk about how men ought to manage their behavior. Your effort to what-about out to moms and women doesn’t make sense here (but, sure, as I acknowledged in my original parentheses in my fourth call to action, women should treat men with respect and restrict the exercise of their sexual impulses to respectful personal relationships).
Ryan, your effort to mingle the victim/crime-reporting issue from our October 14+ conversation fails. In that earlier conversation, I was challenging the demands of some that victims immediately report crimes, demands that I contended unhelpfully assigned blame to victims for future crimes. I did not deny that there is a duty to report crimes; I contended that there are other considerations that may lead victims not to report crimes, and that I can understand those considerations. The big four calls to action I make in this article (and review them closely, consider the consequences) lead to no comparable risks for the man who undertakes them.
But a (maybe the) major difference here, Ryan, is that you and I are not speaking as victims of any crime who may be vulnerable to further victimization. We as men are not victims of the patriarchal power structure; we are part of it. We benefit from it every day when we can walk alone down a city street or into a bar wearing pretty much anything we want without fear of being ogled or grab-assed.
I said nothing about people collapsing in tears or not being able to handle criticism. Your suggestion that you are OK with your own stereotyping of men and thus all men should be OK with it falls flat. I don’t take personally any of this because I know better than to make things that aren’t about me, about me. You use the word generalizing, but it’s still the same. The “what-abouts” are directly useful in showing the contradiction in your positions. You acknowledge that victims of sexual assaults face repercussions for reporting that may affect their decision as to whether or not to report a crime. I am suggesting that men are not free from such repercussions, and even if they were it would not create an obligation to do anything; a call to action for all men to be generally responsible for the behaviors of all other men appears to be in conflict with your otherwise sympathetic views. We are both using the same tactics to convince the other of our respective positions, with apparently no luck in either direction.
I think your recent quote says it all: that all men “…have the same duty to discourage other men from acting on such objectifying, objectionable urges…” I simply disagree with that premise.
If I may jump again into the middle of the fray:
Ryan (quoting and replying to Cory): “I think your recent quote says it all: that all men “…have the same duty to discourage other men from acting on such objectifying, objectionable urges…” I simply disagree with that premise.”
Isn’t the heart of the sexual assault issue not that sexual assault is a new phenomenon, but that is has been on-going BECAUSE there has been an atmosphere of tacit consent (through silence)? There have been witnesses who chose to remain silent and that silence emboldened the offenders. Don’t we, especially those of us in the power (in this case men), have the obligation to call out wrong when we see it? To me, the lesson of the Trump administration and current politics is that we better stick together to stand up for what is right or risk being picked off one (group) at a time. We cannot live in a Sgt. Schultz bubble any longer.
p.s. “Complicit” is dictionary.com’s word of the year.
O, I think you are trying to say the exact same thing as Cory, and I just disagree with it altogether.
I don’t think men who are good to their spouses and children, and who treat people with respect, and who would never condone or allow assault to happen on their watch, are promoting an atmosphere of tacit consent. Being born a man doesn’t obligate somebody to play overseer of other men.
You accidentally agreed with me, by the way. You said when witnesses remain silent, they embolden the offenders. I think that is 100% true. I think victims and witnesses speaking up would be great. Oppositely, I don’t think there is any blame to place on innocent bystanders who go about their lives doing nothing to perpetuate or support what so many people seem to think is a world run by male sex fiends.
“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men should do nothing.” Edmund Burke
One can’t stand idly by and comfort themselves that they are good people while saying nothing or doing nothing as others within their realm of influence are harmed.
Therein lies the problem, Darin. There are no sex offenders within my realm of influence, or within the realm of influence for probably 90% of men. If I walked in on a guy raping a girl, you can bet I would do something about it. What I won’t do is sit back and pretend that I need to give up my maleness because there are bad people out there and some happen to also be males.
Does your quote apply to good women who do nothing any more or less than it applies to men? Does it apply to evil in forms other than sexual assault? Are you a vigilante who is out stopping crimes and preventing injustice and keeping evil at bay; taking things into your own hands? Give me a break.
Ryan, you can read, but I guess you read what you want into what I wrote. You seem to be deliberately obtuse.
I’ll give you a break. I used gender neutral terms in what I wrote so it applies to everyone. The quote from Edmund Burke was from the 1700’s so inclusive language was lacking during that time period.
It does apply to evil in all forms.
I am not a vigilante. I am not expecting you to be either (unless you have super powers).
There is an immense amount of possible actions in terms of doing something to combat evil. You seem to be annoyed that you would be called upon to do anything. It could be as simple as telling someone to quit harassing a waitress at a restaurant. If we all do something when the opportunity presents itself, we don’t have to be an activist or a super hero on an individual level.
You are not the first person to suggest I am obtuse. I won’t deny it. I interpreted your comment to be in support if the premise of this post and many of the comments – that men have a gender-wide and gender-specific obligation to remedy the behavior of certain bad actors. If I was incorrect in that interpretation, you have my apologies.
If, on the other hand, you meant that all non-offenders, irrespective of gender, should remain vigilant, I agree with you and it would seem you agree with my numerous assertions that “innocent” men have no greater obligation to this cause than “innocent” women. That is my point boiled down to its simplest form.
Trump’s libido, I wager is behind this (as well as the misplaced power angst of the GOP): “CFPB general counsel said she believed Trump was correct, that the VRA applies, and that Mulvaney is the appropriate acting director. Her analysis relied heavily on a memo from the Office of Legal Counsel written by Steven Engel—who represented a payday lender in front of the CFPB last year, … David Dayen recently pointed out. Some legal scholars have blasted the memo; Harvard Law Professor Laurence Tribe called it “completely incoherent.”
This all started with a legally dubious move by the administration, designed to protect powerful interests. The move was given a flimsy rubber stamp of approval by Department of Justice partisans. The case now heads before a Trump-appointed judge who was rushed through the Senate without proper vetting.”
so far we know how this as come out. Trump don’t need no stinking vetting by ABA of judicial nominees. And, McConnell laughed today about whether he could get 50 votes for his tax the poor give to the rich tax bill–a rubic cube dilemma– and also said, we hope tongue-in-cheek given his constitutionally violative refusal to schedual Merrick Garland’s supreme court nomination hearing:
“McConnell said:
I never refused to go to a meeting that President Obama called, a bipartisan meeting. It never occurred to me that I could just say … ‘I’m not showing up.’
That strikes me as a lack of seriousness about the matter before us, which is the funding of the federal government of the United States for the rest of this fiscal year.
So you’ll have to ask them why they think it’s appropriate to refuse to meet with the president of the United States over something as significant as how we’re going to fund the troops and all the other needs that are addressed by the spending decisions we make every year.”
I don’t know Mitch, maybe hard ball politics–what’s good for the goose is good for the gander. white male libido.
https://www.thenation.com/article/the-cfpb-case-is-a-first-look-at-trumps-legal-system/
I’m happy to say I have a long history with men (granddaughter of a loving man who taught me that I’m ok just the way I am, daughter of a man, spouse of a man, mother of three more, grandmother of four more) and I’ve never known a brutal dick except the one who lives in the White House, and. I don’t really know him either, thank god. Yeah, I know I’m lucky cause I know they’re out there. I just wish everybody would quit being so hard on each other.
Robin, I’m glad the men in your life have treated you well.
The rest of us—I’m annoyed that we’re sitting here talking about our feelings (Oh, I’m innocent, why should I have to do anything about sexual harassment?), as annoyed as I was in my initial reaction to Marche’s article. This is what happens, I guess, when a bunch of guys sit around talking about the issue: we talk about our piddly issues instead of dealing with the real harm our fellow men are doing to women.
The concerns expressed here for “innocent” men are trivial compared to the concern we ought to have for victims of abuses of power.
Ryan continues to press a false equivalency between men’s obligation to stop hurting women and women’s obligation to report the men who have hurt them. Why is that so important to you, Ryan?
There are many ways we can expose the false equivalency. Let’s try it from the solvency perspective:
My call to moral action is thus more useful, if universalized, than Ryan’s.
I have reiterated my point numerous times – this is not about equivalency, this is about your accusations against a whole population of people who do not take part in the behavior that you are so set to eradicate. I have used analogies to show that this form of stereotyping is unacceptable in other circumstances, and you called that “what-aboutism.”
I am not saying that women should take action and men shouldn’t, so your comparison of “your results” versus “my results” are incomplete. I suggest all people, regardless of their private parts, should be good people, treat others with respect, and raise their kids to do the same. You just ask for men to change their behavior. I would say that ALL people doing something creates more universally useful results, no?
You focus on the fringes of my comments to rehash your own points, so this will be my last comment on this article. This wasn’t about me, this wasn’t about blaming women, this wasn’t about comparing victim harm and bystander harm. I was saying, plain and simple, that you are promoting stereotypes. Here’s a final analogy for you – or a “what about,” if you will:
Lots of political bloggers spew lies, day in and day out, to serve their causes and to raise eyebrows. Some of their pockets are filled by special interest groups to put a certain spin on a certain hot topic. Those kinds of bloggers are doing more harm than good, in my opinion. Now, if somebody wrote an article that said something along these lines – “Bloggers, we all need to stop lying so much; we all need to quit taking money under the table from crooked political organizations; we need to stop being so vile and have a tiny little bit of credibility.” Don’t you think some of the good bloggers, the ones who actually care about their audience and their subject matter, and the ones who are good people, would object to those “calls to action”? I think some certainly would, and they would be right to do so.