Male Strategies to defuse anger

Walls

A very interesting blog post about how guys deal with Women Studies:

http://hugoschwyzer.net/2010/07/09/words-are-not-fists-on-male-strategies-to-defuse-feminist-anger/

Feeona

This really struck home with me


Far too many men spend a great deal of time trying to talk women out of their anger, or by creating social pressures that remind women of the consequences of expressing that anger.

Happens in After Hours ALL the time. Big up to Dr Zeus for starting the thread about how misogynistic AH can be at times. A woman would've been treated with derision and barely concealed contempt by the few male posters who really have a distinct dislike of women

Walls

Women subscribe to the attitude too; at the Forty Years of Feminism seminar at Kilkenny Arts Week, the younger women were at pains to point out that they weren't 'Angry Women', not us!!

Nervous Wreck

I don't find this behaviour to be exclusive to men in female-dominated environment tbh. This kind of behaviour pervades any social setting. It's the fact of the author's position as a lecturer in feminist studies, not the behaviour itself, that gives it the context of being an almost male v female phenomena. The fact of the matter is that people, male or female, use this sort of humour in any situation wherein they feel uncomfortable because they are a) in a minority or b) inexperienced. Look out for it in your job and you'll see it practically every day. "This is such a stupid question but where do I find the cups!?" is phrased to elicit sympathy for the fact that the person already feels silly and empathy for the fact that we've all been there. It will thus elicit a response such as "That's not silly, sure I didn't know where the cups were for weeks when I started here!"

In the setting of a feminist class, when a male says something like this, he's doing the same thing: reminding others in the class that, although he may not be as well versed in his education/experience on the subject, he is not being purposefully ignorant. It's an easy equation to apply to such a situation but I wouldn't view it as a "male strategy to defuse female anger," I'd view it more as a person's strategy to convey a positive willingness to learn while expressing what they already know. Applying this level of specificity is lazy.

Feeona

I think it's important when you're trying to make a point to not be swayed by subtle pressures. Subtle pressures such as 'Sure what would you know?' attitude, or 'This is of no importance'. I've often picked up on subtle pressures like that when dealing with people in a more senior position to me (not necessarily male). I pay no heed, I want to suit myself so I will continue to push my view without being rude so I'll usually approach the situation from a different angle.
If the person starts being a bull headed thick just to protect their ego, it'll make me dig my heels in more just to p*ss them off :pac:

It's up to me to make sure I live my life in comfort-being dismissed because I'm a woman does not feature in my plan.

Walls

I disagree, it is a strategy to encourage women to placate themselves so that they don't upset blokes too much. Women do have a lot to get angry about, and in specific settings become aware of it. Ignorance of men, purposeful or otherwise, is not the point.

RedXIV

It does seem that in a general sense (not being specific at all, i know) that there is alot more anger in woman than in men. True that when you get angry men, they tend to go to the extremes of violence or over the top displays that would almost remind one of other primates on the discovery channel

But it just seems to me that women in general have alot of pent up anger, although this could be simply viewed in the opposite of saying that men in general don't get nearly as worked up about various things as women do.

I'm definitely guilty of the techniques mentioned in the article, and as he identified, I would be using them to almost "soften" the blow of my next statement. But as mentioned above, this wouldn't be done exclusively to women.

Nevyn

Walls wrote: »

I disagree, it is a strategy to encourage women to placate themselves so that they don't upset blokes too much. Women do have a lot to get angry about, and in specific settings become aware of it. Ignorance of men, purposeful or otherwise, is not the point.

Yup, we are not allowed make the blokes get to angry they are stronger then us and if we provoke them, they may loose thier temper with us and we may get hurt and it will be our fault.

That is exactly what message is and it is used when the taticks of, ignoring, dimissing, undermining won't work or can't be used.

Nevyn

RedXIV wrote: »

It does seem that in a general sense (not being specific at all, i know) that there is alot more anger in woman than in men. True that when you get angry men, they tend to go to the extremes of violence or over the top displays that would almost remind one of other primates on the discovery channel

But it just seems to me that women in general have alot of pent up anger, although this could be simply viewed in the opposite of saying that men in general don't get nearly as worked up about various things as women do.

I'm definitely guilty of the techniques mentioned in the article, and as he identified, I would be using them to almost "soften" the blow of my next statement. But as mentioned above, this wouldn't be done exclusively to women.

It is more acceptable in society for men to be angry over things then it is for women. Ladies are not not ment to get angry, miffed sore but not angry.

Hence the saying from the 70s, I am woman hear me roar.

But I also know men who have been in families or relationships where there was a lot of female anger and they use those qualifiers as they have suffered abuse, not nesscairly physical but mental and emotional.

Women's anger is something they try an avoid or placate due to the fact they do not know how to respond or havesuffered abuse and don't want to trigger a repeat.

g'em

Feeona wrote: »

Happens in After Hours ALL the time. Big up to Dr Zeus for starting the thread about how misogynistic AH can be at times. A woman would've been treated with derision and barely concealed contempt by the few male posters who really have a distinct dislike of women

What's happening in other forums is not up for discussion here. There's a Feedback thread if you'd like to discuss it, but please let's keep this on topic here.

metrovelvet

RedXIV wrote: »

It does seem that in a general sense (not being specific at all, i know) that there is alot more anger in woman than in men. True that when you get angry men, they tend to go to the extremes of violence or over the top displays that would almost remind one of other primates on the discovery channel

But it just seems to me that women in general have alot of pent up anger, although this could be simply viewed in the opposite of saying that men in general don't get nearly as worked up about various things as women do.

I'm definitely guilty of the techniques mentioned in the article, and as he identified, I would be using them to almost "soften" the blow of my next statement. But as mentioned above, this wouldn't be done exclusively to women.

Yeah well you'd be pissed off too.

I've heard many men talk about not knowing how to deal when a woman gets angry.

I think you need to look at Medea and Fatal Attraction to see how scared they are of girls. Lol.

Walls

Exactly Metrov, there is a fear of the Angry Woman that we all seem to pick up on, and happily tweet "Not me! I'm a GOOD girl!" which just prevents women speaking up on the most common reasons for resentments and, for that matter, preventing us ever having a chance to put them aside. I'm capable of negioation, that's part of life, but not having a chance to even speak causes more harm than a straight refusal.

RedXIV

Thaedydal wrote: »

Women's anger is something they try an avoid or placate due to the fact they do not know how to respond or havesuffered abuse and don't want to trigger a repeat.

I agree with the first part anyway. I don't like seeing female anger because it is different from how I'm hardwired to deal with male anger. You get angry at a guy, you roar, fight and forget about it. Female anger lasts alot longer, (or just seems like that ) and the option for fighting is never available. That makes it harder for guys to deal with, of course.

metrovelvet wrote: »

Yeah well you'd be pissed off too.

at what?

SugarHigh

I'd also agree with the fear of the angry woman especially when in public. If a man is shouting at a woman in public he looks like an aggressive dick but if it's the other way around it looks like the man did something wrong.


This video shows what I'm on about.

At 2:15 you see someone even sort of cheer her on.

KyussBishop

The word feminist, with the (rough) dictionary definition "advocating equal rights for women to those of men", applies equally to men and women (most people in society, men/women, fit the definition of feminist...hopefully anyway).

What I don't fully get, is why when the word is used, is there still a divide between men/women in the article, like there is here:

I’ve allowed their [mens] insecurities to function to silence the female majority — in what is supposed to be a feminist setting!

Is there some other definition of feminist being used here?

It's a good article in any case, interesting observation; I don't quite agree with some parts of it though:
A guy saying stuff like in the article, is pretty much just nervous and disclaimerizing what he's saying; to paint that as subtly putting down feminist anger, like she does in this quote:

Joking about getting beaten up (or putting on the football helmet) sends a message to young women in the classroom: "Tone it down. Take care of the men and their feelings. Don’t scare them off, because too much impassioned feminism is scary for guys."

Is projecting a particular attitude onto the guys; even though she says that it's unintentional on the guys part, that's still either projecting an attitude onto them, or onto the women who have a muted response in respect to it.

I can see her point though, how disclaimerizers like that can potentially be harmful in a subtle way, but I'm not sure what to think about that; if a person lets a disclaimer disarm their response, or causes them to withold their counterargument, is that not their fault? (don't kill me for saying that )

liah

http://hugoboy.typepad.com/hugo_schwyzer/2004/06/men_perception_.html

I have hit the point in my life and in my volunteer ministry where I am willing to prove myself innocent. I can rail against the "unfairness" of judging me by the poor behavior of other men, but in this culture, that's fruitless. As men, we do have to accept the fact that collectively, we have given good reason why it is that we ought not to be trusted -- above all in the sexual realm. We can bemoan the injustice of paying for the sins of others, or we can shoulder the burden that our brothers have created for us (and that perhaps, in our own lives, we have helped to create). What that means practically is that I am committed to meeting suspicion with patience, openness, and accountability. I'm no longer hurt when folks don't trust me just because I'm a man -- I accept now that they have every reason not to.

What do the tLL men think about that quote? Agree/disagree?

SugarHigh

liah wrote: »

http://hugoboy.typepad.com/hugo_schwyzer/2004/06/men_perception_.html



What do the tLL men think about that quote? Agree/disagree?

I think it's nonsense and is wrong for the same reason that racial profiling. Just because crime rates may be significantly higher among black people in some areas would not give you the right to judge innocent black people on the behavior of other people who just happen to share the same race as you.

I don't see why I should shoulder the burden of any other mans actions apart from my own. The same way a woman should not automatically assumed to be a gold digger.

Nervous Wreck

liah wrote: »

http://hugoboy.typepad.com/hugo_schwyzer/2004/06/men_perception_.html

What do the tLL men think about that quote? Agree/disagree?

I understand what he's saying and he certainly is correct that the actions of men in the past (and indeed some in the present) do give cause for reasonable apprehension. Personally though, I have nothing to prove. My grandfather being sexist has no more relevance to my ideologies as a man on the other side of the world being racist. I am not defined by my sex, neither positively nor negatively. I am defined by me. My actions, feelings, morals and interactions speak for themselves. I'm a good and honest person and I really have no need to defend that, especially in the face of skepticism arising from the immoral behaviour of other humans who share a common chromosome.

panda100

Time and again, I’ve seen it work to silence women in the classroom, or at least cause them to worry about how to phrase things "just right" so as to protect the guys and their feelings.

For me this really stood out and is just so true.

I find it very frustrating that you have to tip toe around women's issues so not to offend men, I find this particularly difficult when it comes to honest conversations about sexual violence in our society. For example, I felt I couldn't write on the Larry Murphy thread after at least two male posters said they were really insulted by what I wrote.
I feel very often when talking about important women issue's such as eating disorders or rape that you have to add something from a male perspective to garner public support for your sentiment.

RedXIV

liah wrote: »

http://hugoboy.typepad.com/hugo_schwyzer/2004/06/men_perception_.html



What do the tLL men think about that quote? Agree/disagree?

Agree to an extent. I am used to most of the stigma attached to being a man, 90% of it is trivial. Good for heavy lifting, useless at fashion, like sport, hate shopping. All this stuff which is commonly depicted as typical male stereotypes, I've got no problem with. And to an extend I understand the sexual stereotype also. Guys go chat to girls in bars, yup i did that. guys like looking at girls EVEN when in relationships, yup, i've looked at girls while taken. These are all common stereotypes.

But, and I think I'm allowed have a but after all that admission, that works two ways. If people are to fiercely retain their views on these often outdated stereotypes of men, the same will hold for women.

The author of the quote talks about bearing the burden of others, an unfair task that no one should have to do. Everybody should be judged as an individual but you'll find many (or in a nighclub, most) will not.

I've learned to live with this. I've accepted alot of the stereotypes created by others. But I'd hope more and more people would stop and try to get to know someone before deciding the stereotype is fact

KyussBishop

liah wrote: »

http://hugoboy.typepad.com/hugo_schwyzer/2004/06/men_perception_.html
What do the tLL men think about that quote? Agree/disagree?

I think people (men/women/whatever) shouldn't be prejudged like that, and should never need to feel they have to accept that kind of prejudgment.

If a person is in a position where they need to take care of kids etc. (like the article), safeguards and checks should be applied equally across all people doing that work (with the exception of something objective like e.g. a person with a criminal record, depending on what the persons crime was).

Catari Jaguar

Sugar and spice and all things nice...

metrovelvet

panda100 wrote: »

Time and again, I’ve seen it work to silence women in the classroom, or at least cause them to worry about how to phrase things "just right" so as to protect the guys and their feelings.

For me this really stood out and is just so true.

I find it very frustrating that you have to tip toe around women's issues so not to offend men, I find this particularly difficult when it comes to honest conversations about sexual violence in our society. For example, I felt I couldn't write on the Larry Murphy thread after at least two male posters said they were really insulted by what I wrote.
I feel very often when talking about important women issue's such as eating disorders or rape that you have to add something from a male perspective to garner public support for your sentiment.

It goes double in a single parenting context.

metrovelvet

SugarHigh wrote: »

I think it's nonsense and is wrong for the same reason that racial profiling. Just because crime rates may be significantly higher among black people in some areas would not give you the right to judge innocent black people on the behavior of other people who just happen to share the same race as you.

I don't see why I should shoulder the burden of any other mans actions apart from my own. The same way a woman should not automatically assumed to be a gold digger.

That is so funny. After 911 blacks in New York approved of racial profiling.

metrovelvet

I just want to add something about the OP. I completely agree with his point or her point. However, I can kind of sympathise with the men in a woman's study class. Having gone to an ultra liberal college full over over privaleged lefty rich kids who like to yap on about oppression, sometimes these girls are downright mean and will actually get up and yell abusive things at people who say anything that is a bit different. And no one says **** to them because they are an oppressed [protected] species, so I can see why a man would take up that shield in that context.

I remember one girl standing up and asking Phyllis Shafley during a public lecture 'Are you wearing a white sheet [ref to the KKK] under that skirt?'

I also remember one prominant lesbian activist sending in an obese stripper to the student senate meeting on the birthday of the president of the student union, to make some kind of womens study point.

SugarHigh

Thaedydal wrote: »

It is more acceptable in society for men to be angry over things then it is for women.

I really don't know how true this.

What are you basing it on?

Women regularly have emotional outbursts with no consequence just as much as men do.

SugarHigh

metrovelvet wrote: »

That is so funny. After 911 blacks in New York approved of racial profiling.

That doesn't really change anything though does it?

SugarHigh

metrovelvet wrote: »

I just want to add something about the OP. I completely agree with his point or her point. However, I can kind of sympathise with the men in a woman's study class. Having gone to an ultra liberal college full over over privaleged lefty rich kids who like to yap on about oppression, sometimes these girls are downright mean and will actually get up and yell abusive things at people who say anything that is a bit different. And no one says **** to them because they are an oppressed [protected] species, so I can see why a man would take up that shield in that context.

I remember one girl standing up and asking Phyllis Shafley during a public lecture 'Are you wearing a white sheet [ref to the KKK] under that skirt?'

I also remember one prominent lesbian activist sending in an obese stripper to the student senate meeting on the birthday of the president of the student union, to make some kind of womens study point.

This is so true and brilliantly demonstrated by this young girl.:D

They will use any means necessary to make it seem like they are on the right side of the argument from shouting you down to crying to make you look like the bad guy. Men and women both do crap like this btw they just have different tactics that work for different reasons.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A5drXEXkf9s

panda100

I have to admit in an Irish context I have never, ever seen or witnessed a women yelling abusive things or being downright mean in an academic setting when it comes to womens issues.
Maybe this is a US phenomenon but It most certainly doesn't happen with women studies academics in Ireland.If it does its very,very rare

Feeona

SugarHigh wrote: »

They will use any means necessary to make it seem like they are on the right side of the argument from shouting you down to crying to make you look like the bad guy.

I don't know, it actually looks like that girl is upset by what was previously said on stage (which isn't shown). The main speaker looks like he's getting emotional at one stage too. The Israel/Palestine conflict is a very emotive issue.

SugarHigh

Feeona wrote: »

I don't know, it actually looks like that girl is upset by what was previously said on stage (which isn't shown). The main speaker looks like he's getting emotional at one stage too. The Israel/Palestine conflict is a very emotive issue.

I don't think she was genuine at all. Her aim was to make him look like a prick and was playing a card that is well played out.

Dudess

Walls wrote: »

Exactly Metrov, there is a fear of the Angry Woman that we all seem to pick up on, and happily tweet "Not me! I'm a GOOD girl!"

I don't know... I kinda think along those lines most of the time, NOT to look like a nice compliant little woman or at the expense of being assertive, but so that certain unpleasant types don't get the satisfaction of being able to say: "Oh, here we go, hysterical woman - has her period..."

Feeona

SugarHigh wrote: »

I don't think she was genuine at all. Her aim was to make him look like a prick and was playing a card that is well played out.

I don't think she was trying to make him look bad by crying. I'm not disagreeing with you over women using tears to get what they want. I just don't think that video shows it

Logical Fallacy

liah wrote: »

http://hugoboy.typepad.com/hugo_schwyzer/2004/06/men_perception_.html



What do the tLL men think about that quote? Agree/disagree?

I completely disagree with that quote. Judge me for my own actions, not the actions of the people who have come before me. This kind of pre acceptance of guilt is almost exactly what i started a thread on in the Gentleman's Club, and i am damn near convinced it's starting a large personality schism among blokes.

Look, i'm a person, rife with opinion and passion the same as any other person. If i **** up, all well and good, hold that against me. But holding it against any other person is ridiculous.

I am unsure as to why the logic of that statement would not be applicable in the case of anyone and i hate this concept of an acceptance of guilt simply because i'm a bloke. It's all very Catholic in a way.

I refuse to accept that kind of bull**** as anything other than pandering to what will end up being the popular opinion in the room...it actually infuriates me that someone in his position would deliver such a message, as it merely enforces anyone, man or woman, to make prejudgments without apology and is merely repeating the cycle that any balanced human being i know is trying to get us out of.

Feeona

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

I completely disagree with that quote. Judge me for my own actions, not the actions of the people who have come before me. This kind of pre acceptance of guilt is almost exactly what i started a thread on in the Gentleman's Club, and i am damn near convinced it's starting a large personality schism among blokes.

I agree. You can see it in the way some men ask for advice into how to interact with women. They're scared witless that they'll offend someone! I saw in the flowers thread that one guy has sent flowers to his wife and is starting to wonder if it was the right thing to do! Which is a pity.
I personally think the interent has a lot to do with it because in the past, it wasn't possible to be in contact with so many people and so many different ideas at any one time. Here we are privy to the private thoughts of an infinite number of people, all with different ways of doing things. It's quite easy for subtle changes to happen in our personalities without our realising, and it's quite easy for confusion to set in with so many opinions at our fingertips.

Walls

Dudess wrote: »

, but so that certain unpleasant types don't get the satisfaction of being able to say: "Oh, here we go, hysterical woman - has her period..."

That is exactly what this blog is talking about. You are being responded to in terms of your gender. Hysterical woman is a term that was common in the 1900s to suggest women were more subject to humors or ailments due to their womb and its moods, making them more irrational. The period comment is suggesting menstrual cycles make you less human and more subject to emotions, instead of deciding you are an adult capable of rationality. People who get these comments thrown at them are being told that they are not capable of being rational, and that their behaviour makes them not suitable for an adult, male society.

Edit: Sorry, no coffee make Walls something something... what I should have said was that you should express your anger, if it exists, without censure of the type described above?

Walls

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

Look, i'm a person, rife with opinion and passion the same as any other person. If i **** up, all well and good, hold that against me. But holding it against any other person is ridiculous.

I am unsure as to why the logic of that statement would not be applicable in the case of anyone and i hate this concept of an acceptance of guilt simply because i'm a bloke. It's all very Catholic in a way.

The thinking is that males have benefited for years from Male Privilege and as such are part of a system that creates, and continues that privilege. You may feel that you've done nothing to deserve this criticism, and that's a fair response. But [to] some folks all you are saying is that you don't see the day to day system that you benefit by, and wonder what the fuss is all about. Have you heard or read about Male Privilege? Do you actively try to remove that system?

Nevyn

SugarHigh wrote: »

I don't think she was genuine at all. Her aim was to make him look like a prick and was playing a card that is well played out.

Crying is a trick?

Some women when they get really angry and frustrated they cry.
It is beyond thier control it's a bio chemical reaction to cause stress release.

Walls

SugarHigh wrote: »

This is so true and brilliantly demonstrated by this young girl.:D

I would say that the video isn't really related....the blog is talking about male methods of censure of female rage. There are lots of questions that can be raised about that, but jumping from that to a video concerning the frankly disturbing self involvement of some of the Israeli Lobby is not what I was talking about, and doesn't really relate.

Napper Hawkins

Walls wrote: »

But [to] some folks all you are saying is that you don't see the day to day system that you benefit by, and wonder what the fuss is all about.

Benefit how exactly? Go on, enlighten me.

Truley

Dudess wrote: »

I don't know... I kinda think along those lines most of the time, NOT to look like a nice compliant little woman or at the expense of being assertive, but so that certain unpleasant types don't get the satisfaction of being able to say: "Oh, here we go, hysterical woman - has her period..."

Walls wrote: »

That is exactly what this blog is talking about. You are being responded to in terms of your gender. Hysterical woman is a term that was common in the 1900s to suggest women were more subject to humors or ailments due to their womb and its moods, making them more irrational. The period comment is suggesting menstrual cycles make you less human and more subject to emotions, instead of deciding you are an adult capable of rationality. People who get these comments thrown at them are being told that they are not capable of being rational, and that their behaviour makes them not suitable for an adult, male society.

Edit: Sorry, no coffee make Walls something something... what I should have said was that you should express your anger, if it exists, without censure of the type described above?

Out of interest, does anyone here not feel that alot of women bring it on themselves? Personally I've heard more women using the period card to justify irrational behaviour than I've ever heard men.

Walls

Fair enough. THis has been posted before....

http://sap.mit.edu/content/pdf/male_privilege.pdf

This list is based on Peggy McIntosh’s article on white privilege. These dynamics are but a few examples of the privilege which male people have.
On a daily basis as a male person…
1. My odds of being hired for a job, when competing against female applicants, are probably skewed in my favor. The more prestigious the job, the larger the odds are skewed.

2. If I fail in my job or career, I can feel sure this won’t be seen as a black mark against my entire sex’s capabilities.

3. I am far less likely to face sexual harassment at work than my female co-workers are.

4. If I do the same task as a woman, and if the measurement is at all subjective, chances are people will think I did a better job.

5. If I choose not to have children, my masculinity will not be called into question.

6. If I have children and a career, no one will think I’m selfish for not staying at home.

7. My elected representatives are mostly people of my own sex. The more prestigious and powerful the elected position, the more this is true.

8. When I ask to see “the person in charge,” odds are I will face a person of my own sex. The higher-up in the organization the person is, the surer I can be.

9. As a child, chances are I was encouraged to be more active and outgoing than my sisters.

10. As a child, chances are I got more teacher attention than girls who raised their hands just as often.

11. If I’m careless with my financial affairs it won’t be attributed to my sex.

12. If I’m careless with my driving it won’t be attributed to my sex.

13. Even if I sleep with a lot of women, there is no chance that I will be seriously labeled a “slut,” nor is there any male counterpart to “slut-bashing.”

14. I do not have to worry about the message my wardrobe sends about my sexual availability or my gender conformity.

15. My clothing is typically less expensive and better-constructed than women’s clothing for the same social status. While I have fewer options, my clothes will probably fit better than a woman’s without tailoring.

16. The grooming regimen expected of me is relatively cheap and consumes little time.

17. If I’m not conventionally attractive, the disadvantages are relatively small and easy to ignore.

18. I can be loud with no fear of being called a shrew. I can be aggressive with no fear of being called a bitch.

19. I can be confident that the ordinary language of day-to-day existence will always include my sex. “All men are created equal,” mailman, chairman, freshman, etc.

20. My ability to make important decisions and my capability in general will never be questioned depending on what time of the month it is.

21. I will never be expected to change my name upon marriage or questioned if I don’t change my name.

22. The decision to hire me will never be based on assumptions about whether or not I might choose to have a family sometime soon.

23. If I have a wife or live-in girlfriend, chances are we’ll divide up household chores so that she does most of the labor, and in particular the most repetitive and unrewarding tasks.

24. If I have children with a wife or girlfriend, chances are she’ll do most of the childrearing, and in particular the most dirty, repetitive and unrewarding parts of childrearing.

25. If I have children with a wife or girlfriend, and it turns out that one of us needs to make career sacrifices to raise the kids, chances are we’ll both assume the career sacrificed should be hers.

26. Magazines, billboards, television, movies, pornography, and virtually all of media are filled with images of scantily-clad women intended to appeal to me sexually. Such images of men exist, but are rarer.

27. In general, I am under much less pressure to be thin than my female counterparts are. If I am fat, I probably suffer fewer social and economic consequences for being fat than fat women do.

28. On average, I am not interrupted by women as often as women are interrupted by men.

29. I have the privilege of being unaware of my male privilege.

Logical Fallacy

Walls wrote: »

The thinking is that males have benefited for years from Male Privilege and as such are part of a system that creates, and continues that privilege. You may feel that you've done nothing to deserve this criticism, and that's a fair response. But [to] some folks all you are saying is that you don't see the day to day system that you benefit by, and wonder what the fuss is all about. Have you heard or read about Male Privilege? Do you actively try to remove that system?

Yes, I heard of it, and frankly i think it's a load of ****. In my experience people will always seek to benefit those they feel the most affinity with. I sat in classrooms where female teachers ignored or belittled male students in favour of female students and i spent 7 years working for a company where the vast majority of management were female and I was consistantly passed over, along with many other males, in favour of females who were less able to do the job that they were being offered.

Do i sit here and bang on about a vicious backlash of "positive discrimination" as a result of over-inflated feminist agendas that is slowly leading to a new era of Female Privilege? Not at all, because that would be complete bull**** as well.

Throughout my long history on this board i have always proclaimed myself to be more interested in concept of humans treating each other well than anything else. If i see a man mistreat a man, i will call him on that ****. If i see a woman mistreat a woman i will call her on that ****. There is no possible combination of gender that can stop me from opening my big gob when i see mistreatment of people because in those circumstances i don't see gender issues, i just see people mistreating people.

That's the line i draw in the sand, I treat everyone with the respect their words and actions deserve. People can do what they like, say what they like, be who they like...there is not a person alive who can make me feel guilty about just being a bloke. Can't happen, won't happen.

RedXIV

Walls wrote: »

Fair enough. THis has been posted before....

http://sap.mit.edu/content/pdf/male_privilege.pdf

This list is based on Peggy McIntosh’s article on white privilege. These dynamics are but a few examples of the privilege which male people have.
On a daily basis as a male person…
1. My odds of being hired for a job, when competing against female applicants, are probably skewed in my favor. The more prestigious the job, the larger the odds are skewed.
Far more places have a QUOTA for women to be hired than men

2. If I fail in my job or career, I can feel sure this won’t be seen as a black mark against my entire sex’s capabilities.
What about jobs generally refered to as women's work? Men who try to run creches etc are usually told "not really mens work" when they try

3. I am far less likely to face sexual harassment at work than my female co-workers are.
I'm far more likely to be sued/disciplined/cautioned/accused of sexual harassment than my femal co-worker


4. If I do the same task as a woman, and if the measurement is at all subjective, chances are people will think I did a better job.
Balls to that, I've never seen that happen in any of the 10+ jobs i've had

5. If I choose not to have children, my masculinity will not be called into question.
This is actually untrue, most guys would question why other guys wouldn't want children

6. If I have children and a career, no one will think I’m selfish for not staying at home.
So working to pay for your children's livelihoods is a privilege now?

7. My elected representatives are mostly people of my own sex. The more prestigious and powerful the elected position, the more this is true.
Can't argue here, although i should point out, at the very top of the food chain, our president is female


8. When I ask to see “the person in charge,” odds are I will face a person of my own sex. The higher-up in the organization the person is, the surer I can be.
I'd once again call shenanigans on this, In the last 7 jobs I had, my supervisiors were female

9. As a child, chances are I was encouraged to be more active and outgoing than my sisters.
Thats your parents fault, not men

10. As a child, chances are I got more teacher attention than girls who raised their hands just as often.
Teachers fault, not men

11. If I’m careless with my financial affairs it won’t be attributed to my sex.
Haven't seen this stereotype in a while but I admit i've heard it before

12. If I’m careless with my driving it won’t be attributed to my sex.
heh, look who has the highest insurance premiums, MEN, all we ever hear about is how bad young male drivers are. Ever hear "he drives, she dies?"

13. Even if I sleep with a lot of women, there is no chance that I will be seriously labeled a “slut,” nor is there any male counterpart to “slut-bashing.”
Sleazeball, scumbag, player, and then there is the huge amount of aggression towards the "pickup community" from both sexes

14. I do not have to worry about the message my wardrobe sends about my sexual availability or my gender conformity.
Ask your male friends how many of them are perfectly comfortable to wear pink clothes....or skirts. Wardrobe is alot more restricted than you think

15. My clothing is typically less expensive and better-constructed than women’s clothing for the same social status. While I have fewer options, my clothes will probably fit better than a woman’s without tailoring.
Can't argue here, my OH has mentioned the terror of big boobs on a small frame.

16. The grooming regimen expected of me is relatively cheap and consumes little time.
Ok, i'll give you this, on this I do acknowledge male privilege

17. If I’m not conventionally attractive, the disadvantages are relatively small and easy to ignore.
Not as true as you think. alot of guys have confidence issues due to physical appearance which is extremely hard to ignore

18. I can be loud with no fear of being called a shrew. I can be aggressive with no fear of being called a bitch.
Loud people are annoying, aggressive people are not people anyone wants to be around. This is not a male exclusive set of traits

19. I can be confident that the ordinary language of day-to-day existence will always include my sex. “All men are created equal,” mailman, chairman, freshman, etc.
All of which the PC brigade is constantly working on. Isn't actress now no longer PC? we now just have female actors.

20. My ability to make important decisions and my capability in general will never be questioned depending on what time of the month it is.
As stated above, far more women use this excuse than men do in my experience

21. I will never be expected to change my name upon marriage or questioned if I don’t change my name.
In modern Ireland where marriage rates are plummeting, this is hardly a big issue

22. The decision to hire me will never be based on assumptions about whether or not I might choose to have a family sometime soon.
While this is unfortunate, the practicality of it has been discussed before countless times. Also, if someone is found to have done this, you are well within your rights to press charges

23. If I have a wife or live-in girlfriend, chances are we’ll divide up household chores so that she does most of the labor, and in particular the most repetitive and unrewarding tasks.
Call shenanigans on this also. when my best friend was unemployed, he did ALL the housework while his gf worked. If you are a victim of this, its your own fault

24. If I have children with a wife or girlfriend, chances are she’ll do most of the childrearing, and in particular the most dirty, repetitive and unrewarding parts of childrearing.
Well in the case of my daughter who is breastfed, how exactly can I do most of the work? especially since I work and my OH doesn't?

25. If I have children with a wife or girlfriend, and it turns out that one of us needs to make career sacrifices to raise the kids, chances are we’ll both assume the career sacrificed should be hers.
Usually women are primary carers as pointed out above, but i've seen guys give up careers too. Although I have to admit, most women who gave up careers for childcare I know were happy to do so

26. Magazines, billboards, television, movies, pornography, and virtually all of media are filled with images of scantily-clad women intended to appeal to me sexually. Such images of men exist, but are rarer.
4 words: Sex And The City. Meant to appeal to women with all of the above

27. In general, I am under much less pressure to be thin than my female counterparts are. If I am fat, I probably suffer fewer social and economic consequences for being fat than fat women do.
I agree with this

28. On average, I am not interrupted by women as often as women are interrupted by men.
I also agree with this

29. I have the privilege of being unaware of my male privilege.

This privilege isn't as extensive as you may think


So all in all, I agree with a few of your points, I'd refute a good few others

Nervous Wreck

Walls wrote: »

Fair enough. THis has been posted before....

http://sap.mit.edu/content/pdf/male_privilege.pdf

This list is based on Peggy McIntosh’s article on white privilege. These dynamics are but a few examples of the privilege which male people have.

What relevance to the topic of the thread (which is 'male strategies to defuse female anger') does this have? There's nothing in the list you've posted relating to the subject matter at all.

SugarHigh

Walls wrote: »

I would say that the video isn't really related....the blog is talking about male methods of censure of female rage. There are lots of questions that can be raised about that, but jumping from that to a video concerning the frankly disturbing self involvement of some of the Israeli Lobby is not what I was talking about, and doesn't really relate.

Yes it does because in that blog he talks about men being overly defensive when sharing opinions in his classroom and that video shows an example of why they would be defensive.

SugarHigh

Thaedydal wrote: »

Crying is a trick?

Some women when they get really angry and frustrated they cry.
It is beyond thier control it's a bio chemical reaction to cause stress release.

And some women do it to gain advantage.

Red Hand

Would anybody agree that the original article is an attempt by a male women's studies lecturer to further ingratiate himself with female feminists? That, judging from the number of thanks in the original post/link, he is quite successful in this strategy? From the article, is he apologetic about this apologetic male behaviour?

Ironic.:D

The_Minister

Thaedydal wrote: »

Yup, we are not allowed make the blokes get to angry they are stronger then us and if we provoke them, they may loose thier temper with us and we may get hurt and it will be our fault.

That is exactly what message is and it is used when the taticks of, ignoring, dimissing, undermining won't work or can't be used.

Your post reminded me of something and it took me the guts of an hour to remember what.

"[Rape] is nothing more or less than a conscious process of intimidation by which all men keep all women in a state of fear" -- Susan Brownmiller (Against Our Will p. 6)

It isn't that you aren't allowed to get angry, its that we aren't allowed get angry back.
When you get angry at us, you can go pretty much as far as you want (even to hitting if you are small enough) and not be in trouble. Thats why you see so many arguments on a Saturday night in town featuring a miserable looking guy getting eaten out by a girl while he makes the odd attempt at injecting ehile trying not to meet anyones eye.
If you are allowed scream and shout, and we really aren't (again because of the unintentional intimidation of our generally greater strength) then of course you feel silly and unreasonable - but that isn't our fault.

You are right that we tend to be stronger (though I'd bet on the likes of G'em against most guys anyday), but realistically in an academic setting or a political arguement among friends, violence is not going to break out. It is not an excuse to say that you ca't get angry because we might get angry back and hurt you - if a guy did start on you in a classroom or a pub I'd imagine the other lads would have him bet down fairly sharply.

The only message is 'we are guys talking about women's issues. We can only give our perspective, which in someways will disagree with yours. Furthermore, some of the things we say will annoy you because it is men saying them; a woman saying them wouldn't sound so bad. Please keep this in mind when you respond, and don't jump down our throats. Thank you.'

There is no hidden message of violence in a lecture theatre comment.

metrovelvet

panda100 wrote: »

I have to admit in an Irish context I have never, ever seen or witnessed a women yelling abusive things or being downright mean in an academic setting when it comes to womens issues.
Maybe this is a US phenomenon but It most certainly doesn't happen with women studies academics in Ireland.If it does its very,very rare

I cant imagine it here either. But I pointed it out so that the original quote has a context.

Wibbs

The_Minister wrote: »

It isn't that you aren't allowed to get angry, its that we aren't allowed get angry back.

There is certainly an element of that alright. I would also question the notion that men are visibly angrier than women as an average. Looking back I would say I've observed far more women raising their voices in arguments than men. I've also seen far more women get incredibly emotionally vicious when the bloods up. It may come down to TM's point in a sideways fashion. An argument between two men that gets that personally vicious is more likely to get violent and real damage done, so beyond the usual moron males who talk with their fists as a first response, most men learn early on that taking it to that level is a very bad plan.

Extreme example to illustrate: I remember watching a documentary on organised crime and gangsters and many of them noted a big difference between the reality and film portrayal. Namely the insults and aggressive language. In reality they tend to be more polite with each other as a wrong word can get you killed.

IMHO Women in general have less constraints on that score at least. I've seen and been on the receiving end of real nasty stuff in arguments with exes(not women mates funny enough) that if they had been a man there would have been a couple of occasions where it would have gotten to fisticuffs if Im being honest. That's not an option, nor should it be regardless of gender, but I do suspect with some that this quarter given is taken advantage of.

On the other side, some men, knowing that a woman won't strike back, or may get so frustrated she bursts into floods also take advantage of that.

I'd go along with Logical Fallacy on this point. Some people are dicks simple as. How they act the dick may use their individual genders advantages to do so.