Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Why "Yes, But" Is The Wrong Response to Misogyny
Options
Comments
-
Saying "Yes but it happens to males too" is apparently missing the point. It isn't though, making a comparison is perfectly valid because misogyny is a "gender" issue, so showing that it applies to the other gender as well disproves a point. Pretty inconvenient.
It's getting a bit off-topic but my sister freely admits that the year she spent in a "boys" school was the best of any, the slagging that went on was unreal. All the lads reading this will recognise it, many will have been on the wrong end of it. Point is that most fellas grow up giving and taking way more "verbal abuse" than any woman will take in a lifetime, so offence being taken to a lazy comeback seems, tbh, pretty lazy.0 -
Again, the point was not to change the subject. If someone said something like "girls have a much harder time with verbal abuse in school", then you would be justified in pointing out that it's not specifically a gender issue. However, if someone commented on something like, for example, women receiving threatening sexual comments, that is a separate issue to verbal abuse guys might receive in school, because although both are tenuously related in that they both involve verbal abuse, they involve completely different contexts, settings and intents. Ultimately, I think the point is that it's not some competition to outdo the other gender in terms of victimhood. We should acknowledge the issues that the opposite sex faces without trying to draw parallels with some vaguely similar issue that our sex faces.Saying "Yes but it happens to males too" is apparently missing the point. It isn't though, making a comparison is perfectly valid because misogyny is a "gender" issue, so showing that it applies to the other gender as well disproves a point. Pretty inconvenient.
It's getting a bit off-topic but my sister freely admits that the year she spent in a "boys" school was the best of any, the slagging that went on was unreal. All the lads reading this will recognise it, many will have been on the wrong end of it. Point is that most fellas grow up giving and taking way more "verbal abuse" than any woman will take in a lifetime, so offence being taken to a lazy comeback seems, tbh, pretty lazy.
Of course, it works the other way around too. If someone mentions the high number of assaults on young males, for example, one should not reply by mentioning that many women get raped.0 -
deirdre_dub wrote: »I think the big point that is missing from this debate is the emotional aspects of the subject being discussed.
Misogyny is a hugely emotive subject for those affected by it. And, when dealing with that level of emotion, care, time, patience, empathy etc are needed in bucketloads.
Most debates revolve around emotive topics surely? Whenever I debate something that is emotive to me I don't expect others to tip toe around my emotions as if it is too much for me I simply won't enter into a debate as the entire point of a debate to me is to discuss things rationally and logically, if I want to discuss things in an emotion based way I will call up my friends and talk to them not enter a debate on the internet with random people.
I don't think your mourning comparison is good, talking to someone in mourning is not a debate and do you don't treat it like one just as debating on the internet is not empathising with someone's grief so I don't treat it as such either, the two are not comparable as they are entirely different situations.0 -
Grief is something that happens to all of us. If you are in the company of someone who is grieving, it isn't always the best thing to say "yes, but I'm missing my aunt too".Saying "Yes but it happens to males too" is apparently missing the point. It isn't though, making a comparison is perfectly valid because misogyny is a "gender" issue, so showing that it applies to the other gender as well disproves a point. Pretty inconvenient.
There is more going on here than just a lazy comeback - it has to do with respecting where the other person is in the moment.so offence being taken to a lazy comeback seems, tbh, pretty lazy.0 -
It isn't a case of tip-toeing around the emotions - it is a case of allowing space for those emotions to occur.Most debates revolve around emotive topics surely? Whenever I debate something that is emotive to me I don't expect others to tip toe around my emotions as if it is too much for me
Um - did you not just say that most debates have an emotional content?I simply won't enter into a debate as the entire point of a debate to me is to discuss things rationally and logically, if I want to discuss things in an emotion based way I will call up my friends and talk to them not enter a debate on the internet with random people.
It takes an awful lot of effort to get to a place where a topic as emotive as, say, mysogyny can be debated in a detached way by someone who is a victim of same.I don't think your mourning comparison is good, talking to someone in mourning is not a debate and do you don't treat it like one just as debating on the internet is not empathising with someone's grief so I don't treat it as such either, the two are not comparable as they are entirely different situations.
To give another example - how would you debate the issues around clerical sexual abuse with someone who is a victim of such abuse? Would you say to them "sorry - this is too emotive for you - I'm not going to engage with you"? Would you say "yes, but ..."? Or would you sit down, take a deep breath, listen carefully, and support the person as best you can?0 -
Advertisement
-
:rolleyes:
Basically the article reads as "shut up and don't argue with us".0 -
Fear Uladh wrote: »:rolleyes:
Basically the article reads as "shut up and don't argue with us".
It really doesn't.0 -
Again, the point was not to change the subject. If someone said something like "girls have a much harder time with verbal abuse in school", then you would be justified in pointing out that it's not specifically a gender issue. However, if someone commented on something like, for example, women receiving threatening sexual comments, that is a separate issue to verbal abuse guys might receive in school, because although both are tenuously related in that they both involve verbal abuse, they involve completely different contexts, settings and intents. Ultimately, I think the point is that it's not some competition to outdo the other gender in terms of victimhood. We should acknowledge the issues that the opposite sex faces without trying to draw parallels with some vaguely similar issue that our sex faces.
As far as I'm concerned if something applies to both genders then it can't be misogyny or misandry.0 -
deirdre_dub wrote: »It isn't a case of tip-toeing around the emotions - it is a case of allowing space for those emotions to occur.
Um - did you not just say that most debates have an emotional content?
It takes an awful lot of effort to get to a place where a topic as emotive as, say, mysogyny can be debated in a detached way by someone who is a victim of same.
Yes most debates have an emotional content however the difference is I do not expect this fact to determine how people are allowed debate these topics, in a rational logical debate I think "Yes, but" is a completely acceptable input where as you do not because of the emotive context.deirdre_dub wrote: »To give another example - how would you debate the issues around clerical sexual abuse with someone who is a victim of such abuse? Would you say to them "sorry - this is too emotive for you - I'm not going to engage with you"? Would you say "yes, but ..."? Or would you sit down, take a deep breath, listen carefully, and support the person as best you can?
It would depends entirely of the context, I do not enter into "debates" in order to support someone, supporting someone is something I do for friends and family when they are going through something and looking for help. If a friend wanted to talk to me about their experiences I would never debate with them as that is not what they are looking for.
Similarly if I am entering into a debate with someone and they complain I am not being supportive because of my use of "Yes, but" then I will still use it as it is a valid point and that is what you do in debates, I do not enter debates in order to emotional support random strangers, especially on the internet.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
For each issue, people broadly fall into one of these categories -It would depends entirely of the context, I do not enter into "debates" in order to support someone, supporting someone is something I do for friends and family when they are going through something and looking for help. If a friend wanted to talk to me about their experiences I would never debate with them as that is not what they are looking for.
Similarly if I am entering into a debate with someone and they complain I am not being supportive because of my use of "Yes, but" then I will still use it as it is a valid point and that is what you do in debates, I do not enter debates in order to emotional support random strangers, especially on the internet.
1. They have no personal experience of the issue
2. They have personal experience of the issue, and are still dealing with the emotional impact of it.
3. They have personal experience of the issue, but have done a ton of work around the emotional impact of it, which has led them to a place where they can talk about it in a detatched, logical way.
Most people fall into category 1 or 2 - there are relatively very few people in category 3. The problem is when the issue is being debated by people from both category 1 and 2 - those in category 1 tend not to give the space that the people in category 2 need.
If you yourself fall into category 1, and you want a rational logical debate, then you need to make sure that all the people you are debating with also fall into category 1 (which sounds to me like a recipe for a dull debate). If you want to debate with people in category 2, then you will need to remember to give them the space that they need to deal with the human impact of their personal experience.0 -
deirdre_dub wrote: »If you yourself fall into category 1, and you want a rational logical debate, then you need to make sure that all the people you are debating with also fall into category 1 (which sounds to me like a recipe for a dull debate). If you want to debate with people in category 2, then you will need to remember to give them the space that they need to deal with the human impact of their personal experience.
So a good debate can only happen when it cannot be fully carried out due to appropriate emotional reservations?
Also, you can't make sure everyone is in such and such a group since this is on the internet.0 -
deirdre_dub wrote: »For each issue, people broadly fall into one of these categories -
1. They have no personal experience of the issue
2. They have personal experience of the issue, and are still dealing with the emotional impact of it.
3. They have personal experience of the issue, but have done a ton of work around the emotional impact of it, which has led them to a place where they can talk about it in a detatched, logical way.
Most people fall into category 1 or 2 - there are relatively very few people in category 3. The problem is when the issue is being debated by people from both category 1 and 2 - those in category 1 tend not to give the space that the people in category 2 need.
If you yourself fall into category 1, and you want a rational logical debate, then you need to make sure that all the people you are debating with also fall into category 1 (which sounds to me like a recipe for a dull debate). If you want to debate with people in category 2, then you will need to remember to give them the space that they need to deal with the human impact of their personal experience.
I agree with everything you say apart from the last part, my personal view would be that when debating on the internet the onus should be on people in category 2 to decide if they are willing to engage in a rational logical debate rather than expecting category 1 people to not use rational logical points as they may be too emotive.
If category 2 people want to engage in an exchange that will respect and cater to their emotive needs then I think an internet debate with random strangers is not the place for it and they should really be seeking the support of their friends.
No matter how emotive a topic is for me I do not engage in debates looking for people to agree with me or at least not point out why they disagree with me which is what this article basically said to me, don't try and debate any proposed examples of misogyny, just accept them.0 -
Not what I'm saying at all. A good debate requires sensitivity if some of the participants are speaking from personal experience.So a good debate can only happen when it cannot be fully carried out due to appropriate emotional reservations?
Of course!Also, you can't make sure everyone is in such and such a group since this is on the internet.0 -
Why isn't the onus on those in category 1 to have due sensitivity to those in the debate who are in category 2?I agree with everything you say apart from the last part, my personal view would be that when debating on the internet the onus should be on people in category 2 to decide if they are willing to engage in a rational logical debate rather than expecting category 1 people to not use rational logical points as they may be too emotive.
The real-world situation is that if the onus is on those in category 2 to bow out if they are unable to have rational, logical debates, then most debates will end up basically consisting of category 1 people only.
It's not that the debate needs to cater for emotional needs as such - it's that there needs to be a recognition that those emotions exist, and that they require space.If category 2 people want to engage in an exchange that will respect and cater to their emotive needs then I think an internet debate with random strangers is not the place for it and they should really be seeking the support of their friends.
I cannot expect strangers who are debating with me to know as much about issues that affect me personally to be able to see to my emotional needs. However, the fact of the matter is that I have an emotional reaction to my experience, and therefor the people who I am debating with will either need to give space for my humanity, or accept that the debate cannot have the input of my personal experience and hence can probably therefore consist of category 1 people only.
... or call me a liardon't try and debate any proposed examples of misogyny, just accept them
... or tell me that I'm crazy to have had the reaction I've had, and hence my emotions are "wrong" (ouch!)
... or _______ ???
Look - you weren't there. It didn't happen to you. It happened to me. I know how it affected me. I'm not lying. I'm not making this up. I'm not mad.0 -
Hopefully this will work as a better example.
Imagine, if you will, that there is a debate in this forum about domestic violence against men. Such a debate will, obviously, attract male victims of domestic violence to speak out about their experiences. Those posts will probably be the most "thanked" posts on the debate, and the debate moves forward on to issues like men finding it difficult to be believed by the authorities (you are the man of the house yadda yadda yadda) and the lack of services for such men (only one phone number, I believe?).
Then I chime in and I go "yes, but domestic violence is also a huge problem for women".
My statement is completely truthful, but it is also extremely unhelpful, and even disrespectful - even if I am also a victim of domestic violence.
Yes, there are similarities between domestic violence committed against men and women, but there are also differences, and if the debate has moved on to where those differences exist, it is no longer a debate about my experience.
Does that mean I cannot contribute to the debate? No - of course not. But it does mean that I have to keep my own experience in check, and not unwittingly derail the debate by talking about my experience. There are maybe bits of my experience that are relevant, but much of it is completely irrelevant and beside the point.
A debate which discusses the similarities between the experience of male and female victims of domestic violence would have to be clearly tagged as such.0 -
If I went into the sexist ads thread on this forum and said "What about sexist ads against women?" I would deserve to be reprimanded for it, because it is confrontational, agenda-pushing and dismissive of the issue which is being discussed - sexism against men in ads. The author appears to be just making that point. Can't see what's hypocritical about it.0
-
deirdre_dub wrote: »Why isn't the onus on those in category 1 to have due sensitivity to those in the debate who are in category 2?
Why should they? if someone cannot enter a debate without room/due sensitivity/catering to their own personal individual emotive needs then that person should not be in a debate, each person will have their own individual sensitivities so it is unrealistic to expect such an individually unknown requirement to be catered to by every random internet stranger. In my opinion the old saying applies "if you can't take the heat stay out of the kitchen", if an individual cannot enter a debate without being offended by "yes, but..." then that individual should avoid these debates.If I went into the sexist ads thread on this forum and said "What about sexist ads against women?" I would deserve to be reprimanded for it, because it is confrontational, agenda-pushing and dismissive of the issue which is being discussed - sexism against men in ads. The author appears to be just making that point. Can't see what's hypocritical about it.
Personally I would not reprimand you as the debate is "are these adds sexist" and my view is that they are not as they are intended with humour and women also receive the same treatment in advertising. To me as both adverts make jokes against men and women I do not believe it is sexist as it applies to both. So your point is completely valid as I cannot find an add depicting a man as an idiot that cannot clean an oven sexist as there will also be an add depicting a woman negatively so both genders get a bashing so its equal in my book.
Similarly Deirdre your example about domestic violence would depend upon the exact type of discussion going on, if it is in anyway discussing a gender based debate so focusing on the misandry involved then I think your point would be perfectly valid, however if it was not discussing the gender politics at all and merely discussing the effects it has had on the men who encountered domestic violence then your points would not be valid as there is no gender debate going on.
If there was a thread for discussing the hardships encountered by women who suffered breast cancer I would not condone anyone posting "yes but what about men who suffer prostrate cancer" as there is no gender debate in that thread such a comparison does nothing, however a thread built upon a gender debate which all discussion of misogyny and misandry are then "yes but..." comparisons are entirely valid to me.0 -
Personally I would not reprimand you as the debate is "are these adds sexist" and my view is that they are not as they are intended with humour and women also receive the same treatment in advertising. To me as both adverts make jokes against men and women I do not believe it is sexist as it applies to both. So your point is completely valid as I cannot find an add depicting a man as an idiot that cannot clean an oven sexist as there will also be an add depicting a woman negatively so both genders get a bashing so its equal in my book.
This is an area that the "yes, but" arguments can totally skewer a debate so that the general opinion becomes "sure both men and women get it so everything is grand". Both types of ads are sexist and well, more importantly, a bit dumb. That gets lost in the "yes, but" type debates that come up when these get discussed along gender lines.Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.
0 -
This is an area that the "yes, but" arguments can totally skewer a debate so that the general opinion becomes "sure both men and women get it so everything is grand". Both types of ads are sexist and well, more importantly, a bit dumb. That gets lost in the "yes, but" type debates that come up when these get discussed along gender lines.
It doesn't get lost if it is a valid comparison, I don't believe a Lynx add is sexist just because it has hoards of women throwing themselves at a man any more than an oven cleaner add is sexist for portraying men as feckless idiots because they are choosing a demographic and trying to appeal to it. Just as I would not describe Best Menswear clothes shops from being sexist for only catering to men's products as there are similar shops that only cater to female products.
Whether that comparison is valid is questionable though the original article is not alluding to this at all, it's making a blanket statement that you cannot argue or debate any suggestion of misogyny, you should just accept it which I do not agree with at all, all things should be able to be rationally debated.0 -
Advertisement
-
It seems as if this part is being missed or skimmed over:Now. If an instance of misogyny is being discussed, and you genuinely don’t think that the instance really was misogynistic or sexist… by all means, say so. I’d advise you to listen very carefully first, and to think very carefully, and to consider the possibility that women might know some things about misogyny that you don’t, and to choose your words and ideas very carefully indeed. But I’ve certainly seen accusations of misogyny or sexism that I thought were bull****. (Porn wars, anybody?) And I don’t expect people of any gender to just silently accept any and all of these accusations without question.
That’s not what I’m saying. I’m saying that, when an instance of misogyny is being discussed, and you don’t disagree in the slightest that it really was misogyny? When an instance of misogyny is being discussed, and it would be obvious to anyone but a sociopathic hyena on meth that it really was misogyny? When — oh, just for example — a freaking 15-year-old girl posts a picture of herself with a book by Carl Sagan to an online atheist community, and gets targeted with a barrage of sexualized, dehumanizing, increasingly violent and brutal comments, including threats of blood-soaked anal rape?0 -
Daftendirekt wrote: »It seems as if this part is being missed or skimmed over:
Not at all I just don't give it much weight at all as who gets to decide what is "real" misogyny and what is not? Every individual is entitled to their own personal definition of what is and what is not misogynistic as such people will debate over what qualifies so it's pointless for the author to suggest there is an easy to distinguish "real" misogyny that you are not allowed "Yes, but..." to and then there some bullsh*t fake misogyny that you of course can debate over.
It's not that simple to identify every case into a clear cut, real or fake misogyny, it's a complex issue that has as many varied and different views as people are individuals.0 -
If you dismiss or seek to ignore "yes, but..." points, then you are being narrow minded & ignorant (as in ill informed).
If you wish to actually debate a point properly, you can't expect people to be "sensitive to your needs".
I didn't think the article/blog was "aggressive", but it was, for me, a trite rant looking to stifle debate. A little too much "shut up and listen to me" for my liking.0 -
I've no idea what to say whenever anyone tells me some tale of woe or injustice. If it's not "yes, but" it's "yes, and?"
Apart from saying "RIP" and "that's terrible", what do you do really?Daftendirekt wrote: »It seems as if this part is being missed or skimmed over:
I read that bit a couple of times but it doesn't seem to be written in coherent Englsh. It's a series of half-sentences with question marks.0 -
If you dismiss or seek to ignore "yes, but..." points, then you are being narrow minded & ignorant (as in ill informed).
If you wish to actually debate a point properly, you can't expect people to be "sensitive to your needs".
I didn't think the article/blog was "aggressive", but it was, for me, a trite rant looking to stifle debate. A little too much "shut up and listen to me" for my liking.
Nail on the head.
It, yet again, is the "sexism when it suits" situation.0 -
Can you guys honestly say you've never seen an online discussion get completely derailed and go off on a tangent due to someone bringing up a tenuously related issue?
It it happens all the time. Threads about Catholicism can be turned into debates on abortion or homosexuality extremely easily, threads asking for advice interacting with women can be turned into debates about PUA, and, relevant to this topic, threads about issues women face are often turned into disucssions about how some vaguely similar issue also affects men.
Forget about whether something's "misogyny" or "sexism" for a moment. If a group of people are discussing an issue they face online, don't start talking about a different issue which you or your group face, especially if you're part of a more dominant group on the site you're on, as it's likely to attract others from your group to come and contribute, and as a result, completely stifle the discussion the first group was discussing.0 -
What about when the "yes but" comments are undermining and dismissive of the subject at hand, and seemingly resentful of a group discussing an issue that affects them?If you dismiss or seek to ignore "yes, but..." points, then you are being narrow minded & ignorant (as in ill informed).
If you wish to actually debate a point properly, you can't expect people to be "sensitive to your needs".
I didn't think the article/blog was "aggressive", but it was, for me, a trite rant looking to stifle debate. A little too much "shut up and listen to me" for my liking.
If rape of men was being discussed and a woman came along and said "What about rape of women?" would you not consider that confrontational and obnoxious?
I know I would.0 -
-
It doesn't get lost if it is a valid comparison, I don't believe a Lynx add is sexist just because it has hoards of women throwing themselves at a man any more than an oven cleaner add is sexist for portraying men as feckless idiots because they are choosing a demographic and trying to appeal to it. Just as I would not describe Best Menswear clothes shops from being sexist for only catering to men's products as there are similar shops that only cater to female products.
Whether that comparison is valid is questionable though the original article is not alluding to this at all, it's making a blanket statement that you cannot argue or debate any suggestion of misogyny, you should just accept it which I do not agree with at all, all things should be able to be rationally debated.
Can't argue too much with that though I don't see the comparison between Best's and say Top shop and a Lynx or say Hunky Dory's ad! The ads don't really annoy me on sexism grounds, more laziness in stereotyping and I'm not a big fan of many ads anyway! Watch too much Mad Men!
I do think though that sometimes the "yes, but" debates can sideline the main issue and turn interesting debates into point scoring while everybody forgets the initial point. People think "sure it happens there too" and tend to accept it rather than targeting both areas.Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.
0 -
Advertisement
-
It's not the "yes but" that sidelines the debate, but rather the person making the "yes but" point & their complete unwillingness to concede any valid points made that counter their stance.
How often do you see "interesting, I never thought of it like that" or "sorry, it appears I was totally wrong, well put"?0
Advertisement