Why "Yes, But" Is The Wrong Response to Misogyny

Maguined

K-9 wrote: »

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.

The comparison is to do with judging something as sexist in isolation, refusing to compare to the treatment of the other gender while still claiming sexism is just not rational to me. You have make such a comparison to reach the conclusion of sexism, I could say how sexist it is for a man to have to pay to get into a nightclub however if someone says "yes but women also pay to get into that nightclub" then my claim of sexism is ridiculous as it can't be sexism if it applies to both genders. It would only be sexist if men had to pay to get into the nightclub and women did not as there would be no applicable "yes, but" in that situation.

I also think sometimes the "yes, but" debates can sideline things however I do not think that justifies en entire article telling people that trying to debate against misogyny is "wrong". With the caveat of "real" and "fake" misogyny being the difference in making it okay but who gets to define what is real and fake misogyny? anything the author believes is misogyny is obviously what she feels is "real" misogyny so therefore anyone that disagrees with her opinion or offers any "yes, but" is inherently wrong in her opinion and they shouldn't try and debate it with her.

Maguined

Dudess wrote: »

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 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.

I agree that sometimes "yes but" comments are undermining and dismissive as all comments can be in any debate. However do you think just because something can be used incorrectly invalidates all uses of it even if contributing to the debate? To me it comes down to the usual some people abuse cars/drugs/technology and hurt people with them, do we ban all use of cars/drugs/technology or just blame the asshats that abuse them? this article is the former and lambasting all uses of "yes, but" in a debate regardless of their merit or applicability.

Again I would say it would depend on the context of the discussion of the rape of men, if it is a gender based debate discussing how sexism applies to the rape of men then I think it is perfectly valid for you to bring up women as sexism can only be discussed when experiencing the experiences of both genders, if it is not a sexism based discussion then the experiences of women's rape is not relevant to the discussion so no comparison is necessary.

This article was written expressly about discussions of misogyny as such I think bringing in the experiences of men into such a discussion is relevant as long as it is a direct comparison.

yawha

Maguined wrote: »

The comparison is to do with judging something as sexist in isolation, refusing to compare to the treatment of the other gender while still claiming sexism is just not rational to me. You have make such a comparison to reach the conclusion of sexism, I could say how sexist it is for a man to have to pay to get into a nightclub however if someone says "yes but women also pay to get into that nightclub" then my claim of sexism is ridiculous as it can't be sexism if it applies to both genders. It would only be sexist if men had to pay to get into the nightclub and women did not as there would be no applicable "yes, but" in that situation.

That's all correct. But the nightclub example is a very simplistic and clear cut example of non-sexism. I really, really doubt the author would disagree with you there.

What the author is saying is not to make invalid comparisons or direct conversations off on tangents.

Maguined wrote: »

I also think sometimes the "yes, but" debates can sideline things however I do not think that justifies en entire article telling people that trying to debate against misogyny is "wrong". With the caveat of "real" and "fake" misogyny being the difference in making it okay but who gets to define what is real and fake misogyny? anything the author believes is misogyny is obviously what she feels is "real" misogyny so therefore anyone that disagrees with her opinion or offers any "yes, but" is inherently wrong in her opinion and they shouldn't try and debate it with her.

I think you're making wild extrapolations as to the views and intent of the author which go way above and beyond what is written in the article.

But anyway, do you really not believe that there are ever any cases where misogyny/misandry or sexism are blindingly obvious?

yawha

Zulu wrote: »

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"?

If the "yes, but" comment is valid and reasonable, then I 100% agree with you.

In my experience, a lot of "yes, but" type comments in online debates tend to miss the point or consist of soapboxing about an unrelated issue. And I think it is these comments that the author is getting at.

Zulu

yawha wrote: »

And I think it is these comments that the author is getting at.

Clearly it was, however to disregard all such comments because some aren't valid is ignorant and narrow minded.

Maguined

yawha wrote: »

That's all correct. But the nightclub example is a very simplistic and clear cut example of non-sexism. I really, really doubt the author would disagree with you there.

What the author is saying is not to make invalid comparisons or direct conversations off on tangents.

Who gets to decide what is a valid and invalid comparison though? if someone is suggesting a comparison they obviously believe it is valid and so should offer it up for debate, even if everyone else does not believe it is a valid comparison they should have the chance to say it in a reasonable and rationale debate.

There is no way an individual could know what the author preconceives as a valid comparison and so what is real or fake misogyny so how are they to know in advance if their "yes, but" idea would be well received or not? the entire point of debate is to freely exchange ideas so I think it is juvenile for someone to expect others to be able to preconceive an individuals opinions and adjust their debating points and topics accordingly to suit that individual.

Personally I do not like the "privilege" topic being brought into debates, especially gender debates as it is generally used to suggest another persons opinions or beliefs are flawed or of lesser value due to their gender which to me is pretty sexist idea. However I do not tell other people why they are wrong to bring "privilege" into debates, I do not expect others to restrict themselves from mentioning it just because I personally do not agree with it, I do not enter debates only wanting people to agree with me and try to prevent people from disagreeing with me.

yawha wrote: »

I think you're making wild extrapolations as to the views and intent of the author which go way above and beyond what is written in the article.

But anyway, do you really not believe that there are ever any cases where misogyny/misandry or sexism are blindingly obvious?

Maybe I am making wild extrapolations, I can only offer my own personal views and I am glad my views are being discussed and debated rather than just being automatically dismissed as "yes, but" as the author is suggesting.

Blindingly obvious is subjective to individuals opinions, plenty of people viewed the Hunky Dory's adds as blindingly obviously sexist many others did not. Personally to me the only thing blindingly obvious about this article is that stifling debate is not the correct response to misogyny, the author seems to disagree.

yawha

Zulu wrote: »

Clearly it was, however to disregard all such comments because some aren't valid is ignorant and narrow minded.

Why do you disregard the two paragraphs in which they emphatically state that they are not encouraging this?

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?

Maguined

yawha wrote: »

Why do you disregard the two paragraphs in which they emphatically state that they are not encouraging this?

Because that completely invalidates the rest of the article, are they really suggesting that someone that is debating against something being misogyny actually believes that is a genuine case of misogyny? that the person is just playing devils advocate for ****s and giggles? Is it not far more likely to be the case that the person debating against a particular example being sexist genuinely does not that instance is sexist?

Would you be happy with an article that painted all black people as lazy and criminals and should be treated as such but at the end put in a token "there are some individual black persons that are hard working and decent so treat them okay"?

Zulu

yawha wrote: »

Why do you disregard the two paragraphs in which they emphatically state that they are not encouraging this?

I think the salient point of the rant was perfectly clear, regardless of the semantics.

yawha

Zulu wrote: »

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"?

Conceding points is a pretty rare thing online. I would conjecture, however, that I've seen it much less often from those who are arguing such "yes, but" posts against misogyny or sexism.

Maguined wrote: »

Because that completely invalidates the rest of the article, are they really suggesting that someone that is debating against something being misogyny actually believes that is a genuine case of misogyny? that the person is just playing devils advocate for ****s and giggles? Is it not far more likely to be the case that the person debating against a particular example being sexist genuinely does not that instance is sexist?

Well, this is the internet. For a start, I think that online someone is quite likely to play devil's advocate for shits and giggles (hell, I've often done it myself in the past). But assuming they're not, people often post things online without thinking too deeply about the validity of what they're saying. There's also no barrier to entry for online discussions. One does not have to be educated or informed about a particular topic in order to post in a thread about it. As a result, online you very often see completely ridiculous and invalid statements about many issues.

All the article says to me is just to think for a little longer before you post.

I might take a stance more similar to yourself and Zulu if I hadn't seen invalid posts and derailing of threads so often online.

Maguined wrote: »

Would you be happy with an article that painted all black people as lazy and criminals and should be treated as such but at the end put in a token "there are some individual black persons that are hard working and decent so treat them okay"?

I'm unsure how this is a valid comparison. Are you saying that this article is painting all men as sexist and misogynistic or is this just a strawman?

Zulu wrote: »

I think the salient point of the rant was perfectly clear, regardless of the semantics.

I thought it was too. However, since the salient point you've picked up on and the one I've picked up on are quite different, so perhaps it's not?

Maguined

It's generalising all "yes, but" points raised in a misogyny debate as being "wrong". If all the author was trying to say was "don't play devils advocate" then they should of written it that way rather than "Why yes, but is the wrong response to misogyny" and then proceed to rant against people for the audacity to disagree and try and debate something with them.

yawha

So are we in agreement about everything besides the intent of the author who wrote this? That's the important thing really.

BarackPyjama

smallBiscuit wrote: »

As an aside, why am I seeing a lot of talk on misogyny lately?

Answer: misandry.

Dudess

No that isn't the answer.

Zulu wrote: »

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"?

But that's not what's being talked about - what's being referred to here is: "Men can experience being raped", "Yes, but women are more likely to be raped" - that's not offering an interesting point to ponder, that's just stupid one-upmanship.

K-9

Dudess wrote: »

No that isn't the answer.

But that's not what's being talked about - what's being referred to here is: "Men can experience being raped", "Yes, but women are more likely to be raped" - that's not offering an interesting point to ponder, that's just stupid one-upmanship.

Exactly. In a debate about male victims of domestic violence I don't fecking want to hear of female victims of domestic violence and how women are more likely to suffer serious physical injuries. What's the point?

Plenty of other times I can support that view and topic and serious social issue. It's fecking terrible and a shame that it is still so prevalent. Do I want to hear about it when discussing male victims? Nope. What's the point in even raising it? we know both sexes suffer it. Some people just want to belittle other sexes experiences, why? God knows!

yawha

To add to that, the person making the irrelevant point isn't necessarily entitled to an explanation of why their point is invalid, particularly if those discussing the issue have heard similar points made a million times. Someone not being informed properly about a particular topic is not the problem of others who wish to discuss the issue.

Of course, this can become problematic when this reasoning is used dishonestly to dismiss potentially valid points. Personally, I haven't seen this too much online, but I acknowledge the problem.