#ListenAndBelieve: A Lesson in Bigoted Ideology

Originally posted on December 20, 2014

How unsurprising that the Good Men Project ran yet another long-winded, misandrous article accusing men of being vile, patriarchal, privileged misogynists who ironically cause their own extremely rare and unharmful problems and make the world horrifically horrible for women just by existing.

I could comment on the article, however, John Anderson already did an excellent job pointing out its flaws. Instead, I want to focus on the core problem that prompted the author to write the article: disbelief.

Specifically, the feminist unwillingness to listen and believe men when we talk about our experiences. Throughout the article, the author addresses many of the complaints non-feminists have concerning the feminist position on masculinity, manhood, and maleness. He does so by dismissing those complaints outright. Instead of listening to what men say, the author follows the typical feminist tract of telling men what their feelings, opinions, and experiences are, and demanding that men abide by those opinions lest they prove their privileged bias.

This attitude results is pure condescension, as illustrated by a commenter named Andrew Pauls. He writes:

Personally, I believe, its hard for men to hear criticism about being a man. I think it is indicative of deeper experiences that don’t have language attached to them. […] I think [that] cynicism arises from a lack of language we have to verbalize our experience.

I think it is rather condescending to tell someone verbalizing his opinions about his experience in plain English that he lacks the language to verbalize his experience. You may disagree with what he says, but it is disrespectful to claim he cannot tell you what he thinks after he did that precise thing.

But can we have a discussion about how to have a discussion?

You do not want to have a discussion. A discussion involves an exchange of ideas, including ideas with which you may disagree. You want to have a lecture, specifically one in which you tell someone you know nothing about who they are as a person.

Again, I think you bring defensiveness into the conversation because you don’t know how else to respond.

Again, that is a condescending response. Disagreement is not defensiveness. Your ideas are not above criticism. The notion that criticizing what one considers inaccurate or unfair constitutes defensiveness is merely a silencing tactic.

About being honest about feelings? I think there is a conversation needed about how to express feelings between men. My point is men don’t have a lot of experience around this.

And your solution to this is to dismiss men when they express feelings that do not coincide with your political views? Smacking men down for have feelings you do not like typically does not prompt sharing; it prompts silence.

To suggest that maybe we have good reason in my view doesn’t expand on your beliefs.

The commenter expressed no beliefs. He gave an explanation for his opinion. The reasons he holds those opinions would expand your understanding of his position. However, it does not appear you are interested in fostering that understanding. It appears you only want men to parrot back the negative image of them expressed in the article.

Movements of this sort? […] Perhaps what you are referring to is the patterns of communication that you have encountered when discussing issues of this sort.

Again, this is rather condescending. It is obvious that the issue is the manner in which feminists discuss men, masculinity, and manhood. There is no need to dance around that.

“And yet it does that by bringing in that tired out privilege concept” This is not a tired out concept.

Yes, it is. It is rhetorical scapegoat trotted out to shut down discussion. When you mention “privilege,” you do so to indicate that said “privileged” person’s lived experiences need no consideration. It is a silencing tactic, and it is often quite effective.

I get the impression from the author of the article and Andrew Pauls that those who share their political views are not interested in helping men. They are more concerned about pushing a particular political agenda and using men as the necessary adversary in their false dichotomy to justify said agenda.

However, should their concern for men be genuine, allow me to offer some advice: instead of telling men what you think, you should just listen and believe.

7 thoughts on “#ListenAndBelieve: A Lesson in Bigoted Ideology

  1. Disbelief is exactly it, but it’s an extreme power play over someone to tell him to deny his knowledge of himself, his feelings, reality.

    Remember the Star Trek episode (taken from George Orwell’s 1984)…?
    “How many lights do you see Captain?”

  2. they’re worse than bigots.

    a real bigot is internally consistent. to a real bigot, hurting people is just a consequence of their belief, and not the goal.

    to a feminist, hurting people is the entire purpose.

  3. ” Were men absent from these forums, caring for what they deemed more pressingly important or productive uses of their time? Perhaps we simply don’t care or fail to connect these issues to our own? Could it be that men are conditioned not to develop or act upon empathy?”

    LOL. No-one wants to be somewhere where they are actively ignored and hated-on. You’d think that empathic types like this would get that.

    PS: the “issues of their own” that are “more productive uses of their time” often involve working two jobs to earn enough money to pay CS on sons and daughters that they are permitted to speak to only once a fortnight.

  4. I’ve decided to opt-out from any conversational threads in The Good Men Project related to articles like this one.

    It’s just not worth it anymore. I’ve made my feelings known about the direction they took and the people they stomped all over on the way.

    I’ll stick to writing.

  5. Yeah, that article is a whole load of bloviating with a very simple answer that they just don’t want to hear.

    They want us to sign up with groups where we will be constantly stereotyped and bashed as the oppressors because we’re male, straight, cis, white (delete as applicable), but any attempt to generalise minority groups in the same fashion will be instantly treated as hatred and bigotry?

    Wow, yeah can’t imagine why those people aren’t just racing to sign up!

  6. Neomarxism in a jar. A former sex worker whose blog I read recently hit it on the head by pointing out that it was just neo-marxism that took hold in the 1980s during the AIDs epidemic.

    Anyway, as I see it, most male feminists and a lot of female feminists as well, are raging closet misogynists themselves, and so have no authority to tell anyone where to go.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s