A man and a gender studies professor walk into an elevator...

This is from the initial column that discussed the incident from the Washington Post (written by a woman, if it matters).



https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/she-called-his-elevator-joke-offensive-he-called-her-complaint-frivolous-whos-right/2018/05/03/43ba4084-4ee1-11e8-af46-b1d6dc0d9bfe_story.html?utm_term=.55c879904999

You can dress up a pig but it's still a pig.

http://www.westindiancritic.com/the-benevolent-sexist-man-how-to-spot-him-and-how-to-defeat-him/

Here are five things that “benevolent” misogynists do that you can use to identify them in the wild.

1) Women Must Always Be Held Accountable But Men Must Never Be Held Accountable

One of the ways that this brand of misogynists shows their true colors, is their need to prove feminists “wrong” by holding women accountable for crimes that are more commonly committed by men as some sort of “gotcha” to women, while never holding men who commit the same crimes accountable. The message becomes “See! Women do this too!” and in their minds, they’ve proved that feminism is useless because women are REALLY the evil ones all along.

All documented sociology, gender studies and psychological findings are thusly proven false because they’ve found out that women sometimes commit crimes too. Impressive.

What this does is it serves to silence women who either identify as feminists or might consider identifying as feminists by delegitimizing the women’s issues they bring up. YES, we know that there are female sexual predators who prey on young men. YES, feminists should (and they do) take these stories seriously. But this does NOT change the fact that millions of women have been rape victims and victims of abuse. It does NOT change the fact that women have a right to demand justice for these women and to point out sexist bias in our culture that allows for these sexual assaults to happen.

And of course, this is just one example of an arena where benevolent misogynists force women to be held accountable where they don’t force men to do the same. They perform their same faux-concern when stories break about women physically abusing men. Or when entertainment news covers women who cheat on their boyfriends/husbands.

How can you tell these people are secretly holding onto deep sexist beliefs about women? Because they don’t actually care about the male victims they claim to support. They might feign caring (like any good sociopath) but they don’t actually care about the crimes or injustices committed against men. As long as they have silenced women, they feel self-righteous and satisfied for discovering that gender biases are false. They show no interest (or perhaps they don’t have the capability) to engage with feminist literature surrounding these men’s’ issues (bell hooks has many books on the subject).

Imagine. All it took was an idiot with a Twitter account to prove sexism wrong…

2) He Makes False Comparisons Between Women’s Issues vs. Men’s Issues To Invalidate You

Another way these misogynists function is by making false comparisons between women’s issues and men’s issues. This point is very similar to my first one in that it also encompasses the misogynists who only yell “men get raped too” when it’s convenient to them.

These are the same men who deny that the societal pressures for women to wear makeup, weave, etc. exist because “men have pressure too”. Because this brand of misogynist lacks nuance, he is usually unable to see something as simple as the context surrounding the social pressures that women face compared to the ones that men face. Women are punished severely for not conforming to a patriarchal (and white supremacist) world.

There is nothing that women/femmes can do to avoid being punished for simply existing the way that they are. This “punishment” isn’t theoretical. There are economic consequences to being a woman. Being a woman means inherently that you will be subjected to various unavoidable negative social consequences. Additionally, being a woman/femme who doesn’t conform to certain gender roles prescribed by society can lead to poverty, sexual violence or death.

YES, straight, cis men can die. They can be poor. And they can face sexual violence. But they typically do not face these consequences because they are men.

(Note: I use men here mostly when I mean straight cis men because they ARE the benevolent misogynists I’m addressing in this post.)

Using men’s experiences to invalidate women’s experiences is sexist. Delegitimizing women’s experiences as a whole is sexist. Women in the Caribbean do have a right to discuss and dissect our oppressions. Being more likely to have a female boss or being raised by a single mother doesn’t negate institutionalized oppression of women. Sorry, not sorry.

3) Expect All The Benefits Of Patriarchy With None Of The Work And Pass It Off As Progressive Thinking

The benevolent misogynist is lazy. Yup, I said it. One of the things that benevolent misogynists love to do (especially on ye olde social media) is to feast on all the benefits of patriarchy while picking and choosing the parts of “feminism” they want to enjoy.

“Down with men paying for dates!” They might say. Only, they don’t say this because they believe that women should be financially and economically on equal footing to men.

They say this because they’re broke. Or because they simply don’t want to pay. Watch this same misogynist crumble when he encounters a woman who makes triple what he makes. Watch this same misogynist ascribe to gender roles “like a boss” the moment he realizes that not doing so means that he actually has to change.

The same men who think that “men shouldn’t always have to pay” always seem to be the ones with twenty-million impossible standards for women that totally coincidentally line up with the exact type of thinking prescribed by West Indian patriarchy. Incredible! Unique! What fresh thinking!

Don’t let these men fool you. If you notice that some man is always speaking about the “progressive” things he believes in only when they directly benefit him, you might be looking at a benevolent misogynist in action. The type who likes sexually liberated women… only when he thinks he might benefit. The type who thinks men should get paternity leave… because it “isn’t fair that only women get time off”. The type who thinks uncritically about every damned thing related to feminism unless he sees a way he can kick off his shoes and relax. And let women do all the work.

4) Casual Homophobia/Transphobia Disguised As Jokes

Homophobia/transphobia is never funny. (It actually pained me to write such an obvious statement). But a lot of these benevolent sexists get their rocks off on these “just jokes” while ignoring the fact that in our countries (in the Caribbean), homophobia and transphobia literally results in death.

Are these jokes really funny? Can you really be a “good person” if you think they are? These men will think it’s okay to laugh and kiki about homophobia and transphobia because they “know someone gay”. In the Caribbean (and everywhere else honestly), knowing someone gay isn’t a free pass to make homophobic jokes.

“Knowing someone gay” doesn’t mean you’re contributing a single thing to undoing the violent homophobia/transphobia in our society. It’s cruel, it’s not funny, but it’s another part of the benevolent sexist’s repertoire. They disguise their oppressive attitudes underneath half-assed humor and unfortunately, a lot of women let it slide.

Stop this! Don’t let someone’s homophobia and transphobia slide because they once said something nice about women. Or because they know someone gay. Call for everyone in your circle to do better.

5) Use Condescending And Patronizing Tones Towards Women, Especially Women Who Are Actually Smarter Than They Are

Another way that benevolent sexists show themselves is their obsessive need to correct women to “prove” (to themselves and no one else) that they’re smarter than them. It’s one of the sadder tactics that’s rarely successful as a demonstration of intelligence, but a very successful demonstration of arrogance. This benevolent sexist will leap at any opportunity to show a woman that he knows more than she does, even when he doesn’t.

This one is harder to spot in action, but it’s one of the more common ways you’ll know if you’re dealing with a sexist man who might even be hiding under the cloak of feigned progressiveness. If you feel like this person is specifically targeting you to “correct” because you’re a woman/femme, you’re probably right. Give weight to your instincts here because it’s so common, I’d venture to say 99% of the times you suspect that’s happening, you’re correct.

I am not really sure who you are intending to attack here, Neptune....

Is this meant as a personal attack on me? Or are you just attacking the man in the article for not being willing to apologize?

Either way, it feels kind of petty.

Right back at ya, bra.

I am serious.

You posted a rather nasty article that defined a label... "benevolent misogynist". It is a label that the author ascribes to "cis" men, and then attaches a number of pretty negative traits, including not just a bunch of negative attitudes in general, but also transphobia, and homophobia. These are pretty heavy accusations to level against someone. They are untrue for in my case. I can't read the mind of the man in the story, but I see no reason to believe he is any of these things.

The idea that anyone who questions feminism is a misogynist, or a homophobe, or a transphobe, or a cis-man, or even a man is a ridiculous straw man and it is demonstrably untrue.

I am critical of feminism when it is extreme, and I have examples that I think of as extreme. I have never said that all feminists are extreme, or irrational, or hateful. And, I would never give someone the "feminist" label unless they give it to themselves. If I ever called someone a "feminist" and they told me that they weren't, I would apologize for my error.

I am criticizing an ideology. I am not criticizing individual people unless they do something I believe is clearly wrong (as in the case of this gender studies professor).

I am curious why you think this rather nasty article is appropriate or relevant? Are you calling me a "misogynist"?

I am serious.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-mysteries-love/201502/12-ways-spot-misogynist

The following traits are typical of the misogynist:

He will zero in on a woman and choose her as his target. Her natural defenses may be down because he’s flirtatious, exciting, fun, and charismatic at first.
As time goes on, he begins to reveal a Jekyll & Hyde personality. He may change quickly from irresistible to rude, and from rude back to irresistible.
He will make promises to women and often fail to keep them. With men, on the other hand, he will almost always keep his word.
He will be late for appointments and dates with women, but be quite punctual with men.
His behavior toward women in general is grandiose, cocky, controlling, and self-centered.
He is extremely competitive, especially with women. If a woman does better than him socially or professionally, he feels terrible. If a man does better, he may have mixed feelings about it but he is able to look at the situation objectively.
He will unknowingly treat women differently from men in workplace and social settings, allowing men various liberties for which he will criticize female colleagues or friends.
He will be prepared (unconsciously) to use anything within his power to make women feel miserable. He may demand sex or withhold sex in his relationships, make jokes about women or put them down in public, “borrow” their ideas in professional contexts without giving them credit, or borrow money from them without paying them back.
On a date, he will treat a woman the opposite of how she prefers. If she is an old-style lady who prefers a "gentleman" who holds the door for her, orders for both and pays for the meal, he will treat her like one of his male buddies, order for himself, and let her pay for the whole meal if she offers (and sometimes even if she doesn’t). If she is a more independent type who prefers to order her own meal and pay for herself, he will rudely order for both and pay the check while she goes to the bathroom.
Sexually, he likes to control women and gives little or no attention to their sexual pleasure. Foreplay, if it occurs at all, is only a necessary means to an end. He likes oral sex but only as a recipient. His favorite positions enable him to avoid looking the woman in her eyes.
He will cheat on women he is dating or in a relationship with. Monogamy is the last thing he feels he owes a woman.
He may suddenly disappear from a relationship without ending it, but may come back three months later with an explanation designed to lure the woman back in.
Only rarely will a misogynist possess every one of these traits, which makes it harder to identify them. Their ability to lure women in with their charm and charisma adds to the difficulty of spotting the early-warning signs.

Women haters (unconsciously) get off on treating women badly. Every time they can put down a woman or hurt her feelings, they unconsciously feel good because deep down in their hidden brain, their bad behavior is rewarded with a dose of the pleasure chemical dopamine—which makes them want to repeat the behavior again and again.

Well, I think that about does it.

It was truly a pleasure to talk with you about this.

It's just getting started Max.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/05/24/senate-passes-bill-revamp-sexual-harassment-policies-wake-metoo-movement/641526002/

WASHINGTON — The Senate on Thursday passed legislation to overhaul the way Congress deals with sexual harassment in its ranks, a response to the #MeToo movement that swept the nation and forced several lawmakers to resign under a cloud of misconduct allegations.

The bill is designed to hold lawmakers — including those who have left office — personally liable if they’re found to have sexually harassed a staffer or another congressional employee. That change comes after revelations last year that taxpayer money was paid out to settle for more than $342,000 in harassment and discrimination complaints involving members of the House between 2008 and 2012 — a disclosure that sparked public outrage.

The bipartisan bill passed by voice vote.

"I think it puts the responsibility where the American people think it should be," said Sen. Roy Blunt, R-Mo., who announced an agreement on the legislation Tuesday with Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn.

The legislation also does away with archaic congressional rules that force victims of sexual harassment to undergo counseling, mandatory arbitration, and wait for a 30-day "cooling off" period before taking a complaint to court.

The legislation updates the 1995 Congressional Accountability Act. That law applied workplace rules to Congress for the first time.

"This is a good day for changing the rules so that the deck is not stacked against victims who should be in a safe work place," Klobuchar said on Thursday.

The House passed its own bipartisan legislation to revamp sexual harassment policies by a voice vote in February — a bill that soon stalled in the Senate. Some Democrats suggested that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., had taken issue with the House bill’s provision that would make members financially liable in discrimination cases — something McConnell’s spokesman sharply denied.

The Senate bill will now have to be reconciled with the House version, unless House Republican leaders agree to accept the Senate proposal without changes.

Contributing: Eliza Collins and Deborah Berry

Yes, but you and Max are already in agreement on sexual harassment. Also on equal pay and other issues. I don't know why you are trying to make an issue of those points.

Well, let me count the ways...

I've been accused of playing games. I've been called "silly" on more than one occasion. I've been talked down to, schooled in the religion of my mother and called out to apologize from a perceived slight from another thread.

So, if you ask why I'm making a point here? Because I CAN.

I sure can see it.

___


And that difference between our responses may be exactly what #metoo and other current movements are about.

The theme of this thread is the inability to make distinctions between real injustice (on which we all agree) and perceived slights. The absolute extremes are the problems; either you are with or against us, either you are a feminist or a misogynist, either you side with a gender studies professor or you are transphobic. These extremes don't make sense in the real world where people have all sorts of ideas, opinions and feelings.

- There is a difference between someone using their authority over someone to degrade them and someone making a rather tame comment on an elevator.

- There is a difference between touching someone at a bar and rape.

- There is a difference between disagreeing with someone on an internet forum and abuse.

- You can believe that MeToo has sometimes crossed a line into ridiculousness without rejecting the fact that workplace harassment is a fact that should be taken seriously.

- You can question whether feminism has gone to far without being a misogynist.

If you are looking for reasons to be offended, you will find them everywhere. The Washington Post article points out that all this outrage over comments in public spaces take away from things like abuse of power in the workplace.

Neptune has found all sorts of reasons to find offense in this thread. I did tell Neptune that she was being silly, when I felt that her points didn't make sense. I have also recently called Oralloy and Coldjoint silly... so silliness has nothing to do with gender. I don't feel like this this is the horrible insult. If it helps, I feel that calling some of her posts "silly" is a fair assessment of them. I am not attacking her as a person... that is not my intent. I pointed out fairly gently that she had used an ethnic slur. I made it clear that I was just letting her know, and that I was sure it was an accident. She called me a misogynist. I laughed it off, I am an adult who made the choice to be here, I can take it.

The only real thing upon which we have disagreed is whether this man had an obligation to apologize. I don't think he did.

I don't think that Neptune's reaction to this thread is reasonable. She is talking as if she has been traumatized. If discussing this topic upsets her so much, I don't understand why she keeps it up.

I clearly created this thread to talk about excesses related to feminist ideology. If this topic upsets you, don't jump in. No one is being forced to join in this discussion.

Max,

There is a difference in touching some one at a bar and UNWANTED touching at a bar. There also a difference between disagreeing with someone on an internet forum and only allowing viewpoints that cater to an OP.

No, I do not believe that #MeToo has crossed into ridiculousness and there's hundreds of thousands of people that stand right beside me. Work Place harassment is always to be taken seriously, that's why a women's studies professor reported such an incident.

I never called you a misogynist. I referenced material in which to recognize one. If you think you fit the criteria, that wasn't my intent. I also never called you an ass, but that's beside the point.

If you can't or don't like my postings, well, quit starting threads on this forum. Problem solved.

I don't mind you posting on my thread at all. I am just a little sad that you seem to be getting so upset. And, no I am not going to stop starting these threads. I enjoy them. I enjoy interacting with you (although sometimes you seem to go off the rails).

- I suppose there is another thing upon we disagree. I do think that MeToo has gone too far. I recognize that lots of people agree with you completely. There are lots of men and women who agree with me. I have no problem that you disagree with me, that is the reason these discussions are interesting.

- I am glad that you don't intend to call me a misogynist. Those articles you posted seemed to be off-topic, so I suspected that you did mean them as an insult. If that wasn't your intent, good.

- I like many of your postings. And, without you, my thread would not be getting nearly the interest it is getting. I appreciate that. Some of your posts seem a little angry; disproportionate to the topic of the thread.

I wish you were enjoying these interactions more than you seem.

Apparently, you meant that reply to respond to my post. Actually, it had nothing to do with what I posted.

It is fascinating how you are so in tune with my emotional well being that I just have to ask, why would you possibly think that I'm upset? Are you?

The materials I posted are relevant to the discussion to show the intent of the man. They're not any less relevant than your daughter speaking Spanish in public.

Please don't mistake any of my posts as anger. If you think that I am, it may be a side effect from how people normally engage with you.

This negligee jiving pushes my buttons.

Why do men laugh about women's underwear?

And little boys giggle.

Underwear is funny!

The same reason women laugh about men's underwear, and little girls giggle. My daughter enjoyed the "Captain Underpants" series.

When feminism starts getting in the way of benign humor, it is another sign that it has gone too far.

When people aren't held accountable for the things they say, it's a sign that it's gone too far.

You told your daughter that's it's ok to tell someone to go "in fact I told her it would be completely appropriate for her to tell them to "**** themselves" as long as she did so in English." You condone the practice of holding someone accountable for what they say when it concerns your daughter but you won't do the same thing for the professor. That's a double standard. Either it's ok for everybody or it's not. You can't pick and choose who is held accountable and who is not.

It is called free speech. I can't stop you from saying things that I don't like. But, I can respond... with speech. We both get to express ourselves. Nobody gets hurt. Nobody gets fired.

The problem is when you set up morality police. I am against the practice of restricting speech with authoritarian policies. If by "consequences" you mean someone gets fired, or penalized, or forced to apologize under threat, that is going too far. *(Note that I do accept that the workplace is a special case where there is a compelling need for speech to be somewhat restricted.)

By the way, you made a joke about my underwear "getting in a bunch"... I didn't think twice about it. Should I have reported you to the morality police?