The Internet's 'Misogyny Problem' - real or imagined?

[Winston Hughes]

It was a great post until the thinly-veiled Arendt-esque statements about "morally evil 20th century regimes that threaten our precious liberalism" came around, then in became questionably myopic, which is ironic because it's an attack on someone else's supposed myopia.

The comment wasn't about threatening liberalism, but about threatening free speech and diversity of opinion.

To the extent that liberalism was married with democracy (i.e. partially at best), I do believe that its 20th-century manifestations offered a degree of protection for the above values. But the picture was far from entirely positive, with its gross inequalities of wealth and power representing very serious limitations. In conditions where some opinions have almost infinitely greater reach and influence than others, and where liberal democracy in one place can offer support for absolutist authoritarianism elsewhere, we're clearly talking about a system that's a very long way from the ideal.

The regimes I was referring to, however, are those in which the establishment of ideological purity was a core aim of state policy, and the full machinery of state was brought to bear on dissenting voices. The ruling parties in China and the Soviet Union were certainly guilty of this in their worst moments, although, setting aside the sheer scale of their respective empires, the depth of repression over time was somewhat less severe than elsewhere. If we're looking for the worst examples, the Nazification of Germany and the Khmer Rouge period in Cambodia are the ones which jump most readily to mind. With reference to those latter cases, would you disagree with my contention that 'the narrowest viewpoint spawns the most monstrous policy'?

Edit: I was going to say something about theocracy here as well, but I think I've blathered on enough for this evening.

 

[Old Hippy]

a rather good feminist rant on Misogyny...

Spoiler :

Link to video.

 

[brennan]

...fall victim to false narratives of racist black who keep "playing the race card" to get unfair advantage ...people who think they are against racism side against the black folks' claim because those black people are racist for playing the race card and it just makes things worse.

So we should give BS a free pass if it's from a black guy? Let the bad eggs in one camp give the others a bad name and muddy the waters? I think that's a terrible idea. While we're at it let's encourage the battier feminists to campaign for chemical castrations of massive swathes of the male populace shall we? After all it is in a good cause.

Indeed. Which makes me wonder why the concept of institutional racism is being so hotly contested...

It isn't. Your (ab)use of the terminology has been contested. Not a single person has disparaged the concept of institutional racism.

Otherwise, witness the paralysis resulting from the inability of anyone to do anything to actually combat racism, since even pointing out racism becomes racist

And... where has that happened on this thread? The only paralysis has come from your insistence on focussing on terminology.

It's not a matter of deciding who is "more" or "less" oppressed. The purpose of intersectionality is to unravel assumptions about privilege and oppression as mutually exclusive attributes. In different ways and different situations, different people experience different levels of privilege and abuse...

Privilege is a fairly black and white notion. When used it becomes even more so because those who tend to throw the term about demonstrate a marked tendency to only consider one group's experiences at a time, to the exclusion of the experiences of other groups which may counter the narrative of the formers' personal experiences.

e.g. try telling a group of homeless men that they are 'privileged' and you risk a smack in the mouth. They all know for instance, that if they were female, they would be far more likely to get a roof over their head.

Add to privilege the notion of intersectionality and you restore nuance to a piece of black and white ideology... ending up with what you really aught to start with in the first place. If intersectionality as you describe it means anything it is 'take each case on its own merits' - which is entirely contradictory to the basic notion of groups that have privilege.

Intersectionality then is an addition to privilege theory that actually negates privilege theory, leaving you with a bizarre piece of sociological doublethink that says precisely nothing of interest. As Gori points out, intersectionality enables someone who can say:

Men are the oppressor.

To pretend that they are dealing in nuances.

I assume you are probably a straight white male then, to be able to think this is true.

That's a clear assertion that can be proven or disproven by statistics, have you got any? Personally I find it far from ridiculous to suggest that social class is a more significant bar to achievement than any other factor.

 

[Flying Pig]

So we should give BS a free pass if it's from a black guy? Let the bad eggs in one camp give the others a bad name and muddy the waters? I think that's a terrible idea. While we're at it let's encourage the battier feminists to campaign for chemical castrations of massive swathes of the male populace shall we? After all it is in a good cause.

I think the point is more that the 'racist black guy' is largely a construction, and overemphasising how numerous those people are supports the racists' agenda. Do note, of course, how easily they believe that black people might be cheating the system.

 

[Hygro]

So we should give BS a free pass if it's from a black guy? Let the bad eggs in one camp give the others a bad name and muddy the waters? I think that's a terrible idea. While we're at it let's encourage the battier feminists to campaign for chemical castrations of massive swathes of the male populace shall we? After all it is in a good cause.

Why do you think this is a response to my post? Deconstruct it for me, because this leap from "white people are lead to believe that the responses to their own racism is the only racism going on" to "lets give BS a pass, in fact, let's encourage it" is too far for me to follow. I'm like... I'm moving my hands up and down opposite each other over my keyboard with my mouth and eyes frozen open like ... wut?

 

[Senethro]

So we should give BS a free pass if it's from a black guy? Let the bad eggs in one camp give the others a bad name and muddy the waters? I think that's a terrible idea. While we're at it let's encourage the battier feminists to campaign for chemical castrations of massive swathes of the male populace shall we? After all it is in a good cause.

You're being silly again.

Open question: is the concept of privilege necessary to describe institutional prejudices?

 

[brennan]

Why do you think this is a response to my post?

Simply: because there's a major implication in your post that people cannot be allowed to question the motives behind claims of racism that they may find suspect, because it makes them liable to a false consciousness.

If that opinion doesn't imply that people cannot call out BS when they think they see it then I really don't see it makes any sense at all.

And again, this is a red herring. Nobody here is espousing the viewpoints in question. If there is confusion here it is because the conversation has turned into one of two strawmen talking at cross purposes.

Shall we get back to discussing misogyny?

 

[Winston Hughes]

I think the point is more that the 'racist black guy' is largely a construction, and overemphasising how numerous those people are supports the racists' agenda. Do note, of course, how easily they believe that black people might be cheating the system.

I think you've got a good point here, but you don't quite follow it to the end.

What gives the most ammunition to white racists is not merely the overemphasis of racism against white people, but the response to that overemphasis which says 'white people cannot be victims of racism'. It's really hard to imagine anything more helpful to them than the opportunity to point at the anti-racist agenda and suggest that it is itself racist against whites. That the latter is an impression taken away by many people who aren't actually racist themselves shows just how easily this tactic can be made to pay off.

And what advantage on the anti-racist side is gained by denying that white people can be subject to racism? I can see none for which it's worth presenting such an open goal. My belief is that, where any case is raised in which a white person has been the victim, anti-racists should respond in the same manner as to any other example of apparent racism: blunt, outright condemnation. Kick the racists' argument out from under them, make it clear by our actions that they are the only ones with an agenda based on racial prejudice, and then go on the offensive, focusing on the way in which their support for racial division results in people of all colours ending up as victims.

To use a boxing analogy, the racists will always try to pull you in close where they can fight dirty. Keep them at arm's-length and they can't compete - they just don't have the tools.

 

[Senethro]

Many racists have an agenda of trying to deny or discredit the concept of institutional racism so that they can always just fall back on a "neutral" maintaining of the status quo. They aren't hurting anyone, so why are you liberals coming after them? They just want to live and let live (but not in our backyard or schools, public offices etc).

Simply: because there's a major implication in your post that people cannot be allowed to question the motives behind claims of racism that they may find suspect, because it makes them liable to a false consciousness.

I didn't see much implication of a course of action in Hygro's post, he was just trying to highlight why an understanding of institutional racism is useful for seeing racists' wedge tactic for what it is.

 

[Winston Hughes]

Many racists have an agenda of trying to deny or discredit the concept of institutional racism so that they can always just fall back on a "neutral" maintaining of the status quo. They aren't hurting anyone, so why are you liberals coming after them? They just want to live and let live (but not in our backyard or schools, public offices etc).

As I say, we make it clear how racism begets racism, how institutional racism nurtures and sustains the conditions in which racism of all types can flourish.

That is, we keep making the same arguments we're already making, just taking care not to allow the defenders of racism any cheap shots at us.

 

[aelf]

Unfortunately, in reality there's not much you can do to stop defenders of racism from taking potshots anyway. Support affirmative action? They will point at the anti-racist agenda and suggest that it is itself racist for favouring certain races. Acknowledge that institutional racism still exists? They will point at the anti-racist agenda and suggest that it is itself racist by perpetuating the idea that people are split along racial lines.

The PR battle is not something you can win against a determined enemy. Moderate hand-wringing is what makes them despicable, as they end up arguing for few principled positions and allow themselves to tolerate bigots for the sake of maintaining harmony.

 

[Winston Hughes]

Unfortunately, in reality there's not much you can do to stop defenders of racism from taking potshots anyway. Support affirmative action? They will point at the anti-racist agenda and suggest that it is itself racist for favouring certain races. Acknowledge that institutional racism still exists? They will point at the anti-racist agenda and suggest that it is itself racist by perpetuating the idea that people are split along racial lines.

The PR battle is not something you can win against a determined enemy. Moderate hand-wringing is what makes them despicable, as they end up arguing for few principled positions and allow themselves to tolerate bigots for the sake of maintaining harmony.

But you're wrong, and obviously so. We've been beating the racists back with the quality of our arguments and the clear morality of our position for decades, centuries even.

What's deeply unhelpful is the way in which some people are determined to use the fact that our victories have been incremental, rather than revolutionary, to dismiss the reasonable approach altogether, abandon our unique advantages, and take to fighting as dirty as the other guys.

You want to see how we win these fights? Look at Gandhi, look at MLK, look at Mandela. The ones who really changed things - instead of just acting like righteous warriors whilst achieving nothing - were always the most reasonable guy in the room.

Edit:

I forgot to add that the whole point about 'cheap shots' ('pot shots' are not the same thing) is that they are dirty punches that can be avoided if you stay out of reach. Saying that 'only whites can be racist' is the equivalent of offering your chin to the other guy's elbow.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

You want to see how we win these fights? Look at Gandhi, look at MLK, look at Mandela. The ones who really changed things - instead of just acting like righteous warriors whilst achieving nothing - were always the most reasonable guy in the room.

Generally speaking, when the most reasonable guy in the room wins the fight it's because there are plenty of less reasonable guys in the room too. There was some amount of 'hey, this MLK is pretty reasonable', but there was also a significant amount of 'if we don't go with this voice of reason we are gonna get something a whole lot worse' behind that result.

 

[aelf]

But you're wrong, and obviously so. We've been beating the racists back with the quality of our arguments and the clear morality of our position for decades, centuries even.

I don't see what's so obvious. You're assuming that the reduced prevalence of racism today (debatable, since I think a good case can be made that racism has had a resurgence in some places from time to time, and may have actually risen overall) is necessarily because of "the quality of our arguments", which is a typical liberal delusion.

A more than cursory examination of this trend would reveal, and very obviously, that it's more than just the nice exchange of arguments that has produced our situation today, not least because of what Timsup2nothin brought up. The abolition of slavery, for example, was accomplished partly through violence. Ignoring this fact and yet claiming that you're obviously right makes me think that what you say is nothing more than false rhetoric.

I forgot to add that the whole point about 'cheap shots' ('pot shots' are not the same thing) is that they are dirty punches that can be avoided if you stay out of reach. Saying that 'only whites can be racist' is the equivalent of offering your face for the other guy's elbow.

It doesn't matter. It may be more difficult to reach, but they're still going to hit your face because the arguments to defend inequality and prejudice have been honed to perfection. If you are not expressly 'race-neutral', you can be accused of being racist yourself.

Better that we confront bigots with a principled stand than to take a weak stand for the sake of avoiding controversy.

 

[Winston Hughes]

Generally speaking, when the most reasonable guy in the room wins the fight it's because there are plenty of less reasonable guys in the room too. There was some amount of 'hey, this MLK is pretty reasonable', but there was also a significant amount of 'if we don't go with this voice of reason we are gonna get something a whole lot worse' behind that result.

I'm not so sure about that. From what I've read, it's been common for racists quite deliberately to try and provoke their less reasonable opponents into stepping up, because experience shows that fear of those elements tends to produce reactionary sentiment.

 

[luiz]

Yeah, that's a hell of strawman argument. No one here has said that the Black-Chinese racism isn't racism, nor does anything think that.

The difference comes from what we see that racism as originating from. You think racism is just individuals being racist; we think it serves to reinforce power structures in society and originates from those structures. That doesn't mean that individuals cannot be racist, or that minorities who experience racism cannot themselves perpetuate racism. What you fail to understand is that this example of Black-on-Asian racism is actually a reproduction of a White-originated racist hierarchy, it's not something invented by or perpetuated by the Black who's being racist against the Asian, nor does its existence elevate Blacks above Asians in the way that White racism elevates Whites above other races in society by doing things like setting the dominant culture (their own) as the default "acceptable" one. That's the difference.

I got the impression that what you and others were arguing was exactly this, that black people by definition cannot be racist in the US. My point is that there are several dimensions to racism, the institutional one being only one. At an interpersonal level blacks can be just as racist as anyone else.

I also don't buy your point that the example of Black-on-Asian racism I created is just a reproduction of a white-originated racist hierarchy. I see variations of this point made several times, and I think it's fundamentally flawed. It attaches to whites certain special qualities (even if negative ones), and at the same time somewhat negates agency of non-whites, as if everything bad they do is just the reproduction of white-created structures.

The fact is that racism is not always and everywhere related to white racism. There are plenty of examples of racial discrimination in non-white societies that predate contact with Europeans. It's an unfortunate byproduct of our tribal mentality.

There's no reason to assume when a black guy is racist against a Chinese he is just reproducing white racism. Maybe he grew up in an all-black neighborhood, was used to having just black friends, knew all the restaurant owners and etc. All of the sudden the neighborhood is "invaded" by Chinese immigrants, people speak a language he can't understand around him all the time, his old favorite restaurants are gone and replaced by ones with menus he can't read, the kids dress weird and listen to weirder music. So he gets resentful and starts saying racist stuff about his new neighbors. This is good old xenophobia and aversion to change, it can happen anywhere and is not a byproduct of slavery and the KKK.

There's nothing really obvious about what you said earlier. You did not explicitly say that your example has a distinguishing quality and is not meant to make a universal point about racism. We got into the whole semantics debate, by the way, partly because you and a number of other posters had a problem with that kind of thing - that Cheezy did not explicitly say that he did not deny the existence of other meanings of racism in regular parlance.

What I meant was extremely clear. I was giving an example of interpersonal racism. Never did I deny that institutional racism may also exist.

 

[Farm Boy]

I'm not so sure about that. From what I've read, it's been common for racists quite deliberately to try and provoke their less reasonable opponents into stepping up, because experience shows that fear of those elements tends to produce reactionary sentiment.

You can hang the John Browns. The Lincolns get the job done.

 

[Tahuti]

It should. Sexism and racism aren't personal opinions, they're social structures.

Actually, they are personal opinions. The fact such opinions may be shaped by groupthink doesn't make them less an opinion.

 

[Senethro]

Actually, they are personal opinions. The fact such opinions may be shaped by groupthink doesn't make them less an opinion.

Quite correct, and this is why it needs addressing at the societal and institutional levels that strongly shape peoples opinions.

 

[Winston Hughes]

I don't see what's so obvious. You're assuming that the reduced prevalence of racism today (debatable, since I think a good case can be made that racism has had a resurgence in some places from time to time, and may have actually risen overall) is necessarily because of "the quality of our arguments", which is a typical liberal delusion.

Firstly, it's a curiously rose-tinted view of the past that sees it as less racist than the present. Go back fifty or a hundred years and the predominance of overtly racist views in popular discourse and public policy was vastly greater than now. Walk around any number of modern cities and you'll see people of all colours and creeds working and living together in what is, though still a long way from the ideal, a remarkably changed social climate with regards to racial attitudes.

Secondly, the only delusion here is that which sees nothing good in the world that doesn't result from the narrow confines of an exclusive and willfully hostile ideology. I've given clear, concrete examples of how great change has been achieved by those who rejected the ends-justify-the-means approach, not merely because they saw it as immoral in itself, but also because they realised how ineffectual it is in the final reckoning. In comparison, the achievements of the relentlessly oppositional, unreasonable approach you advocate have been inconsequential at best, and, at worst, profoundly negative.

It doesn't matter. It may be more difficult to reach, but they're still going to hit your face because the arguments to defend inequality and prejudice have been honed to perfection. If you are not expressly 'race-neutral', you can be accused of being racist yourself.

Better that we confront bigots with a principled stand than to take a weak stand for the sake of avoiding controversy.

There's nothing principled about deliberately courting controversy for its own sake, or for advocating immorality in the fight against immorality. And there's nothing weak about holding firm to a respect for humanity - all humanity - and the pursuit of change through peaceful and open discussion. You act as if drawing anti-racism into an ideological niche, garnished with displays of superficially tough language, is somehow going to produce meaningful change. There's no evidence that this is true, and plenty to the contrary.