Moron Mansplaining/Women’s Perspective is Wrong August 19, 2012
Posted by FCM in liberal dickwads, logic, radical concepts, rape, self-identified feminist men, WTF?.Tags: Deep Green Resistance News Service, DGR, feminist current, male violence, mansplaining, Owen Lloyd
trackback
radfem-ological images presents a radfem perspective on mansplaining here. to see a doozy of an example in real life, see this liberal dood’s response to a woman in a laundry cringing at the very sight of him here and here. yes, according to dood, this woman found him cringeworthy because other men had likely harmed her personally, (ie. shes damaged goods) and because other men had made themselves a threat to her and to all women. because patriarchy, you see. because (other) male violence against women. and he holds his hand out to receive his cookie — and receives several! yum! and chew carefully — after offering this very mediocre and not entirely incorrect analysis. the bar is very, very low here, obviously.
but what dood apparently doesnt get and never will, is that this woman, who literally cringed and cowered at the very sight of him, couldve very well been responding reasonably to the threat that he imposed personally, and not just because he has a dick, although certainly thats a good enough reason.
no, this dood, by his own admission, he individually and personally, is emotionally unstable, and prone to becoming enraged. not only that, but he cannot control his emotions at all, has weird emotive fits and outbursts and becomes entirely and involuntarily enraged at the very sight of women, existing. in response to women, existing, this man literally cannot control himself, and his most natural response is rage:
Beyond shame and embarrassment, another feeling rose within me on that laundry day seven years ago. I felt rage. Rage first of all to those whose inhuman actions did such damage to the young woman in the laundromat, and millions of other women every year. I felt enraged also that beyond destroying women, these men are destroying the possibility for men and women to co-exist peacefully. Finally I was enraged about men’s lack of response to this violence against women and against peaceful human relations.
rage. in response to a woman, existing. but allegedly the rage is in response to men’s inability to be peaceful. as if his mansplanation, even if true, makes any damn rational sense at all, or is consistent at all with women continuing to hold out hope for men, and to live voluntarily with men.
in reality, she mightve smelled that on you, dood. its kind of a thing we do. because youre out of control, emotionally unstable, and prone to becoming enraged; and in response to women, existing (among other things! many, many, many things! all the things?).
is there anybody out there? hello?
Comments
Sorry comments are closed for this entry
femonade 
[…] more here and here. Share this: Category : General, Liberal/fun feminists, Malestream Tags : Deep Green […]
Typical. Just the woman being there evokes anger. Even if what he said is true and he really was angry about the male violence, it still says a lot about his character that he can only visualize a woman in terms of we being an abuse object of men.
Like how some white people view black people not quite as people but as “people that got abused by whites” and how EVERY thing a black person does, the white person immediately chalks it up to something about race and race relations.
not sure i understand your comment WV, still trying to process it. i think it says a lot about his character — all we need to know really — that he lost control over his emotions and became enraged, bc it shows HIM, being unstable and therefore dangerous. it is also telling i guess that he didnt see her as a threat, but as a cowering coward? men do not see women as similiarly-sized animals with teeth and claws even though we are. they are not afraid of women at all, even though they should be. i know its been socialized out of us to not fight back, i know that men are relatively stronger, but dont you get a pang of fear and at least recognize the threat when you see a domesticated animal, especially one that feels threatened? damn, i do! men do not even recognize us as that.
in the meantime, while i am processing:
LOL
It’s a glory factor to be enraged at other men. A man protecting the poor little woman from other men is called “The Conquering Hero.” I haven’t visited his essay, but i’m sure that’s how he’s being received. Women are supposed to be enthused by the presence of “The Hero” and fall in love.
This is directly out of mythology. BTW, we don’t have any mythology for the questing, conquering, individualized woman, per Joseph Campbell. All the mythology for women is about her being the rescued or the one waiting for the hero to return. Campbell called women’s questing, conquering role in mythology “an internalized quest.” In other words, we’re not supposed to go out and conquer the world.Our conquering is done only within ourselves.
Obviously, we need new mythology. Until we do, the “Conquering Hero” will receive kudos for “rescuing” women, even if the only “rescuing” they do is not attacking women in laundromats.
Another thought: The way you presented his argument — that other men made it hard for him to get a date — is not really about rescuing women. It’s about self-pity.
haha — yes it COULD easily be read as a poor-me missive, and he anticipates that, and mansplains how its really not! srsly, you should read his post, its not that long. see for yourself what he says. IN HIS OWN WORDS the point if his post is not that he pities himself — the POINT, according to himself, is that he was enraged. enraged. im sure he doesnt see the true significance of that, or why it matters, but i think i do.
But….rage is the “appropriate” response of the hero. Watch any movie. Rage conquers all. When Clint Eastwood guns down half a town…and is cheered….because he’s the rage-filled avenging hero. Of course, not only him, but all avenging heroes. John Wayne goes on a murder spree in The Searchers. He’s the avenging hero. And filled with rage. Many of his other movies follow a similar theme.
This is what we teach with our mythologies. Whatever this man says, he’s acting out the avenging hero role that requires rage to be so savage.
Of course, in real life, women know this rage is more often unleashed upon us than on other men. Once men are taught rage and violence are the answers to whatever problems they have, men will use their rage and violence to harm women they claim to love. Or women who are complete strangers who don’t react how men require. Or women who are stand-ins for a woman who left them enraged.
The root of it all — including this man’s admitted rage — is mythology. That’s how a “real man,” a “hero.” reacts. He doesn’t react with humility or gentleness or caring. He also doesn’t see himself as part of the problem. The problem is always “the other.”
The internal emergency of realizing this woman reacted to him, as a possible sexual predator, requires him to distance himself from the possibility of being a sexual predator. That isn’t his self-identification He cannot regain his balance without doing that. So he rages at other men. They are the danger. Not him. (keep in mind, heroes don’t fight an internal quest. Only women do that, so he has to avoid the internal quest that would acknowledge and resolve this internal conflict).
What women know is all men — him included — are threats to us, in one form or another. The woman who reacted to him was wise. One of the commentators declared her reaction was “basic survival instinct.” One part of it is. Another, bigger part is her lived experience in this world that is dominated by male violence. The proof of this is that everyone, including animals, can overcome their “basic survival instinct” when they know they are with someone safe.
The author of the article both acknowledges male violence and then sets himself apart from it by raging at it, as does the male “basic survival instinct” commentator. And the dood who complains the article was wrong because we shouldn’t discuss men as a group, only men as individuals.
What a wonderful way for that dood to mansplain himself out of the category of culpability. if we can’t discuss men as a group, each of them responsible for the male culture of rape and violence, then he doesn’t have to concern himself when women are raped or beaten unless he did the rape or beating himself. Since an individual man doesn’t rape or beat women full time, and in fact, only does it once in a while…or only daydreams about it while he’s masturbating or only….(insert any variation here)…..then it’s not a problem to be discussed at all, don’t you see?
Unless of course, he gets caught and faces trial, but then that can be explained away by her being a slut and deserving it, don’t you know?
In the “don’t lump men together” dood’s words, he wants us to “shed” our “our judgment and our anger.” He wants a new “value system that stops making generalizations about groups of people…stops blaming women for anything on the basis of how they act or dress, and stops blaming men for what they do or don’t do.”
Notice how cleverly he lumps rape and battery victims into the same group as rapists and batterers. Let’s not judge the victims or the predators because they’re equal in culpability.
Which is its own form of rage against women for existing.
No matter how it’s approached, being filled with rage, violence and denial is the male way to handle the problem.
“She apologized…”
He, of course, did not.
Men know we are afraid of them. It never seems to bother them in the least unless we act like we are afraid of them. Then it enrages them.
Way to validate the fear, dood.
He stayed in the laundromat to enjoy her terror too.
“After all, didn’t my overflowing basket of clothes indicate my intentions in entering the building?”
Didn’t Ted Bundy’s cast show that he had a broken arm? This woman read him right.
yes TBW. it bothers them — the good ones — exactly enough to become enraged about it, but NEVER and i mean NEVER enough for them to say, stay the eff home instead of walking the streets terrorizing women. a really conscientious one might not walk directly behind a woman at night — but even he will never, ever THINK, CONSIDER or fathom that he could or should remove himself entirely from the public sphere so that women dont have to live every second in terror. or go to a 24-hour laundry where he ASKS THE ATTENDANT FIRST when its likely to be completely deserted and then go. or or or. and these are the good ones. it sickens. it really fucking does.
Agreeing with Loretta here, this man is not engaging in any honest way with the reality of women’s existence or the reality of injustices and violence done to women. He is engaging with his own fantasy, where he is A Hero, who has Righteous Rage and is Terribly Misunderstood And Troubled. Blah blah blah. All about him.
I don’t think it can be assumed that he didn’t threaten or attack her. His story of a woman cowering terrified, his rage and then his tears afterwards could point to a different story. Kyle Payne and Hugo testify to the fact these self-described nice guys are often creating a false front to hide their violent tendencies towards women.
He lived opposite the launderette, he went in there before dawn when a young woman just happened to be doing her laundry and the main thing he wants to talk about is her terror and women being attacked by men. It smells fishy to me.
I guess it was a knee-jerk reaction for me to basically admire the post from the dude………I still have a lot to learn…….
Would you have admired a woman making exactly the same points in the same way? If not, why not?
When women make the same points, they usually get attacked. They’re “man-haters.” If that were true for women (not), then why wouldn’t it be true for men too, instead of garnering admiration?
If the points made were the issue, then the sex of the writer would not matter in the individual reaction. They would react only to the points made.
But too often, the sex of the author dominates the reaction. He’s admirable because he had an opportunity to harm her and didn’t (according to him). A woman making exactly the same points would be viewed as harming “all men,” presumably because men believe all men would harm her if given the opportunity. Why else would they protest so much when a woman is discussing the reality of male violence by inserting the “you’re defaming all men” argument? Unless, of course, they’re merely doing that to derail the discussion and harm the woman who wrote it.
No man (or woman, for that matter) ever tells a man who writes about male violence they are condemning all men, so the argument is just one more that is used to crush women and force them into silence.
The opposite reaction — enjoyed only by men — is to praise and admire the person who is discussing male violence. Because? Well, because he’s setting himself apart from male violence. Maybe he truly is not violent. But, as has been pointed out, men who are violent often posture being non-violent, which should be a cautionary tale to all women.
Men who are violent are more often charming than violent when they first spot their prey. The more often seek to gain her trust than violate her immediately.
FCM, your points about men staying out of public would not solve anything. Women are safer on the streets than they are in their homes. Most male violence committed upon women is done in the home by a man they know and possibly love. So if all men stayed home all the time, that would only increase the danger from the men women know and love.
I meant that even when some men acknowledge the abuse of women as wrong, they seem to refuse to see the woman as an individual. She’s just a victim, not a person who happens to be victimized.
Instead of blaming other men for making her afraid, he seems to subsonsciously hold blame on her for being afraid.
i guess its finally happened — my default perspective is one of separatism. so what you are saying here does not immediately compute, or at least it becomes obvious to me that what you are saying is based on certain assumptions isnt it? rather than just that it *is*. and your unspoken assumption is that women are going to continue to share their lives and homes with men. i dont share that assumption anymore i guess. funny ay? 🙂
also @ delphyne
wow. you know, you are absolutely, totally right. the tears, the rage…..its all a bit familiar isnt it?
LOL. Isn’t it amazing that sometimes we don’t realize something about ourselves until we are writing it to others? That’s happened to me to. Great fun when it happens.
As to being a separatist, I’m not and probably never will be. One reason is that I’m a realist. Even in matriarchies, where women are respected and treated well, women still live with men. Even if they don’t live with lovers, they live with sons and grandsons.
Another reason: I don’t view generic men as the enemy. Patriarchy is and patriarchal men are. If men under matriarchy can and do treat women well, then the social structure is what makes the difference. While patriarchal men do harm women, those same men would treat women different if they’d been raised under the principles of matriarchy.
So my focus is on the social systems and not individual men or even men as a group. That’s why I did not bother to read his essay until you asked me to. What difference does his essay make when he didn’t address the reason for male violence, which is the teachings of patriarchy? Being angry at other men won’t change either him or the other men. It won’t change the male privilege they all enjoy or the fact patriarchy requires male violence to be inflicted on women in order to exist.
Unless we collapse patriarchy, none of that will change, no matter how many women choose to be separatists.
his article did address patriarchy though, and was very technically correct wasnt it? like if difficulty or originality and other factors werent at issue at all, his little whine-fest wouldve scored at least a 9 on technical merit alone wouldnt it? he said all the right things. he even left a comment in which he admits to being a privileged male. if he didnt say all the right things, what was it missing? i think it was pretty good. and at the same time i see and know that hes an asshole, and that whatever emotional instability and rage that is afflicting men as a class appears to be afflicting him too, but he refuses to name himself as part of the problem in all except the “guilt by association” kind of way that has nothing to do with him as an individual. even though he clearly has issues, issues which he shares with his class.
im thinking its biological at this point, you think its social (and he obviously does too — which benefits him bc gives him an OUT) but who cares really? even the “good ones” who technically “get it” are emotionally unstable freakshows who are too easily consumed with rage. he admits it to god and everyone, and thinks his sedating/deflecting mansplanation will confuse everyone as to whats happened, and to what he really is — a member of the male class who shares the most repugnant characteristics with other males, because he is one. and he doesnt see it. isnt that also a symptom of severe mental illness? he doesnt see what he is, at all.
Where he didn’t go was go to the core of the problem. Saying “patriarchy” isn’t some magical bromide. He aimed his remarks at individual men without calling on them to admit patriarchy requires violence against women to even exist, therefore all men in a patriarchal system (himself included) benefit by male violence against women. Other people here have pointed out how he benefits by her fear in myriad ways, so I won’t bother doing the same.
This benefit to men fed by women’s fear enhances the privileges of all men and keeps patriarchy alive. This benefit only exists because patriarchy needs it to exist. So until men are willing to shed their patriarchal privileges (which he did not indicate he was interested in doing), violence against women will continue under patriarchy no matter how much Avenging Hero posturing is done by men.
Do you really expect him (or any other man) to go to these depths in admitting their privileges? I don’t. I think these privileges are invisible to them, even when they try to see them (which doesn’t happen for very long or very often). If they ever did decide to eliminate all male privilege from their lives, they would have to become separatists to do it or even to see it properly. No one can see what they unconsciously take for granted until its gone.
“even the “good ones” who technically “get it” are emotionally unstable freakshows who are too easily consumed with rage. he admits it to god and everyone, and thinks his sedating/deflecting mansplanation will confuse everyone as to whats happened, and to what he really is — a member of the male class who shares the most repugnant characteristics with other males, because he is one. and he doesnt see it. isnt that also a symptom of severe mental illness? he doesnt see what he is, at all.”
so much brilliance here. mental illness seems to be the default male state.
it is a truly horrifying experience to be a male which is why they are so filled with rage. having self-awareness only exacerbates their rage
which is why i am all for elimination of males entirely. it’s more a benevolent idea than anything else. like euthanizing a sick and debilitated dog who cannot fully experience life. maleness is a truly horrific and repugnant way to exist and they know it.
yes, the degree of difficulty was very, very low — it was a very basic piece reflecting very basic understanding. and as usual, he expected and was given cookies for being a very average student AT BEST.
*what if* this tendency to become enraged — which clearly afflicts him and is an affliction he shares with his class — is not due to training in myth however? im not talking about *just* male privilege, and this post was not about patriarchy per se. this post is about mens tendency to be emotionally unstable, to have uncontrollable emotive episodes that are wildy inappropriate to the situation, and to be easily consumed with rage. INDIVIDUALLY. as well as collectively obvs.
this reminds me of a scene from “1984” where our doodly protagonist thinks a woman is spying on him and he plots and fantasizes about murdering her. once she is alone with him, she seems completely unable to read his emotional state and instead, the two have the revolutionary PIV together, even though he wouldve just as soon murdered her and almost did! in mens fantasies, women dont know what men are thinking. in reality, women cower and cringe when we see them. this evokes their RAGE. and they have the unmitigated goddamned gall to believe lies about themselves despite all the evidence to the contrary: that they really arent a threat, individually. its all because patriarchy! BULLSHIT! its because WE SMELL YOU, DOODS. you are crazy assholes and are constantly about a hairs breadth away from LOSING YOUR FUCKING SHIT AND WE KNOW IT. YOU, INDIVIDUALLY. and that includes the “good ones.” sorry, but it does.
When women start advocating violence as extreme as that practiced by men, it’s time for me to leave. Violence is the problem, not the solution to the problem.
Detracking now.
absolutely. i itch to blow that “good guy” cover as it has so many females holding on.
Loretta, what violence do you speak of?
advocating? or laughing about? i thought it was funny. either that, or its a troll, trolling me. what do i care really? comments close in 2 days. 🙂
also, i am reading a collection of short stories by tiptree/sheldon right now and many envision a future without males at all. its very refreshing, and i highly recommend it. AFAIK there isnt any “violence” or female-initiated violence that brings about the end of maleness, it happens more or less naturally, or is a side-effect of mens technology. being science fiction, its her perogative to start the story wherever she wants, and we have to suspend our disbelief, or we can stop reading. i havent stopped yet. its fascinating. and like russ in “the female man” these stories are far from a feminist “utopia” as many tend to think about it. its not perfect, but its imperfection MINUS males and maleness. is it not our right to imagine that? do we not have that right or any right to our own thoughts? JFC. of course, if ANYONE had seriously thought that tiptree/sheldon was a FEMALE writing these things, all hell wouldve broken loose. she writes misogyny so well, to *me* she sounds female but to any ordinary male, it would just resemble so much porn as to be largely indistinguishable from it. and there are many misogynistic scenes in all her stories. as well as the end of maleness, in many of them.
bliz, are you a troll? its hard to tell, sorry. this and your last comment both made me laff either way. the last one said something about male entitlement, and i think i actually guffawed. cherry did too. i will find the link….
this one. srsly, this was funny.
WOW. More male narcissism. Thank you for this post dismantling it. I just don’t have it in me anymore, what with all the male Narcissists sucking all the energy from me every fucking day. They are truly a plague.
*crosses fingers that bliz is not a troll*
the avenging hero is a hero because, rage. Simple. So simple. But we are never allowed to rage, to have much less express rage. It’s no big insight, just a sigh, I guess.
“prone to becoming enraged; and in response to women, existing (among other things! many, many, many things! all the things?).”
Loved this post! Loved this quote! LOL!
Aah, such a wonderful conversation! And yes to a world with only females.
I cross my fingers that the male gene will simply degenerate to the point that they won’t be reproduced any more. Wouldn’t that be wonderful? We also have the technology to reproduce only females nowadays, with two “eggs”. Perhaps we should figure out how to steal money away from the pornographers and pimps, and then fund our own secret underground lab where we would create female fetuses for women. So no abortion / killing of male babies needed!
“men do not see women as similiarly-sized animals with teeth and claws even though we are. they are not afraid of women at all, even though they should be”
That is so true. A man may enter in a room full of 200 women, and start attacking them and shouting at them on his own with the deep belief that women will cower and be afraid of him. This is how you see that men really treat us like cattle, like they own us, at all times. You know, like a kid would run after a flock of pigeons on the street, shout at them or stomp at them, knowing that they won’t retaliate and that they’d be afraid and fly away, and then laugh at it. Even when men are in the middle of being attacked by women, they’re not fearful. They may even keep laughing or find it funny, or jerk off from it.
Alternating between “I felt ashamed, and I felt embarrassed. I found myself crying for some time.” and “I felt rage.” is a typical way to increase stockholm syndrome in women.
1. Alternating between crying and expression of rage is a classical way to confuse victims. The crying mobilises women’s empathy for him and his feelings, so they forget about their own suffering. And then when he gets angry, they feel guilty to defend themselves because he seems so fragile, so weak, kind, etc.. Abusers may typically cry after abusing, so the victim believes she was the one who did something wrong and that she’s the guilty one, so she apologises and comforts her abuser. It is extremely manipulative, destructive and the effects may be lasting, especially when done on girls by adult male child rapists.
2. it places his needs before those of women. He is the centre of the attention and we are made to feel sorry for him and to identify to him as the human thinking subject, while the women is seen only through his eyes, as the anonymous, dehumanised “victim”. We are robbed from the women’s perspective. He has no interest in her perspective, all he’s telling is how HE feels. This is the absolute opposite of women-centredness, and feminism.
3. It’s a reversal. He presents himself as a victim when he clearly frightened that women, did not apologise for it or tried to make her comfortable by leaving, and stayed the whole time in the Laundromat knowing she felt threatened (thanks for pointing that out Delphyne, you are so sharp!). This is classical everyday sadism.
Generally, rage and hatred is what men feel towards us. I think our fear and subservience inspires hatred in them. PIV might also be what entices their contempt, rage, frustration and hatred. They never have enough power over us, they never control us completely. it is impatience and rage at never owning us completely, at never fucking us to absolute subservience.
I don’t believe his story in the first place. The premise is just so bizarre: he walks into the laundromat, and the woman cringes and ducks? What the hell? Most women, in order to survive, have become adept at not showing their fear of being alone with men. I suspect he had already outed himself as a loose cannon and done something to frighten her before she reacted, or else why would she react? I just suspect he left that part out. But because men believe that females are “crazy” and that we “overreact,” and because men have such an attitude of bruised entitlement whenever a woman indicates that yes, she does anticipate his violence, and she does not wish to receive it, the story is going unquestioned by a lot of people, I’ll bet.
hey not a troll. although HOW WOULD YOU KNOW
why do i seem trollish?
its the fact that youre new, coupled with the extreme hilarity of your comments. i hope you are for real so much. 🙂 if not, no matter really. my new comments policy is to close all comments after 3 days, no matter how hilarious they are.
ok i know the answer: i seem to endorse violence. and to answer that question is that i’m not advocating anything but the kind of violence that is already used every day: male-on-male violence. i’m advocating natural solutions. males are naturally violent. this “brotherhood” thing they’ve got going is a complete farce and will implode within months when females turn their backs on males completely. then the “bros” and the over-earnest repetitive handshakes will turn into sidelong glances and paranoid accusations, which will then spiral into an all out murder fest. it’s just what’s natural to males. they’ve managed to create a perversion and hold it over female’s heads, but only for so long. is all i’m saying. in other words, i don’t have to lift a finger.
and trolls eventually out themselves in my experience. its just a matter of time really. its very difficult to maintain a facade (and come up with new material) for like months and years on end, if your hearts not in it. men have no hearts, so thats probably why they fail at it, although some of them try really really hard.
yup. 🙂
“men have no hearts, so thats probably why they fail at it,”
BWAHAHAHA!
bliz, please don’t stop posting.
i won’t!