Weird or What?

Sorry for my absence over the past week. Real life intervened in the form of my thesis defence. Which I passed. And then, in my euphoria, promptly murdered my lap book by dumping it on the floor. My father helped out by letting me take his old mac pro (thanks dad!) so I’m mostly back up and running.

So I was doing my semi-weekly perusal of reddit and I came upon this new piece sounding the horn about how ‘women are under constant threat of violence’.

Leaving the main thrust of the article aside, let’s focus on one specific comment by a commentator named ‘Joland’:

“And the funny thing is that if a woman were to get offended by such a simple comment she would be told that she’s too sensitive [...] I guess you men are as just as sensitive…”

What is this… I don’t even… I mean, seriously? WHAT? How does that work?

Look at the logic.

If women complained, they would be called sensitive.

Since men are complaining they must have the weak, womanly nerves of, well, a woman.

Reverse the genders to bring out contrast:

“And the funny thing is that if a man were to get offended by such a simple comment he would be told that he’s too sensitive [...] I guess you women are as just as sensitive…”

It doesn’t work. It doesn’t work because men are stereotyped to be less sensitive then women.

It’s the doublethink uncertainty principle in action. On the one hand women are held to a higher standard of stoicism then men and yet… on the other… men can be shamed for being as lacking in stoicism as women. Which means *men* are held to a higher level of stoicism then women. Which negates her original point that women are held to a higher level of stoicism… which… gah, my head hurts.

WHICH GENDER IS SHE SHAMING? WHICH?

If I had to go out on a limb I would say this falls under the ‘women are superior/held to a higher standard; but men who resemble women are inferior’ form of double think.

I wonder if this particular wave function will ever collapse into something coherent.

Until then, is this weird? Or what?

14 thoughts on “Weird or What?

  1. “WHICH GENDER IS SHE SHAMING? WHICH?”

    Men. That’s obviously her intention.

    Stop with your logic already; she’s simply uninterested. Her objective is to score points against men. Whether or not it bears any resemblance to the facts (i.e.: women are the primary victims of all violence) is utterly irrelevant.

  2. @ Aych

    “Men. That’s obviously her intention.”

    But here’s the thing… Yes, she’s obviously *intending* to shame men but in the process she’s upholding a standard (that I assume must be subconscious) that women are inferior.

    It’s like any so-called feminist woman who has ever used the phrase ‘man up’.

    If you hold men to a higher standard than women then don’t complain when men achieve a higher standard than women or when people perceive men to be ‘stronger’. After all, you do too otherwise the phrase ‘man up’ would never coalesce in your brain.

  3. Well… yeah! Being able to handle doublethink IS a prerequisite for buying into feminist theory.

    One must be able to claim that not only do women have an equal capacity for mastering ALL the abilities that men have… but you also have to think that men have an uncanny knack for ‘acquiring and keeping power’ that women have been utterly hopeless to imitate for 10,000 years. So if men have held power for 10,000 years, that’s a pretty awe-inspiring record of success. Hell, it’s an amazing achievement!

    ‘Acquiring power’ seems like a pretty critical skill to master, right? So really the feminist narrative boils down to a backhanded expression of effusive awe over men’s impressive power-acquisition skills. And this exists alongside a grumbling frustration that women have here-to-fore proved themselves to be pathetically inferior compared to men in this regard.

    Truly, feminists flatter men way too much.

  4. @ Aych

    “Truly, feminists flatter men way too much.”

    If you realize how much many men are addicted to an inflated sense of agency, you start to realize just why feminism is so popular.

  5. “And the funny thing is that if a woman were to get offended by such a simple comment she would be told that she’s too sensitive [...] I guess you men are as just as sensitive…”

    The alternative interpretation I see is that she’s considering the men that are ‘sensitive’ and the men that criticise women as being sensitive are part of the same monolith. Her criticism is then that the men are being hypocritical by calling women too sensitive because they themselves are too sensitive.

  6. @ Depis

    What’s also interesting is that she’s made women out to be the victim; she is, in essence, complaining about women being victimized by a greater expectation of stoicism then men.

    Ironic, no?

  7. TB:

    “And the funny thing is that if a woman were to get offended by such a simple comment she would be told that she’s too sensitive [...] I guess you men are as just as sensitive…”

    What is this… I don’t even… I mean, seriously? WHAT? How does that work?

    I think they are trying to use the defense first cited in the case of “The State of I Know You Are vs. What Am I”.

  8. She doesn’t need to be logical or coherent, Typhon.

    I imagine when her car breaks-down, she may feel free to complain indignantly about how “useless” her boyfriend is for being unable to fix it… while conveniently excusing the fact that she can’t fix it herself, which would make her about equally “useless.”

    Why bother thinking about the details when man-bashing is its own reward?

  9. @ Depis

    I think that interpretation, while valid, is undermined by ‘I guess you men are just as sensitive’. Presumably meaning ‘I guess you men are just as sensitive as women.’ Rather than ‘I guess you men are as sensitive as you say women are.’

    The second would put the emphasis(thus the insult) on men’s hypocrisy, the first puts it on men’s resemblance to women. As in ‘look at how you men resemble women, that makes you suck.’ Alternatively, ‘I guess you men are just as sensitive as women when you should be better.’

    Also, does she actually believe the criticism that women are over sensitive is valid for ‘such a simple comment’? I doubt it. I think that sentence is attempting to reclaim victim status from men by saying that when women do it, they’re punished unjustly, but men feel free to do it thus they are justifiably punished when they do it.

    I actually think this is a common shaming tactic of the form:

    ‘Women are victims; Men should be ashamed to act like them.’

    But maybe not. There are probably better examples.

  10. @ Aych

    “Why bother thinking about the details when man-bashing is its own reward?”

    Because the devil is in the details. These subconscious assumptions are actually overtly misandrous and covertly misogynist.

    What deeper and more sinister socialization do they represent?

  11. If you were in an especially evil mood, you could make a 4 panel cartoon, showing a woman and a man.

    Panel 1: Woman says: “Complaint! Complaint! Complaint! Complaint!”

    Panel 2: Woman says: “Complaint! Complaint! Complaint! Complaint!”

    Panel 3: Man says: “Complaint.”

    Panel 4: Woman says: “STOP WHINING!”

  12. I’ve railed on this before – and it amazes me when some Feminists seek to silence men who complain about gender roles that men must endure.

    On the one hand, they claim to see that gender roles paint women as too eager to complain – too sensitive. Which means, obviously, that men are too reluctant to complain.

    Then some post-patriarchal men complain about how gender affects men and these same Feminists are so quick to dismiss what the men are saying.

    I like this analogy – if you have two guard dogs in your house – if you’ve trained one to bark at anything that moves and you’ve punished the other every time it barks – shouldn’t you be more concerned when the second one starts barking?

  13. This captures it. Everybody does whatever they do for a reason, however wrong they may be about it. This sense of power is the pay-off.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>