December 13th, 2024
Every human group has its assholes. There are asshole bartenders, asshole uncles, asshole ministers, asshole prostitutes… you name it, if it’s a class of humans, it’s got its special subclass of assholes. The same goes for feminists. These women are justifiably angry about the injustice with which women are treated, and especially angry about the men who are assholes — of which there are quite a few. But some of them lose control of their anger and become assholes themselves. I ran into such a woman the other day on a social medium website. Ever the optimistic teacher, I thought that perhaps I could reach out to her and somehow make a connection. Boy, was I wrong! Here’s our exchange. I began it by responding to a long, long, long post she had made excoriating men for their assholeness. My comments are in plain text and hers are italicized.
————————————————————————————————————
I realize this comment is a little late, but I am confused by one aspect of this piece. Most of it seems to be directed at that large group of men who make me ashamed to share their gender. But some of it seems to imply that you direct your comments at all men. Could you clarify your intent here?
Can you point to the specific passage where the analysis shifted from describing a documented pattern to indicting all men, or the sentence that led you to that conclusion? Or is there a part of the piece you recognize yourself in and feel the need to be exempted from? Because that’s how this reads as it isn’t a response to an accusation I made, but a request for a personal exception, correct? So why is your discomfort treated as something women should continue to absorb, while simply encountering an analysis of male group behavior, just mere words you read, but that don’t name you, accuse you, or assign individual guilt that could feel intolerable? As you said you understand the piece and who it’s about….. but if that’s the case, why does reading about a documented pattern still prompt requests for clarification or reassurance? Either the analysis is understood, or it isn’t. But it can’t be both.
"Can you point to the specific passage..."
Well, in most places you are careful to include some sort of phrase or clause limiting your comment to a subset of men who recognize themselves in your observation. Yet there are some places where you do not so confine your observation. If there were only a few, I would assume that your general pattern of restricting your comment to those who recognize themselves applies to all, but that isn't quite the case. For example:
"I don’t insult men. I dissect them."
"Because you benefit from the system but still want to be seen as innocent inside it. You want the perks of patriarchy, without the name tag."
There are quite a few of these second-person sentences, and I acknowledge that use of the second person is intrinsically restrictive, but somewhere, there should have been SOME sort of clarification.
"This is how the average male ego reacts to female clarity"
Here you make no attempt to lay boundaries around your observations and instead you generalize. This phrasing permits exceptions, but you nowhere use the opportunity to specify any exceptions. This sentence suggests that your meaning is to apply your observations to all men.
"Is men."
In this section, you explicitly include a huge range of men in your condemnation, and again offer no exceptions. This group of statements is the strongest indication that you mean your comments to apply to all men. Moreover, since you did not take the opportunity in your response to mention any exceptions, I think it safe to conclude that you do indeed intend to your comments to apply to all men.
My conclusion is buttressed by the fact that your response to me is not explanatory but accusatory.
Your insinuated accusations against me are of no significance. I have been happily married for 54 years now, and our marriage now is happier than at any previous time. I have treated women honorably and well throughout my life, so I feel no need to defend myself. I will not bother to provide details, as I gather that you would dismiss them.
I now turn to what I hope will be useful observations for your consideration. It is apparent that you have a great deal of anger towards men. That anger, I'm sure, is entirely justified, because I agree that many men are assholes, plain and simple. But anger is a poison that eats at your innards, destroying your ability to perceive what is good in the world.
I'm 75 years old, and I have noticed that, as people age, they evolve towards either hate or love. Some old people are mean old curmudgeons, alone and snarling at the world. Others radiate love to the world.
One of finest human beings I have had the privilege to know, a woman named Gemma, was such a person. She was a teacher; she loved her students and shone such enthusiasm for learning on them that they were stimulated to reach higher in their studies. Tragically, she died about four years ago. The world is a lesser place without her, and she left a hole in my soul that I can never fill.
Again, I'm sure that your anger is justified, but please don't let it ruin your life. Find some men whom you can love as friends and bask in the sunshine of your camaraderie with them. Heal your wounds and thrive. Good luck, and best wishes.
Ok... so now an emotional lettering but still haven't identified a specific passage where the analysis indicts all men, correct? Because all you've offered instead of answering the basic question is commentary on tone, personal biography, and character references, including invoking women in your life as evidence of exemption. Which personal proximity is not a rebuttal, and it does not address the question being asked, lol. And if personal proximity is being offered as a credential, then it should apply equally here, wouldn't you agree? As I have been in long-term, intimate relationship with men my entire life such as a husband of twenty years, a teenage son, a father, a stepfather, two grandfathers, brothers, stepbrothers, close male friends, colleagues, and plenty of daily interaction with men across age, role, and temperament. However, that proximity does not exempt anyone from analysis, including the men I love, and it certainly does not invalidate the ability to speak about male patterns as they actually operate. Which the difference is that I am not presenting my proximity to men as a shield or making a claim of exemption of not being labeled angry or even being labeled an expert in the field.. But maybe I should if I apply your logic. But simply, in a minimal effort reaching for women in your life and invoking their roles in relation to you in a discussion that is not about your wife, your marriage, or your personal conduct does not engage the argument at all.. not logically. It emotionally redirects away from it, wouldn't you agree? As you are using proximity to women as character evidence rather than addressing the analysis itself of men. However, if that standard were applied consistently, I would also be exempt from receiving critique of men altogether, given the fact I have a husband, son, fathers, brothers, and male friends in my life whom I respect and value, right? Hmm... but seems the difference is that I do not treat their existence as a shield but as the reason to be precise of which men I'm referring to and writing about and you said you understood which men that is, right? And... just in case you didn't know, naming harmful patterns is not an expression of anger toward men. I know a lot of men struggle with that distinction especially, specifically, and only when the topic is men, and a very specific type of men, lol. That’s weird, right? But me talking about these things is a very simple elementary school way of distinguishing men who choose to stand apart from the common male patterns and measurable male violence including from men who produce them. There's no logical way discomfort arose without even being accused. Only an internal emotional one that arises from recognizing your own proximity to what is being described. Because again, I didn't write or imply a thing about you in my piece. Which brings me back to the original question... You said you understood the piece and who it was about. And if that is the case, why is further clarification necessary unless you are seeking a personal exemption? And why center your individual discomfort in a systemic analysis, as though I am responsible for resolving it? If the argument is understood, there is nothing to clarify, right? If it is not, the appropriate response is to engage the analysis itself, not redirect it back to personal identity or biography. Which indicates the issue is not a misreading of the text, but discomfort with the thought you are being discussed as part of a structural pattern rather than as an individual exception. But I'm not interested in debating personal virtue or emotional framing.
Ah, well, I tried. Good luck to you.
I can see you can read, selectively. So, I’m sorry the analysis didn’t pause to personally identify you and issue an exemption so you could read it comfortably. I’m sorry you chose to engage with material beyond your comprehension and then felt entitled to request reassurance. I’m sorry you mistook a structural analysis for a personal summons, even though nothing I wrote required your biography, marital résumé, or moral credentials. Difficulty recognizing a pattern without inserting yourself into it isn’t a critique of your character. It’s a comprehension issue. Which your male entitlement need to be centered, comforted, and exempted is the literal pattern, my male. I’m sorry.
———————————————————————————————————————
Obviously, I was much disappointed that my attempt to build a constructive conversation failed so miserably. This lady is so consumed with fury that she cannot respond to courteous comments with anything but venom. Her writing is… well, I’ll be charitable and say that it is unclear. She never answered any of my points. Instead, she uses them as platforms for further attacks. Her final comment was “I’m sorry that you’re such an idiot.” This confirmed my worst fears that she was consumed with anger, so I refrained from further conversation. Anything I wrote would merely provoke her even further.