I’m a guy! Attack me please!

Posted in Dudes, Language, My Favorite Feminists, Mysognistic Bullshit by Dizzy on September 26, 2007

Funny thing. I’ve noticed that the men who come on to feminist blogs to argue about how men have rights too and how feminists are woefully misguided about the true nature of women – these men very often have obviously male names. They make it clear, if not within their comments, then with their handles, that they’re men.

I wonder, if these guys want to actually engage in meaningful dialogue about feminist ideas, as they claim they do, why do they feel the need to make it clear from the get go that they’re men?

Could it be that they assume from a lifetime of male privilege that they have a right, an obligation even, to interrupt women, announce their manhood, and expect full attention? That any discussion among women is not legitimate until a man is there to guide the conversational journey? That what they say has more weight and is inherently more important that anything a woman has to say? That women joyfully welcome the wisdom of the male perspective on whatever topic is at hand?

Or are they hoping that the feminists will quickly see that one of the “enemy” is in their midst and then attack whatever he says (because he’s a man, of course, and not because he’s saying ridiculous and ignorant things), thereby giving him all the proof he needs to support his argument that feminists are a bunch of hateful irrational hags that viciously slander the kind-hearted men who only want to help them become better people?

Just wondering.


natalie dee


32 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. peddlarofdreams said, on September 27, 2007 at 3:34 am

    Hello! You have an interesting blog here, and are much more outspoken on feminism than I am! I think I’m going to grab a cup of coffee and sit down and read your blog. : )

    Reading your comment made me go back and take another look at that post. It was written at a time when I was in quite a muddle, with tons of things tearing through my head, and I can see where you would have thought that I thought that cleaning the home is rewarding. In my irritation I managed to leave out entire sentences! And on reading it again, I realized I didn’t want to say anything about how looking after the home can be rewarding.

    I’m a working woman too, and love and enjoy my work. And like you, I hate the “feminine” side of things — cooking and having to clean up after someone. And no, I’m sure that doesn’t make you, or me, a freak! : )

  2. TP said, on September 27, 2007 at 8:14 am

    Why wonder at all? Just assert. Everything you said is true.

    You can always tell a guy on any blog. They love to argue, they love to prove someone else wrong. It’s positively psychotic, the male need to be right about everything.

    I want to be regarded as a human being, not as a sex.

  3. Jim said, on September 27, 2007 at 9:38 am

    Ick. You’re definitely right. By and large we have a serious OMG-I-just-have-to-be-right complex. I catch myself doing it all the time. Even the few of us manfolks out there who want to identify as feminists have a lot to learn. Hell, that’s what brings me to sites like yours. Or maybe I’m just speaking for myself. I’ve learned to assume I know little or nothing because I feel I learn things more quickly that way. Besides, I’m the last one that would know what it’s like to be a woman. Who am I to go shooting off at the mouth? I figure everyone has something to teach me. If I squander an opportunity to learn something new by being a smug asshole, that’s my loss. 🙂

  4. Genevieve said, on September 27, 2007 at 6:33 pm

    Yeah, I’ve noticed this–over on Feministing there’s this guy going by ‘Joe’ who always has some awful-but-seemingly-well-meaning thing to say whenever the topics of rape and sexual assault are brought up–back in August we were discussing an female air force cadet who was raped, and he kept mentioning the Duke case as an example of “some women lie,” which is utter bullshit. And my sister’s sitting there with me reading the comments, and getting mad at the people who are getting mad at ‘Joe’ because, hey, he’s a MAN who is actually commenting on a FEMINIST blog, and therefore he deserved respect somehow even though he was being an asswipe.
    Pissed me off.
    If men want to participate in the discourse of any particular subject, they need to learn that the simple fact of their biology does not make their opinions more valid.

  5. Rachel said, on September 28, 2007 at 6:51 am

    Good point, well made.
    But I think it’s important to remember that their opinions are not made less valid by the fact of them being men in a feminist space.
    And, then, if I say something insanely stupid, is it somehow less bad because I am a woman and have a female handle?
    Just a thought.
    Still, this is just a little nitpick really, as I pretty much wholeheartedly agree with you.

  6. Flavia said, on September 28, 2007 at 11:03 am

    Actually, I see things a bit differently. I think that, generally, in mainstream Western culture, men don’t aggressively assert/identify their maleness because maleness is the ‘default.’ Male is just, well, male, and female is Other.

    My experience is that, in the online world, specifically the online world of feminist blogs, one finds basically two types of men: 1) the sensitive, feminist-sympathetic guys who may not always say the perfect thing, but are there to learn and participate in a dialogue and 2) the angry MRAs with chips on their shoulders to just want to come in and be jerks and think of everything in terms of their own personal stories, which inevitably involve a fair amount of rejection from women.

  7. Ollie said, on October 2, 2007 at 3:21 pm

    Flavia, I agree that part of this phenomenon is that maleness is the default. Perhaps, when choosing a handle, most dudes just don’t worry much about what it signifies to others? At least they don’t seem to worry much about whether they ‘give away’ their gender. This kind of man is either oblivious to a lot of gender issues, or is a jerk.

    I know many women that deliberately choose ambiguous handles, and even if they go with a female name they tend to do so consciously.

  8. edie said, on October 3, 2007 at 4:00 am

    Did no one else notice the hilarious picture? Dick hair?!

    Okay, now I go be serious understanding feminist and question my handles – including the love variety – and what it says about me as a woman and, gah! I just can’t get over the dick hair! Do feminists giggle?

  9. Jim said, on October 3, 2007 at 6:32 am

    I love and all sites associated with it.

  10. Dizzy said, on October 3, 2007 at 8:33 am

    I still laugh when I see it. Everytime.

    Here’s Twisty’s take on feminist giggling

  11. […] how can it when just using a male name is considered at an act of privilege? The social inequities that exist did not occur in some kind of gender vacuum. Both males and […]

  12. John J. Goddard said, on October 12, 2007 at 4:10 am

    Well, there are also those among us men who deal with people on an individual basis. If I, as an individual, were to take issue with some aspect of feminist proselytelevangelizing, I’d hope that you’d see me as an individual first. We may not be women, but we have opinions and feelings, and not all of them can be categorically or successfully processed through an ideological rhetoric.

    It’s funny or sad, I’m not sure which: For all I do hear from feminists, I don’t ever hear solutions to the ills. I hear complaints and dissections full of psycho-socio-jargon used to lend weight to flimsy hypotheses, endlessly regurgitated, passed around, then digested and regurgitated by the next feminist. It’s like born-again Christians. No matter what you say, they’re going to keep telling you you’re not “saved”.

    I’m not here to demonize feminism or feminists. I have a few damn good friends who refer to themselves as feminists. Most of them know better than to go down that road with me.

    I’m not a feminist (or a misogynist), and I don’t need to be saved.

    Sorry if I’m right. And if I’m wrong, I won’t be surprised if this is the place where it gets pointed out.

  13. Dizzy said, on October 12, 2007 at 8:52 am

    Your points are not nearly sophisticated or interesting enough to warrant a whole lot of attention, much less debate.

  14. Chris said, on October 14, 2007 at 5:46 pm

    Poor John. There go the “saved” to, in rather patriarchal fashion, discredit your post without producing anything useful or helpful themselves.

    You forget that in dominant feminist discourse there are only profeminist men OR misogynists. You can’t be neither. “Egalitarian” is not a word in the feminist discourse’s vocabulary. It is simple black-and-white thinking, but that’s their “reality”.

    That and there is the essential double-standard that misandry is acceptable and to be encouraged, whereas anything that may be remotely construed as misogynist must be fought tooth-and-nail.

    (Then they wonder why men backlash by joining Men’s Movements.)

    Feminism is an inherently sexist philosophy. How were you expecting them to respond?

  15. Dizzy said, on October 15, 2007 at 12:19 pm

    Chris and John, you’re absolutely right about everything. Thank you. On behalf of all feminists, as we are indeed one entirely homogeneous same-thinking robotic mass, I apologize for our collective misunderstanding of “reality” and our general focus on women.

    There, is that better? Now will you go discuss amongst yourselves how much you hate feminism on one of the many sites out there that welcome such discourse? Thanks much.

    You should read this before you go. I hope it’s “useful”

  16. John J. Goddard said, on October 18, 2007 at 5:25 pm

    I suppose what I failed to make clear is that I believe viewing the world through a lens of ideology, theory or unsupported hypotheses regarding “the way things are” or “the way things work” can be detrimental to one’s development.

    I realize this could be perceived as a rather simplistic, unsophisticated perspective, but so could Zen Buddhism.

    You’re not helping women (or anyone) by pointing out how much wrong there is in the world, or who brought those wrongs to bear.

    You and I have something in common: We’re human. I believe that finding, identifying with and affirming shared characteristics in problem solving or community building goes a lot further than emphasizing differences.

    I’ve never encountered a feminist capable of discussing the world’s problems and their solutions without falling back on rhetoric.

    And if the hurried typing of opinions on complex matters still reads unsophisticated, and my opinions are not worthy of your holy consideration, well, you’re no one I wish to discuss anything with. And, sister, I’m probably not alone in that.

    Fight the power and make changes by taking more responsibility and decisive action in your own life. But if it’s a general sensation of intellectual superiority you’re after, by all means, continue to discuss these matters like academic slaves.

    I guess what I’m saying is that your blog is pretty pointless. It will have little to no effect on anything you’re aiming to address.

  17. edie said, on October 24, 2007 at 11:47 pm

    Sorry, I was away for a week or so or else I would have come to hate on your site as well. Obviously that’s why you write about something you care so passionately about – right? I mean, why else would you do it if you didn’t want people to affirm that your very sincere, intelligent and wittily expressed views were actually a whole lot of misplaced bukkake.

    Mr. Goddard, when you stop being such a smug twat, perhaps I might be interested in your solutions for fixing the world. Until then, go fondle a common human or whatever gets your idealogical goat off . . . in theory . . . Buddhism . . . ermhmmm.

    Chris, I hope your “Men’s Movement” is having a lot of fun at the strip club and beating down on the women who are entertaining you. Lifestyle matches the double negatives?

    Dizzy, I’m a woman and you’re helping me make sense of the world. And you’re making me happier.

  18. i don’t get it. « Sara Speaking said, on October 27, 2007 at 5:58 pm

    […] Why else would you, a man, come to a feminist blog, and leave that kind of opinion? Especially when the post itself is talking about men being socialised to need to be heard/be right/be respected regardless of their […]

  19. Shira said, on November 2, 2007 at 12:40 pm

    “Egalitarian” is not a word in the feminist discourse’s vocabulary. It is simple black-and-white thinking, but that’s their “reality”.

    This line made me lol. Are you for serious, dude? Egalitarian not in the feminist vocabulary? Hahahaha. Goodness you boys are so silly.

  20. Daran said, on December 9, 2007 at 11:42 pm

    Dunno. You’ll have to ask my parents, because “Daran” is the name they gave me.

  21. Mike said, on December 27, 2007 at 12:43 am

    They make it clear, if not within their comments, then with their handles, that they’re men.

    Well, men is what we are. Saying that we are men doesn’t enhance or disparage what you’re saying; it’s just what we are. If guys routinely chose names like “Master of Women” or “Patriarchal Tendencies Iz Teh Greatz”, well, then I think you’d have a point.

    Speaking for myself, I picked my handle because it’s the form of my given name that I’m most comfortable with, and being on the intertubes generally allows you to pick the name people address you with – unlike RL, which sometimes saddles you with a name you don’t particularly like using.

  22. Chelsea said, on February 16, 2008 at 1:57 am

    I can see what Mr. Goddard’s saying. The second comment helped clear up his point, or at least my understanding of it, which is this: The world isn’t going to change because a bunch of women posted millions of blogs. People like Gandhi didn’t help their people by writing a bunch of strongly opinionated letters to each other. If the feminists here truly believe that there is something wrong, get off your computers and start talking to people other than more feminists. I’m sure you’ll have to deal with a lot of assholes who don’t want to hear it, but that’s no reason to go home and start typing about what jerks people are. Keep trying to make changes and don’t give up in something you believe in.

    Even though his way of saying it might have sounded harsh and made some of you upset, let it go. Grow up. You can’t just shoot down someone else’s opinion because of how it might make you look. How do you think men feel about sharing their thoughts on a feminist website?

  23. Sara no H. said, on February 16, 2008 at 12:35 pm

    Why does everyone assume that feminists who write blogs ONLY write blogs? It’s as though they think we’re incapable of existing outside of the internet, as though we can’t blog AND teach, or blog AND activate, or blog AND, you know, have lives. Weird.

  24. Kathleen said, on February 17, 2008 at 1:20 pm

    Whenever I reveal myself to be female on the Web, I think of Kathy Sierra. I defy any man to come up with a comparable analog.

    The decision to declare oneself female online has weightier implications than it does to declare oneself male. Sure, there are men who love an excuse to call themselves victims of the Big Bad Intolerant Feminists so they can continue to despise us. But I bet there are loads of other men who simply see no reason NOT to use their gendered names. Feminist blogs are some of the only places on the Internet where men may believe themselves to be “other.”

    Also, entering just such a blog to wax lyrical about “feminist proselytelevangelizing” and “complaints and dissections full of psycho-socio-jargon used to lend weight to flimsy hypotheses, endlessly regurgitated, passed around, then digested and regurgitated by the next feminist” does not make one Buddha. Nor does it make the world a better place to tell anyone annoyed by such language to “let it go. Grow up.”

    Just putting that out there.

  25. John J. Goddard said, on May 11, 2008 at 6:21 am

    I just wanted to say that I don’t think it’s fair that the one-liner-wholesale-dismissal of my original, unsophisticated, uninteresting, and poorly elucidated point has gone down in cyber-histrory as a top-level search result. Fucking matriarchy.

    Fight the power, Dizzy!

  26. maatnofret said, on May 24, 2008 at 6:50 pm

    I’m here, REALLY late to the party via Shakesville.

    I just wanted to say how amazing it is that this thread produced more than one real life example of what you were talking about in your post. Well played indeed.

  27. Doctress Julia said, on September 20, 2008 at 5:35 pm

    Yeah, um, it’s pretty easy to dismiss someone when they dismiss you preemptively… yep… DISMISSED! 😀 SNAP!

  28. Doctress Julia said, on September 20, 2008 at 5:37 pm

    … “unsupported hypotheses”. HAAAR! Concern troll.

  29. rachel said, on September 24, 2008 at 4:00 pm

    John J. Goddard’s points scream “I big man; hear me roar”. Not only did he not contribute anything either useful or interesting, he didn’t even address the topic being discussed.
    Also, I’m glad that it’s not just me that can see irony in the fact that this makes him *exactly* what was being discussed!

  30. John J. Goddard said, on December 6, 2008 at 4:08 am

    No, Rachel, it’s not just you who sees the irony of how language can get in the way sometimes.

  31. John J. Goddard said, on May 26, 2010 at 10:21 pm

    Dualism is humanity’s most troublesome ill, not the patriarchy or misogyny. When I look at people of any gender (or even “animals” for that matter), I see myself in other forms. Sometimes they are very ignorant versions of myself, and sometimes they’re better versions.

    I’ve been an angry person at times in my life, and I’ve made the mistake of responding to the various and sundry manifestations of anger from others in less than constructive ways. This includes “fighting the power”, which is essentially going up against my own flaring ego with flag waving self-victimization.

    But I believe in spirit and the will of spirit to get itself together. That’s why I also believe that the dualist terminology has got to go. Fight the old forms by creating new forms. The idea is a better existence for everyone. The obstacles to this are rooted much more deeply than dualist thinking will allow the eye to see.

  32. halfspin said, on October 26, 2011 at 1:12 am

    Look at John J. Goddard! He’s a guy!

    Seriously, though, what’s the appropriate etiquette for gendering usernames on feminist sites? Is there any? rachel, Doctor Julia, Kathleen, Sara no H., and Chelsea pretty clearly present as female; Mike and Jim as male; maatnofret, Dizzy, and Chris sound pretty ambiguous; John J. Goddard strikes me as more of a ball of dick hair. If a guy is just trolling, he’s not likely to put much effort into constructing a pseudonymous identity. But doesn’t a person’s gender have a pretty clear influence on how they will approach gender relations? I’m wondering if you’d find problematic the idea of a guy not identifying himself as such when it might lead to a misappropriation of women’s voices.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: