How to build the gynocracy in six easy steps


Don’t have much for the blog for today, but I thought I’d point you to an exercise in creating a point-by-point guide on how to be a misandrist over at More ^than Men. It’s pretty much a walkthrough for how to build the gynocracy.

MRAs, anti-feminists, and general dudebros are fond of responding to feminists and just-not-horrible people (especially women) by whining making strongly worded claims of misandry. Inspired by the amazing How To Be A Reverse-Racist: An Actual Step by Step List For Oppressing White People by A. D. Song and Mia McKenzie I’ve created this handy guide to using the inherently unfair (to men) system to create a gynocratic fempire that I would like to call Misandria.

Go read.

I’ll try to write something tonight or tomorrow about the “no touching without consent” aspects of the harassment policies, pointing to some comments that I’d gotten on my post about how these harassment policies really don’t limit talking about religion. (In short, yes, we’re totally trying to be killjoys by suggesting that maybe you should know if someone consents to you chewing on their leg or what-have-you.)

Comments

  1. LeftSidePositive says

    How long until an MRA quotes this back in all seriousness about what a big problem misandry is in the world?!

  2. says

    Jason:

    Thanks for the detailed summary of the events behind the current concerns about the safety of women attendees at TAM. Wow–way too much to become an expert on.

    However, I did sense a possible parallel between this and a (much worse) sex crimes case in Wenatchee, WA about 15 years ago. I wrote a brief summary of that incident at my blog in the hope that it might encourage some restraint in the current conversation about TAM.

    http://galileounchained.com/2012/07/02/witch-hunts-sex-scandals-and-the-atheist-community/

  3. dysomniak, darwinian socialist says

    Nice blog post Bob. I especially like how you cleverly hid the accusation of witch hunts behind a “for your consideration”. Of course, if you’re going to compare one thing to another it helps if you can actually draw parallels between the two. Maybe the rest of the free speech trolls will nod their heads thoughtfully and say what an apt comparison it is but everybody who isn’t completely invested in defending their privileged place in society can see that there are no witch hunts or moral panics of any kind happening here.

  4. says

    dysomniak: “For your consideration” is all I can offer since I haven’t made a complete study of the issue.

    No, I can’t see that there are no witch hunts because I don’t understand the issue well enough. Is my comparison relevant? Is it off the mark? I put it to you to evaluate; that’s why it’s for your consideration.

  5. says

    Bob: The people thinking there’s a problem with TAM specifically are, in actuality, sidetracking the entire conversation. If you’d have read more of the summary I had built, you might know that it wasn’t about TAM until DJ Grothe made it about TAM. And that there are no witch-hunts, though there’s a lot of people using that meme to diminish the ACTUAL problem — which is not that TAM is a less-safe place than any other, but that they’re not doing anything to improve it.

    Lots of people have explained exactly how to implement a strong harassment policy, and to what end (reducing the number of incidents of harassment by putting a framework into place to deal with them when they happen, taking it seriously when it happens). It doesn’t matter if 0.0001% of attendees ever have anything bad happen to them. We’d rather it be 0.0000%, and to more significant figures if possible. The lower the better. And without a framework, there’s nothing stopping this harassment from reccurring because we have no data collection and no way to know who’s going to TAM just to take upskirt photos year after year (for instance).

    Learn what it is we’re actually talking about before you write posts like this, please, because the entire damn post talks about a strawman. It talks about something we’re not doing. Demonstrably.

  6. says

    Jason: Again, let me compliment you on your thorough documentation of the issue. I had read much of it before my post though (again) I’ll admit to being an outsider to this conversation.

    Thanks for the clarification on TAM, but it sounds like TAM being an unsafe place for women actually is what’s being discussed, at least in part.

    My post wasn’t actually about a witch hunt but about a (claimed) sex ring.

    I understand your frustration about people like me coming in at the 11th hour, but are you suggesting that I must be an expert before weighing in? Isn’t there a way to respectfully offer ideas into the conversation as a newbie?

  7. dysomniak, darwinian socialist says

    My post wasn’t actually about a witch hunt but about a (claimed) sex ring.

    Nice try, but you described the case in question as “a modern-day replay of the 1692 Salem witch trial”.

    If you want to “respectfully offer ideas into the conversation as a newbie” then you first need to educate yourself. No wait, scratch that FIRST don’t write inflammatory blog posts insinuating the people whose discussion you’d like to join are engaging in a witch hunt THEN go educate yourself.

  8. embertine says

    Jason, I am enjoying that your blogpost titles are increasingly sounding like the episode titles from some of my favourite sci-fi series.

  9. says

    embertine: Heh. I’m a huge sci-fi nerd. Whenever I can, I throw in some geeky angle or pithy phrase that other nerds might catch. I don’t know that I was explicitly doing this with this title, but perhaps!

  10. says

    Bob: on second thought, I really don’t have a fuller reply to be made to your post or your questions here. Suffice it to say that it’s well possible for someone to join into a conversation late without being an expert, but it involves making a concerted effort to self-educate. I discuss it in my post In Medias Res, which is a companion piece to the harassment timeline, and 101-level questions thread.

    You repeatedly mistake “unsafe” for “not a safe space”. I discuss this error in-depth in my post Safe.

    You can join into this conversation late, but to make a vast and sweeping analysis of the underlying nature of the entire campaign requires that you do, in fact, have expert-level knowledge of it. If you don’t, you’re going to be wrong. If you don’t see the entire playing field, whatever insights you have into what we’re saying or how witch-hunt-like it all is, is going to be wrong. Flat wrong. So, go keep reading. You’ll get it eventually, and your analyses will be the better for it.

  11. says

    Jason:

    Thanks for the pointers. I read the two posts you recommended.

    Making a sweeping analysis was precisely what I realized I could not do, and I made that clear in my post. “Witch hunt” was not the point of my post. I simply wanted to point out a far, far worse situation than the current TAM flap–charges of widespread child sexual abuse, perhaps the widest such charges in history–that turned out to be nothing. I’m not declaring that there are parallels but simply pointing out the quicksand by the side of the road that has caught other earnest people who were simply striving to do the right thing.

    And if those better informed than I can look at this and declare, “Nope, we’re good,” then the post has done its job.

  12. says

    Dysomniak:

    I’d have thought that you’d welcome someone participating in the conversation. I doubt that there is any study that would allow me to earn my right to comment here in your opinion.

    OK, I’ll leave. Problem solved, I guess.

  13. ischemgeek says

    @Bob You didn’t want to make a broad, sweeping analysis, you just wanted to compare the current conversation, which was derailed by DJ and further derailed by his well-documented dishonest behavior (see Jason’s well-put-together Timeline post for more info there) to a famous scandal and follow it up with a comparison to a horrendous miscarriage of justice and mass hysteria event.

    Right.

    I have to say I agree with Dysomniak here: if you’re going to comment on a shitstorm, it’s good to know who the major players are, what their roles are, what the events leading up to it were, and the order of major events during the eruption.

    You don’t have to ‘earn your right’ to comment, but you do have to earn the priviledge of having your comments and input taken under serious consideration. Because if you can’t be bothered to do the basic research to get an understanding of what’s going on, you simply won’t have the background necessary to put together a good argument. What you’re trying to do right now is the equivalent to writing an essay about quantumn mechanics when you don’t even have an understanding of Newtonian physics. Can you do it? Yes. Should you? Probably not because you don’t have the background to understand your subject material enough to do it justice.

  14. dysomniak, darwinian socialist says

    Passive aggressive much? Nobody is buying the wounded puppy act. The bias in your article is obvious, as are the conclusions the reader is meant to reach. If this was really some mistake made out of ignorance then you would have issued an apology and a retraction. Now go on back to your slimepit of choice and cry about how the FTBullies were mean to you.

  15. says

    Ischemgeek:

    How much homework must I do? As I’ve made clear, I’ve read the two posts that Jason recommended, and I’ve read Jason’s long “Harassment policies campaign” post. I thought I was acting prudently by (1) informing myself (though, as I’ve admitted, there is much more background that I haven’t read) and (2) not criticizing any position.

    I’m sure you’re not rejecting everyone but yes-men. I’m sure you welcome thoughtful opposing opinions. And I wasn’t even offering an opposing opinion–just a historical data point that few people are aware of. My only opinion was that all parties ought to know of the Wenatchee case.

  16. says

    Bob: I will assume contrition. However, bringing up the case and making any sort of comparison does, actually, suggest that there’s a comparison to be made, when it’s pretty clear that there is not. If anyone were attempting to root out evildoers who don’t actually exist, sure, that’s one thing. But the actual problem, and the response to that problem, is so proportional as to nullify any comparison to witch-huntery.

    If you’re bringing it up to make sure people are aware, fine. We’re aware now. Thank you for that input.

    Can you see why people might think you’re making false analogies to undercut rational discussion, though? Can you see why someone might be a bit churlish with you in that you do NOT, in fact, seem to be a rational newcomer to this case, but rather seem to be building a case against harassment policies using nothing more rational than an emotive analogy?

    Try harder. I’m sure we can use your input, once you’ve developed a better understanding of the events you’re commenting on.

  17. ischemgeek says

    Your opinion was not thoughtful. To justify the comparison, you would have to establish that we are behaving in a way reminicent of mass hysteria – which has not been established – or in a way reminicent of the scandal, in that those who come forward have been pressured by authority figures into coming forward (when, in fact, a lot of the time the authority figures have been doing the opposite – see DJ’s exortations to deal with things through ‘appropriate channels’ even as he misrepresented the case of Ashley Mills). You did neither.

    Second, how is writing a post comparing the ongoing discussion to that particular scandal and the Salem witch hunts not judgemental of those speaking out? Sure, you haven’t actually criticized any arguments. Instead, you bring up emotionally charged cultural memes and say, “Oh, I’m just pointing out that these happened and we should keep them in mind.” It’s disingenuous to then turn around and say that you’re not criticizing any position.

    Third, two posts does not adequate homework make. I’m writing an essay on an unfamiliar subject area right now, so it’s an apropriate analogy. I need a graduate-level discussion of the topic, which I have to compress to <3,000 words. I will read at least one book cover-to-cover and probably a dozen or two papers before I even attempt to sit down and write this thing, and as I'm writing, I'll probably need to glance through other stuff to back myself up. For something like this, you probably don't need to do that much homework, but certainly to go to the Timeline post and read at least a half-dozen or so of the major posts.

  18. says

    Jason:

    suggest that there’s a comparison to be made, when it’s pretty clear that there is not.

    Is it clear? That’s what the principle players in the Wenatchee case said. And keep in mind that what you’re worried about is on the level of grammar criticism compared to the Wenatchee case, in which there were tens of thousands of claimed cases of child sexual molestation.

    That’s my point. That in this very significant case, thoughtful, concerned people with the best intentions went seriously off the rails.

    any comparison to witch-huntery.

    My comparison is only to the Wenatchee case. If bringing up the idea of a witch hunt (which I did, tangentially) clouded the issue, I apologize for that. I probably shouldn’t have brought up the w-word.

    If you’re bringing it up to make sure people are aware, fine. We’re aware now. Thank you for that input.

    Sounds like we’re on the same page.

    Can you see why people might think you’re making false analogies to undercut rational discussion, though?

    Yes. This is an emotionally charged issue, and those reactions may be inevitable.

  19. dysomniak, darwinian socialist says

    Is it clear? That’s what the principle players in the Wenatchee case said.

    So, you’re going to keep calling us witch hunters then?

  20. says

    To justify the comparison, you would have to establish that we are behaving in a way reminicent of mass hysteria – which has not been established

    I’m simply tossing out this example. You are one of the ones who’s well informed on this subject. If you consider the example and find no parallels, great. I am in no position to find flaws in that analysis.

    Second, how is writing a post comparing the ongoing discussion to that particular scandal and the Salem witch hunts not judgemental of those speaking out?

    Let’s take a step back. I see a vague parallel between the TAM issue and the Wenatchee issue. I don’t see strong parallels because I’m poorly informed. Do I just keep this to myself?

    If the conversation is in such an emotional state that raw data can’t be brought in … uh, OK, then I guess I made a mistake by bringing it up. Is there no nonjudgmental way of tossing out a new data point?

    I lived through the news of Wenatchee when it was current. It seemed like something useful to bring to this conversation. Since few people know about this issue (but it happened in my back yard), I introduced it. That’s it. I’m the expert on Wenatchee; you’re the expert on the TAM situation. Beautiful music, no?

    I don’t know how to be any less judgmental than that.

    Third, two posts does not adequate homework make.

    “Don’t comment on this issue unless you’re very thoroughly educated.” That’s a clear enough rule, but isn’t that excessive? And it’s not like I’m stumbling around and you’re thinking, “Whoa–another clueless newbie that we have to take by the hand. What a time sink!” Rather, my error appears to be that I’m offensive.

  21. dysomniak, darwinian socialist says

    If you aren’t being completely disingenuous then you are terrible at communicating. You wrote a book?

  22. ischemgeek says

    Let’s take a step back. I see a vague parallel between the TAM issue and the Wenatchee issue. I don’t see strong parallels because I’m poorly informed. Do I just keep this to myself?

    False dichotomy. How about doing the research to back up or disprove your own hypothesis rather than expecting other people to do it for you and then getting annoyed that we’re annoyed with being expected to do your homework for you?

    Let me ask you this: If I were to try to write an essay on, say, cultural relativism, despite the fact that I only have a vague understanding about what cultural relativism even is (no, really, I honestly have no clue about cultural relativism) and am not sure what it entails, who developed it, or what the major arguments involved in it are, but wade in saying I think it bears striking similarity to, say, the Stanford Prison experiment, and then stand back and watch as people who actually know about cultural relativism tear me apart and tell me I need to do more homework, am I justified in acting all hurt that they told me I didn’t think out my argument well enough? Further, if I then say, “Well, I was just offering something for you to think about and if you dismiss it, I’m in no position to question your analysis” even as I continue to reiterate pretty much the same point, am I justified in acting like they’re in the wrong for piling on like I so richly deserve?

    “Don’t comment on this issue unless you’re very thoroughly educated.” That’s a clear enough rule, but isn’t that excessive? And it’s not like I’m stumbling around and you’re thinking, “Whoa–another clueless newbie that we have to take by the hand. What a time sink!” Rather, my error appears to be that I’m offensive.

    1) no, it’s not excessive. If you want to be taken seriously, do your homework. 2) No, your error is that you presented a poorly thought out and judgemental opinion with zero evidence to back it up.

    But whatever. I’ve had a few after work so this may be less than coherent or civil. Further, I think you’re either JAQing off or very bad at writing, so I’m going to stop engaging on this until you’ve done the reading we’ve recommended and educated yourself like a good skeptic should.

  23. ik says

    I am rather frustrated at both this and the being revese racist thing. You are lumping people like me (who get pretty frustrated at misandry which is mostly actually from men, but please don’t PHMT me!) with the MRA’s O GOD ITS ABOUT TO BE MATRIARCHY idiots. You are also taking away things like words that specifically mean ‘hatred of men’.

    Do they have the power and wheight of misogyny or racism against PoC? Certainly not! Are they bad and worth being aware of? Certainly yes! Are they often blown out of proportion for derailing purposes? Apparently.

    In a perfect world, would they be intolerable? Yes. And i’m a bit worried that if the good side wins, they will be reinforced.

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>