(no subject)
Jun. 26th, 2012 01:17 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
mcityI made a post recently about a Shortpacked comic. It got reblogged. I have not and will not click on the link to the post in question but it seems to start
1. Oh sure, because...man ridiculing a woman for having internalized misogyny isn’t...
I'm noticing a remarkable amount fail just in this one sentence fragment alone.
1. Possible ad hominem against me, before actually addressing the argument.
2. "Internalized misogyny" is the idea that misogynistic attitudes women express are not theirs, that they are somehow forced on them by The Patriarchy (IE: men). This is a curious double standard; men are personally held responsible for their misogyny, but not women? If I, as a man, knowingly or unknowingly perpetuate misogyny, it's My Fault, but when women, especially feminists, do it, it's Mens' Fault? Including the men who have done nothing to perpetuate whatever it is?
2b. So it's okay for a man or women to mock a man or men for what s/he believes is misogyny, often to very harsh degrees. But when I or someone else merely criticize--not mock--a woman's prejudice, it suddenly becomes "internalized misogyny", and wrong to do so. This is the textbook definition of goalpost moving and special pleading. The idea that "misogyny" is Something Only Men Do is just plain wrong.
2c. Aren't social justice folks the ones always going "own your [poop]"? Except when it comes to addressing their own prejudices, apparently.
2d. "Internalized misogyny" means effectively nothing. It means one has misogynistic views. Expressing those views would simply be "externalized misogyny". Both are subsets of misogyny, not something different from it. Think Earl Grey vs. Oolong, or leaves vs teabags, not soy vs meat.
I think you can see why I'm not bothering to click the link. I have no doubt that I'm being accused of "mansplaining" or equivalent for criticizing the comic and social justice on my own tumblog.
1. Oh sure, because...man ridiculing a woman for having internalized misogyny isn’t...
I'm noticing a remarkable amount fail just in this one sentence fragment alone.
1. Possible ad hominem against me, before actually addressing the argument.
2. "Internalized misogyny" is the idea that misogynistic attitudes women express are not theirs, that they are somehow forced on them by The Patriarchy (IE: men). This is a curious double standard; men are personally held responsible for their misogyny, but not women? If I, as a man, knowingly or unknowingly perpetuate misogyny, it's My Fault, but when women, especially feminists, do it, it's Mens' Fault? Including the men who have done nothing to perpetuate whatever it is?
2b. So it's okay for a man or women to mock a man or men for what s/he believes is misogyny, often to very harsh degrees. But when I or someone else merely criticize--not mock--a woman's prejudice, it suddenly becomes "internalized misogyny", and wrong to do so. This is the textbook definition of goalpost moving and special pleading. The idea that "misogyny" is Something Only Men Do is just plain wrong.
2c. Aren't social justice folks the ones always going "own your [poop]"? Except when it comes to addressing their own prejudices, apparently.
2d. "Internalized misogyny" means effectively nothing. It means one has misogynistic views. Expressing those views would simply be "externalized misogyny". Both are subsets of misogyny, not something different from it. Think Earl Grey vs. Oolong, or leaves vs teabags, not soy vs meat.
I think you can see why I'm not bothering to click the link. I have no doubt that I'm being accused of "mansplaining" or equivalent for criticizing the comic and social justice on my own tumblog.
