From: ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Ways to respond to criticism of men
Date: 1 Sep 92 22:24:43 GMT
Followup-To: alt.feminism
Organization: NMSU Computer Science

<In article <1992Sep1.060249.8502@news.acns.nwu.edu> Albert-Lunde@nwu.edu (Albert Lunde) writes:

<One of the question men face in dealing with feminism is how to
<respond to criticism of men as a group.

	Somehow, I was struck by this paragraph...let's
	play a little word substitution....

        "One of the questions Jews face in dealing with Nazis is how
	to respond to criticism of Jews as a group".

	Educational, no?

	However, let's press on to Mr. Lundes questions.

<There a number of responses, some of which are illustrated below:

<(Responses to the charge that "Men do X to women:")

	IMHO, the response depends on what the charge is,
	how it is worded and so forth. A blatantly false
	statement such as "All men are rapists and that's
	all they are" may deserve nothing more than ignoring
	it, or may deserve a patient explanation of how this
	assertion is both false and sexist.

	I suppose that the attitude of the person delivering
	the charge makes quite a bit of difference.
	
<- "Feminists are all out to get men!"

	Sweeping generalization. It is no more true
	than "all men are rapists", etc. It shows
	an ignorance of the history of feminism and
	a belief in slogans...one might as well become
	a Dworkin groupie if one is going to spout
	such an inanity.

<- "I don't agree with the person who said 'Men do X'"

	Depends on X. If X is "rape", pointless. If
	X is "oppress all women", might have some
	worth. Note that one variant is to point
	out "Not ALL men do X".

<- "Some men do X, but that's not true in general."

	A more thoughtful response and the best
	one so far.

<- "Men may do X to women, but women do Y to men."

	Pointless. Two wrongs do not make a right
	(Except to Dworkinists, perhaps).
	May lead to "who has it worse", a
	popular net.game which leads nowhere.

<- "It is my right to do X."

	Probably stupid. Unless "X" is a clearly
	definable human right, this argument is 
	foolish; it most likely displays sexism
	clearly. Popular with traditionalists....

<- "Doing X is an important part of my identity as a man."

	See above....

< - (Pretending I didn't hear ...)

	This may be appropriate; blacks did this for
	many years and still do in some places. If one's
	supervisor is the person delivering the sweeping
	generalization, arguing with her is pointless.

<- "All men are pond scum."

	If delivered as sarcasm, may provide some
	amusement but is hardly a worthwhile method
	of debate.
	
	Delivered in all seriousness, may earn some
	"brownie points" for self-abasement. Popular
	with many "male feminists".

<- "All other men do X; but I'm different."

	Absurd. If there is one exception to a sweeping
	generalization, there can be others. This line
	used to be popular with Sensitive NewAge Guys
	who were trying to "pick up" young women....

<- "I sometimes do X; how can I change individually to compensate?"

	May or may not be useful. If the person making the sweeping
	generalization is sensitive enough to actually answer this
	question in a useful way, could prove useful.

	However, could also be used against one.

<- "How can I change social structures so men are less likely to do X?"

	Ditto the above.

<While some of these responses sound better than others, I am not prepared
<to say in general that only one or two of them are appropriate. IMHO,
<an open mind will consider a number of possiblities.

	I'm sure there are other possibilities, however I cannot
	think of them at this time.

<I sometimes wonder if we should number our responses to save bandwidth ;)

	On an ALT group? 
Newsgroups: alt.feminism