Not that long ago, an 18-year-old student named Carly, appalled by the rampant misogyny on display at A Voice for Men, sent a critical but thoughtful email to a number of the men associated with the site challenging them to rise above their hatred of women.
AVFM “Managing Editor” Dean Esmay decided to take her email as an opportunity to reach out to all the Carlys out there in the world in an attempt to win them over to AVFM’s peculiar brand of “human rights activism,” penning what he called an
open letter … not just to you, but to any young woman who has an open mind and is willing to be challenged on her prejudices.
Naturally, given that Men’s Rights Activists are some of the most verbose douchebags in history, it was long as hell — some 3000 words. But Esmay’s diplomatically worded attempt at outreach didn’t go quite as well as he might have hoped. Carly responded with a note saying that his open letter had merely
reinforced everything I believe. It seems we are at a stalemate, you will never agree with me, and I will never agree with you.
So where might poor Dean Esmay might have gone wrong in his attempt to win Carly’s heart and mind?
Let’s start here, with 5 Arguments Least Likely To Convince A Young Woman That A Voice for Men Isn’t a Woman-Hating Piece of Shit Hate Site, in the form of direct quotes from The Esmay himself. Since Esmay is so long-winded, I’ve highlighted some of my favorite bits in bold.
1)“[Y]ou’re 18, and so, not to put too fine a point on it, you are still a young skull full of mush.”
2) “[M]en have few to no voices speaking about issues that are specific to men, or defending men as a group, in this society. Until very recently in history men never have had such a voice. Because pretty much all civilizations for the last few thousand years have prioritized the needs and desires of women over those of men. For hundreds, even thousands, of years.
3)“If you believe men have silenced women for thousands of years … you believe something that just not true. … Furthermore, if you believe that, what you have to believe is that Asian men have been oppressing Asian women for thousands of years, black men have been oppressing black women for thousands of years, European men, Australasian men, and so on, have all been oppressing their women for thousands of years. And those weak women could do nothing about it. So what you believe here isn’t just wrong, it’s racist.”
4) “For most of history, being female was a privilege. It carried certain special rights that only applied to women, and special responsibilities that only applied to women, and through most of history, being male was a burden, a burden which carried certain rights that only applied to men, and those rights were there mostly so they could discharge their duties to women properly.”
5) “[Y]ou may occasionally see angry remarks or articles on this site. What I would hope you would do with that, when you do see it, is contemplate that there is a difference between righteous anger at real injustice, and what you seem to have misinterpreted as hate.”
The funniest thing about Esmay’s “open letter” is that this bizarre crackpottery, easily seen through by anyone with any knowledge of history or sociology or, hell, the real world, is his attempt to sound as reasonable as possible. He’s reined in the wild conspiratorial ranting he often indulges in when arguing with ideological foes; he’s avoided the misogynistic slurs (cunt, bitch, whore) favored by other AVFMers like Paul Elam and Diana Davison. And this is the best he can manage.
The Men’s “Human Rights” Movement isn’t ready for its close-up. And I suspect that it never will be.
EDITED TO ADD: A commenter has pointed out another quote I should have included as well. So here is BONUS EXTRA LEAST CONVINCING DEAN ESMAY ARGUMENT NUMBER SIX:
6) “The truth is, the most privileged class of people in the whole wide world are young women living in places like the US, UK, Canada, etc.–and if you want to be treated like an equal, you should not flinch or cry like a little girl if someone tells you that.“
How dare you accuse us of sexism, you spoiled little girl!
Ally S: I, for one, would like to thank you for your openness on the subject in general; it’s very helpful.
And I would view transgender TERFs the same way I view FeMRAs, African-American neo-conservatives and others who choose to play to the kyriarchy as a way of gaining its approval while throwing their peers under the bus. The feelings of betrayal this sort of conduct creates is perfectly natural.
You’re welcome, freemage! I’m glad people are appreciating it because transmisogyny is something that many people – especially cis people – don’t understand well due to their privilege. I would link to blogs that explain things better than I do, but if they are asked a lot of questions by not-trans-women from MBZ they might get annoyed because they are mainly interested in talking to fellow trans people (specifically AMAB trans people). So I’m taking it upon myself to explain all of this stuff to you guys because I like this community.
Sorry, I should make it clear that my radfem views are not the be-all-end-all in regards to the analysis of transmisogyny. There are transfeminists who disagree with many of my assumptions. I obviously hold my views because I think they make sense, but I don’t want to be arrogant and completely exclusionary towards non-TERF trans women who disagree with me.
Long post here b/c lots ppl responded 2 me.
@Kitteh: no, it wasn’t blackbloc. It’s one of those names I would know if I heard it. David will know. I remember feeling so upset I asked David to take down some of my stuff that he featured here. I felt totally attacked and I loved Manboobz so I felt I would cool down and come back in a couple months. And here I am.
@AllyS
Exactly. You can style your life any way you want and still understand that modern feminism has its roots in radical feminism. Just b/c there’s a social constructivist theory of gender doesn’t mean transfolk don’t fit in. I always found it hypocritical when some feminists told transfolk they were wrong for ‘performing’ gender. The whole point of feminism is liberation of a person, a human being without thinking about a person as a ‘gender’ and the faulty social assumptions about gender.
Girly feminine is part of our culture but the assumptions people make about ‘feminine’ are the problem. ie: feminine is weak, irrational etc.
@Cassandra
I think it’s too bad that radfems and transppl argue. They just fight about shit that shouldn’t be fought about. I don’t know how widely the fighting is b/c I purposely don’t pay attention to it. I can’t stand the fighting.
you also said
She was writing in her own time, yes. I disagree with a lot of 3rd wave stuff but it’s still important.
Oh and I really like the teaching I’m getting from you AllyS. I tend not to get involved in the issue b/c to me it’s like captain obvious. Why would I have ANY issue with someone who feels/thinks and whatnot they’re female? or male? or kitty? lol
People have the right to define who they are. It’s as simple as that. And I am aware that there are transppl locking horns w/ radfems on the net. Seems like that’s all they do. To me it’s wasting precious time when we could be doing other important things. I honestly don’t see the problem. Maybe I’m naive tho since I don’t get involved.
No humans may presume to be kitties! They will face the wrath of Ceiling Cat!
Re the TERF-caller – oh dear. Well, I’m glad you’re back. 🙂
I admit, I haven’t read a lot of those ‘classic’ works of [insert social justice thing here], because… I just find them so horribly unreadable. I know how absurd that sounds, but I tried to read Judith Butler once, and I just felt like I was being bashed over the head with jargon and LOOK HOW COLLEGE-EDUCATED I AM. I want shit that’s accessible, not intended for the ivory tower. If I have to burn fucking sanity points just to understand what’s being said, then I want to throw a red pen at them and say, “Do it over.”
Also eeeerrrggh TERFs. And I’ve met a good few trans guys who seem to take one bite of testosterone and go prancing off into the douchenozzle sunset, secure in their belief that they aren’t like THOSE women. Among the fights I’ve been privy to is that trans men are often automatically treated better in queer circles than trans women, which is complete bullshit since I can easily think of activist women and non-binaries, but have a DAMN hard time coming up with trans men activists. (With the exception of poor Lou Sullivan, who fought for having gay trans people recognized and died of AIDS before he hit forty.)
RE: Cat
This thought process is probably ok for a 5-years old, but for the guy on the photo… it shows retardation.
Really, dude? Really? You’re going to be THAT asshat today?
Apparently I got modded? Let’s try this again…
I admit, I haven’t read a lot of those ‘classic’ works of [insert social justice thing here], because… I just find them so horribly unreadable. I know how absurd that sounds, but I tried to read Judith Butler once, and I just felt like I was being bashed over the head with jargon and LOOK HOW COLLEGE-EDUCATED I AM. I want shit that’s accessible, not intended for the ivory tower. If I have to burn fucking sanity points just to understand what’s being said, then I want to throw a red pen at them and say, “Do it over.”
Also eeeerrrggh TERFs. And I’ve met a good few trans guys who seem to take one bite of testosterone and go prancing off into the douchenozzle sunset, secure in their belief that they aren’t like THOSE women. Among the fights I’ve been privy to is that trans men are often automatically treated better in queer circles than trans women, which is complete bullshit since I can easily think of activist women and non-binaries, but have a DAMN hard time coming up with trans men activists. (With the exception of poor Lou Sullivan, who fought for having gay trans people recognized and died of AIDS before he hit forty.)
RE: Cat
This thought process is probably ok for a 5-years old, but for the guy on the photo… it shows [SLUR]
Really, dude? Really? You’re going to be THAT asshat today?
@ LBT
FWIW, I feel the same way about Daly. I really did try to read her stuff, but kept feeling that if a writer makes no effort at all to communicate clearly then I’m not sure how much I care what they have to say. I’m a writer too, and I tend to default to the idea that if you actually want to communicate with people, it’s your responsibility to find a way to do so in a way that isn’t actively offputting to a large percentage of readers. And I’m not talking about the ideas here, I’m talking about the writing style.
Dworkin OTOH I don’t think is hard to read at all (often disturbing, yes, but not hard to understand). The misreading of her ideas is usually both deliberate and malicious, imo.
Ugh, that was a garbled mess. Irony? Sorry everyone, I’m really sleepy.
I was going to review Gynecology as an undergraduate. After I read the book, I gave up and critiqued The Selfish Gene instead. Which was interesting, because I sourced some of the primary references that Dawkins used, and that didn’t show what he said they demonstrated in his book.
I am shocked, shocked I say.
http://youtu.be/3wdHxyGcLoQ
Cassandra, FWIW, I don’t think that was a garbled mess at all. I think your writing was very lucid and I’m pretty I understood what you were communicating. 🙂
@LBT I wanna make sure I’m understanding. Are you saying that transmen are using power over/ privilege over transwomen? I’m a n00b in this area.
Dworkin I find easy to understand because well, I love her writing style. It’s in your face. I also think she gives great insight to rape victims since she was one herself I believe. I think her understanding of women’s bodies and the placement of female bodies in our culture is so important.
And I LOVE the shocked kitty, omg.
RE: cassandrakitty
No worries. Yeah, gender studies in particular seems to bring down the Jargon Hammer. I don’t know WHY people seem to be so devoted to making this shit as confusing as possible, but I really wish they’d knock it off. It’s confusing enough already.
Bell Hooks, on the other hand, I adore because she’s so readable.
medievalpoc actually has some really interesting and scathing things to say on the subject.
LBT – how’s this for a better description of Esmay and all the MRAs: willful stupidity with malice aforethought. Emphasis on the malice.
grumpycat – I love that shocked kitty too, though zie looks like zie started to yawn and forgot to finish it! 😀
@ LBT
Yeah, Butler is easier to read than Daly, but she still has a serious case of “you’re phrasing it that way just to show off about how clever you are, aren’t you?”. I really wish people would stop doing that.
RE: House Mouse Queen (if you’re married, do I get to call you a House Mouse Spouse?)
Are you saying that transmen are using power over/ privilege over transwomen? I’m a n00b in this area.
Often times… yes. There’s this really weird binary when it comes to how trans guys are viewed, and lately it seems more in vogue that we’re some magical unicorn hybrid boy, all the masculinity but none of the privilege, which is kinda hilariously untrue. We’re also sometimes seen as innately more radical than trans women, which seeing history is also laughably false.
Basically, there are some really gross politics and devaluing of women and femininity involved.
RE: Kittehs
Perfect!
RE: Cassandrakitty
Yeah, Butler is easier to read than Daly, but she still has a serious case of “you’re phrasing it that way just to show off about how clever you are, aren’t you?”
Don’t get me wrong, I still read some of those awful jargony scholarly articles sometimes. I see it as important to my continued existence to keep a finger on the pulse of theory regarding multi and shit, just so I know what to argue and how to back it up if I end up on the wrong side of the mental health industry.
The thing is, though, it takes EFFORT. My brain is a wheezy sick brain with a very tight energy budget, and I just don’t want to spend energy reading shit that SHOULD be accessible to everyone. How can you have a grassroots movement if it doesn’t speak to people on the ground? Why should I listen to someone who seems more interested in stroking the egos of academics than giving me any useful down-to-earth advice?
(This is also quite relevant to my mental health shit, since psychology lit is also rife with this shit.)
I’m having a hard time figuring out how to phrase this, but basically writing that’s deliberately difficult to read feels very exclusionary to me. As in, who does this person think they’re writing for? It’s obvious that they’re not intending their ideas to be consumed and interacted with by a general audience, or by anyone without a university education, because if that was their intention they’d write differently. Jargon can be hard to avoid because sometimes there really is no non-jargony alternative without writing an entire paragraph to replace a single term, but with some writers it feels like that’s not what’s going on, it’s more that they have no intention of addressing anyone who’s not part of a very narrow and privileged slice of the population.
I think you phrased it very clearly. That’s pretty much the feeling I get with a lot of this stuff. I’ve read books on historical finance that were clearer and had more appeal …
It’s meant to. (I mean, I know you know that, I’m just amplifyin’.)
Putting aside her terrible writing, Judith Butler’s work really isn’t worth reading for the most part. Her theory of gender performativity has always been really off the mark in my view. There are far better post-structuralists than Butler.
It was quite the mindfuck going from the classes in which we were discussing Daly to lectures about socialism directly afterwards. I started feeling like the universe must have a sense of humor.