as long as the men are already pissed off


Apparently I have upset a bunch of “nice guys” by re-posting the David Wong essay and now they are gathered on another board dedicated to “no hate talk” calling me ignorant and stupid, among other things. Fun!

As long as people are all riled up though, here is Louis CK’s observations on women dating. [Louis CK is way more fun than a bunch of self proclaimed “nice guys” I don’t know calling me an ignorant slut.]




4 Responses to as long as the men are already pissed off

  1. Thanks for releasing my earlier comment in that other post, Max.

    As for “ignorant”: I think the word is defensible, and I intended it in the sense of “lacking knowledge/awareness” (as opposed to the more vernacular interpretation of “being stupid”). However, as a gesture of good faith I struck the term at my blog, Feminist Critics, and replaced it with softer phrasing (as you’ll notice I did in the second comment I left in your original Wong-endorsing post). I did that yesterday, before your current post here.

    I am dismayed to hear that there’s a “board” somewhere that has participants that are calling you “stupid” and a “slut.” Since you only mention one board, though, I think you should clarify that you aren’t referring to Feminist Critics. No one at FC has called you stupid or a slut, nor would we allow such a comment to stand once we saw it. We don’t permit ad hominem attacks at FC. We are always seeking good faith, respectful dialog.

    As for your post here: I like Louis CK; he’s funny, and I laughed at the clip you posted. However, when it comes to understanding gender, he’s dead wrong. The most preferred target for violent men? Other men. (The most preferred target for violent women? Also men!)

    Let’s take a look at murder statistics in the US. Women are much, much less likely to be targeted for murder than men. In fact, the gender privilege women have here is so great in some age cohorts, it erases the race privilege that white men have.

    National figures from 2005 note the following chances of being murdered per 100,000 18 to 24 year olds:

    Whites: Women: 2.5 Men: 12.2
    Afr. Amer.: Women: 11.3 Men: 102.0

    White men in this cohort are about five times more likely to be murdered than white women, and are actually more likely to be murdered than African American women. African American men are nine times more likely to be murdered than African American women, and an incredible 40 times more likely to be murdered than white women.

    At any rate, I would actually prefer to return to discussing why your endorsement of David Wong’s empathy-free berating of people who are depressed was so misleading when presented in the context of a discussion “nice guys.” My point about why Wong’s admiration for the narcissistic, homophobic Blake was so problematic doesn’t seem to have registered with you. Do you really not see the contradiction between your scolding men for lacking people skills, then endorsing a post which holds up a near-sociopath like Blake as some kind of role model?

  2. Max

    You can go back and rewrite your post — which I was referring to — to try to make yourself look friendlier and less aggressive and I suppose your merry band of followers and posters could do the same, I’m not going back to read edited versions though. I saw the first version and am not missinterpreting the hostility exhibited there at me. Which interestingly, on a blow proclaiming to be feminist, seemed to be entirely populated by male responders who are pissed off at either women in general, or me in specific.

    I don’t need a dictionary translation of “ignorant.” But thank you for trying to help little ol’ ignorant me out.

    Louis CK is not wrong saying men are, currently and historically, the biggest physical threat to women on this planet. Here’s a link for some edification:

    I do not believe Wong’s piece is, in your words, “empathy-free berating of people who are depressed.”

    I believe you are choosing to misinterpret a very simple clear message written satirically and tongue in cheek in your efforts to turn it into some other subject you feel better equipped to attack and challenge within a limited comfort zone. And I’m not going to spend hours of my time discussing elements not in existence in the piece just so you can feel you are winning some points in terms of another subject (and apparently battle, in your eyes) entirely.

    Feel free to post. I’ll respond unless you get so overbearing it’s just too boring to continue.

  3. I don’t always agree with Max. This is not news to Max. I put that there so that whoever Ballgame is will know I’m not here to defend Max or whatever. I am here to point out that Louis CK isn’t saying that men are the biggest murder threat to women (though my own mother was, in fact, murdered by her second ex-husband) but he *is* saying that men are the biggest threat to women. Men can be abusive in so many ways and the problem is, it can happen before the woman really has a way to defend herself. Bam, a guy can shove a girl against a car door and be “just a little rough” and that’s “all” he did. Do you see why that’s a threat to women?

    Secondly, David Wong’s article is not empathy-free. It’s not candy-coated, to be sure, but it is not lacking in empathy. He is saying very clearly, that men/people need to do things to improve their lives. I did think the was a bit harsh in his mention of a possibly suicidal person not changing their life and expecting different results but, again, it was not empathy-free. He’s saying, again, that one has to *do* something different. (I know, from very recent experience that this is often the hardest thing for a depressed person to do; however, in the context of Wong’s writing, it’s not clear whether he is speaking of an actual depressed person or of a person who said he would kill himself. This is a fine line and not a clear one to outsiders looking in but there it is.) So, again, Wong is being blunt, straightforward, direct and maybe even harsh, but there is no evidence that he is lacking empathy. In fact, that he would write and post this blog (twice) speaks to some sense of understanding of the plight of those he addresses.

  4. Max

    Wait, back up, what was the part about not always agreeing with me? Ahhhh!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *