Okay friendly readers, I have a debating experiment for you
today:
Step 1: Witness a debate about
gender and feminism.
Step 2: Witness a man jumping in with
a statement like, “Look, I’m all for equality, but [insert
anti-equality/anti-feminist statement]” or “I consider myself a feminist, but
let me just play Devil’s Advocate here, [insert anti-equality/anti-feminist
statement].”
Step 3: Respond by asking him what,
specifically, tenets of feminism and equality for women he supports and what
injustices primarily exist today for women. Like, ask him to actually delineate
them for all to see.
Because, well, what I often find is that those men who feel
compelled to both assert that they support equality/feminism while
simultaneously articulating an anti-equality/anti-feminist statement often don’t
actually have, when pressed, all that many pro-equality/pro-feminist opinions. They’re like the “definitely not racist or
anything, but” white people who will admit that slavery and saying the n-word
are wrong, but when pressed those are pretty much the only two things that
count as genuinely racist by their authority.
In fact, oftentimes, the majority
of Devil’s-Advocate-Male contributions to conversations about gender and
feminism are against equality and
feminism. The blubbering “I’m all for
equality” intros are a diversion, whether intentional or not, meant to instill
in feminist participants a glimmer of hope that he might, this time, be
able to make reasonable contributions to the discourse that go beyond being
there to “teach” and dismiss the female perspectives.
Recognize it for what it is. Put him on the spot to
delineate his actual points of agreement and disagreement. From there, you can
better ascertain the worth of engaging.
No comments:
Post a Comment