It just proves the point, doesn't it?(20 Posts)
This isn't a TAAT, but it is inspired by some previous threads and posters and a topic that has got me thinking.
I've been struck recently by just how much some men (obvs, NAMALT) hate women talking, particularly women talking together, particularly women talking together in ways that are critical of masculinity or patriarchy; and how there is a certain type of man who feels absolutely compelled to "correct" us. They don't want to have a debate, they don't want to talk through ideas, they just want to tell us why we're wrong.
I think it's common to stumble across things online that provoke us, the internet being what it is. We can all do a line in impotent frothing rage when we come across someone on the internet who writes things that we disagree with, things that make us cross. But to a certain type of man, it seems like a point of pride to go and find all of these awful women talking together, no matter how obscure their corner of the internet, not just to see what they're saying, but by god, to get right in there and tell them how WRONG they are.
Why is this? From where does this sense of entitlement come, and what is it that they want to achieve? I think there is more to it than just garden-variety trolling. I have never once wanted to go to an MRA site and tell them they're all a bunch of basement-dwelling mouth-breathing cave trolls. Why would I?
All they achieve is to prove the necessity of women continuing to talk, because they illustrate the exact reason why we need feminism. Not only does it not make me shut up, it makes me want to shout louder. And it doesn't make me question my conclusions about the way the world is, it drives me further into feminism because their arguments tend to be so utterly weak, so easily refuted, so obviously fuelled by misogyny, fear and often downright ignorance, that there's just very little debate to be had.
Do they know this? Every MRA I've seen come here has only achieved in scoring a massive own goal. Bless.
<dons troll-proof suit>
I agree. I truly wish this section were 'women only' but of course there is no way to enforce that.
Agree with all of that Melinda. I am just pondering over what makes them so relentlessly pick the scab - entitlement, yes. But there's almost an element of, I dunno, masochism in it? Probably the wrong word. But they seem thrilled, not just to have provoked, but delighted to feel like they're in a misunderstood maligned minority. The psychology interests me, because it's such a specific type of trolling.
If it's only MRA's you are talking about, they get their kicks from literally, kicking feminists. They do indeed pride themselves on finding feminists and using false facts to get the "bitches" to "stfu".
MRA's are a very tiny minority, but unfortunately a very vocal tiny minority.
Your everyday reasonable man having accidentally stumbled into a feminist discussion would probably listen, think to learn a bit, but wouldn't generally trample over the whole discussion. It takes a proper asshole to do that.
They are best left corrected, then ignored. The psychology is similar to your bog standard abuser/troll.
These types aren't masochistic. That requires a component of consent.
They are plain abusive (behind a curtain of faux-intellectuality).
You're probably right 0phelia, and I might be overthinking it. I just wonder how (if) they process the fact that in the process of being arseholes about feminism, rather than weakening it (which must be the overt intention?), they actually make it stronger by exposing how unsophisticated and hateful their points are...I mean on some level, they must know that?
Or maybe they just are that thick
I'm thinking myself into a corner here, it all seemed very clear when I was thinking about this while walking the dogs this morning, but it seems to have got all tangled up now!
I can't know this, but honesty I think most of the attraction is to get a rise out of people rather than engage in productive debate of any kind.
I'm giving them too much credit, aren't I? There's probably no weird cognitive dissonance, just obtuseness and childishness. I'm making them more interesting than they are.
They have an interest in denying there is a patriarchy because they feel inadequate: if white men are privileged, what's their excuse for not being an 'alpha male'.
When actually, patriarchy hurts many men, too, and there are so many wonderful men who aren't 'alpha' - which is such a flawed concept anyway.
I don't really mean to derail @pteranodon, but interested that you consider it "patriarchy" that encourages "alpha" males ? In other mammalian species, isn't it literally the biggest baddest male that beats the sh!t out of the other ones and then has his pick of the females ? There is (IMO) some relic of this in the adulation accorded to boy bands and male sportsmen don't you think ? i.e. women actually tend to prefer Alpha males, and it is unusual to see a wealthy women "marrying down" etc etc. These may well be symptoms of the same problem I suppose.
In the study of social animals, 'alpha' designates the dominant individual, male or female.
erm yes, but not in any of our ancestors or cousins, assuming you believe in evolution....
as in they were all males that were dominant...
I must introduce you to my mum one day, itll
It seems some monkeys and apes do have dominant females;
Not sure what this adds, other than the fact that nature doesn't always see the need for males to be the dominant sex.
I was thinking that patriarchy is part social construct, part evolutionary, and that in that evolution females are as programmed to pursue the alpha males as men are to try and be the alpha males. Of all my friends e.g., no one would quibble over a modest salary difference in their partners, but by and large they all seem to have married men who have decent jobs, usually better paid that their own. I can't imagine one of them falling in love with and marrying a bin man....
I agree it doesn't add all that much, was just a thought.
I know a guy who does this and I would love to have a good understanding of his psychology. He revels in the role of misunderstood victim. His break up with his child's mum was a direct result of something he did yet his version of events puts him as the completely wronged party.
I also get the impression that he believes himself to be very clever and wise and resigned to working in a job which is beneath him.
I'm not sure that this makes sense really but if he's typical of these trolls, he seems really angry at being this misunderstood, unappreciated, marginalised victim but without any desire to change his circumstances.
Join the discussion
Already registered? Log in with:
Please login first.