to think the term "menz" is bloody irritating?!

[Squtternutbaush]

Since we've had the recent influx of (anti)feminist threads appearing I've noticed that anytime an issue arises that might put males at a disadvantage they are dismissed with this bloody belittling term and its really starting to grate on me now.

I understand that in most peoples eyes feminism is about equality but it seems that some are intent on turning it into a war between women and men and being just as disrespectful to males as they complain that males are to females.

I'm not denying in anyway that feminism is a great thing or that women haven't been at a disadvantage forever but I don't see how this attitude helps the cause.

I have a son and a daughter and I want them both to have a respect for people regardless of gender!

Hakluyt I obviously put that across badly, like I've said I'm not great with paper explanations.

I saw it as a thread about the effects of DV as a whole not specifically about the effect on one person. I know it was a true story and I yes I understand that its a bigger issue but I still don't see why people can't just explain that it may not be the time or the place rather than shoot down "the menz". Again though it was around the time where I was dealing with the aftermath within my family so my view could be skewed and probably would have been at the time.

I'd just like to add that this thread was not in anyway supposed to be about belittling domestic violence or even using it as a discussion point, it was just an example of when I've seen the term used.

WorraLiberty Mon 03-Nov-14 11:47:26
But why the sarcasm Freudians?

'Poor menz' comes across as not giving a shit about male suffering

Whereas "Right now, we're discussing the impact on women rather than men", does not.

what she said

A poster, not you, asked where it might be relevant to mention violence against men.

That was me, and I did specifically ask it in relation to issues such as single parenthood and DV. I mentioned both issues directly in my question.

Well if you openly question why someone is derailing you will be accused of not caring for men so sometimes people use sarcasm as they see it so often

The more important question is surely why it is so difficult to just discuss women

Worra but people don't say "poor menz". They say "what about the menz" as a stock phrase, to describe what certain kinds of derailing posts say. It's used elsewhere than on MN too, including newspaper column comments, for example.

I've generally seen 'poor menz' used in response to posters suggesting that men are somehow incapable of seeing dust or doing childcare on account of them having a penis, or arguments that said penis may drop off if their 'needs' aren't met. 'What about the menz' or 'whattaboutery' tend to be the phrases used in response to attempts to derail feminist discussion in my experience. I think both phrases have a place.

It's just shorthand for expressing the frustration that many women feel at having women focused discussions criticized for not focusing on men.

That's all.

And yes, "wimminz" does get used too, for example "wimminz, back of the queue!" - this is used to describe frustration that many women feel at it being implied that women are being uppity/getting above themselves when we put energy into women's issues.

Neither of these are particular to MN or FWR - they are both used in other places online.

Fair enough if people don't like them but they really are born out of frustration not sneeriness or of a desire to have insider jargon/buzzwords. I don't think there is anything unusual about having a bit of jargon however, especially in these days of the internet. I don't know the history of "what about the menz" but I imagine someone used it on a blog one day and it caught on (as these things do) because it expressed something a lot if people feel in a neat and catchy way.

I wouldn't let it put me off feminism or FWR!

It pisses me off. Along with 'NAMALT'. It's like a blind refusal to accept the fact that actually no, NOT all men are like that.

Also I suspect that no matter how feminists express themselves they will come in for flack.

I can easily see feminists being criticized for being po-faced/humourless/taking themselves too seriously for saying something like "Right now, we're discussing the impact on women rather than men"

And they would probably still be accused of minimizing bad things that happen to men.

Plus I think people get tired of saying "Right now, we're discussing the impact on women rather than men" when it shouldn't really need to be said because surely it is obvious that it is OK for women to discuss the impact of gendered issues on themselves, we shouldn't have to justify it - hence "what about the menz" being born out of frustration.

Don't use it if you don't like it. I don't like seeing people post about 'property porn' or 'pimping things up' - not sure I would bother to start a thread about it though.

It's not a refusal to accept that. It's a refusal to let that fact muddy the discussion, because it's not helpful. It's not helpful to look at the behaviour of individuals when looking at trends over a population.

I've always understood menz in two ways, both of which make perfect sense and as such, in successfully signalling them, it is a useful term.

1. As a riposte to people who write in a derogatory manner about 'wimmin' or 'the wimminz' which has been very widespread in the mainstream press for decades, perhaps more so in the 70s-80s. (Writing of the 'they'll be spending all our taxes on black, one-legged lesbians now, the world has gone mad' ilk).

2. As a shorthand for that small sub-group of men who persistently try to derail any discussion about issues that affect women with 'what about the men', when either this issue affects women disproportionately, or, the particular discussion happens to be about women. It's a bullying tactic, conveying that attention must always be focused on men, women must never be allowed to talk amongst and snout themselves, especially on any issue that might affect their attitude towards, or expectations of men.

So, I don't see it as dismissing men, or their interesting contributions to discussions at all. Just as a signal for and perfectly reasonable dismissal of those destructive types who seek to derail with 'what about the poor men' every bloody time.

I want to quote AllMimsyWereTheBorogoves' post:

Poster A: But that happens to men too!

Poster B: Oh, here we go. But what about teh menz?

Posters C, D, E, F: Haha, yes, I was counting down till we got someone saying that, there's always one isn't there, etc etc etc.

Poster A either vanishes or attempts to stand her ground and gets a lot of abuse. Either way, she decides to stay away from this topic again and so do dozens of other people who are lurking on the thread.

Compare and contrast:

Poster X: But that happens to men too!

Poster Y: Well, of course it does sometimes. But it happens far more often to women, and we are discussing why that might be and what we can do about it.

Nothing is guaranteed, but there might, just might, be a sensible discussion after this, with respect on all sides.

Which approach do you think will draw more people in?

When it comes to campaigning for anything requiring enormous change, I believe that the chances of success will always be higher when those who are on the moral high ground show patience and decency, if necessary over and over again, even in the face of enormous provocation. Ghandi and Nelson Mandela spring to mind as two people who took this approach to oppression and through incredible perseverance won through. Sadly when any phrase is used that is seen as derogatory (and I can't see how the phrase under discussion can realistically be seen in any other light) then the protagonists weaken their own argument as it opens up the possibility that they can be accused of being no better than those they criticise.

It's like a blind refusal to accept the fact that actually no, NOT all men are like that.

It isn't actually.

That isn't what 'not all men are like that' is used to express.

'Not all men are like that/do that' is another common argument that feminists come into contact with a lot. People will be discussing some sexist action and inevitably someone pipes up with 'not all men are like that' - which rather misses the point. The point isn't, and never was, that all men are like that. 'Not all men are like that' is a classic strawman.

For example women might be discussing their anger at being groped on busy public transport. At no point will any one of them have said that all men grope women on busy public transport - it is therefore a derail/strawman for someone to pop up and get all cross at the unjust and manhating discussion being had in which women fail to shout out that not all men grope women on busy tubes. We shouldn't have to put a big disclaimer of 'we know that not all men are like that' before we discuss any sexist behavior. It is taken as read that of course not all men are like that. It is yet more frustration of women feeling worn down by having to place unnecessary caveats/disclaimers on every conversation that they try to have about issues that concern them.

(This one is similar to 'women do it too' - which is another derail that most feminists are familiar with.)

Triliteral - that bit in italics is a made up conversation, right?

I mean it isn't an actual quote.

Generally I have seen 'what about the menz' used either to talk about a situation (and not directed at a person) or said about trolls.

I'm not claiming that it doesn't ever get thrown at a genuine poster but I don't think it is fair to claim that it will generally be the first (and a group ganging up) reaction a genuine well meaning poster will get.

But like I say feminists can't really win in how they express themselves. And most of us on MN aren't going for sainthood/world peace - we're just chatting in an online forum about stuff that interests us.

Can't be arsed to read the rest of the thread but essentially OP, you're correct.

Also, anyone using the term 'menz' or 'kidz' , or in fact anyone who replaces an 's' with a 'z' to make it sound 'cooler' should immediately be carted off to jail, or stoned to death, or maybe just made to retake their O levels / GCSE's.
I am by no means a grammar Nazi but come on .... have some standards!

Triliteral - that bit in italics is a made up conversation, right?

I was quoting an earlier post from this thread, which I felt demonstrated the point I wanted to make. I just feel it's very sad when those who are very angry risk antagonising those who might help by expressing their bitterness in a way that puts others off. We don't live in a perfect world though, and most people (me included) are not saints. I do accept that fact. I just wanted to express my point of view.

Triliteral, yes I understand - you were quoting a made up conversation. I'm just doubtful that conversations like the made up one you quoted happen often, or at all.

So perhaps we don't need to agonize too much over how the hypothetical posters in a made up conversation might better express themselves.

Thanks Chunderella, in that case I apologise for my ignorance. You are probably correct in that there are times when the oppression is so appalling that the peaceful approach just doesn't work.

I tend to avoid feminist discussions because in general I get frustrated when others are quite so angry, however it may be that they are fully justified in their anger.

Incidentally, I appreciate that those who have responded to my post have done so very rationally and kindly.