53 thoughts on “Men taking up too much space

  1. I disapprove of this website. It’s pretty mean-spirited to post pictures of people on a public forum for the permanent record for what amounts to (at most) a very minor infraction. Moreover, I can’t tell how empty these trains are. There are a couple of pictures in which it is clear that the dude is crowding out other people — the one linked above for example. But most of them that’s just not even close to obvious, and from what I can tell, a lot of the trains look fairly empty. So why shouldn’t people — men or women — spread out a little? Some of the picture also seem to me to be more anti-fat person too.

  2. As someone who takes often quite full public transportation nearly every day, and who is broad-shouldered enough that the official seats are a bit narrow, I find people unnecessarily taking too much space to be pretty annoying. And, men sitting in the “I’ve got huge balls” pose is a common enough way to do this. (Not, I think, more common than people putting their feet on the seat, which is more often done by women, as far as I can tell.) But, like mm above, I think the website above is full of, at best, very marginal cases, and that putting people’s pictures there is generally pretty unreasonable. I think it’s both unfair and unkind to those pictured, and does a fine job of making it seems as if people are really concerned with small things that annoy them.

  3. @mm

    It’s pretty mean-spirited to post pictures of people on a public forum for the permanent record

    Oh, so like bringing attention to problematic public behaviour is a bad thing? Tell me more.

    So why shouldn’t people — men or women — spread out a little?

    You are missing the point. Men as a general rule get to define the space around them, women do not.

  4. I think I’m going to decline to engage with you, #3. I get that this is supposed to be the message of that cite. I stand by my earlier remark that it is a mean and petty cite. Make of that what you will.

  5. I guess I will say this.

    It’s not hard to blur out the faces of the photographs. It’s in fact really easy. The organizers of this site have opted to not do this.

    Whatever legitimate educational or political aim this site aimed to achieve could have been achieved with photos with the faces blurred.

    However, if the goal is to punish particular people for supposed infractions via public humiliation, then you got to show the faces.

  6. Public humiliation has always been a good method to embarrass those who violate the norms of good conduct to see their their deviant ways and conform

  7. In the words of Gordon Gano, “I hope you know that this will go down on your permanent record.”

    I have to concur that this was an unreasonable decision on the part of the person or persons who operate that website. Even if it weren’t true that, as Matt points out, the website includes many marginal and/or ambiguous cases (where it’s not clear that the persons in question are necessarily doing anything impolite), it would still be unreasonable. Why couldn’t they blur the faces? Terrible judgment involved here, of the kind that inherently tends to overshadow the point they were trying to make (which is a shame).

  8. Without speaking to the mean-spirited (or not) nature of the site, I will say as a woman who travels often for conferences and other professional meetings: Every. Time. I. Fly.

    And to point it out our all for more space (space that should already be mine) – whether explicitly or with a quiet cough and a look – is without fail to invite scorn.

    So whether this site brings attention to this subtle form of male control in the right way or not… I’m glad, at least, that attention is being brought.

  9. That should have said “to point it out or ask for more space…” (Apologies, commenting from smartphone).

  10. 1) This is a terrible site for the reasons given above, but especially because in half those photos there’s no encroachment going on–you’re telling me there’s something wrong with this: http://mentakingup2muchspaceonthetrain.tumblr.com/image/61200384982 ???

    2) When men do encroach, as in the OP photo, people have to say something. It irritates me to covertly sneer at someone over the distance of the Internet in lieu of confronting them face to face.

  11. @mm

    However, if the goal is to punish particular people for supposed infractions via public humiliation, then you got to show the faces.

    What are you going on about? Do you honestly think that the men in the above photos will face any sort of backlash or censure merely because they were taking up too much space?

    Or are you not okay with the idea that men get to define the space around them and women do not?

  12. @LogicFan

    2) When men do encroach, as in the OP photo, people have to say something. It irritates me to covertly sneer at someone over the distance of the Internet in lieu of confronting them face to face.

    So sayeth the privileged dude. You assume that everyone is on a equal basis and that they have been socialized just like you.

    Stop making assumptions.

    Many women in society are socialized from birth to not be demanding, not stand up for themselves and generally act to please men. So try, just a little, to imagine being not in your shoes and then see if your glib point #2 makes as much sense as you think it does.

  13. Arbourist: You’re the one making assumptions. I’m not privileged. You don’t know what you’re talking about.

    And I’m not making any assumptions about “equal basis”, whatever that means, or socialization.

    I’m talking about how we change bad conduct. It’s not by being self-righteous and cowardly over the Internet. It’s about being fair, direct, and honest when people are acting poorly. Otherwise we’re not aiming for justice but rather just making ourselves feel good.

  14. It’s really dismaying to see how hostile, condescending, and dismissive some commenters are when someone (politely) disagrees with one of the postings.

    There are exceptions: Kate Norlock was responded with grace and equanimity to the worries raised in the “Bit of GCC at the APA” thread, and though the disagreement there is real it does not seem hostile at all.

    Not so in many other recent threads.

  15. This webpage is absolutely ridiculous. It’s completely common for men to experience testicular pain in cramped positions. For that reason, this apparently patriarchal stance isn’t exactly blameworthy in my mind. Several photos show men with their knees ever slightly spread on what appears to be otherwise empty or sparsely filled benches.

    Does this blog make a good point about gender normative postures and social awareness? Sure. Does it show how people (hell, maybe especially men given those social gender roles) are or can be assholes? Definitely. But the mean-spiritedness and humiliation tactics are misplaced, especially in a world with much bigger issues for gender equality than space-hoggers on public transit. It trivializes women’s issues; it’s so petty I couldn’t take it seriously.

  16. “It’s completely common for men to experience testicular pain in cramped positions.”

    I’m not going to agree with this. 58 years of being a man, with testicles and everything, and with a fair amount of time spent in crowded public transportation, and I’ve never “experienced testicular pain in cramped positions” on the subway, Metro, Tube, or a bus for that matter.

    Furthermore, I’ve spent those 58 years with other be-testicled men and have never heard anyone complain of this alleged pain. Getting kicked in the nuts, now that’s painful. Sitting on a subway bench, not so much.

    Now I am a kinda skinny guy, so maybe bigger folks do suffer in silence, because if it’s “completely common,” it’s the kind of thing that never seems to come up in conversation. “How ’bout them …. [fill in your favorite sports team]?”: now that’s a completely common thing for guys to talk about. “Boy did my balls hurt on the subway ride home tonight” just simply isn’t.

  17. Well, John, I always knew you were no Dan Bern, but then, other than the guy in the first photo, who is?

    (Sorry that I can never manged to put links so they look better)

  18. Hi all,

    I posted this and then have not been online. Sorry for not seeing this comment thread sooner. I actually agree with the criticisms of the site linked to. I saw the pictures like the one above that looked egregious, and although I saw one or two that were not I thought they were aberrations and that the others were egregious enough that the site as worth linking to. But the blurring point is a very good one. So: the site is indiscriminate about what it posts, and it should blur faces. I wish there was a better site like this!

  19. From the fact that men don’t talk to John Protevi about their aching balls in certain circumstances, he concludes that it isn’t common for their balls to ache in those circumstances.

    That doesn’t seem like a very good inference.

  20. This was also posted by the pretty well known page “Guerrilla Feminism” on facebook. My comment there was basically: Hey, this webpage is picking out a phenomenon that’s very real and has been studied by certain theorists (e.g., Bartky, Marianne Wex).

    BUT, many of the examples on the page are just flat-out bad examples. Some of the men pictured simply aren’t taking up an inordinate amount of space, and some of them are taking up space for reasons unrelated to gender norms (e.g, the guys lugging 2+ suitcases).

  21. Buster at 20, if only you would turn your logical prowess to schneekm’s completely evidence-free assertion at 16, then we might get somewhere. I mean “completely common”? Really? That passes muster with you?

  22. FWIW, I agree with Jender at 19 and Matt Drabek at 21 (and all the others who preceded them) as to the pluses and minuses of the site.

    As for the, uh, supplementary discussion, some free words of advice. If you experience such pain from sitting on a subway bench, you should do any or all of the following 1) experiment with other ways of sitting that relieve your pain but do not replicate the pose of the guy in the picture above; 2) stand up instead of sitting; 3) seek medical attention.

  23. LogicFan,

    I would like to encourage you to take some time to think about how your proposed solution divides the burdens of correcting persistent social inequality. Face to face confrontations with strangers are not costless, and for reasons already mentioned by others, they are not equally easy (or equally risky) for people of different genders, classes, abilities, and life situations. Posting anonymously on the internet is one way of redistributing those burdens – as you well know, given your own wise choice to comment pseudonymously, given your own relatively vulnerable status as a student or junior scholar.

    I would also encourage you to reflect on the degree to which you conflate your own emotional reactions and conversational preferences (“It irritates me…”) with objective, universal standards for what counts as fair and honest, or as evidence for what is actually effective at producing social change. Your commitment to rigorous reliance argument and evidence would not allow you to tolerate such ungrounded personal appeals from others.

  24. “Buster at 20, if only you would turn your logical prowess to schneekm’s completely evidence-free assertion at 16, then we might get somewhere. I mean “completely common”? Really? That passes muster with you?”

    I don’t see what the logical problem is.
    I’m pretty sure you don’t object in general to “evidence-free assertion” on blogs. Maybe you could say why schneekm is a special case.

    Oh, and thanks so much for the medical advice! So few doctors of philosophy are willing to dispense expertise as if they were qualified to offer it.

  25. @14 Logic FAN

    I’m not privileged. You don’t know what you’re talking about.

    Of course not, you merely speak and act like it. My mistake.

    And I’m not making any assumptions about “equal basis”, whatever that means, or socialization.

    Good point. Why would you even know about something you never have to worry about? That is privilege, and you has it.

    It’s not by being self-righteous and cowardly over the Internet.

    I answered this already, reread and absorb the idea that everyone is not you and thus your dudely solutions are not appropriate for the class of people that have this particular problem.

    Also, see comment 24, in which Derek Bowman politely hands you your ass.

    Mr.Bowman, evidently, has more patience than I to deal with 101 level explanations and dudely angst; I applaud him for it.

  26. @15 disappointed and anonymous

    It’s really dismaying to see how hostile, condescending, and dismissive some commenters are when someone (politely) disagrees with one of the postings.

    *points* The fainting couch is over there.

    Crummy arguments come to die on the internet. Doubling down and repeating the same incorrect assertion does not entitle one to another charitable response.

  27. @16 schneekm

    It’s completely common for men to experience testicular pain in cramped positions.

    And making small adjustments to correct said ‘testicular pain’ instead of taking up inordinate amount of public space is completely out of the question?

    For that reason, this apparently patriarchal stance isn’t exactly blameworthy in my mind.

    It is when it infringes on the space of others, particularly women, who have to put up with dudes that think it is their right to sprawl wherever they please.

    But the mean-spiritedness and humiliation tactics are misplaced, especially in a world with much bigger issues for gender equality than space-hoggers on public transit.

    Thank you for mansplaining to women what should be important and not important to them.

    Your opinion is noted.

  28. It is indeed your mistake, Arbourist. You erred, empirically, when you called me “privileged”. I am not. If you knew me, which you do not, you would know this to be the case. (Assuming you have reliable epistemic faculties.)

    It always amazes me how unpleasant and irrational people will be on the Internet, even when in regular life they are perfectly reasonable. This is one of the reasons that I believe that, when we see an incident of injustice, we should intervene–say something, take action, etc.–and not just get self-righteous and whiny behind the invulnerable shield of the Internet. All this chattering may make us feel better, but it’s not going to lead to a more just society.

    “Face to face confrontations with strangers are not costless, and for reasons already mentioned by others, they are not equally easy (or equally risky) for people of different genders, classes, abilities, and life situations.” This is true. But that does not imply that we still not responsible for taking action, even if action has costs or makes us uncomfortable. Are we simply trying to maximize our own interests here or work toward a more just and equal society for all? If it’s the latter, and I think that it should be, then we all are going to have to make sacrifices toward that goal. You seem to suggest that there is a “comfort zone” for women that they are loathe to step out of. I don’t agree factually, but even if you are right then they may have a moral responsibility to step out of that zone.

    (Note that I do not recommend that you intervene when a man’s legs are a little too splayed for your taste. He might, reasonably enough, think that you are a crazy person.)

  29. Assuming you have reliable epistemic faculties.

    Oh philoso-wanking! :) The the enemy of clear thought and good argumentation. Please, put your Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy down and just argue, or I get to bring my lexicon to the table and I get to explain Patriarchy, Objectification and Rape Culture to you. It will be edifying, let me assure you.

    Vocabulary dropping aside let’s answer your latest assertions…

    But that does not imply that we still not responsible for taking action, even if action has costs or makes us uncomfortable. Are we simply trying to maximize our own interests here or work toward a more just and equal society for all?

    Implicit in this statement is that we are all equal in society and have the same agency. Wow, for the third time now, this is not the case. And thus your solution is not only irrelevant it is damaging to women because it blames them for their societally proscribed lack of agency and not taking action.

    Women usually do not take up the mantle for safety reasons, because men harass, abuse, and kill women even when they don’t speak up.

    then we all are going to have to make sacrifices toward that goal.

    Err…no. Men need to learn not to encroach on the spaces of others especially women. No sacrifice involved other than dudes learning that other people exist and have the right to treated as they are.

    Note that I do not recommend that you intervene when a man’s legs are a little too splayed for your taste. He might, reasonably enough, think that you are a crazy person.

    Wow, way to defend abysmal behaviour and blame the victim all at the same time. Admitting that men, and by that extension *you* have privilege is really tough eh?

  30. This is exactly what I meant.
    Someone adopting The Arbourist’s tone *in criticism* of a posting would be shut down on grounds of violating the ‘be nice’ rule, making people feel unsafe, or the like. But the really nasty, personal invective against perfectly civil comments by LogicFan is permitted.

    At the very least might we get a comment from “Professor Manners”?

  31. @#8 Dani

    Without speaking to the mean-spirited (or not) nature of the site, I will say as a woman who travels often for conferences and other professional meetings: Every. Time. I. Fly.

    And to [point it out and ask for for more space] (space that should already be mine) – whether explicitly or with a quiet cough and a look – is without fail to invite scorn.

    So whether this site brings attention to this subtle form of male control

    All that you can ask for in a good blog post. :)

    I’m sorry that you have to go through that gauntlet *every* time it sucks and it shouldn’t have to be that way. :(

  32. @32 Disappointed and Still Anonymous

    the Arbourist’s tone *in criticism* of a posting would be shut down on grounds of violating the ‘be nice’ rule,

    You have nothing useful to say do you? Allow us to look at the rules here, specifically the addendum (emphasis mine):

    Addendum: ‘If your comments are repeatedly expressing views that (intentionally
    or otherwise) make this blog an unsafe environment for those who are on the receiving end of oppression, you may be asked to change your behaviour. If this doesn’t succeed, you may be placed inmoderation or blocked.’ For more on this policy, go here.

    Now DaSA, please enumerate where I have insulted Logic Fan’s character and have punched down and/or oppressed him/her? The arguments LF is making are bunk. Hir arguments demonstrate an intrinsic lack of knowledge of basic feminist theory and the every day experience of women. Despite repeated attempts to engage in a charitable debate (FYI: That would look like addressing, or heck even acknowledging , the power gradients present in society and how that affects women’s behaviour in the public transition).

    So, rather then charitably engaging with the arguments offered we get this:

    #29 LF: “It always amazes me how unpleasant and irrational people will be on the Internet”,

    And then this:

    #29 LF: –”and not just get self-righteous and whiny”

    So tell me, DaSA about being nice and the commenting policy and do you believe it should apply to LF as well? I could care less about the facile backhanded prolix LF is spinning my way, but it seems like, given the evidence and *you* should.

    Let me reiterate,please show me where I have commented on LF’s character in violation of the commenting policy rules (do read the commenting policy, especially the quoted part).

    You see DaSA, tone trolling really adds nothing but distraction to the thread. If the mods found the content of my posts objectionable don’t you think they would have acted by now?

  33. Well, what an enlightening morning’s read this has been. Men, when accused, first say the women doing the accusing have (1) bad manners (2) no sympathy for poor big-balled men who couldn’t possibly assume a narrower stance, and (3) poor logic.

    Wow, it couldn’t possibly be the case that men ARE simply accustomed to demanding as much space as they want and that they will defend that right (as with their right to pseudo-gun-penis ownership) to their dying breath and blame the women for pointing out that male boorishness is so much the accepted norm that to even protest is abnormal.

    Now if the arguments men used against the women here were applied to them….I suspect they would become similarly ‘humorless’ about it.

  34. @17 John Protevi

    I’m not going to agree with this. 58 years of being a man, with testicles and everything, and with a fair amount of time spent in crowded public transportation, and I’ve never “experienced testicular pain in cramped positions” on the subway, Metro, Tube, or a bus for that matter…

    …Now I am a kinda skinny guy, so maybe bigger folks do suffer in silence, because if it’s “completely common,” it’s the kind of thing that never seems to come up in conversation. “How ’bout them …. [fill in your favorite sports team]?”: now that’s a completely common thing for guys to talk about. “Boy did my balls hurt on the subway ride home tonight” just simply isn’t.

    I only wish I could say the same! Count yourself lucky then on that front. Personally, I’m no king Goliath, but I do have bigger legs. Unlike you I definitely have heard the topic come up in conversation. Of course only in more blue-collar environments. I worked as a trucker the summer after my senior year of high school. At the end of a long shift resting at a trucking station it came up often enough.

    But I’d venture you’re right on average: it isn’t a typical conversational piece. But just because you’re lacking in personal anecdotes seems like a knee-jerk reaction to balk at the possibility. In fact there’s good reason to figure exactly why that deficiency is the case. It’s considered rude, crass–the same reasons why there’s a general lack of public-record historical testimonies by women about how much it sucks to bleed during menstruation. Secondly, it’s no secret that men have had strict societal expectations placed upon them (if they intend to guard their perceived masculinity) not to whine, not to groan, not to complain about physical or emotional pain.

    @28 The Arbourist

    And making small adjustments to correct said ‘testicular pain’ instead of taking up inordinate amount of public space is completely out of the question?

    Actually that’s exactly what I would promote. My issue with the site is that small adjustments and marginally more space-filling postures aren’t at all differentiated from obviously apparent douchebaggery like the “low rider” on the cover photo.

  35. schneekm at 36: well, the context for your claim that it’s “completely common for men to experience testicular pain in cramped positions” isn’t long-haul trucking but public transport. If you had been more precise at 16 we might not have had this issue, but then you would have lost the ability to comment on this site about public transport. (As I say at 23, I agree with the criticisms you and others make.)

    I think I would agree to a point with this when we’re talking about mixed-gender situations: “Secondly, it’s no secret that men have had strict societal expectations placed upon them (if they intend to guard their perceived masculinity) not to whine, not to groan, not to complain about physical or emotional pain.”

    But just among us guys? I don’t see it. Having worked in landscaping, in a small factory making fluorescent light fixtures (cutting, stamping, painting and drying sheet metal), and as a bartender alongside servers, bussers, and dishwashers, I’ve had plenty occasion to talk with my buddies about sore wrists, elbows, shoulders, backs, and everyone’s favorite, feet, and never noticed my fellow workers with any hesitation whatsoever to complain at length and in graphic detail about how their mf’in g-damn [insert body part here] was killing them. But I still have never heard anyone complain about their balls because of a subway ride.

  36. Two things never fail to surprise me: When persons are mean to each other, and when persons are not logical. I am certainly not perfect in these regards but I do try.

  37. I’ve tried on several occasions to investigate this controversy by searching the web. Nary a word about spreading one’s legs to avoid being ballsed up, as it were. All the causes of balls pain are definite and sometimes quite frightening.

    I do honestly think any one afflicted with such pain should go to their doctor asap. Well, make that ‘somewhat honestly’. The consequences of missing needed treatment can be horrific.

    In some countries, England among them, parts of public transportation are set aside so that people with special needs can stilll use them. I suggest we recognize the sore balls syndrome as needing just such accomodation.

    Sorry if this note seems too flip. I reckon that if google doesn’t list it, it may well not exist.

  38. Honestly though, it is pretty hard to take seriously the comments of someone who calls themselves “LogicFan”. Like the dating site dude who calls himself sexmaster5000, the implicature is pretty hard to avoid! Add in all of the whinging, and you get the boringly stereotypical anti-feminist troll (this is not to imply that logic is /trying/ to be a troll!) that The Arbourist identifies in her(?) series of posts.

    Anyway,as a 270 pound, 6’4” man (with ginormous balls), I am all too conscious of the fact that I am constantly taking up too much room. Hopefully I can accurately express “sorry for being so big!” with my facial expression. And hopefully nobody thinks that I share the embarrassing beliefs of some of these pseudo-anonymous posters!

  39. I think my Alan Ross Anderson/ Guru avatar attempt is a failure. You can hardly tell that Elam is in a “my balls are too big” pose, and the pasted on Anderson face is too small to see! It was supposed to be kitschy bad, but it just turned out bad :(

  40. Well played, Anne.

    In my own discussions of this, I find it amazing that guys reach for that “my balls hurt” (or, second: “my balls sweat”) as the reason. When it’s shown that that’s largely bullshit, they move the goalposts and change their line of argument.

  41. “Anyway, as a 270 pound, 6’4” man…I am all too conscious of the fact that I am constantly taking up too much room. Hopefully I can accurately express “sorry for being so big!” with my facial expression.”

    Do I dare disturb the universe…do I dare to eat a peach…
    Please tell me you’re joking.

  42. Rachel, thanks for this and other v. Nice remarks.

    The more I think of it, the more i like the idea of a sign on buses that a particular space is reserved for people with disabilities, the elderly, mothers with small children, and those prone to the aching balls syndrome.

  43. “Do I dare disturb the universe…do I dare to eat a peach…
    Please tell me you’re joking.”

    It is hard to live in a world that is not made for you! At least 10 times harder than having peach juice run down your beard!

  44. I’m with Disappointed and anonymous and Disappointed and Still Anonymous (who I’m assuming are the same person)

    To that end, I would merely ask Abourist to consider the congruity of starting a comment by asking, “You have nothing useful to say do you?” within a defense of taking oneself not to be insulting anyone’s character or undertaking speech acts that have oppressive content.

    I get that concerns about civility and tone are often used to silence those traditionally oppressed, and I get that those concerns say nothing about the content of the site, the practice it seeks to change, of the line of argument that prompted the responses @26, @30, @34.

    But I don’t believe that makes concerns about tone and free exchange irrelevant. Likely such concerns will be completely overridden in some cases, they may even be overridden more often than not in our morally fractured world, but I would be hard pressed to believe a philosophical discussion is a context in which they would be silenced in that way.

    Plus @24 seems like a much better response to LF anyway.

  45. @46 Maybe not D…

    I would merely ask Abourist to consider the congruity of starting a comment by asking, “You have nothing useful to say do you?” within a defense of taking oneself not to be insulting anyone’s character or undertaking speech acts that have oppressive content.

    Two thoughts:

    1. Is my question inaccurate?
    2. Is a second layer of tone inquiry necessary?

    But I don’t believe that makes concerns about tone and free exchange irrelevant.

    I call them like I see them. Tone-trolling doesn’t address the argument and hampers the exchange of relevant arguments and ideas – and that are worthy philosophical concern/analysis.

    Again, the discussion is about dudes taking up space and the societal context in which that happens.

  46. “You have nothing useful to say do you? ”

    Again, if someone critical of one of the postings here wrote this, it would be censored as violating the “be nice” rule. We all know this. I’ll be interested to see if anyone denies it.

    “Now DaSA, please enumerate where I have insulted Logic Fan’s character and have punched down and/or oppressed him/her?”

    I don’t know what punching down is. This idiotic remark of yours is obviously insulting the person you’re arguing with instead of engaging the argument:

    ‘So sayeth the privileged dude.’

    I wonder if you’ll deny it. Not sure, about 50-50.

    Anyway, your defense is apparently that there is a rule you haven’t broken. I agree, there is! Not a good defense.

    “So tell me, DaSA about being nice and the commenting policy and do you believe it should apply to LF as well?”

    I think it should apply to everyone. But in fact, only violators who are *critical* of the postings get censored for it.
    Again, I think everyone knows this, but folks don’t it said.

    “You see DaSA, tone trolling really adds nothing but distraction to the thread. ”

    And once again, the cheap trick, now a real favorite here at FP, of calling any dissenter a “troll”.

    “If the mods found the content of my posts objectionable don’t you think they would have acted by now?”

    Yes.
    That is *exactly* my point. They don’t find the content objectionable at all. They only find objectionable the nasty snipes that are critical of *their* postings.

  47. People don’t label dissenters trolls here; people are labelling particular commenters trolls for long patterns of troll-like behaviour. There was a useful discussion of this over at NewAPPS a little while ago where the accused in this thread has also been called out for similar behaviour on their blog.

  48. What Rachel said.

    Also, if the people who are posting here passionately about the perceived fairness of enforcement of our Be Nice rule were equally as passionate about holding social institutions like the police and gov’t likewise accountable to complete and total fairness, I think they would be some of our strongest allies.

    I dunno, I just find that funny. Like, they obviously care deeply about fairness. But what they choose to focus on is whether a blog trying to talk about systematic unfairness against women is being unfairly harsher in enforcing norms of respect on comments that seem to not care as much about or take seriously the reality that is forms of systematic unfairness against women? Of all the things concerning fairness that we could talk about, they choose to spend their energy on that?

    That seems like such an odd battle to pick, if you are someone who deeply values fairness in this world.

  49. @49 DaSA

    Again, if someone critical of one of the postings here wrote this, it would be censored as violating the “be nice” rule. We all know this. I’ll be interested to see if anyone denies it.

    Your sense of entitlement knows no boundaries. Allow me to speculate on this phenomena you seem to think is more important than staying on topic and not derailing a thread.

    The keepers of this blog are trying to establish and maintain a safe place for minority speech and opinion to exist in. Thus, in their category of being nice would include giving space for and not censuring minority opinion when it is presented (stated clearly in the commenting policy).

    The feminist point of view is most certainly a minority opinion and is given here, preference over ideas and opinion that can be found ubiquitously on the rest of the internet. In shorter words, dudely opinion is not given its default, societally expected, weight and reverence.

    This so called ‘imbalance’ is what you are complaining about. It demonstrates a lack of knowledge about feminism, patriarchy and in particular privilege. Dude, you have a whole internet to espouse your very important ideas, and yet, you’ve made it a personal campaign in this thread, on a Feminist Philosophy Blog, to loudly whinge ‘what about the menz!’ at every opportunity while ignoring the topic and derailing the thread.

    I don’t know what punching down is.

    The internet is a magical resource. Use it.

    DaSA:This idiotic remark of yours is obviously insulting the person you’re arguing with instead of engaging the argument:

    Arb:‘So sayeth the privileged dude.’

    Dasa:I wonder if you’ll deny it. Not sure, about 50-50.

    Being called out for expressing your privilege is distressing for those who have never examined it.

    I think it should apply to everyone. But in fact, only violators who are *critical* of the postings get censored for it. Again, I think everyone knows this, but folks don’t it said.

    Dudely opinion given short shrift on a feminist blog? Unbelievable.

    And once again, the cheap trick, now a real favorite here at FP, of calling any dissenter a “troll”.

    It really must rile you that your very important opinions are given the treatment that they deserve. Of course you have made the thread about you now which is unfortunate, but your whinging provides a very nice exemplar of how dudes derail feminist threads because they have not or will do their homework on the basics of the topic.

    They only find objectionable the nasty snipes that are critical of *their* postings.

    Dude bemoans lack of equality for important male opinion on feminist blog, more news at 11!

    Will he get the clue and learn about Patriarchy, Privilege and Power Gradients or will he continue to make <a href="http://www.derailingfordummies.com/"ignorant OT comments, stay tuned folks.

  50. What Stacey and Rachel said.

    Long discussions of each other’s comments do derail the discussion. In case anyone is tempted to start up again, I’m closing comments.

    Jender, please reopen as you wish.

Comments are closed.