This is how special interest evangelism fails (sexism)

[jollyreaper2112]

I've avoided most or the shit-flinging threads. I'm starting from sexism but it goes further than that. Here's what it boils down to, fundamental question:

Are you trying to change minds or bust skulls?

You have an issue you are passionate about. You feel that a portion of the population is on the wrong side of it. So, are you seeking to educate and inform to persuade or are you looking to exorcise your own demons? Are you looking for punching bags?

Some people will be jerks. Some people will hate gays, other races, women, the fat, the thin, other religions, etc. You can't reach these people, only contain the damage. You didn't win over racist southerners, you desegregated and guarded the kids.

But when someone is doing wrong out of ignorance, not malice, does attacking them do anything good?

Some evangelists are so interested in scoring points and doctrinal purity that they aren't spreading the word, they're spreading poison and squandering sympathy for the cause.

This failure mode is not unique to any one particular group: any special interest can succumb to it. This is a common human failure.

So when you are tempted to bandwagon or dogpile on the latest offense, please ask yourself what you're really going to accomplish. Is this doing any good?

[boston bean]

1. Great, comparing feminist discussion of issues to evangelists scoring points and doctrinal purity

is just so NOT, skull busting.. LOL

Listen, feminists have a right to discuss issues, they have a right to voice an opinion even to the sexist misogynist, ok?

Don't like, hide a thread or put people on ignore.

[The Straight Story]

2. It's a pretty apt comparison in general

Of course feminists have a right to discuss issues, and people have a right to not agree with them (but when you don't agree you are automatically either a sexist or just stupid and need educated/preached to).

I think the OP was calling for more intelligent and less inflammatory discussions - which cannot happen when every human on the planet but feminists are sexists who just want to rape everyone with their eyes.

The discussions basically go like this:

"So when I was at the store today a lady was having problems with her shopping cart, she had a small child in it and the wheel was busted. I offered to grab her another one so she didn't have to push that thing all the way to front of the store to get another with all those groceries and a baby."

Replies on DU:

"God, how can you be so sexist! How do you know she wanted help? Were you checking her out and raping her in your mind first, is that how you noticed her? Why can't men just leave women alone? Do you feel she was too weak to get her own cart? What if it was a man with a child, I suppose you would have just passed on by since there was no possible sex involved for helping the damsel in distress."

"Oh I know. I was creep-ed out when some guy walked up to me in trader joe's one day and told me my purse was about to fall out of the cart. I know what he wanted. I caught him looking at me when he passed me in another aisle. He just happened to come down the same aisle I was later? I don't think so."

"He was just asserting his male privilege and hunting. Bet he went home and fantasized about how you were going to repay him. This is how it starts. Did you offer to give her your number just in case she needs your 'help' again in the future? *I had it happen to me* - some man looked at me in a bar, no, not looked, stared right at me. Then he walked over and starting talking to me. I didn't want that, he forced himself into my space. Why do men think they can talk to women when they are out for a drink?"

[boston bean]

3. I've read most threads and what you write

is not at all what is being said, but how you read them, and I think purposely failing to actually look at an example given and why and how it is responded to.

Instead you make it up. There have been no discussions by feminists that meet the scenario you have laid out here.

It's actually laughable.

You show me the scenario where you proclaim this is happening:

"So when I was at the store today a lady was having problems with her shopping cart, she had a small child in it and the wheel was busted. I offered to grab her another one so she didn't have to push that thing all the way to front of the store to get another with all those groceries and a baby."

And feminists think you are a rapist, looking for a lay, checking her out, asserting privilege, hunting, fantasizing...

In actuality all of those things have probably been said at some point or another (not about you in particular, but about a certain situation a woman finds herself in), but not about a man finding a new carriage for a woman with a baby, because the wheel is broken.

You set it up and knock it down, yet it has no basis in reality.

[seabeyond]

5. "calling for more intelligent and less inflammatory discussions" from the man with the door issue on

totally irrelevant threads for over a year purposely ignoring and dismissing ther actual conversation.

be real

and link to your story bro

i call bullshit

and if that is not "nice" enough for the Op then maybe people ought to have a little recognition of the effort being made to derail and dismiss the issue, using strawman and hyperbole at every turn

[Jester Messiah]

33. +1. [nt]

[jollyreaper2112]

14. ah, excellent

Exactly what I was talking about.

And by evangelism I don't just mean religion but any sort of concept that someone is trying to spread the good news on. Computer geeks can be pretty bad about this. N00b asks a n00b question, make fun of him and don't answer question, wonder why community never grows.

Look at the Democratic Party through these times of turmoil. Would the leaders rather be in complete control over a losing proposition or accept help from people who are driven and passionate and risk losing that control? I use the Democrats because of their visibility. Sadly, the success the party is having now is due to third way corporatism, not from real grass-roots support. Dean's 50 state plan was dismantled even as it proved successful; too risky, no, no. Same with the dismantling of Obama's campaign site after victory. Let's not risk losing control. Staying in control of the party is important, accomplishing the goals the party was created to support is unimportant.

[Bonobo]

4. A perfect post.

You struck right at the heart of all this foolishness and the only thing I would add is that these types you describe NEED an enemy to use as a foil, so when one doesn't exist, they ramp up the shit-stirring until they finally create some convenient kick back so they can then say "aha! An enemy"

That's the M.O. and it works against their alleged cause but is great for busting skulls and reinforcing a sense of self-righteousness.

[seabeyond]

6. need an enemy? cause i needed old to start an Op dissing me and all the voices to diss me as i am

minding my own business. i just needed to create that little hostility cause i had nothing better to do last night, minding my own business

maybe you can blame us for putting a PSA and SOME men flipping out. is that us needing an enemy putting up a PSA we had no part in creating or are we simply not allowed to put up issue that others are addressing cause that is our need.

point that finger in the right direction

[Capt. Obvious]

8. You were just going along minding your own business

and then BAM! Sexism!

[seabeyond]

9. no. bam an OP started to attack our group and me personally. and a pile on of insulting,

name calling thread.

[jollyreaper2112]

15. you were never named

I've opened the threads and stopped skimming after the first minute when the shit-flinging starts. You were never, ever named here. You have been involved in those threads, certainly, but I'm talking about much bigger things.

My sister is vegan. She's also obnoxious about it. I've been willing to meet her halfway on things. If she wants to cook a vegan meal, I'll eat it. I'll help with the cooking. The only constraints I put on the food is that I hate fake meat substitutes. Cook without them or the fake cheeses and I'm fine. Don't make me think about what I'm not eating, don't apologize for not being meat. Just make something that's awesome and also happens to be vegan. I'll even help cook. But she doesn't have the time. So the family thanksgiving HAD to be vegan even though she had little time to contribute to the process and the recipes she wanted to use all included fussy ingredients nobody else has on hand. Could she bring her supply over so we could use it? No.

She's being a poor evangelist here. As it stands, I am doing green smoothies breakfast and lunch because I have some stubborn weight I need to lose. I can hold my weight just fine eating healthy but I need help losing the last of it. It does work. If anyone asks how I'm doing it, I'll tell them. I'm not going to be obnoxious about it.

Now you might say I'm trivializing sexism comparing it to veganism. If I wanted to be obnoxious, I could say I was obese and you're now saying your sexism concerns are more important than my sizeism concerns and I could really stir up a shitstorm.

Well, you already know what you believe. We're never going to be on the same page. About the best I could accomplish is making my position look foolish to anyone still on the fence. That ain't a win.

[seabeyond]

16. yes. i was

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024221456

[gollygee]

26. Did you see this, Sea?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4220873

[seabeyond]

29. ya. did you see this one?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=337363

this is why he is focused on me. i walked in to cheer wendy davis and was met by this. he has more upthread on this. he was flagged. he blames me.

i was going to tell him that you were the smart one. i do not believe in dissing self so i didnt. i am smart too. i could have said, you are the articulate and reasoned on.

[jollyreaper2112]

27. That's not my post

If I wanted to rehash the old bullshit I'd stay in those threads. This was supposed to be a clean thread for a broader, productive discussion. Guess that won't be happening.

[seabeyond]

31. why are you addressing me. i was staying in context, read reply to bonobo. then capt...

called me out. which took me to responding. then you telling me i was not speciafically named. hence, supplying you with a link.

You were just going along minding your own business

and then BAM! Sexism!

i did not divert your thread. i did reply to what was said to me.

[jollyreaper2112]

32. ok

"bam an OP started to attack our group and me personally. and a pile on of insulting, name calling thread." Ok, so that must read as "ban", not "bam!" I couldn't parse your sentence properly, usually OP refers to the original post in the thread.

[Jester Messiah]

34. Nope, you get to be jumped by a very familiar-looking series of usernames.

Nice of them to gang up on you. How dare you call for civility!?

[boston bean]

17. WRONG. Your first sentence is incorrect, WRONG!

[jollyreaper2112]

25. er

Wha?

[seabeyond]

10. which brings me to another point per the Op. dont you have at least SOME responsibility in

this whole civility issue? or is it all on the minority group bring a message too many people do not want to hear?

[seabeyond]

7. jolly, when i watch people able to be ugly against a few and then see an OP here calling out the

few telling them they should be nicer, while the other group has the ability to behave however they want, i have to wonder about the sincerity for you piece. a PSA was put up. lots of people in the thread supporting the PSA. lots of people talking about personal experience. lots of rec supporting that.

and there was lots of anger, namecalling and attacks from SOME people that did not like the message or did not like the people carrying the message.

yet, your PSA address those that merely put up a post

what are our choices? doing nothing to not disturb others?

i really see no other suggestion

i am sorry, but i have not been unreasonable. i have not been nasty and ugly. i have not done anything but speak out about an issue.

and i am attacked. i am called out. i am the evil of all evil.

i am told it is a push back...

for what?

putting up a psa?

tell me how YOU want US to address it so we are not bothering people or making others uncomfortable or making others attack us.

do you think when someone does not want a message because it invades their comfort zone, that they are not going to create exactly the atmosphere we have, blaming the people with the message and making sure the simple fact an issue is talked about it is creating an animosity to gain support to shut these people up. as far as i am concerned your Op is simply part of creating an atmosphere demanding that our issue not be allowed out of a little room. actually that is not even good enough. if people keep saying over and over ... you are accusing all people, you are seeing everywhere, you are... yet never prove that, just false accusation, it is really easy to create an image that women are really being unfair to men, when in fact it is not true.

over 125 liked the PSA

what about their right to have the message out there.

[jollyreaper2112]

20. I don't absolve anyone

I sympathize with the side that's been wronged. In a system where the game's been rigged, my sympathies are with the underdog. But this doesn't mean that there can't be bad behavior from the underdog. Men can be real assholes. They can take advantage of social position and disparate income levels to really stick it to their ex-wives. But just because some men can be assholes, because some of the most visible cases that get media attention involve men being assholes, this doesn't mean women aren't also capable of being assholes. We have the case of the woman murdering her husband by shoving him off a cliff. Of course, we'll have many more cases of men murdering their wives. It's only natural for the asshole quotient to not reach parity in an unequal system.

As far as these discussions go, let's look at it like a judge at a custody hearing. The first question to be asked is whether both parents are on the same page, wanting what's best for the kids. Doesn't matter if they disagree on what's best, the important thing is that they want what's best. Hearts in the right place. We can have a reasonable talk. But if one parent wants to use the kids as a weapon against the other, then whatever that person has to say doesn't really have much bearing, now does it?

Strong advocates of a given point of view make easy targets. If you are also a fun target, then you will get trolled mercilessly. But it does become clear when there's no effort to resolve anything, when the topic is sheer trollbaiting.

I'm not a fan of MRA's. I've known some men who have gotten screwed in divorces but that doesn't mean I'm going to say all women are evil anymore than a Nigerian trying to scam me online means the whole country is full of crooks. MRA's are in that dangerous, slippery slope where reasonable people who have been legitimately wronged can hear a fellow sufferer in the propaganda and then get swept along to some very wrongheaded conclusions. Seductive wrongness is dangerous. I've also seen feminists who have gotten screwed in life and have turned a real issue into a platform for personal psychodrama. It's not really helpful. Am I saying all feminists are this way? No.

[seabeyond]

22. i am not an imbecile. i have never promoted all women are light, all men evil. further

i actively go after the illusion of putting woman on a pedestal or a woman will make it all right. i equally call out women. i equally defend men. as a matter of fact, i defend men more than SOME men defend men.

i have to boys. for their health, it is about truth and balance. for THEIR health.

[Vashta Nerada]

11. Yesterday's fiasco was started to bash skulls.

If they wanted to change minds, there would have been no ad hominem attacks or accusatory posts.

They aren't interested in changing minds. They're only interested in creating a wedge in the forum. It's the same thing that happened with the benevolent sexism and rape porn threads.

[Katashi_itto]

12. K&R!

[kcr]

13. This is how "special interest" evangelism "fails"

Liberals post about liberal progressive ideal. Outraged response from opposition distorting said progressive ideal, often twisting and distorting the position, stirring up a shit storm, then opposition claims the ones posting liberal progressive ideal started it. They're always doing that, it's their fault. How dare they? This time, they had the nerve to post about women in India!

[Iggo]

18. There's a school of thought that says "If I bust this guy's skull, I change that guy's mind."

It's not entirely without merit, even if it's nowhere near a hundred percent effective.

[jollyreaper2112]

23. skull-busting

Let me Godwin myself. The Jews are trying to deal with Nazis. Can they compromise? The entire Nazi weltanschauung is about dead Jews. That's not exactly negotiable. There's not any reasoning with them so the only thing left is to fight back. Now if the Nazis are only a subset of the larger population, you might be able to reach an accommodation with them but you're still left defending yourself against the Nazis. Where you'll get your wedge is that a certain percentage of Nazis are hardcore jew-haters and the rank-and-file are probably upset about a whole host of unrelated issues and the Nazi Party seemed like the shortest path to resolution. Upset about not having a job? Jews. Can't feed your family? Jews. Hyperinflation? Jews. Lost WWI? Jews. You can peel off the rational supporters if you can appeal to their reason. Granted, this is hard to do from an oppressed minority position. It works better when the nuts aren't also running the whole government.

What we're talking about here is motivation tactics, Light Side and Dark Side. It's always easier to tap into negative emotions, to get the populace moving with hate, fear, envy, jealousy, etc. You threaten the jobs of white, middle-class American men, what you have to do is give them an other who is the cause of it, certainly not the plutocrats up top. So feminazis and illegal immigrants and liberals are taking the country down, not the guys who closed the factories and outsourced the labor. And the politicians who are paid by the very people who caused the problem can mobilize the angry and outraged by sex-race-religion-baiting some minority.

Jaw-jaw is better than war war. Any conflict that can come to a fair resolution without violence has been well-settled. But if it does come to a fight, you'd better defend yourself.

[gollygee]

19. Here's how it looks from my side

Feminist makes post that doesn't seem like it's going to stir shit.

Some men reply with defensive posts, which surprises you if you think no one could possibly disagree with a post that rape is bad, but they apparently hear that women think all men rape or something.

Some men get belittling and make nasty dismissive jokes. They have nothing to say but they have to stir some shit one way or the other.

And then the women who posted it in the first place, or reply to the above stuff, get labeled as angry, emotionally disturbed, or told they're bashing skulls, etc.

[kcr]

24. Yes. This is exactly it.

It seems too few see this. They either take their side and blame the feminists, complaining about how attacked men are, or complain about another "gender war".

[treestar]

21. What can happen is you can get mad

from my side, the women's, hearing that "too bad, it's scientific that we are in charge" type of sentiment can make it hard to keep your temper. Just like when right wingers do it. "It's hard wired in me to treat you this way" means they have no intent to listen or change. They are claiming they "can't" treat women any better. That's how it gets heated.

And people have dealt with things in the personal lives and relationships that affect how upset they can get. If you've lived with a controlling man, finding some similar sentiments on DU can obviously bring up the bad feelings and make it harder to be civil.

It's hard on some men to live with the new ways of things, as they may have been raised in times when they could exercise a certain amount of power and it must be hard to give that up. And upsetting to find women who aren't "hard wired" to go along with that as they "should" be.

[Kurovski]

28. This is an excellent question for each of us to ask ourselves.

I know I would do well to remember it. I'm pretty sure I'm a hothead type.

Kinda. Yes. Oh yes.

K&R

[rrneck]

30. I'm not sure it's about either changing minds or busting skulls.

It's more about measuring everything in sight against an ideology. For some the ideology is more important than the people or issues it's supposed to address. Such attitudes are not unusual, or necessarily a bad thing. There will always be true believers to defend an ideology for its own sake.

Of course there will always be those who would use the faith of others for their own aggrandizement, profit, or for the pleasure of dominating them.

It's all part of being human.