He was nailed for attempting to co-opt a story about male-on-female violence, and the mem/trope that evokes in many women, and trying to make it enitrely about him.

He was nailed for vainglorious egocentrism, not for saying hitting is bad. I think we all agree that hitting is bad, most grown-ups also agree that Not Everything Is All. About. You.

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, and sometimes that cigar doesn’t have a good gosh-darned thing to do with you, and trying to make it about you just makes you look, well, lame.

This girl getting punched on a reality show (Maude, people watch this?) had nothing whatsoever to do with this guy getting punched because he decided he needed to apologize for the behavior of a female “friend” who felt so violated she believed she needed to resort to food-dumping on a bevy of unknown, possibly dangerous males, to show how upset/unreceptive she was.

Normal people under normal, or even quasi-normal, circumstances do not dump food on strangers. It normally takes either a National Lampoon script, or extremely stressful situations, to bring on this peculiarity.

I feel for the man, that he was hurt so badly. No one deserves that, truly.

But no one suggested it was funny, and no one ever laughed at his pain – they just thouight it rather presumptuous of him to (a) apologize for his female friend for being upset and acting on it, (b) co-opt a totally unrelated incident to Make it All About Teh Man’s pain of years ago, and (c) presume to tell women that violence against women have nothing to do with them, if it isn’t connected, somehow with a man.

And, btw, Michelle, “that guy” isn’t white. He determined that he was hit because the guy “couldn’t hit a woman,” rather than due to his own less-than-totally priviledged state, and I accept that he believes it was because he was only not-female (as opposed to not-white) that he was targeted, but I can’t conceive of anyone here condoning any reasoning for it, at all.

His getting hit in the face was not funny, it was tragic, but not for the reasons he presented.

Normally, this would just be, well, normal, but he posted this essay on a feminist website and last time I checked being ignorant of your audience makes you fair game for wall-nailing.

Yes. I totally agree with you. My bf is a MOC, and the discussions I’ve had with him regarding race issues have helped me understand racism much better. I always try to give him the benefit of the doubt – if he considers something racist then I try to accept it at face value and not let my white privilege blind me to seeing it as racist.

I can’t say the same for him regarding sexism. He refuses to acknowledge that he has any male privilege whatsoever. He doesn’t see the parallels between subtle racism and subtle sexism. Sexism is different, according to him. He gets angry and defensive if I point out his own sexist behavior and assumptions, to the point where I don’t think our relationship will last much longer.

I have had similar experiences with other MOCs I have dated and befriended. I do think MOCs are *slightly* better at understanding sexism than whites, but only marginally. And when it comes down to it the difference is pretty negligible.

No it isn’t! And I know it’s not fair to set the bar higher (even if only in my head) for other oppressed classes, to expect empathy where I maybe wouldn’t from white men; but damned if I still don’t do it and get disappointed every time.*

*slight hyperbole. I can remember exactly one time I came away feeling I had an ally.

Thank You.

I’m glad you at least said you didn’t understand and asked me to clarify. The funny this is I was going to post a disclaimer in my first comment asking repliers not to attack if they don’t understand but to ask me to better explain my comment. However, I didn’t think anyone here would do that.

I think Dirty Laundry is not expressing him/herself well, mind you, because I think s/he agrees with Ginmar in the end. I think she’s now saying what she meant is that she doesn’t like that my comment could be read as excusing misogyny in “other kinds” of men.

Also I think she’s saying the valuable experience is trying to get Cord to reassess his beliefs. I didn’t find it particularly valueable in that way myself, but I do believe that’s different than saying the content of his article was worthwhile.

I’m sorry if MOC don’t feel included when I say ‘men’ but that strikes me as another flavor of the bitching when men whine that I don’t qualify it enough—by which they usually mean, in ridiculous amounts of detail. “Some” men, I’m supposed to say, when ‘some’ men do the crime, and many many others write about it, justify it, excuse it, blame it on women, etc., etc., but they only really give a shit when they get called on it. Someone said it far better than me: how come men only give a shit about the patriachy when it hurts them but they’re utterly indifferent to all the damage they and it do to women? And especially after they’re told? And last but not least they want women to fix it all for them.

So, yeah. If this isn’t the place for no holds barred feminism, I’ll be on my merry way.

I disagree with this, frankly. I haven’t seen evidence of it. I do think it is impossible to maintain that those men exercise their privilege sans context either, though. Keep in mind that I’m pretty sure no one’s saying context excuses misogyny. What I think people are saying is that it informs it, and the more we know about how/where misogyny appears, the more we can do about it.