As much as I love arguing with the ignorant I just feel that the people who would make the comments above are beyond reasoning. If we were talking about a rational point by point critique of the arguments against the Forbes articles (for example the salon piece) then I'd think that I could get somewhere. But what is the reasonable reply to "I'm quite sick of the anti-male hysteria that is generated by the media and by government bodies"?

I mean does he actually read the papers?? What is anti-male about career women saying "well actually I'm quite marriageable and my husband and I have been happy together for decades". I find the assertion that men are not able to hold their own in a relationship with an economic equal to be anti-male personally.

After reading the comments left in posts by women, these men seem concerned with only dissecting, and totally unconcerned with seeing the big picture.

They refuse to listen to the overall statement, and instead focus on what they percieve to be insults and villification (which, I might add, they are guilty of as well).

I might swing by, but I had the opportunity to argue with Flip Benham in person a few weeks back and didn't take it. Far-right losers inevitably "win" arguments by attrition--simply because they have nothing else to do but reply saying the same stuff, over and over and over again, completely oblivious to any arguments others send their way.

Cheers,

TH

Bah, they require you to register to comment. I don't feel like handing out my personal info to a website I don't intend to ever visit again.

The comments on there are really sad. I only skimmed the first few threads on my lunch break, but the popular argument seems to be split between blaming the "feminazis" for making Forbes apologize and/or pull the article, and just plain accusing them of "bashing" men.
To the first point, I have yet to see or hear about anyone anywhere demanding that Forbes pull the article, rebut it, or apologize for it. I think it was more a case of Forbes getting wind of how the article was lighting up the blogosphere and saying, 'Oh, shit! We'd better yank this fast, it's PR poison!' They did just that, and the rest has been their attempt at damage control. So the people crying "censorship" and "First Amendment" should be blaming Forbes for their self-censorship rather than "teh feminazis."
To the second point, I'm quite surprised by how many men are leaping to defend the article (and themselves?) from the so-called feminazi male-bashers. What they've seemed to overlook is that the article itself is a massive bash to men as much as to women, and they should be just as offended by the portrayal of men in it-- self-centered couch potatoes who prefer to marry a submissive doormat who'll birth their babies, pick up after them and not talk back or complain about them tomcatting around. I can't imagine any man finding that a flattering portrayal of his gender.
So why aren't they outraged, too?

Ugh, I just can't spend any more time over there. One guy actually attempted to blame the deaths of American men in Iraq on NOW. The ignorance is staggering.

Yay, forum wars will solve all of the world's inequalities!

Unfortunately, as long as people have anonymity, they can't really be argued with. I fear that telling people to start a forum war will just make things worse...in my humble opinion.

heh heh, i blogged about the forbes thing rather than pushing up my sleeves to get in their shit - and what do i get for my trouble, but this (and i'm sorry for repeating it here)

Women in business suits and sneakers (for the commute) is the hottest shit I ever done seen in my life. First time I hit Boston to live there at 13 walking round the financial district, when I saw that hot sexy attire I about had the biggest erection in front of everyone in Copley Square.

and then i get ragged for rehashing stuff that has been reiterated "ad nauseum" other feminist websites - which is the point of blogs, dare i say? is there something wrong with saying over and over again - albeit with one's personal take - something that people - far-rightists to progressive dabblers - just don't seem to get? raising consciousness is crucial, even if it is in the obscure world of forum wars - although i stop short of commenting on forbes, 'cus i don't want to give them any more site traffic or attention on their own site, plus I'm too lazy to register. however, the fact that there has been so much frenzy elsewhere has at least been effective enough, to make forbes, nytimes, and the blogosphere, crystallize arguments and thoughts that may have seemed clear before, but obviously weren't. if anything at least we're talking about it.

yay for us.

and boo that blogging won't solve the world's inequalities, but at least it's on the table?

Forum wars can be so energy draining. One that I've been involved in about feminism has come to this:

"women in third world countries might have it bad, but the men there get it far worse - men don't get raped, they get maimed and murdered and in far greater numbers than women."

Needless to say I'm not taking the bait. Ugh.

I think that it's pontless to agrue with inane people like that. I've argued the forbes article with an anti-feminist woman who blogged about it. She was essentially agreeing with the man. Did you see how the female counterpoint was shorter than the male point. Wow! that's real objective.

I think that it's pontless to agrue with inane people like that. I've argued the forbes article with an anti-feminist woman who blogged about it. She was essentially agreeing with the man. Did you see how the female counterpoint was shorter than the male point. Wow! that's real objective.

I think that it's pontless to agrue with inane people like that. I've argued the forbes article with an anti-feminist woman who blogged about it. She was essentially agreeing with the man. Did you see how the female counterpoint was shorter than the male point. Wow! that's real objective.

I think that it's pontless to agrue with inane people like that. I've argued the forbes article with an anti-feminist woman who blogged about it. She was essentially agreeing with the man. Did you see how the female counterpoint was shorter than the male point. Wow! that's real objective.

Far-right losers inevitably "win" arguments by attrition--simply because they have nothing else to do but reply saying the same stuff, over and over and over again, completely oblivious to any arguments others send their way.

They don't win if they don't convince people. Saying more words overall doesn't make a win.

Depends on how you define a win. Generally speaking, they define it as a win as soon as we shut up because that means we "surrendered." It's strictly a macho thing for them, like a very low-stakes game of chicken.

Vervain writes:
the article itself is a massive bash to men as much as to women, and they should be just as offended by the portrayal of men in it-- self-centered couch potatoes who prefer to marry a submissive doormat who'll birth their babies, pick up after them and not talk back or complain about them tomcatting around. I can't imagine any man finding that a flattering portrayal of his gender.
So why aren't they outraged, too?

Because they want the option of being self-centered couch potators who prefer to marry a submissive doormat who'll birth their babies, pick up after them and not talk back or complain about them tomcatting around, and they want that option to remain socially acceptable. This is also why men have no problem with sitcom husbands/fathers being self-centered idiots, or commercials that (patronizingly) imply that women have more upstairs than men: Because it creates the impression that they're entitled to behave like outsized children, which is what many men are and what most men secretly aspire to be.

What we need to acknowledge about male chauvinism is how childlike it is. There is nothing adult about wanting to control other people's lives, dominate others, project an image of disproportionaate power, inflict pain, blow things up--these are all signs of stunted emotional development, and we live in a culture that has for millennia encouraged and nurtured this kind of stunted emotional development in men. Just read The Epic of Gilgamesh and marvel at how the entire story reads like that of a badly-behaved four-year-old who doesn't get his way and throws a temper tantrum, then comes back crying to Mommy when he's scared of the dark. And the values of masculinity haven't changed much since then.

So of course they want to be self-centered couch potatoes; the couch is the next best thing to the crib, and the wife who will take on all of the stress and all of the unpleasant work and offer them unconditional support at all times is the next best thing to their infantile view of motherhood. That's one of the things Freud got right.

Cheers,

TH

Depends on how you define a win. Generally speaking, they define it as a win as soon as we shut up because that means we "surrendered." It's strictly a macho thing for them, like a very low-stakes game of chicken.

It doesn't matter what they define. In debates where convincing the other person is not a realistic option, a win is simply convincing the audience. Sometimes when a critic or a pundit crowns one side the winner it influences the audience's perception, but not always.

So ultimately, what a debater needs is to know how to convince the audience, which is usually undecided and centrist.

Incidentally, the art of trolling is knowing how to go to the other side's echo chamber and score a win. Most trolls just happen to be too bad at this to even come close.

don't go to the site!
they're did it for the site traffic. the production cycle takes at least a week - they knew what they were doing. there is no such thing as bad publicity for them.

Tom-
Wow. That's just really depressing.
I concur about the prevalence of that sort of portrayal of men in commercials, sitcoms, etc. but my thinking was always that those presentations of men were intended as a comic exaggeration--something to laugh at, not something to aspire to be.
But your comment made me realize, being inundated with those stereotypic images (whether intended as ironic/humorous or not) normalizes them to a degree. That would have an effect, of course. Not every woman these days aspires to be a pretty-but-emptyheaded blonde bimbo who's only interested in sex, money and clothes a la Paris Hilton, but sadly quite a few do, due to all the media focus/attention those types of women are currently receiving.

Fortunately none of my male friends seem to be the sort you describe--they're all fiercely independant, hardworking guys who would find deeply offensive the suggestion that because they have penises, society expects them to act like overgrown infants incapable of caring for themselves. Guess I've just been lucky. ;) After reading your comment, I'm all the more grateful to have them.

I realise I'm coming to this a bit late...

I did post on one of the threads because I thought ftesyektsi's efforts over there were a great example of an attempt to make the conversation reasonable and she deserved some support.

It's interesting that the guys there immediately assumed I'm both American and female from my point of view. I'm neither.

I admire the energy you have to engage the folks over at Forbes. I'm not quite able to summon it right now, as I'm just too tired of arguing with people that have so completely drank the cultural kool-aid.
But here I did find some points that are really worth thinking about...

men..."who would find deeply offensive the suggestion that because they have penises, society expects them to act like overgrown infants incapable of caring for themselves."
I think that whatever bizarre and nonsensical roles a racist, a sexist, a government or a religion comes up with for people, there is always going to a be a tendency, more pronounced at some times than at others, (for example, after 911) to accept those roles because it answers the universal questions of 'why am i here?' and 'what is the meaning of life?'
I benefitted from being around strong women when I was growing up in the 70's, but pre-college, I never could articulate the need for feminist thought. I recognized the right of women to have equality of opportunity, and the need for my government to do something about making that happen, but it seemed like a goal that would be reached and then we'd be done with it - I couldn't speak how it would be a permanent and ongoing contribution to world thought. Then I took an American History class with a professor who described the efforts of early industrial-age capitalists to woo men off the farm by proposing that the workplace was a vicious and brutal place, and that as men they were uniquely suited to enter it and master it while they protected their more fragile wives from it. A classic divide and conquer strategy. That's why feminist thought is so important. Not because it is solely about promoting women, but because it can recognize the harm done to men by sexist notions as well.
I completely agree with the notion that the men defending that stupid Forbes publicity stunt are wrong to not be offended that women, and men, are portrayed so shabbily.

Hi,
I'm a librarian at a nonprofit that researches women in business, Catalyst. I'm trying to get a copy of the slideshow because we like to keep information on the opposing sides so we know what we're up against...if anyone has a copy of it, could you please email it to me at cyanek at catalyst dot org and cherylish at yahoo dot com Thank you so much.