Why is it that the most derogatory, insulting, ad-hominem replies in threads regarding gender issues -- when an opinion or position is raised that is not in line with dominant theory -- are often from men? (Usually, male second-wave feminists*, and IME usually framed in terms of negative male stereotypes.)
Generally speaking, replies from women are usually of two types: either informed discussions (a good example of which was Otoki's response), often focusing on feminist theory, or canned responses (if men could have babies then the responses would be different, you're being immature, uninformed or "macho," etc., Calypso's post on page five being a good example). Replies from men are more likely to be vitriolic and personal, making assumptions about the individual's beliefs that were neither stated nor implied, and employing a particularly virulent subset of the canned response corpus (whiner, "regressive," Neanderthal, apologist for this and that, etc.).
I can see the reasons for some of the responses in some of these areas. With Intimate Partner Violence, for example, quoting stats that show a roughly equal incidence of initiatory, unprovoked incidents of IPV by women against men does challenge some of the founding assumptions of second-wave feminism. Those stats, for example, challenge the class struggle framework in which men, as a group, are held to employ violence against women, as a group, in order to dominate and control that group. A roughly equal incidence of initiatory, unprovoked violence weakens that position, requiring some convoluted logic, strongly based in orthodox feminist theory, to support it. (I.e., that this is the result of patriarchal influence and conditioning, and therefore should be considered a male phenomenon even though the initiators are women; or that the men cannot actually be considered to be battered partners, since battery, by definition, is an aspect of class struggle -- making the stats meaningless, as they do not reflect the class structure.)
The same would go for discussions of sexual assault and incest committed by women (not to mention the DNA studies by the FBI and the Innocence Project that suggest, at minimum, a 20% erroneous conviction rate for rape cases*, or the fact that there is no solid statistical evidence for the 2% false allegation figure), or discussions of possible fathers' interests in custody or pregnancy, or in-depth analyses of income and resources studies. These challenge class aspects related to control of resources and female reproductive function (both of which are again assumed, according to theory, to be subject to battles over control so that men as a group can dominate women as a group) or the use of sexual assault as a tool of dominance. These discussions would not necessarily challenge third-wave feminism -- much less gender egalitarianism or similar positions -- but they pose a significant threat to the cornerstones of second-wave theory.
But we could expect the responses there to come from both camps, I think, if not with a greater lean toward women, who would have a substantially greater investment in the maintenance of the theoretical position. Assuming, that is, that they subscribe to it.
So why the more severe responses from men?
I should add here, in regard to storm's comments in that thread, that his observations are not uncommon. They're by no means universal (as he himself admitted, not just outside of his experience, but within its confines) but they're not the rare anomaly, either. I noticed the same thing in boot -- including an episode where one of the female recruits invited some of the guys to sneak down into the Black Knights barracks after lights out for a gangbang. The DS found out about it, made a short verbal reprimand to the platoon (basically, "don't let it happen again") and that was the end of it. It's not as rare as people seem to think.
Storm certainly appears to be jaded as the result of his experiences. However, he has, in his comments, consistently voiced an openness to the idea that he could be wrong, that integration may very well work if done correctly, and that part of the problem was most likely the average age of the serving soldier. None of these points have been given any weight by the people responding to his posts. The other aspects have been inflated to the point of hyperbole, when they've been dealt with at all.
At worst, what could be said about storm is that he has allowed bad experiences to color his judgment. Considering Nick's responses to him (even taking into account the rhetorical spineless sheep question) I think that he has demonstrated a respectable amount of restraint in the thread, consistently.
It's notable that this exchange was the one post of his that was completely ignored:
dholokov said:
I want a military where people can work together with anyone fit to do the job, whether man, woman, black, white, straight, gay, etc. If a woman is lazy and doesn't pull her weight or doesn't meet the physical requirements for a task, by all means keep her from doing that task. If they can do the job but it makes others feel uncomfortable, then THEY are the ones who can't do their job and should be shipped out.
That's pretty much where I stand as well... had a conversation with a friend about this at Steak'n'Shake an hour ago. My only concern falls at the fact that very few women that I dealt with while I was active duty are willing to pull their own weight (but the ones that do are awesome)... and most of us who call them on their BS end up getting in trouble for it. I'd have no problems with women in combat units provided they have to live up to the same standard everyone else does, and they acknowledge the fact that they are at much greater risk than the male troops. Volunteer only, no getting posted to it by default... kinda like the special forces, no one gets assigned that unless they seek it out.
I agree, and take the same position -- including the "at much greater risk than the male troops" part. It's a sad fact of human nature that men are not the same in combat as they are in civilian life, or even in other aspects of military service. Well-behaved clergymen can become child rapists. Men who dedicate their lives to caring for their ailing mothers can brutally sodomize someone else's. Again, it's not as rare as people seem to think. (This played a role in the resistance to integration of homosexuals into the military as well -- something not generally noted.)
Inclusiveness is one thing, but inclusiveness in the name of policy, without acknowledging the elevated risks, is brutality with a smile.
In regard to a point raised by Otoki, I'm not sure that the equivalence between the racial arguments and storm's arguments really holds. As she noted, it's with the exception of the sex -- but here, I think that that is a factor. Integration of same-sex heterosexuals of different races doesn't carry the same dynamics; integration of heterosexuals and bisexuals or homosexuals doesn't carry it, either (although LGBs serving with LGBs of the same sex might). Given the psychological changes involved in a transition to military life the sexual aspect does need to be considered in terms of its effects on both parties, the ability to properly execute the chain of command, etc. (the second being the main reason why sleeping with someone under your command is a criminal offense under the UCMJ). There's also a difference between someone being called lazy because he or she is a member of a particular group -- a sexist, racist, etc. claim by definition -- and someone exploiting an integration doctrine in order to get away with things, knowing the stigma and destruction produced by simply making an accusation of bias or intolerance.
My point is that this subject would need extensive examination; the equivalence holds to a limited degree but does not take potentially vital elements into account.
*: Nick disavowed the feminist label in the thread and stated that he simply advocates for equality regardless of group. However, his position does suggest a focus on social structures, specifically existing organizational ones, as the primary impediment to this equality; the implication is that these structures are resistant to the inclusion and equal valuation of minorities, homosexuals, women, etc. The direct result of that implication is that the structures are primarily the edifices of white, heterosexual men.
Although this is not the fleshed-out form, it is the essential theoretical foundation of second-wave/radical feminism: class distinctions based on gender, with implications of negative heterosexual dominance. He simply extends this into other areas, in that way relieving himself of the woman-specific feminist label.
It should be noted that, historically, race and gender issues have been closely tied in the feminist movement: its origins were with the abolitionists. What distinguishes second-wave theory from other forms is its emphasis on static class struggle, and the ways in which gender and race are used to define these classes.
**: This is a good example of something that, if posted on the boards, would result in a storm of accusations and possibly a zot -- even if done with the explanation that erroneous convictions are not the same as false allegations, and in consideration of the fact that there is an argument to be made that exploring this issue could have beneficial results for women.
(Wendy McElroy's article "The New Mythology of Rape" is also worth reading in this regard. In spite of the title, which is certain to be viewed as inflammatory and, possibly, is intentionally so, she makes some good points regarding rape survival and prevention, and how some second-wave theorists have impacted these goals.)
Also:
In the thread about the guy getting a 10-year sentence for a blowjob, people have mentioned the fact that in the higher courts, three judges voted in favor of the plaintiff, while four voted against. The three were black, the four were white -- and the plaintiff was black, while the victim in the case was white. There was also a mention about a female teacher having sex with a male student, and the fact that she received a (horrendously, in my opinion) light sentence after conviction. She was white.
Yes, there's a likelihood that racial prejudices played a role in both cases. There are also other factors to consider, though. What were the religious faiths of the judges? Were they dominantly conservative or liberal? What are their positions on teen pregnancy rates, marriage generally and pre-marital sex specifically? What about their positions on obscenity and sodomy laws? And stare decisis?
How about the fact that adult female-minor male sexual assault cases are viewed differently than adult male-minor female ones, at least by the public? (Take Bill Maher's position on those cases: that the kid got lucky, and if the teacher was hot he should be bragging instead of complaining -- that people would only prosecute those things if they were mad because they didn't get laid. 'Cause every high-school kid wants to fuck the hot teacher, you know.) Or the fact that women generally get lighter sentences than men for equivalent crimes?
There are scores of factors that could come into play. Race may indeed be one. But it is only one among many.