babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.
Support rabble | Advertise with us | Contact our staff | About rabble | Log-in or Register for a new account | Corrections | Privacy policy | Newsfeeds | Mailing lists
rabble: Features | Columnists | In Cahoots | Blogs | Books | Photos | What's Up | Polls
babble: Forum Topics | Active Topics
The rpn: About the RPN | Become a podcaster
rabbleTV: Program Guide | Features | Indie Inside | Best of the net
Copyright © 2001-2013 the authors
Syndicate
One can speak of a(n)…
Ambush (of presidents)
Army (of Ones)
Bale (of the full)
Band (of four skins)
Barren (but warrin')
Bed (of claimants)
Bevy (of heavies)
Bloat (of boasters)
Brood (of brooders)
Business (of owners)
Cast(e)(aways)
Catch (whatever)
Charm (of oblivion)
Clamour (of clams)
Cloud of (clout)
Clutch (of gropers)
Clutter (of cleanliness-challenged)
Colony (of colonizers)
Company (of keepers)
Covey (of coveters)
Cowardice (of cowhands)
Crash (of the rash)
Cry (of the self-absorbed)
Culture (as of bacteriae)
Dazzle (of light-weights)
Descent (of flashers)
Down (of downers)
Drift (of paddle-deprived)
Drove (of road-ragers)
Dule (of dudes)
Family (of Man)
Flight (of male plight)
Float (but barely)
Flock (of pluck)
Gaggle (of guys)
Gam (of gamers)
Gang (of bangers)
Gulp (of admission)
Harras (of stalkers)
Herd (of the heard)
Hive (of hims)
Horde (of hors-d'oeuvre)
Hover (of tops)
Huddle (of hoods)
Husk (of hunks)
Implausibility (of import)
Kettle (of humdrum)
Knot (of dont’s)
Labour (of misconceptions)
Leap (of social lepers)
Leash (of lechery)
Litter (of homeowners)
Mischief (of leaders)
Mob (of family linchpins)
Murder (of Honour)
Muster (of passers)
Mustering (of bluster)
Mute (of the moot)
Nest (of exactors)
Nye (of nay-sayers)
Obstinacy (of obdurates)
Pace (of pacers)
Pack (of Six)
Parliament (of course)
Peep (of peers)
Pitying (of SNAGs)
Plague (of low-costs)
Pod (of putzes)
Pride (of self-lionizers)
Quiver (of indignation)
Rafter (of drifters)
Rag (of the rich)
Richness (of pretense)
Romp (of roomers)
Run (of shits)
School (of underachievers)
Shrewdness (of primates)
Skein (of the skittish)
Skulk (too easy)
Smack (of harassers)
Sord (of every sort)
Sounder (of warnings)
Stud (of wannabes)
Swarm (of swarth)
Swift (of kickers-when-she’s-down)
Team (of terminators)
Tiding (of stuff ahead)
Tower (of strength – and I’d walk out the door)
Troop (of trophy hunters)
Troubling (of water)
Unkindness (of the craven)
Weyr (of weirdos)
Zeal (of male fundamentalists)
Help from Group names
(Not an addition.)
That said, I don't think that you can generalize about the sexual politics of every Canadian man.(after all, if we are to lump this nation's men into a single, monolithic group, male feminists are in it too).
Human beings are complex, making blanket statements about entire groups of them is never wise.
[ 30 August 2008: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]
Early feminists such as Virginia Woolf and Mary Ellman have made the point that women had always been generalized about by male writers, but men remained immune from such impudence unless the generalization was affirming "male qualities." In "Sexual politics", Kate Millett pointed out how male writers such as D.H. Lawrence, Henry Miller and Norman Mailer had built a male mythology based on such flattering generalizations. Neo-Jungians like Robert Bly and Guy Corneau still sucker people along with that self-aggrandizing talk.
The rub is when generalizations are less flattering: women have always been getting it in the teeth, but men are, somehow, spared such indignities. In "Pornography: Men Possessing Women", Dworkin argues that one of the tenets of male power is that of naming. Maintaining men's good name - or turning critiques of men into jokes, e.g. Tim Allen's "Men are pigs" comedy routine - is one the attendant functions. Another tack is to try an use generalization to put men above critique and change ("Men Are The Way They Are" - Warren Farrell, "Men Are From Mars" - John Gray).
Do I believe that pro-feminists are included by generalizations about maleness in our culture? You bet I do. Indeed, this gives us entitlement and motivation to speak out about this male culture which, despite its variations among various sub-groups of men, retains general characteristics that spell male entitlement, including that not to be pejoratively generalized about...
[ 30 August 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]
But that's what a generalization is. Whenever we generalize,(at least in terms of sociological analysis)
we make blanket statements about groups of people,
and whenever we make a blanket statement
about a group,
we most often wind up stereotyping , which is very bad. We should stop making sociological generalizations,
although I'm not sure if it's possible to do that.
[ 30 August 2008: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]
[ 30 August 2008: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]
[ 30 August 2008: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]
Okay Martin, you freely admit that male feninists can be flawed, but to the best of knowledge you have NEVER admitted to being flawed or subconciously patrarchal.
Instead you set up a huge false dicotomy in which you are a man of honor in a den of theives(much like Al Pachino in Surpaco) and judge all the other men in Canada as bastards, while you strut and preen like like some latently Jansenist peekock, blissfully unaware of your own shortcomings.
[ 30 August 2008: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]
[ 30 August 2008: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]
[ 30 August 2008: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]
And that would be your fault.
Re: generalizations, I think you will find that the scientific method and indeed any knowledge cannot exist without them and that there are multiple ways to avoid having them devolve to mere caricatures.
[ 30 August 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]
How?
[ 30 August 2008: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]
1) Acknowledging change. A generality or pattern you observe in a category of folks or things justifies generalizing, but that doesn't mean the pattern is static, or unamenable to change through action, awareness, input, natural evolution, resistance, people wanting to break free of the pattern, our improving the observation, etc.
2) Acknowledging fine structure. Within a general pattern, there may be any number of variations. The general pattern exists because of certain determinants and historical influences, but it plays out in variants, depending on specific conditions, histories, observers, other determinants. Like any picture, it is read one way at a certain distance and produces other pictures at other distances. Each pattern is no less real.
3) Acknowledging the envelope. Any generality is only true within a certain realm. Outside of that envelope, it isn't valid. So time and space act as limits to the scope of each generality, keeping generalization honest and away from any essentialist interpretation.
4) Exceptions. Even within the envelope, generalities often have exceptions and contrary forces that help us think dialectically not only about the patterns observed but about what subverts them and our perspective, the power of the disempowered, for instance.
5) Occam's razor. This philosophical principle reminds us that a generality is simply the most economical solution to a problem, the one with the least unnnecessary assumptions. Yet, we know through mathematics that any problem has an almost infinite number of solutions. ("That object speedingtoward me with 'Greyhound' on the front may be trouble, but it may just be a clever Martian trying to fool me.") So generalization does not have to tie our hands as would a stereotype or a stifling "blanket". It's simply a simple but important rational first step to inquiry (and sometimes survival).
What do you think? Do you find that using generalization is useful in your life and activist concerns, given what you know, even if you keep trying to refine that process?
I don't agree that Martin spoke too much or dominated a feminist conversation. He was the interview subject. I dislike when the interviewer(s) dominates the conversation and we don't get to hear what the interviewee has to say. The topic of the interview was men's involvement with feminism from a pro-feminist man's perspective. That's what we got. As well, while there was some laughing, it was appropriate to the quality of community radio/cable shows and it was appropriate to the conversation. I think the use of the word 'giggling' as a descriptor has provided an incorrect framing of this issue. As for the issues, there were many discussed and I would like the time to listen to the rest of the interview before commenting.
Why is this thread now so far off the topic of men's involvement with feminism? Personally, I am not looking for an answer to this question.
.pdf version
.rtf version
The paper runs thirty pages but is really worth the read to get beyond the too-common cooptation of honest efforts by a patriarchal establishment.
[ 03 September 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]