Voices

Views from elsewhere

Using "because I’m a man" as an excuse for an "inevitable" response is just plain sexist

Gaslighting and self-reflexive sexism aren't something we can let slide.

By Nichi Hodgson Published 16 July 2012 12:48

Ingrid Bergman in the 1944 film Gas Light.

If a man says he sucks because he’s male, it’s surely sexist to agree with him. But if he uses his gender as an excuse for bad behaviour, is it also sexist to call him out on it?

This is the latest gender equality conundrum raised by US website Jezebel. In a controversial piece entitled "I suck: how guys use self-deprecation against you", American author Hugo Schwyzer explores a variant of the phenomenon by which men "gaslight" women (defined as the various ways in which they convince them that they are overreacting or hysterical): “Call it the 'I'm such an asshole' speech or call it strategic self-deprecation, the end goal is always the same: deflect women's anger.”

Invoking the crisis of masculinity theory, Schwyzer suggests that gas lighting is basically a response to men internalising the idea that they are emotionally stunted and wont to let down women because of it, a self-fulfilling negative prophecy which gender theorists call stereotype threat: “I think I’m crap therefore I am” kind of posturing.

As is to be expected, Schwyzer’s article is proving controversial. Not just because it is being defended by indignant males on the Jezebel comment stream, nor simply because Schwyzer’s failure to include a "NB – this may only apply to some men" caveat irritates the vehemently anti-generalisation gender debaters. Rather, detractors have accused Schwyzer of criticising men in order to endear himself to Jezebel’s feminist-leaning readership, effectively practising his own form of gas lighting.

That’s a pretty complex bit of double-bluffing, a grown-up version of the "all boys lie! playground riddle. Not impossible, but where does it leave men who want to call out gender iniquities practised or perpetuated by other men? Probably in the same iron maiden many male feminists and pro-feminist sympathisers find themselves, silenced, and invalidated for expressing their pussy-whipped opinions.

For every progressive, liberal man I know and love, I encounter two amoebae – whether that’s my ex-boss who wouldn’t let me lug about the oversized office atlas because "ladies shouldn’t", or the tweeter who disliked my comments on porn on Radio 2 the other day – "oh? So you’re a journalist? I thought you were just a common whore". This kind of sexism is easy to identify, and well rebuffed. The kind Schwyzer is writing about isn’t, probably because half the men practising it wouldn’t be able to recognise it as such, nor would half the women its receiving end. As such, a rare piece that identifies subtle sexism is definitely worth contemplation – even if less generalising would have been preferable.

As an intersectional feminist, who recognises men regularly suffer gender discrimination too, I generally recoil at any "he does, she does" oversimplifications when it comes to framing behaviour. Still, there is something about Schwyzer’s article that resonates. Possibly because I have become uneasily familiar of late with the "It’s because I’m male and a bit autistic" school of excuse when it comes to expressing an inability to offer commitment, one guy I know citing it as the reason he "can’t love", another as the excuse for why he would feel really uncomfortable if I stayed over after casual sex. (I mean, a woman can take a hint, even if she is, er, a woman.) But more importantly, because I don’t see how you can ignore the gender factor here - not when it is being cited as the singular excuse for the behaviour in question. The tactic may be textbook passive aggressive narcissism, but using "because I’m a man" as an excuse for an "inevitable" response is just plain sexist.

Granted, two anecdotes do not a scientific theory make (even if you extend that to two dozen, or 200 by including many similar stories I’ve heard from others), and sure, women do it too: "I can’t trust him to do the cleaning because his male standards are lacking", or, "I wanted a baby so I tried to steal his sperm" (remember that? From the nation’s most misunderstood feminist, no less.) So when we see gender being used as an excuse for bad behaviour, whether that’s by men or women, we need to call it, conscious that criticising it may leave us open to charges of perpetuating sexism, even if the intention was anything but, and mindful that it’s all too easy to do so, as those now criticising Schwyzer clearly feel he has.

But ignoring self-reflexive sexism because it would be sexist to draw attention to it? Sounds like self-gaslighting to me. And amidst all this light flickery-pokery, it’s pretty hard to see who is rearranging the furniture.

Special Offer: Get 12 issues of New Statesman magazine for just £12

More from Nichi Hodgson

View the discussion thread.

13 comments

Tue, 2012-07-17 02:44 — wsrfkmm (not verified)

2012 comes, in order to thank everyone, characteristic, novel style, varieties, low price and good quality, and the low sale price.accept paypal. Thank everyone .

Welcome to === www.3shopping.us ===

iphone 4/4s X-Doria Cases $9

iphone 4/4s ARK Speakers $18

iphone 4/4s Leopard Cases $16

iphone 4/4s Apart Metal Cases $26

ipad2/ipad3 Thin Book Case $60

ipad 2/3 Cute Smart Cover $28

=== www.3shopping.us ===

Mon, 2012-07-16 20:26 — formidableduplicator (not verified)

If a man says he sucks because he’s male it's only half of the truth. The whole truth is that he's mammal.

Mon, 2012-07-16 19:10 — McMac

Gosh. Is there no end to the male's duplicitous behavior and general crappiness when compared to lovely fluffy, intelligent, emotionally adept and stable women. We're barely human.

Mon, 2012-07-16 15:40 — NichiHodgson (not verified)

Hey Ally

I’m not sure it’s that I’m not acknowledging the problems with Hugo’s article; perhaps more that I think the piece’s positives (mainly the fact that it is written in the first place) outweigh its negatives. I completely understand the complaints you have, although I think the ‘deflect women’s anger’ aim could still hold even if the man in question had an overriding sense of personal shame/guilt/self-loathing. But obviously you can’t divine every single person’s reasoning or psychological state from a similar action.

I suppose the reason why I think it works (especially for its intended audience) is that there are still too few pieces written by men in general about gender issues (obviously ppl like your good self excepted). That isn’t to say anything written is worth reading, rather that it seems inevitable as gender debate evolves that there may be a period/patch/tendency for men to over-self-flagellate in order to reach a more equitable stage in the great debate. I think many feminists have been wary of men simply jumping to defend themselves against sexism without really scrutinising their own behaviour/thoughts and the historical legacy of sexism first, which is why they welcome a piece like Hugo’s.

I agree too that the generalisation is the biggest problem and I suppose one of the issues is that I read the article knowing full well it is not actually referring to every man in existence and presume others do the same. I have read some of Hugo’s other work, but probably not as extensively as you have, although I don’t think that necessarily validates or invalidates one piece in and of itself.

I suppose really though, what this piece exposes is the paucity of similar articles to counterbalance it, the difficulty we still face when taking about men and women in such articles, and the need in general for more gender dialogue.

Thanks for engaging!

Mon, 2012-07-16 15:39 — NichiHodgson (not verified)

Hey Ally

Thanks for engaging!

Mon, 2012-07-16 15:38 — NichiHodgson (not verified)

Hey Ally

Thanks for engaging!

Mon, 2012-07-16 16:06 — AllyF (not verified)

Cheers Nicky.

Jumping to your conclusion:

"I suppose really though, what this piece exposes is the paucity of similar articles to counterbalance it, the difficulty we still face when taking about men and women in such articles, and the need in general for more gender dialogue."

I really don't think it would be helped by similar articles to counterbalance it. If anything that would make the problem worse. I'm not interested in an article saying "hey you know that thing women do? That's rubbish that is!" Nor am I interested in an article that says "hey, you know that thing guys / gals do? That's great that is." All of them, I think, are at best unhelpful and at worst damaging. It's all just a bit too close to the Mars / Venus bollocks for comfort.

The other big problem I have with this oeuvre (for want of a better word) is that it buys into an individualist political philosophy that I fundamentally reject. It's a bit like saying all the problems in the world are because we are sinners and bad people and if only we could "own" our own failings and "heal ourselves" and become better people then all our interpersonal and relationship problems would dissolve away. I don't buy that. If there are problems or failings that are typical of whole population groups, whether a gender or anything else, then you can guarantee that those problems have social, political and economic causes, and social, political and economic solutions. To return to Hugo (and sorry mate, to talk about you as if you weren't here, I know you're reading) I kinda think he needs to spend a bit less time thinking about the 12 step plan and a bit more time thinking about Durkheim or Marx's theory of alienation.

If (and I think it is a big if) there is a current trend of young men being irresponsible, underachieving, prone to self-pity or whatever, then that is because we have made them like that. If we want to change that, we have to look at what might have happened in our society and culture to make them like that.

As I think I said over on Heresy Corner, it is fine if you're a marriage counsellor or an agony aunt, fair enough, look at people's communication strategies and identify their shortcomings. If you're writing about gender-politics, I think you need to widen your gaze a bit.

Mon, 2012-07-16 17:57 — Hugo Schwyzer (not verified)

First off, I'm very grateful to Nichi for this piece.

Of course there are huge, impersonal forces driving our current culture of masculine fecklessness. But they are not so powerful that they can't be resisted, and they're not so hegemonic that we can't challenge individual men to break out of the mold. I've read Marx and Durkheim and plenty more, and as a good liberal rather than a radical, remain convinced of the power of the human person to change himself (or herself) even in the face of those forces.

Men are not always "bad" and women are not always "good." But we live in a culture that privileges the former pretty heavily at the expense of the latter. And once those who have that privilege have it pointed out to them, they do well to rethink how they're living their lives. Yes, we need to change the culture AND the individudal. It's not an either/or, however; it's a both/and. And men can stand with some changing.

Tue, 2012-07-17 10:43 — McMac

Hi Hugo,
I'm interested in these privileges men have, mainly because I'd like to get my hands on some. Could you perhaps explain what they are in say...

Education, Health-care, Support for Homelessness, Life expectancy, Family Law, Courts, Penal Systems, Employment Law, Unemployment Rates, Suicide Rates, Death and injury in the workplace.

Perhaps you could take us through the life of an average baby boy to parents on an average wage and explain his privileges?

Mon, 2012-07-16 19:21 — AllyF (not verified)

Hey Hugo. Thanks for the reply.
--------
"Of course there are huge, impersonal forces driving our current culture of masculine fecklessness. But they are not so powerful that they can't be resisted, and they're not so hegemonic that we can't challenge individual men to break out of the mold. I've read Marx and Durkheim and plenty more, and as a good liberal rather than a radical, remain convinced of the power of the human person to change himself (or herself) even in the face of those forces."
----

Then I'm tempted to suggest you should read them again until you understand, but that would be impertinent and unfair so I won't. ;-)

Seriously, of course individuals can change. There is not a human being alive who couldn't be a better person to their partner, their family, their friends and themselves. But if that's the goal, just from the most blunt psychological principles, finger-pointing, name-calling, blaming and shaming is just about the least effective technique you could adopt to achieve your aim.
----------
"Men are not always "bad" and women are not always "good." But we live in a culture that privileges the former pretty heavily at the expense of the latter. And once those who have that privilege have it pointed out to them, they do well to rethink how they're living their lives."
--------
As we both know, privilege is a tricky concept. Could be here all night on this one, but just because the male gender is privileged in various ways, doesn't mean that every individual man is privileged over every individual woman. I'd challenge you to meet a young man living with unemployment, homelessness, academic underachievement, depression, suicidal ideation and a complete absence of meaningful hope of improvement and say "hey buddy, your privilege is showing." But even if we accept the simplistic privilege argument, your individualistic approach doesn't actually address that. If every young man pulled himself up by the bootstraps, knuckled down, pulled his weight and whichever other cliche you want to throw in, it STILL wouldn't challenge male privilege, because you're not actually challenging the underlying causes.
-----------
"Yes, we need to change the culture AND the individudal. It's not an either/or, however; it's a both/and. And men can stand with some changing."
--------
This gets to the heart of it, from my point of view, I think blaming and shaming individuals is not a useful addition to efforts to make structural and societal change, it is an active distraction. That's why it's the go-to response from neoliberal right-wingers in all sorts of contexts.

It deflects attention from where the fault really lies - our ludicrously gendered, alienated capitalist system. That's really why I'm being quite harsh on you over this one, it is really an important point to me.

Mon, 2012-07-16 15:24 — Loki_Antecedent (not verified)

Guys use self depreciation?
Working in a female dominated environment, I can tell you I've spent the majority of it being told I'm pathetic at a lot of things because I have a penis. I don't really have much of a choice but to self depreciate as I'm already told I'm pathetic!

Mon, 2012-07-16 15:23 — Loki_Antecedent (not verified)

Mon, 2012-07-16 14:49 — AllyF (not verified)

Hi Nichi

I don't think you're really acknowledging the real problems with Hugo's article.

The first is here:
“Call it the 'I'm such an a$$hole' speech or call it strategic self-deprecation, the end goal is always the same: deflect women's anger.”

"The goal is always the same" - can I ask how on earth Hugo knows this? Can he read the minds of the rest of the male gender and miraculously divine the cynical, instrumental motives behind every individual guys words? Is it not possible that in at least some cases, the guy really does feel shlt about himself and is offering an honest (if not necessarily accurate) assessment and explanation for his behaviour?

The second problem is related, and this, for me, is where the gaslighting bit comes in. Hugo invokes the supposed crisis of masculinity and the trope that for guys "life has never sucked so hard" and then jumps straight to the passive-aggressive 'I'm so useless' thing as a strategy. He is connecting the two in such a way as to make it impossible for a man to raise legitimate complaint without that complaint being seen as a manipulative ploy. It completely precludes the possibility that for the guy concerned (if not necessarily men in general) maybe life never has sucked so hard? That is classic gaslighting, which serves to cut off discussion of real issue at root, irrespective of merit.

Finally, the gender generalisations is more of an issue than you credit. It would be perfectly possible to write an article about how passive aggressive tactics are toxic in a relationship, and looking at the various strategies deployed, which might indeed include the 'I'm a useless male' thing. But it is only really meaningful to contrast with other passive aggressive strategies more typically used by women. Relationships have a two-way dynamism, and if you attempt to discuss them using the supposed faults of one gender only, you're looking at half the picture only, and I really fail to see how that's helpful.

And I'm afraid that's where you have to look at this piece of Hugo's in the light of every other article he's ever written. I'd challenge you to go back through Hugo's thousands of blogs and articles and find one where he is unequivocally condemning female gender norms and socialisation. Find one single article by him in which he talks about some dreadful thing that women do? I've never seen one.

Hugo's entire shtick comes down to sugar and spice and all things nice versus slugs and snails and puppy dogs tails. I don't think it's cynical. I don't think he churns it out just to please his audience, he really does believe it. But by god it is irritating sometimes.

I swapped tweets with Hugo about this the other week and he said something like "Ally's a bit more quick to let guys off the hook than I am." I replied that I don't think the hook is a very useful tool of analysis in the first place. What I meant by that was that we don't get anywhere in gender-related issues by attaching blame to genders. If an individual does something bad, it is his or her problem. If a whole gender does something bad, it is society's problem. So blaming the individuals is just going to lead to grief and division.