Conservative Member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA) in Canada Doug Elniski has been catching a ton of shit for posting the text of a speech that he gave a couple of weeks ago to junior high school students on his blog, where he supposedly told the girls that "men are attracted to smiles":
Part of the posting included advice to girls saying, "Ladies, always smile when you walk into a room, there is nothing a man wants less than a woman scowling because he thinks he is going to get s--t for something and has no idea what."It continues, "Men are attracted to smiles, so smile, don't give me that 'treated equal' stuff. If you want Equal, it comes in little packages at Starbucks."
Elniski's blog was taken down on Monday afternoon.
Blog gone or not, the real damage was done to the female students he reached that day. While Elniski clarified that the comparison between equality and a sweetener wasn't actually said at the speech and publicly apologized for the "stupid, inappropriate" comment on his blog, his creepy reference to smiles was said. He actually defends that one, claiming he was merely trying to say that "men and women should be friendly and approachable in dealing with others."
Nice try, dude.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Creepy Sexist of the Day: Doug Elniski.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/14567
This reminds me of the gym teacher in high school that told me, out of nowhere, that if I didn't smile more I'd never get a boyfriend. Creeptastic. (incidentally, I *had* a boyfriend at the time...)
OMG, did we have the same gym teacher? we had a middle school gym teacher that told us that we had to run because nobody would want to date a fat girl. (never mind that at the time I was about 4'9" and 85 lbs, and nobody wanted to 'date' me either, haha)
In the intervening years I have thought of bazillions of witty retorts about how there are plenty of people that love big women, but nobody would want to date a misogynist d-bag meathead, but at the time I think I just cried or something. Probably just wrote about it in my Lisa Frank diary.
The Premier of Alberta (and the leader of the Conservatives) has, predictably, refused to take any action on this. He has stated that having to apologize is punishment enough for Mr. Elniski. What sort of a message does that send to all of the women of Alberta?
It sends the message that Alberta women are used to hearing, unfortunately: it's a very ultra-conservative province.
That doesn't make it acceptable. I live in Alberta, and trust me, I will never get used to hearing this crap.
I'm another Albertan woman, and I'd like to respectfully point out that the political dominance of the Conservative party has much to do with regionalism, not just the politics of left and right. Also, the Canadian conservatives are less right-wing than their American analogues.
I saw as much, if not more, overt misogyny when I lived in Vancouver and Montreal for school as when I grew up in Calgary, and, in those places, it was coupled with really problematic stereotypes about us redneck, socially regressive Albertans. As a result, I'm a little sensitive to this particular oversimplification: we're not right wing drones, here, and there are many reasons why even left-wing Albertans may vote Tory.
Premier Stelmach can be contacted here: http://www.premier.alberta.ca/contact/contact.cfm
Canada is often seen as a paradise for feminists, but with those creepy Conservatives in Parliement, its not always a piece of gateau.
Another crazy guy, "liberal" ontarian MP Paul Szabo, wanted to ban alcool for all women in age of procreation, just in case we'd be pregnant without knowing it! So from your first period to your menopause, no drink for you!
Wow. That's so creepy. Hm.. I've been toying with the idea of moving to Canada. Maybe I should reconsider.
Everywhere has it's creeps. Canada may have our share of creepy politicians, but we've legalized same-sex marriage and the abortion debate hardly creeps into the spotlight anymore. Canada certainly has its faults, but we are still a few steps ahead.
Admittedly, and not to derail, but living here and hearing the "I'm moving to Canada!" line again and again during the Bush years got really tedious. The issue of this guy being a sexist jerk has nothing to do with whether or not you want to move to Canada, and those kind of comments feel very Americentric.
Before anyone gets defensive, this isn't a big thing for me, but I think it is worth examining as an American if you find yourself framing discussions of issues in other countries this way.
I was wondering if you could point me in the direction of this comment, I am interested to see how he worded it, and the response he received. I am new to Alberta, so all these anti-feminist politicians aren't on my radar yet. Thanks!
It's taken down, but the internet being what it is, you can see the post in question here: http://74.125.93.132/search?q=cache:a6wHAHJhXmwJ:conservativemla.blogspot.com/+doug+elniski+mla+blog&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca&client=firefox-a
For a while, anyways.
Let him tell you himself. Here's his website: http://www.paulszabo.com/quarterly_reports/fall_2004.htm
If you go to the section on FETAL ALCOHOL SYNDROME, you can read such things as: "Over 50% of pregnancies are unplanned. Therefore, if a woman is sexually active and pregnancy is possible, she should abstain from consuming alcohol to totally eliminate the risk of harming their child."
Hum. I'll drink to that! :)
This is one of the reasons why I'm actually pro-abortion, not just pro-choice.
It's a baby, not a freaking 'accident'.
I wish our society would stop pressuring women into becoming mommies. The world has quite enough unwanted children...
So from your first period to your menopause, no drink for you!
But that's how I get through my cramps!
(I'm mostly kidding...)
*facepalm*
I don't think he proposed an outright ban to prohibit women of childbearing age from drinking alcohol, but advocated for "interventions" to decrease drinking by young women in efforts to avoid fetal alcohol syndrome, but before they were even pregnant.
I had a shaved head for most of the time I was in college, one great plus to this hair cut is that no one ever told me to smile. I guess they figured it was too late!
AAAAAAARRRRRGGHHHH. I have been plagued by the British tradition of creepy men telling you to 'smile' or the even more nauseating 'cheer up love it'll never happen', most of my life. It happened a lot when I worked in a bar, which made me wonder "Would it be acceptable for me to go into a man's workplace and tell him how to arrange his face?"
Yet again the onus is upon women to be pleasing, pliant, cheerful, uncomplaining, whilst men can do what they damn well please. I love the implication that any woman not flashing a massive grin is going to be interpreted as 'about to give a man some shit about something' - sounds like Elniski has a guilty conscience if he deems every unsmiling woman about to tear him a new one.
What a bumhole.
Yack! Ugh! Gah. I feel gross all over.
I HATE this. I hate that men expect women to smile, and I HATE even more that when I meet a guy in the hall I feel compelled to smile or look away. It's beyond my brain control -- I'm so overwhelmingly socialized that when I try not to do it, it builds up and at the last second I give in.
And then I go into a tailspin of frustration and self-lecture.
In all fairness, it's not just men. I've gotten comments from women I didn't know telling me to smile as well as men.
But I do agree, it is so annoying that strangers expect women to smile. I hate that I'm expected to smile at all the customers where I work, yet non of the guys I work with are.
Yeah, but I'd say that for every time I've had a woman say "Smile!" to me I've had twenty men do it. The exceptions do not reframe this as something everyone does. It is still a cultural mechanism to reinforce the idea that women must behave in certain ways. Just because it is a woman saying it doesn't mean it isn't reinforcing the same sexist attitudes (and I don't imagine these women are telling young men to smile either).
It's annoying, and it's especially problematic for women on the autism spectrum, who have less ability to perform behaviours just because they're socially expected without ending up emotionally drained than most people do.
And if you don't give in to the "smile-or-look-away" feeling, you get censured for it in some way.
I'll never forget being in an airport, dressed to the nines because I was going to see my SO for the first time in months, and saw a guy I was about to pass staring at me. I thought he was going to ask me for directions, so I looked back expectantly, but kept walking. When he didn't say anything, I just kept my stride and moved on. Then from behind me, I heard him hiss, "BITCH!"
There was a lot of venom in his reaction to my lack of smile. Seriously, I think he'd have hated me less if I had kicked him in the shins as we passed.
Not Sexist="hey kids, it pays to be friendly. you should all smile at others."
Sexist="girls better smile or you'll never get a man, which is all you should aspire to anyways."
Why is it so hard for so many men to see this distinction.
"It pays to be friendly"? How about just being a good person? Noah Lieske
"there is nothing a man wants less"
My actions aren't dictated by what men want. By what I want, what I need, and what I deem to be responsible and moral, on the other hand...
I like the claim that men are attracted to smiles as if this is unique to them.
We're all attracted to smiles, I've read studies about the effect of smiles on babies and how babies react if they grin at someone and don't receive a smile in return.
How people then come along and divide this into different requirements for men and women just baffles me.
Please, please, please don't start to think that everyone in Alberta is an unprogressive a-hole!
Edmonton, my hometown and (Elniski's) has a history of liberality. After all, it was here that women first started organizing for suffrage in Canada. There is plenty of dissent here, and lots of media coverage condemning his awful speech. Alberta is Conservative from the top-down, but Albertan women are as strong-willed as anyone, being descended from tough-as-shit farm wives.
Here, here! Well said, Mari.
Right on!
Good reminder! I apologize if I seemed to be painting the entire province with the conservative/intolerant brush, as I know many amazing, progressive, feminist women from Alberta.
Creepy is exactly the right word not just for Elniski, but for a lot of prairie conservatives.
However, one point of clarification about Canadian politics. Elniski is MLA of the Province of Alberta. (Canada, federally, doesn't have MLAs, it has Members of Parliament (MPs).) It's annoying nit to pick, I know. But to Canadians, Vanessa's opening sentence reads like "Vince Fumo, a Democratic member of the State Senate of the United States of America. . ."--i.e., it's confusing and doesn't actually make literal sense.
Thanks for pointing this out Scott E. When I first read the post that line drove me crazy, and I was just about to post something!
As others have commented, beyond the obvious forehead-smacking ridiculous sexism, in this story there is the undercurrent of men feeling it is their place to tell women to smile.
I often get told to smile by guys on the street, and it so infuriating. I have come to realize that I look unapproachable in public for a reason, and that is to send a signal to stay out of my space. For a guy to then go out of his way to tell me to smile feels like an aggressive invasion of my space, and a conscious choice to attack the very idea of women having rights to their own space.
In addition to the usual crap this brings up, there is also for me the level of being a trans woman. I seem to drop below many people's radar (at least to the point where I don't experience obvious, in-my-face transphobia), so unwanted attention like "Smile!" by men really freaks me out. It tells me they're looking at me in ways that I don't want them to be looking at me, because I worry if they look too closely they will read me as trans and react violently.
This topic is trite. Most people will come to the conclusion that smiling is a much more positive trait than say...scowling.
He could have clearly said: "Women are attracted to smiles [...]"
A more factual and less sexist comment could have been: "Men and women are typically more attracted to smiles"
Smiling is typically associated with openness and friendliness, so if you look under the statement and get to the root of what he is claiming (men are attracted to smiles), its not really wrong. But it's not really right either. It's one giant half-truth.
Either way, there are much more important things to worry about (ehem...the economy) than what this guy says or thinks.
Yet, somehow, I manage to be concerned about Elniski's sexist remarks *and* the state of the economy. I must be just a big old pile of pissed-off-ness.
By the way, the root of his message was not that smiles are attractive to everyone (even though he specified 'men'), his point was that women and girls who want equality are unattractive.
umm...please don't assume I think you are a "big ole pile of pissed-off-ness". You are trying to make it look like I am insulting you, when I am not.
Second, I agree that his comments are sexist. I am suggesting that his statements aren't worthy of discussion. If you don't like what he has to say, then ignore him. I also think the current state of affairs is much more important than some b-list politican's stupid comments.
After re-reading the original article, I still can't see how you are coming to the conclusion that women that want equality are unattractive.
What I get from the article is he somehow thinks that women smiling will make men "happier" since the women will appear friendlier.
As an Alberta resident who lives in Edmonton I know a lot of strong women and tons of pro feminist men. BUT I also, on a daily basis, am frustrated with (the lack of or skewed) media coverage of 'womens issues' and sexist comments that are never challenged.
This is a brutal example. His comments are worthy of discussion because as an MLA he is (suppose to be) representing his constituents but, unless they all enjoy spreading sexism by making sexist comments, he is not. He is not a "b-list politican" because he is an MLA who has very real sway in our province, just as any other MLA does.
For everyone who is interested in this story and what the response has been, check out Rachel Notely, the MP In my area, who is THE ONLY MP from the NDP in all of Alberta and has been great on responding to issues like this (thank god someone finally speaks FOR me!) Also check out the recent horid comments made by Iris Evans Canada's finance minister. Another example of sexism in Canadian politics
Actually, Rachel Notley is an MLA, and she is 1 of 2 NDP MLA's in Alberta, the other being Brian Mason. They're both awesome.
"If you don't like what he has to say, then ignore him."
No one ever got anywhere by just ignoring the issue at hand. Women's rights didn't get to the point where it is today by just sitting around and ignoring important issues. Ignoring someone's sexist comments (especially if this person is in a position of power or influence) isn't going to do anything to improve our social status as women. And by the way, I'm perfectly capable of worrying about the economy, as well.
THANK YOU. That saying is so ridiculous and conducive to all types of oppression and bad behaviour.
It's been said before but I'll repeat it:
Life is not a zero-sum game. People can be upset about sexist comments AND be worried about the state of the economy.
Sure...I could be upset about 100 different things, but I have a better chance of changing something when I focus on a handful of things. Or better yet..one thing.
The adage: "One thing at a time" applies here.
So you can be upset with this guy AND care about the economy...congrats! So which one should we focus on. Personally, I wouldn't waste more than a few breaths on this putz.
Just being upset is a pointless endeavor. The better question is what solutions exist and are they worthy of my time to accomplish them.
If all you ever are is upset (without any action) then you end up looking like the "boy who cried wolf".
So this guy made a sexist comment. We can either ignore him, get upset and do nothing or actively do something.
I vote for ignoring him!
P.S I am perfectly capable of intelligent thought. You do not need to be condescending and constantly "Repeat" yourself. You clearly have your opinions as I have mine.
It is not helpful to just ignore stuff like this. Based on many of the comments I've read on this post and many others in the past, women being told to smile by perfect strangers is still very prevalent.
It's supposedly trivial things like this that allow sexual violence to occur. When there is an atmosphere, an entire culture, that allows for men to choose what is right for women, to tell them its their responsibility to look good for men, it makes it so much easier for men to exercise their privilege in other ways.
I believe that there is no way to combat the so-called bigger or worse instances of sexism without going after the insidious little things.
We have to attack at the source of the problem.
The fact that this guy was telling young women this bullshit at a school just disgusts me. Girls are already socialized to believe these damaging things and he is just reinforcing it. It makes me unbelievably angry, especially because he is a politician, in a position of great power; he is supposed to be a public servant.
We should be angry about this. We have to get angry about this stuff and we have to combat it.
Thank you.
I cannot express how much I'm beginning to hate the "there are more important things to worry about" line. Maybe some people don't realize it, but it is a silencing technique.
It ranks right up there (for me) with saying "things could be worse," or "just be glad you aren't in that place/situation."
There are always more important thing to worry about. That's life.
But these "unimportant things," these "small things" tend to add up. I can worry about them and the economy and the situation in Darfur all at the same time.
Humans, you know, we have pretty powerful brains.
By the way, the "boy who cried wolf" analogy does not work here at all.
If we were crying wolf, that would mean there was no sexism taking place.
Obviously there is sexism taking place. And obviously you don't give a shit. I've had enough. Get out of here.
TG: other commenters are assuming that you are in attack mode because what you are saying is a common tactic used for silencing feminists. See:
http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/2007/04/12/faq-why-are-you-concentrating-on-x-when-y-is-so-much-more-important/
We understand your point of view, because we have heard it before. A lot. We are continuing to talk back to you, because in general people who say things like what you are saying (i.e. why are you focusing on x when y is so much more important) are trying to silence feminists and tell us that our concerns do not matter. Whether or not this is your intent, this IS the result of continuing to talk in this vein.
You are bringing up a lot of things that indicate that you need to brush up on Feminism 101. Please go do so in your own time and space if you wish to continue participating in feminist discussions.
Thank you; you said this better than I ever could!
TG, I'm sorry if I sounded condescending, but as SociologicalMe points out, your points are often used by some to tell women what to care about -- as if what we care about doesn't really matter.
I react to instances of sexism viscerally, and if it happens to me directly, you can bet your butt that I'll react and be upset. I'll confront the person; I won't just ignore it.
Ignoring the "little things" doesn't help the big issues go away, in my opinion. Unfortunately, your message is not original.
Have you experienced the kind of sexism being discussed here? Having men tell you as a woman to smile, and the intrusion into one's space that creates? Because your comments are really loaded with the kind of privilege usually associated with people commenting on issues they haven't faced personally.
This "oh, but there are bigger fish to fry" attitude is a very tired silencing tactic, and is just a variation of the reductio ad absurdum logical fallacy. It doesn't add anything to the discussion, is designed to frame the complaint as ridiculous, and deny the experience of others through the distraction of an unrelated point (The economy? How can you talk about the economy when global warming is threatening us? But how can we talk about global warming when there is starvation in the world? And so on...).
This isn't about men and women both liking smiles, this is about cultural reinforcement of women to behave in ways which men want them to behave - smiling and docile.
Go ahead and ignore him, as this obviously doesn't seem relevant to you, but don't be shocked if we go ahead and ignore you because your comments don't feel relevant to this discussion.
Yes! Exactly! Just because it doesn't affect you doesn't mean the rest of us aren't affected.
When discussing this a few days ago, commenter Chelsa posted a link to a blog post discussing his sketchy comments on Edmonton's Pride Parade. Sadly not shocking, and the lack of reprimands from his party show how conservative and intolerant Alberta is.
Yeah, it bothered me that the comments to women hit every major media outlet in the country, but his remarks about Pride went basically unnoticed.
Not that I think one is more or less important of an issue... just that clearly one is a non-issue in the public eye and it shouldn't be.
Women don't like to see men scowling, but does anyone ever tell men to smile?
It would be nice if just for a day men got overwhelmed with crap advice about how to be more attractive to women. And not just women they're attracted to, or when they're looking for a date, but any women they might ever cross paths with, ever, because god forbid someone you don't even know sees you with a scowl and bad hair. Maybe if they experienced that then gray-haired married men wouldn't feel like they should give junior-high girls advice on being attractive to men.
I totally agree. My whole life has been a parade of how to get a man rhetoric. If you do that, you'll never get a man. Don't be too feminist, you'll never get a man. It's incredibly frustrating. It's like your whole being, everything you do should be for a man's benefit. Does this happen to men? Maybe it does, and I just don't notice.
Men get the same shit. They get:
"When are you getting married?"
"Why don't you have a girlfriend?"
"Why can't you find a nice girl?"
etc...
In fact, men's sexuality is even questioned when they go a long time without a partner. If you don't have a girlfriend for an extended period of time, they may get:
"You haven't been with a woman in a while...are you gay?"
Needless to say, your frustrations are shared amongst both genders.
I suppose the difference may be that the men in question are being compelled to participate in their gender's privelege whereas women are being compelled to participate in their gender's ghettoization and oppression.
Ahh, the "Oh, the poor Menz" argument. Wondering when that would show up.
Next.
One might reasonably question whether it's appropriate to slam someone for answering a (seemingly) genuine, topical question.
Which genuine, topical question?
And, yes, if you read the context of this entire discussion, the numerous times people have explained to him that he's engaging in a silencing tactic, it is appropriate to slam him. His argument has gone from "oh, that isn't as important as the economy so why are we talking about it" to "men face negative comments from people sometimes too," which suggests to me that his underlying aim is to deny this expression of frustration by women at a sexist act.
If my snark was the first response then you'd have a point. It wasn't, though, it came after at least seven or eight patient, lengthy explanations to TG, who nonetheless maintained his original, silencing tactics.
I am not denying anything.
1) I am merely claiming there are "bigger fish to fry". With the recession, homelessness, job loss, etc... IMHO this issue takes less of a priority.
2) the fact that an experience is shared between both sexes should be a way to bridge the gender gap, not divide it.
@gudbuytjane:
When did I use the "Oh...the poor menz" argument. The least you can do is actually criticize something I actually said as opposed to putting words in my mouth.
Your comment is the exact reason why the "man hater" stereotype still exists. What you have done is claim that men don't have any similar problems to women. If you want the movement to gain more traction, you are going to have to appeal to the other 50% of the population (appeal, not cater to it).
Both genders get pressured into marrying, finding boyfriends/girlfriends, having kids, etc... My argument did not deny that women do not have this problem, only suggesting that men share the same experience.
Also...I am not silencing anything. I am expressing an opinion. My opinion may differ from yours and I am not denying your right to express it, or anyone else's opinion for that matter.
"I am merely claiming there are "bigger fish to fry". With the recession, homelessness, job loss, etc... IMHO this issue takes less of a priority."
Then why not just accept that, as feminists, THESE kind of issues are generally our priority. What the hell do you expect to find here at feministing and other feminist websites? If you would rather talk about the economy, then maybe it'd be a good idea to go to a different website? Just saying..
The economy is a rather broad term...I am sure there are women's issues that can be discussed within it.
eh...this arguing is pointless. I have my opinion on the matter and you have yours. Obviously you feel this matter has weight, I do not. Sure, he made a stupid comment, but I see no need to start a vendetta against him when other topics are more pressing.
I just felt the need to defend some of the rather absurd and inaccurate replies. (e.g that I was silencing people when I have NO control over this website)
For something you think is trivial, you sure put a lot of effort into telling us what you think about it. You have shown no desire to listen to others' opinions, so I'll return the favor by ignoring you from now on. Peace.
I don't think it's appropriate to automatically dismiss anyone as ill-intentioned just because their argument resembles other arguments that are sometimes malicious. Caricaturing and dismissing dissent effectively marginalizes people who don't know all the social rules of anti-oppression discussion, which is in itself oppressive. The responses to TypicalGamer that simply explained why s/he was wrong were more appropriate than yours.
I didn't dismiss him as ill-intentioned. There's no need to know his intentions, because sexism is a systemic oppression. I was critiquing his behaviour of dismissing the complaints from women about sexist behaviour on its face. He might even think he's being a supportive ally, but what he is doing is engaging in a behaviour which reinforces sexist attitudes.
dismissing dissent effectively marginalizes people who don't know all the social rules of anti-oppression discussion, which is in itself oppressive
Oppressive? Really?
As far as not knowing the details of an argument in which you are taking part: It is YOUR job to go educate yourselves. Really, I can't believe people continually fall back on the "Your tone is so harsh!" and "But you have to educate folks!" arguments.
It is not my job, nor is it any woman's job to ensure that a man feels comfortable and has been taught about feminism and oppressive behaviours.
People vary widely in their innate ability to understand and apply social rules. People on the autism spectrum and some people with ADHD, for instance, have difficulty with those things. People also vary in how much opportunity they have to research feminism, anti-oppression, etc., in what sources they have available to them, and in their levels of research skill. Describing someone's behaviour as a silencing tactic when their intent is not to silence can easily marginalize them for not knowing all the rules of anti-oppression discourse, even if they have had limited ability and opportunity to learn those rules. I realize that people in anti-oppression movements get sick of explaining basic topics to people, but vilifying people and classifying them as oppressors isn't going to encourage them to better educate themselves.
PatriarchySlayer asked "Does this happen to men?"
We all acknowledge, (I hope), that it's not appropriate for men to define womens' experience for them; I hope we can see why the reciprocal should be true too. Better, anyways, to ask men how we're treated than to assume your perception is correct (should be clear enough why, by comparison to the inverse.)
"Men experience similar/comparable treatment" in and of itself doesn't do anything, really. It depends on where you go with it. It may well often be the case that it goes to "so neither treatment is problematic", though I didn't see that as TypicalGamer's position (it may well be, though). One can also progress from the first statement to "both are problematic", and then it may be a worthwhile discussion from a lot of angles:
If one wants to talk to men about how they treat women, it is important to know how they (perceive) themselves as being treated, to have a sensible discussion. "It's sexist to treat women the way you're treated" is not a convincing argument. "Everyone, man and woman, should have the opportunity to pursue those non-platonic relationships that they desire." is a convincing argument, especially to those who don't feel free to do so. (To use the topical example).
If one wants to understand where behaviour comes from (usually it's not direct, but the manifestation of some idea). If that idea's not connected to gender, or only very weakly, it may be important to the understanding. Realistically, my grandmother asking me "Brian, why aren't you married yet?" isn't treating me much different from the way she treats my sister when she asks "Lynn, why aren't you married yet?" ; if we try to understand her thinking/behaviour from a "how does she think of women" perspective, we'll probably get the wrong answer, because the behaviour's coming from a "how does she think of people" perspective.
Or maybe it's not so profound. Maybe it's ideal curiousity, maybe she finds it comforting that everyone is treated the same way, not just women. Not sure.
And I'm sure I've missed a lot of possibilities. But TypicalGamer certainly comes across (at least, in the isolation of that comment) as commiserating, not denying.
And I'm sure I've missed a lot of possibilities. But TypicalGamer certainly comes across (at least, in the isolation of that comment) as commiserating, not denying.
I'm not responding to a quote taken in isolation, apart from the larger discussion in which it took place. Entering a debate midstream and quote mining out of context (which you've done here) is either intellectually lazy or intellectually dishonest.
The thing I said was:
Ahh, the "Oh, the poor Menz" argument. Wondering when that would show up.
Not that men aren't affected by sexism, not that I was dismissing those things happen, but that he'd consciously chose to change his argument - which to that point had been that women's concerns about sexism as described in the article are immaterial because there are bigger issues in the world to deal with - to this "Oh, but men have it hard too" position. My exasperation and snark was at the tactic of shifting arguments once they've been suitably dismissed (which his were) instead of acknowledging one's original point might be biased.
Entering a debate midstream and quote mining out of context (which you've done here) is either intellectually lazy or intellectually dishonest.
Ad homimens may be the best argument available to you, but that doesn't mean you should use them. In the actual context of TypicalGamer's statement, it's perfectly reasonable. You can say "Well, if I look at everything he's said, I can guess what he's thinking, and why he's said this here", but I can reasonably say you shouldn't shouldn't substitute contexts in this way. If TypicalGamer's said something unreasonable (which seems true), then slam him where he's done that, not where he has, by all evidence, merely tried to be helpful. You've guessed that TypicalGamer has sinister motives, but there's no real reason to believe that that I can see. There's no reason to believe that TypicalGamer is advocating the argument that this isn't a big deal because it happens to both men and women. Certainly he hasn't said this.
"Person X, you are dumb and have nothing to add to this conversation" = ad hominem argument
"Quote mining points out of context is intellectually lazy or dishonest" = critique of a debating technique used to derail from your main argument to make you address other points unrelated to the original argument and not an ad hominem argument
We don't need to contemplate TypicalGamer's motivations. What he was doing was engaging in behaviour which is used to silence arguments, and that is what he was repeatedly did despite having this pointed out to him. His intentions are immaterial, his behaviour was what was being critiqued.
That is how systemic sexism works, why we critique these things, and why the "all things considered, men have issues too and women should acknowledge that" argument is not productive, as it provides cover for these behaviours.
That simply isn't true. If TypicalGamer's motivation is to say "I certainly see your experience as valid, since I have comparable experiences". And yes, saying I'm being lazy or dishonest is an ad hominem attack, which (at least appears) to be motivated by the unsupportable nature of the quote-mining accusation.
Beyond that, your whole argument rests on ignoring that PatriarchySlayer asked "Does this happen to men?" The context established there is key.
How is my quote mining assertion unsupportable when you took a quote of mine from the larger discussion and began arguing it apart from the original argument?
That simply isn't true.
Thanks for clarifying how sexism works. Do you not believe that sexism is the systemic oppression of women? Because you seem to be arguing someone's intentions removes them from critique for engaging in behaviour which reinforces the systemic oppression of women.
If that's the case, then I suggest you go read some Feminism 101, because this 'everything is equally oppressive/individuals cannot be held accountable for the privilege they receive from systemic oppressions' approach is not feminism, and it's how people dodge having productive analysis of their own sexism, racism, transphobia, homophobia, classism... it goes on.
Beyond that, your whole argument rests on ignoring that PatriarchySlayer asked "Does this happen to men?" The context established there is key.
My whole argument has nothing to do with this derailing you are persisting in. My whole argument is about TypicalGamer using silencing tactics (the "bigger fish to fry" arguement, then switching to an unrelated "men deal with crap too" argument when the first one was untenable).
I don't think that intentions remove someone from critique, but I think they should alter the manner in which that critique is made. If someone's intentions are good, then "I know your intentions are good, but these things you have said are problematic because..." is the appropriate response. If someone's intentions are bad, the appropriate response is to call them out on their intentions. However, I don't think it is usually productive to tell people that they're being agents of oppression when they have no oppressive intent. I understand that their behaviour may be unwittingly oppressive, but this is something where one needs to focus on the behaviour rather than the person in order to convey the appropriate message.
Well, patriarchy does hurt men too.
I never said it didn't.
Hey, now. Mr. I think women should smile more has a point. Equal does come in little packages at Starbucks. On the other hand someone should probably explain to him the difference between equal and equality which doesn't seem to be found in packets either in his remarks or at Starbucks.
There's a bit of snark in that comment, I apologize. Here's hoping that the guy does eventually learn about the importance of equality for everyone.
Thank you for writing about this.
He's been all over the news in Edmonton for the past week, and adding more exposure (especially international exposure like this) will help shame him and bring his comments even more into the public eye.
This is especially important because what most readers of Feministing likely don't know, is that he is a relatively new MLA, whose riding was previously held by a New Democratic Party member. He beat the previous MLA, David Eggen, by only 180 votes in 2008. 180 votes!! i'm pretty sure he's pissed off more than 180 people because of this. So the more shame that gets heaped upon Elnisky, the better, as far as i'm concerned.
It was sad to lose one of our NDP MLAs last year. I don't know that my riding in south Edmonton will ever elect someone progressive - it's a sea of Tory blue.
(And, I don't mean progressive in the oxymoronic "Progressive Conservative" way.)
Derail, I know... but:
I love seeing all the Edmontonian Feministing readers popping out of the woodwork! For a while, I thought it might just be me. :P
I'm just not seeing this connection between smiling and equal treatment at all. Holy non sequitur, Batman! :)
^^ Me too, it's so exciting!
^ I think the connection is that women who want equality (sorry, women who want EQUAL) never, ever smile because they are evil, man-hating feminists. And that's why they'll never get a man. Because y'know, they hate men. And it's all about the men.
This infuriates me. Honestly, what makes him feel entitled to tell young people what they should and shouldn't be doing because of their gender? And don't even get me started on the "nice girls don't want equality" bull shit.I hate how some people feel that girls have to be "nice", and by nice, they mean passive.
I also don't appreciate this whole business with girls being expected to smile. This weekend, for example, I was working. I work in costumer service and a man was very rude to me, so naturally, I wasn't 100% cheery with him. I wasn't rude, but I wasn't completely happy either and when he left he said "Thanks babe".Great. Just what I needed to hear. I couldn't helo but give him a dirty look. So then, of course, he felt the need to tell me to "smile more often"... if only looks could kill.
This guy sounds like a real piece of shit.