• Men Explain Lolita to Me

    Rebecca Solnit: Art Makes the World, and It Can Break Us

    December 17, 2015  By Rebecca Solnit
    1,293


    It is a fact universally acknowledged that a woman in possession of an opinion must be in want of a correction. Well, actually, no it isn’t, but who doesn’t love riffing on Jane Austen? The answer is: lots of people, because we’re all different and some of us haven’t even read Pride and Prejudice dozens of times, but the main point is that I’ve been performing interesting experiments in proffering my opinions and finding that some of the men out there respond on the grounds that my opinion is wrong, while theirs is right because they are convinced that their opinion is a fact, while mine is a delusion. Sometimes they also seem to think that they are in charge, of me as well of facts.

    It isn’t a fact universally acknowledged that a person who mistakes his opinions for facts may also mistake himself for God. This can happen if he’s been insufficiently exposed to the fact that there are also other people who have other experiences, and that they too were created equal, with certain inalienable rights, and that consciousness thing that is so interesting and troubling is also going on inside their heads. This is a problem straight white men suffer from especially, because the western world has held up a mirror to them for so long—and turns compliant women into mirrors reflecting them back twice life size, Virginia Woolf noted. The rest of us get used to the transgendering and cross-racializing of our identities as we invest in protagonists like Ishmael or Dirty Harry or Holden Caulfield. But straight white men don’t, so much. I coined a term a while ago, privelobliviousness, to try to describe the way that being the advantaged one, the represented one, often means being the one who doesn’t need to be aware and, often, isn’t. Which is a form of loss in its own way.

    So much of feminism has been women speaking up about hitherto unacknowledged experiences, and so much of antifeminism has been men telling them these things don’t happen. “You were not just raped,” your rapist may say, and then if you persist there may be death threats, because killing people is the easy way to be the only voice in the room. Non-white people get much the same rubbish about how there isn’t racism and they don’t get treated differently and race doesn’t affect any of us, because who knows better than white people who are trying to silence people of color? And queer people too, but we all know all of that already, or should if we are paying attention.

    This paying attention is the foundational act of empathy, of listening, of seeing, of imagining experiences other than one’s own, of getting out of the boundaries of one’s own experience. There’s a currently popular argument that books help us feel empathy, but if they do so they do it by helping us imagine that we are people we are not. Or to go deeper within ourselves, to be more aware of what it means to be heartbroken, or ill, or six, or ninety-six, or completely lost. Not just versions of our self rendered awesome and eternally justified and always right, living in a world in which other people only exist to help reinforce our magnificence, though those kinds of books and comic books and movies exist in abundance and cater to the male imagination. Which is a reminder that literature and art can also help us fail at empathy if it sequesters us in the Boring Old Fortress of Magnificent Me.

    Article continues after advertisement

    This is why I had a nice time last month picking on a very male literary canon lined up by Esquire as “80 Books Every Man Should Read,” 79 of them by men. It seemed to encourage this narrowness of experience and I was arguing not that everyone should read books by ladies—though shifting the balance matters—but that maybe the whole point of reading is to be able to explore and also transcend your gender (and race and class and nationality and moment in history and age and ability) and experience being others. Saying this upset some men. Many among that curious gender are easy to upset, and when they are upset they don’t know it (see: privelobliviousness). They just think you’re wrong and sometimes also evil.

    There has been a lot said this year about college students—meaning female college students, black students, trans students—and how they’re hypersensitive and demanding that others be censored. That’s why The Atlantic, a strange publication that veers from progressive to regressive and back again like a weighty pendulum recently did a piece on “The Coddling of the American Mind.” It tells us that, “Jerry Seinfeld and Bill Maher have publicly condemned the oversensitivity of college students, saying too many of them can’t take a joke,” with the invocation of these two white guys as definitive authorities.

    But seriously, you know who can’t take a joke? White guys. Not if it implicates them and their universe, and when you see the rage, the pettiness, the meltdowns and fountains of male tears of fury, you’re seeing people who really expected to get their own way and be told they’re wonderful all through the days. And here, just for the record, let me clarify that I’m not saying that all of them can’t take it. Many white men—among whom I count many friends (and, naturally, family members nearly as pale as I)—have a sense of humor, that talent for seeing the gap between what things are supposed to be and what they are and for seeing beyond the limits of their own position. Some have deep empathy and insight and write as well as the rest of us. Some are champions of human rights.

    But there are also those other ones, and they do pop up and demand coddling. A group of black college students doesn’t like something and they ask for something different in a fairly civil way and they’re accused of needing coddling as though it’s needing nuclear arms. A group of white male gamers doesn’t like what a woman cultural critic says about misogyny in gaming and they spend a year or so persecuting her with an unending torrent of rape threats, death threats, bomb threats, doxxing, and eventually a threat of a massacre that cites Marc LePine, the Montreal misogynist who murdered 14 women in 1989, as a role model. I’m speaking, of course, about the case of Anita Sarkeesian and Gamergate. You could call those guys coddled. We should. And seriously, did they feel they were owed a world in which everyone thought everything they did and liked and made was awesome or just remained silent? Maybe, because they had it for a long time.

    I sort of kicked the hornets’ nest the other day, by expressing feminist opinions about books. It all came down to Lolita. “Some of my favorite novels are disparaged in a fairly shallow way. To read Lolita and ‘identify’ with one of the characters is to entirely misunderstand Nabokov,” one commenter asserted, which made me wonder if there’s a book called Reading Lolita in Patriarchy. The popular argument that novels are good because they inculcate empathy assumes that we identify with characters, and no one gets told they’re wrong for identifying with Gilgamesh or even Elizabeth Bennett. It’s just when you identify with Lolita you’re clarifying that this is a book about a white man serially raping a child over a period of years. Should you read Lolita and strenuously avoid noticing that this is the plot and these are the characters? Should the narrative have no relationship to your own experience? This reader thinks so.

    All I had actually said was that, just as I had identified with a character who’s dismissively treated in On the Road, so I’d identified with Lolita. I read many Nabokov novels back in the day, but a novel centered around the serial rape of a kidnapped child, back when I was near that child’s age was a little reminder how hostile the world, or rather the men in it, could be. Which is not a pleasure.

    The omnipresence of men raping female children as a literary subject, from Tess of the d’Urbervilles to Less Than Zero, along with real-life accounts like that of Jaycee Dugard (kidnapped at 11 in 1991 and used as a sex slave for 18 years by a Bay Area man), can have the cumulative effect of reminding women that we spend a lot of our lives quietly, strategically trying not to get raped, which takes a huge toll on our lives and affects our sense of self. Sometimes art reminds us of life.

    Hardy’s novel is in fact a tragedy of what happens when a poor young woman’s lack of agency, beginning with her lack of the right to say no to the sex forced on her by a rich man, spirals out to destroy her life in a grand manner. It could be recuperated as a great feminist novel. There are a lot of male writers, even a long way back, who I think of as humane and empathic toward female as well as male characters: Wordsworth, Hardy, Tolstoy, Trollope, Dickens come to mind. (That none of them are blemishless human beings we can discuss another time, possibly after hell freezes over.)

    There is a common attack on art that thinks it is a defense. It is the argument that art has no impact on our lives, that art is not dangerous, and therefore all art is beyond reproach, and we have no grounds to object to any of it, and any objection is censorship. No one has ever argued against this view more elegantly than the great, now-gone critic Arthur C. Danto, whose 1988 essay on the subject was formative for my own thinking. That was in the era when right-wing senators wanted to censor art or cancel the National Endowment for the Arts altogether. The argument against this art, which included Robert Mapplethorpe’s elegantly formalist pictures of men engaged in sadomasochistic play, was that it was dangerous, that it might change individual minds and lives and then our culture. Some of the defenders took the unfortunate position that art is not dangerous because, ultimately, it has no impact.

    Photographs and essays and novels and the rest can change your life; they are dangerous. Art shapes the world. I know many people who found a book that determined what they would do with their life or saved their life. Books aren’t life preservers; there are more complex, less urgent reasons to read them, including pleasure, and pleasure matters. Danto describes the worldview of those who assert there is an apartheid system between art and life: “But the concept of art interposes between life and literature a very tough membrane, which insures the incapacity of the artist to inflict moral harm so long as it is recognized that what he is doing is art.” His point is that art can inflict moral harm and often does, just as other books do good. Danto references the totalitarian regimes whose officials recognized very clearly that art can change the world and repressed the stuff that might.

    * * * *

    You can read Nabokov’s relationship to his character in many ways. Vera Nabokov, the author’s wife, wrote, “I wish, though, somebody would notice the tender description of the child, her pathetic dependence on monstrous HH, and her heartrending courage all along…” And the women who read Nabokov’s novel in repressive Iran, says Azar Nafisi of Reading Lolita in Tehran, identified too: “Lolita belongs to a category of victims who have no defense and are never given a chance to articulate their own story. As such she becomes a double victim—not only her life but also her life story is taken from her. We told ourselves we were in that class to prevent ourselves from falling victim to this second crime.”

    When I wrote the essay that provoked such splenetic responses, I was trying to articulate that there is a canonical body of literature in which women’s stories are taken away from them, in which all we get are men’s stories. And that these are sometimes not only books that don’t describe the world from a woman’s point of view, but inculcate denigration and degradation of women as cool things to do.

    Dilbert comic Scott Adams wrote last month that we live in a matriarchy because, “access to sex is strictly controlled by the woman.” Meaning that you don’t get to have sex with someone unless they want to have sex with you, which if we say it without any gender pronouns sounds completely reasonable. You don’t get to share someone’s sandwich unless they want to share their sandwich with you, and that’s not a form of oppression either. You probably learned that in kindergarten.

    But if you assume that sex with a female body is a right that heterosexual men have, then women are just these crazy illegitimate gatekeepers always trying to get in between you and your rights. Which means you have failed to recognize that women are people, and perhaps that comes from the books and movies you have—and haven’t—been exposed to, as well as the direct inculcation of the people and systems around you. Art matters, and there’s a fair bit of art in which rape is celebrated as a triumph of the will (see Kate Millet’s 1970 book Sexual Politics, which covers some of the same male writers as the Esquire list) . It’s always ideological, and it makes the world we live in.

    Investigative journalists T. Christian Miller and Ken Armstrong just published a long piece about how police caught a serial rapist (and how one of his victims was not only disbelieved for years but was bullied into saying she lied and then prosecuted for lying). The rapist told them, “Deviant fantasies had gripped him since he was a kid, way back to when he had seen Jabba the Hutt enslave and chain Princess Leia.” Culture shapes us. Miller and Armstrong’s grim and gripping essay, “An Unbelievable Story of Rape,” bears witness to both the impact of popular culture and of women’s stories being discounted and discredited.

    But “to read Lolita and ‘identify’ with one of the characters is to entirely misunderstand Nabokov” said one of my less friendly readers. I thought that was funny, so I posted it on Facebook, and a nice liberal man came along and explained to me this book was actually an allegory as though I hadn’t thought of that yet. It is, and it’s also a novel about a big old guy violating a spindly child over and over and over. Then she weeps. And then another nice liberal man came along and said, “You don’t seem to understand the basic truth of art. I wouldn’t care if a novel was about a bunch of women running around castrating men. If it was great writing, I’d want to read it. Probably more than once.” Of course there is no such body of literature, and if the nice liberal man who made that statement had been assigned book after book full of castration scenes, maybe even celebrations of castration, it might have made an impact on him.

    I hasten to add that I don’t think I’m injured by these guys at this point in my life, and I don’t feel sorry for myself. I just goggle in amazement at the batshit that comes out of them; it’s like I’m running a laboratory and they keep offering up magnificent specimens. Apparently over the horizon some of them got so upset that no less a literary voice than this year’s Booker Prize winner Marlon James said, “Liberal men. I’m not about to stop your inevitable progress to neo-liberal and eventually, neocon, so let’s make this one quick. It seems some of you have a problem with Rebecca Solnit’s new piece. There is censorship, and there is challenging somebody’s access to making money. This is not the same thing.”

    And though I was grateful to James for calling them out, I wasn’t even challenging anyone’s access to making money. I just made humorous remarks about some books and some dead writers’ characters. These guys were apparently so upset and so convinced that the existence of my opinions and voice menaced others’ rights. Guys: censorship is when the authorities repress a work of art, not when someone dislikes it.

    I had never said that we shouldn’t read Lolita. I’ve read it more than once. I joked that there should be a list of books no woman should read, because quite a few lionized books are rather nasty about my gender, but I’d also said “of course I believe everyone should read anything they want. I just think some books are instructions on why women are dirt or hardly exist at all except as accessories or are inherently evil and empty.” And then I’d had fun throwing out some opinions about books and writers. But I was serious about this. You read enough books in which people like you are disposable, or are dirt, or are silent, absent, or worthless, and it makes an impact on you. Because art makes the world, because it matters, because it makes us. Or breaks us.

     



    Rebecca Solnit
    Rebecca Solnit
    San Francisco writer, historian, and activist, Rebecca Solnit is the author of seventeen books about geography, community, art, politics, hope, and feminism and the recipient of many awards, including the Lannan Literary Award, and the National Book Critics Circle Award. She is a contributing editor to Harper’s, where she is the first woman to regularly write the Easy Chair column (founded in 1851).









    • Battameez

      Beautiful piece. This made my day.

    • loberry

      Rebecca. I bow down in your general direction. I feel as if someone has channeled so many things that I have thought in the past few weeks? days? minutes? The number of times I have to remind myself that boys are told from the moment that they emerge from the womb that they are “geniuses” or “first round draftpicks.” Before someone contradicts me, please let me tell you that I had to go shopping for a friend’s baby gift. She is having a girl. I searched and searched for one of those “cute” shirts that says “smart girl” or “I’m going to rule the world.” What I found was “I’m a cutie.” Or “Daddy’s Princess.” The boys’ choices included “Genius.” “First Round Draft Pick,” and, “Superstar.”
      Imagine starting the world right from the get-go being told that you are “pretty” but not smart. Ever. Just imagine.

      I could go on. But I don’t need to. You have said it for me today.

      I’m sure that in about five minutes, men are going to show up to tell you that you are wrong. They did on the article that I just wrote for LitHub. There’s nothing quite like having it explained to you that you do not know what you wrote about, but I know that you are familiar with that problem, too.

      I don’t make a point of writing fangirl letters, but for you, Ms. Solnit, I’ll make an exception.

      You rock.

      • loberry

        And I’ll be the first to admit that I’m wrong. So far, the men who have shown up have been thoughtful. So mea culpa on that.

        • ugamau

          don’t worry, your vision is part of the patriarchy.

          There is always someone expecting men to behave in a similar situation. Always guiding us to how we are supposed to act.

          Funny that the benefits of the postmodernism discourse seems to avoid men, as we are not people. we are commonly addressed as bots. We are all alike, much like grooms and their best man. Therefore we are here to hurt you.

          But I am glad that you apologized, I was feeling like a bot for a minute.

          • loberry

            I’m so tired of men (not all men, but apparently you) feeling that since other people finally get to talk about what it feels like to be part of culture, or the world, that means that you have less humanity.

            It sort of goes back to ancient notions of there only being so many pieces of pie to go around. The pie is infinite. Saying that men were going to show up and attack Solnit didn’t implicate you.

            And, as it turns out, my mea culpa was the thing that was premature. Not sure if you’ve read the other comments? But a lot of men seem to have shown up thinking that they need to teach the rest of us how we should be thinking.

            To quote another guy, who I like by the way (including my brothers, husband, father, and 99% of the men I know): “Who you gonna believe? Me? Or your lying eyes?”

            • ugamau

              I just find offensive when people generalize.
              Imagine if I declare that I expect a certain negative behavior from a given group? let’s say ethnicity. Let’s do a simulation: “I’m so tired of Muslims” or “I’m so tired of women” or ” I expect women to do x or y”.

              The language used is not inclusive, is divisive.

              Instead of addressing the system, that is maintained by both man and woman alike (I am talking about patriarchy), the lazy, will point the finger at all man. I say lazy, because people could easily find a word to represent those who maintain the patriarchy, such as “patriarchs”. Therefore, I and others like me, would not feel insulted when someone addresses my biological sex and infers behaviors.

              And I speak from an ally point of view.

            • Laura Truxillo

              Except that there is a difference when folks are talking about a group specifically in power. It becomes shorthand for: “I am tired of the system with specifically benefits men at the expense of women.” There is no comparable system that benefits women at the expense of men.

              The playing field is not level.

            • MrX

              Women and children first, he said, having to sign up for selective service at 18.

            • Punchdrunk
            • Laura Truxillo

              Man, I knew I should’ve laid bets against you saying that. Swear, I can set my watch by these sorts of conversations.

              So, your first example is based on antiquated gender roles that equate women with children, not as people with agency, but as things to be protected. It’s a benevolent sexism that literally almost every single feminist is vehemently against, because equality doesn’t mean special treatment.

              Given the unlikelihood of you being on a sinking ship with Victorian rules in place and a limited number of lifeboats, it’s also unlikely to be a factor in your everyday life.

              Aaaaand the draft. Another antiquated thing, seeing as how we haven’t actually had a draft since Vietnam, and it’s excruciatingly unlikely that we would ever have another one again, and in the implausible series of events that would lead to Americans being willing to instate another draft, this is 2015, why on earth wouldn’t we overhaul it to include women as well. Again, with the antiquated thing, it also stems from benevolent sexism, that says only men can fight, and a woman’s place is back at the homefront.

              Both of those are examples of the patriarchy. Like, as in, those are literally rules put in place by the men in charge, based on what they think women should do.

              But more importantly than that, unless you are a Vietnam Vet, then you have literally never been effected by the draft in your life. At all. Full stop.

              So the best you have are two uncommon/outdated scenarios, only one of which you might plausibly encounter in your life.

              Compared to the myriad ways that institutionalized sexism effects women on a daily basis, as the background radiation to our lives.

            • MrX

              The military service I faced during Vietnam, and which cost me a couple years of my life in resisting, happened while you were putting pink nail polish on your toes. Full f’n stop!!

              As to uncommon/outdated scenarios – see the men offer women every seat on the bus – see woman accept those seats – see woman push to get the seats because they are privileged. The gender games may be patriarchal, but everybody plays. When do women take responsibility and stop going along. (And lets not get stuck on this silly bus example, you know what I mean.)

              “Female privilege is being able to talk about sexism without appearing self-serving.” Xena Kōan

            • And you served those years in Vietnam because the *men* in power in the time designated you as someone who should. This is an example of “the patriarchy hurts men too”, not “women are privileged. As of this month, women can now hold every job in the military so long as they meet the requirements. Either revoking selective service registration, or opening it up to women will be the next step. The silly bus example is silly precisely because it almost never happens anymore. Women stand up for disabled people or men who are carrying a lot of packages *just as often* as men stand up because a person presents as women. And men doing that is *sexist*, because it assumes that simply due to gender, women are literally less able to stand on their own two feet. And I wasn’t putting pink nail polish on, I was learning how to read, riding a bike, playing little league, and learning how to ride a horse. The fact that you are stuck on literally 40 year old social mores tells me a lot.

            • Dirk L. Zollinger

              What exactly other than rant have you done for this Country, Whether it was our Governments intention or not, in Nam we were fighting against Communists. Again know what the he77 you are talking about.

            • I’ve spent the past twenty years helping people with disabilities lead better lives, improved the lives of homeless people and veterans, and counselled people on their mental health regardless of their ability to pay. Same question to you.

            • Dirk L. Zollinger

              Besides Nam, I was a VFW Service Officer for 6 years. I still advise the ways to file disability claims, and advise them of what to do as far as if they are turned down. I am 100% against women in combat, not for the women. As GENTLEMEN, we were taught that we should always protect women, this would not be good in combat. Ya’ll talk about this sexist crap like it is something new. This began in the late 1960s, or the early 1970s. My son was still taught that you always do things for LADIES. I have always treated LADIES as I was brought up to do, and always will.

            • Oh, and I didn’t have to be drafted to do it.

            • Dirk L. Zollinger

              Well shut my mouth, I didn’t either.

            • Interesting, considering that was your argument (now deleted) earlier, to which several of us responded. Get a bit tangled in your stolen valor, bud?

            • Dirk L. Zollinger

              Hey DA the ignoroso one. I NEVER said I was drafted you stupid twit there was more than one way to go in service. I was regular Army, I spent three years in service, not two and I got your stolen valor. I have a Commendation with V devic, combat Infantry, my unit was presented one Presidential citation, and 1 mysteriously got lost. My unit was over run twice. one was the last segment of Platoon, that was probably the closest to real he came in the whole movie. Last thing you want to do is worry about my war record, we stayed out 274 days out of 365 A/3/22/25 Vietnam 1968.

            • Really. And yet you deleted not one but several rants about how the draft isn’t fair because men forced men to fight and how horribly it affected your life and made that your argument against feminism? Wow. Keep digging.

            • Dirk L. Zollinger

              Darling you need to get back on your drugs, or go back to MHMR. I don’t delete rants, I take them head up just like I did you and your scatter brain.

            • Hmmm… which do I believe, you or my lying eyes? Tough choice. Yep. Still deleted.

            • montessnurse

              In your example, the seat is the man’s in the first place to offer. Why are you offering me seats? Why is it yours to offer? Don’t you love it when people make your point for you?

            • MrX

              And your point is . . . ?
              Let me clarify . . . The chivalry paradigm is what I was talking about – men are supposed to let women through doors first and get seats and all that. That stuff is so very very deeply ingrained in the culture and both men and women play the game constantly. Men have come to be trained that this is what they should always give, and women that this is what they should always get.
              I responded to your saying these are uncommon/outdated responses – and the example I gave above is just one of a million culturally ingrained behaviors which both men and women perpetuate, whatever idealisms
              otherwise wish for.

            • Evilin Garnett

              I disagree about “the seat” but see above. If I respect his chivalry paradigm, why can’t he respect my point of view about a book?

            • Catherine Reed

              Everybody holds the door open for everybody, where I’m from. Canada. Which once held open it’s doors to young American men seeking asylum from the draft and the Vietnam War. If you’re looking to break down this ‘chivalry paradigm’, why not advocate for more women in non-traditional gender roles, like more women in combat roles in the military, or more women firefighters? Bitching about pink nail polish is doing you no favours.

            • MrX

              I DO encourage women to be part of everything they ever wish to be.
              Even the military which, because of what my country does with it, I oppose.||

              You know what I’m talking about regarding doors – the chivalry paradigm gender roles – and Canada has not magically escaped it; I’ve spent plenty of time there.

              I didn’t bitch about pink nail polish – (although one could have a discussion on gender roles just based on that one aspect – here in NYC I’d say 90% of women do paint their toes and for a man to do it is a taboo, but I digress) – it was a retort to someone who (not knowing anything about me) decided to say I never had to deal with military service.

            • You just sound like an angry, angry dude. Let it go. Seek counseling. There is no logical reason for you to stalk comments boards to scream at women.

            • MrX

              I’m a happy-go-lucky intelligent man who applies critical thinking where the choir sings their cliches while safe behind their computers. And what nonsense your silly and overstated judgements – about me being angry and stalking and screaming – sheesh! – thanks for your articulate and profound contribution to the conversation. (I left it a while back because it’s the usual online drone, but for you – “dude” I made an exception.) 🙂

            • Jo Robin

              BUT HIS FEELINGS ARE SO IMPORTANT.

            • Laura Truxillo

              happened while you were putting pink nail polish on your toes. Full f’n stop!!

              Yes, please full f’n stop with your weird gender stereotypes.

              see the men offer women every seat on the bus

              Every seat on the bus? Wow. That’s some interesting bus you’re riding on.

              – see woman accept those
              seats – see woman push to get the seats because they are privileged

              See confirmation bias. See it being considered polite for any young/able-bodied person to offer their seat to anyone who isn’t one of those things, regardless of gender. Same with any number of “men should do ____ for women.” As society evolves, it’s becoming less gendered, and more focused on helping someone who actually needs the help–an able-bodied person should offer to carry groceries for an elderly neighbor, hold the door open for the person behind you, regardless of either of your genders, that sort of thing.

              (And lets not get stuck on this silly bus example, you know what I mean.)

              And because it’s a weird, archaic thing that doesn’t occur with anywhere near the frequency you’re thinking of. Though I suppose if you’re remembering the olden days, maybe that’s what you’re thinking of. Because I don’t think you can think of any actual example that truly exists and isn’t a result of, “well, I saw this thing happen once (and ignored the 100 other times it didn’t.”)

              When do women take responsibility and stop going along.

              Constantly. You just refuse to see it. Men would’ve been content to keep women from military service, to keep women from being combatants. And how many guys (Scott Adams included) whine about how they’re scared that feminists will get angry at them for holding the door open. (Pro-tip: we don’t. If I am holding the door open for you, and you bodily grab me and force me through the door first, because you are a man and men need to hold doors, then I’ll get mad. That’s happened twice in the past year.)

              Congratulations, yes, everyone plays. Because that’s how societal structures work. You grow up steeped in it. It takes effort to move past it. But generally speaking, women who talk about equal rights are the exact same women who don’t expect a bus seat just because they’re women, or for a guy to hurry up and hold a door open for her, or any of the rest of that crap.

              But hey, if you genuinely feel like you’d like to get special bus seats or whatever in exchange for wondering if rejecting someone who asks you out is going to get you harassed, stalked, or straight-up stabbed every single time it happens, if you want to have to go along with your older professor or boss’s weird plausibly-deniable-but-still-sexually-charged actions that may or may not eventually graduate to actual assault (you just don’t know!) if you want to keep your job or get your PhD, and if you want that to be an experience that virtually every other member of your gender gets…dude, I hope those hypothetical-not-actually-existent-special seats are worth it.

              You’ve got this perception of gender roles based in the 60’s that has no bearing on actual reality to this day. You don’t want to give up your seat to a perfectly healthy young woman? Don’t. Sheesh. No one’s gonna beat you up over it, poor baby.

              Y’know what? So what if talking about sexism “appears self-serving.” Why yes, y’know, I think women as a whole would like to help themselves, to see themselves represented in the media we consume, to see street harassment end, to see equal payment for equal work, to see equal representation in politics, and hell, even equal opportunity in the military and other “traditionally masculine jobs” (that have a history of being openly hostile to women, even today. Oh yeah, how many women in the military wind up sexually assaulted by their fellow soldiers?)… yeah, when you put it like that, I guess it is awfully self-serving.

              Man, aren’t we just terrible for wanting that.

            • Evilin Garnett

              I accept a seat on the bus because I do not wish to offend or emasculate the man who offered it to me. I understand his life experience might be different from mine and he is trying to do what he’s been told is the decent thing. I am only asking for the same kind of understanding of my life experience. If I lectured the man about how offering me the seat is in fact NOT nice, and he’s mistaken, that would be condescending and rude. If will also gladly trade in my “being able to talk about sexism without appearing self-serving” in order to be able to interrupt the same amount of times as my brother without someone calling me bossy even though we counted….same amount….see, perception is reality, and people perceive things in all kinds of different ways.

            • Craig Murray

              How dare you have good manners, decency, a sense of politesse, kindness and understanding. Please revert to the eternally offended, permanently injured and perennially offended method.
              I am one of those men who offer seats. Now few do it these days, but those who do, well, it is not in condescension, insult, a view of the females weakness or anything like that. It is out of kindness, it is out of respect for the woman.

            • Evilin Garnett

              And none of that means, if we were on opposing sides in a court of law, I would not try with all my might to win.
              I’d expect the same from you.

              Then, if you still want to offer me a seat, I will gladly take it.
              Hopefully there would be no hard feelings either way:)

            • Hobo Tron

              Do you want a cookie? Do you not understand that it is your choice to do that and that you are not under any sort of obligation to do it?

            • Frieda

              DItto for letting them pay for dinner. Mens rights types always love to bring that up, like we are showing up for dates DEMANDING free food.

              Have you ever tried to pay for dinner on the first date? They look at you like you just tried to cut off their balls with the butter knife. You can insist, but it will be a very uncomfortable, passive aggressive conversation, and nobody really likes talking about money so it’s usually just less awkward to let them pay. But to hear these MRAs talk, poor impoverished men are sadly looking at their empty wallets while angry, evil women FORCE them to pay for dinner. Yeah,no. If anything, it’s the guys that get pushy.

            • Evilin Garnett

              Amen Miss Frieda,
              Folks get angry a lot. MRA’s are especially angry at women right now, but I still believe, insanely, that misunderstandings and rage can be addressed with a combination of empathy and logic.
              It’s harder than jargon, sarcasm, polishing one liners to “destroy” someone’s argument and I’ll probably still be at it with small results when I[‘m 90.

              But it CAN be done.

              I would argue that the whole chivalry thing is a consolation prize. I’d give up a mean and a bus seat for the chance to direct political strategies and set the subject for cultural conversations any day.

              But that’s just me.

              And I don’t disrespect anyone else’s choice. Just want everybody to have one.

            • marvel22

              Just out of curiosity, what do you think about this situation:
              Say there’s a TV show this year, and on it, a man makes a remark about how a woman should just be pretty, and it’s not really written or viewed as a joke. Of course, this show would get in trouble. People would be mad that it’s lines were so anti-progressive, and they’d be right. But what if the roles were switched, if the woman had said something really mean to the man about some manly stereotype, or something he hadn’t lived up to? Do you think people would get angry? My guess would be that it’d be viewed as sort of like a payback thing and that people wouldn’t really get mad at it. Or that it would be something more like, “Oh, he’s a man. He can take it.” Which would stem from the manly man stereotype, also implying that the woman couldn’t take it. What do you think?

            • Evilin Garnett

              marvel22
              It would depend on why it was said, i guess. Are they mocking the male characters neanderthal nature, celebrating it?
              Celebrating while mocking in subtext?
              Mocking while celebrating in subtext?

              And a host of other post textual shenanigans..

              these are the kinds of questions with which pop culture critics amuse themselves, to me the fun is in being able to hear a variety of opinions and interpretations without anyone dismissing the opinions or experience of any one else as “completely invalid” or condescending to them in any way.
              N

            • marvel22

              It’s really true — maybe the best thing to come out of social media is that it has given a voice to the people who didn’t have one before. The only downside is that a person, usually a man sadly, can take some article some person wrote about how a wealthy woman is more oppressed than a homeless man and think that the entire feminist movement is man-hating and idiotic. Two of my favorite feminist, Malala Y. and Joss Whedon have both said that feminism is a synonym for equality, that even just the movements name can’t even do it justice (Joss Whedon argued that no one is born an ‘ist,’ therefore, everyone is basically a feminist by being born thinking that we are all created equal). Another thing is, only the dumbest of both sides get the attention. People see men’s youtube comments and think that all men must be born sexist, and that those type of articles^ define feminism. (not articles like this, more like the polar opposite.)

            • marvel22

              You’re right, but just because of that stereotype’s existence, both the people tend to assume it’s going to be the man who pays, if it’s a straight couple. And just because of that, it makes it a bit awkward to even ask. But that’s just awkwardness. It doesn’t last for more than a minute. It’s kind of dumb people are dwelling on it, tbh.

            • Pathetic.

            • Lamestllama

              I thought female privledge was having only 1/20 the chance of getting killed in a workplace accident that a man does and having only 1/5 the chance of dying from suicide (partly because spending on health is mostly spending on women).

              I look forward to my chances as a man of dying from these causes being substatially reduced as you move the world towards equality.

            • Ann Newton

              Neither of which has anything to do with women. Nothing and nobody is forcing men to take any dangerous job and nothing and nobody is forcing men to take their lives. If women get more mental health care, its because they decide to go get it. Mental health care is not covered for women more than men. Maybe if men weren’t conditioned by other men to avoid going to the doctor or getting psychological help, the numbers wouldn’t be so bad, but don’t blame women because you guys tend to think your too manly for care.

            • Lamestllama

              You believe men are at fault for getting killed in unsafe workplaces where they have no control of the work practices?

              Why isnt that victim blaming?

              “If a man goes to work he is responsible for whatever happens to him” is just as ridiculous as saying that “women are at fault for whatever happens to them if they go out at nightime”.

              Of course from your position of female privlege you would not see this dual standard.

            • LadySunami

              You believe men are at fault for getting killed in unsafe workplaces where they have no control of the work practices?

              That is not what she said… At all. What she pointed out was that such situations are not orchestrated by women. If you look at who actually does have control of the work practices, chances are pretty good that it is a man.

              There is also the fact that men are more likely to engage in high risk behaviors, like dangerous jobs, then women are. A lot of the harm that patriarchy causes men is related to the way it encourages such risky behaviors. Men are more likely to avoid asking for help, which is why they receive less health and psychological care, and are less likely to report/inquire about potential safety issues, since they think they should be able to handle it themselves.

              Feminists such as myself do address these issues, but the usual response is to accuse us of wanting to make all men into “effeminate pussies” or the like. Apparently anti-feminists want feminists to help solve the problem of men’s work related deaths without actually addressing the attitudes that cause the problem in the first place.

              “If a man goes to work he is responsible for whatever happens to him” is just as ridiculous as saying that “women are at fault for whatever happens to them if they go out at nightime”.

              You’re trying to compare two situations that aren’t all that comparable.

              First of all, whatever problem in the workplace would most likely be just as harmful to a woman if she were employed there doing the same activity. Men going out at night though? It is far less likely for a man to experience sexual assault then a woman, even if they engage in identical behaviors.
              In other words, one situation involves risk reguardless of the identity of the person engaging in the behavior, while the situation other involves risk dependent upon intrinsic attributes of the person.

              Second, the case of employment risks generally involves incompetence or laziness on the part of the employer, not any actual intent to cause harm (I can’t imagine employers look forward to their employees getting killed or injured). In the case of women going out at night though… The risk is caused by others who actually do intend harm. You can’t accidentally sexually harass or rape someone after all.

              Third, there is always the possibility someone injured at their place of work actually is to blame. Just because safety protocols are in place, doesn’t mean employees always follow them. (Get acid in your eye because you weren’t following regulations and wearing your googles as you poured it? That’s all on you). Or it could just be that some risk is simply inherent to the position, in which case the employee is responsible for accepting said risk. (Any job that involves being at the mercy of the elements would count). With matters of rape and sexual harassment when going out at night though, there is no situation in which the woman can honestly be blamed. As I noted before, you can’t accidentally rape someone, and rapists and harassers aren’t “natural hazards” either. The blameworthy party is always going to be the perpetrator.

            • Lamestllama

              Your whole reply seems disingenuous.

              If feminism is about equallity then it must be about eradicating all sexism. The fact that a dispproportionate number of one gender dies in an avoidable manner is thus worthy of its scrutiny.

              If the conclusion is that these deaths are the result of some form of social conditioning then this is also worthy of attention too.

              The simple fact is that in all areas, many times more men die uneccessarily than do women, and this is largely a result of social conditioning.

              Thus, if you count based on deaths the patriarchy is worse for men than it is for women.

              You however attempt with some fairly old fashioned gender stereotyping to ignorre or minimize this fact throughout the whole of your post. It makes me wonder if your brand of feminsim is more about female privlege than true gender equality.

            • iceweasels

              “The fact that a dispproportionate number of one gender dies in an avoidable manner is thus worthy of its scrutiny.” Then why don’t YOU scrutinize it? Why don’t YOU do something about it? Why is it the job of feminists to stop addressing their particular concerns, drop everything, and start addressing your concerns? Is there some reason YOU are unable to set up an organization and begin publicizing your concerns about workplace safety?

              Or is everyone else supposed to do that work for you?

            • Lamestllama

              Hmmm here I am scrutinising it and then doing the work of engaing the people who are to blame.

              I am here to point it out to feminists is because they are a part of the problem. Feminists are frequently as sexist as the next member of society, particularly when the issue is one that only seems to negatively impact men. This despite being uniquely positioned having a philosophy and discourse that enables the logical dissection of gender based issues.

              Do you think feminists that reach out and explain their viewpoint to the rest of the world are asking for someone else to do their work? Probably not. I am not either, I am attempting to do what women have done for over a century persuade people one at a time.

              You did not give your opinion on the genderedness of workplace deaths. don’t you have one? don’t want to even entertain the idea that men are negatively impacted by sexism?

            • iceweasels

              Yeah, feminists working on feminist issues are not part of the problem. The problem is people like yourself, you throw a misogynist fit every time you aren’t the center of attention. Derail, derail, derail. There’s a reason there are hardly any organizations that deal with actual issues that affect men, and that’s because men refuse to do the work required to set them up. They do seem to find time to organize around harassing feminists and blaming them for all male problems. Time for people like you to start doing your own work.

            • Lamestllama

              I do, do my own work and there is absolutely no reason why that should not include letting those with their heads in the sand know they are part of problems that negatively effect others.

              I have had a number of comments victim blaming men for their own deaths in the workplace or through lack of mental health care show. The people making these comments espouse gender equality yet it is clear that they are only interested in achieving this equality in arenas where women are currently disadvantaged.

              You might ask why I would bother posting in discussions like this. Well it is part of my work, what you call derailing, I call adding balance. In the same way people who watch Fox news have a completely one sided viewpoint of the world so do people who use as feminist literature as their sole source of information. If you don’t like people having the opportunity to share anothers lived experience then that is fine but it wont change my course.

              Misogyny? where? I am not denying the lived experience of half of humanity but you seem to be doing so.

            • LadySunami

              My reply is completely genuine. The first part was also all about how men are socially conditioned to act in certain ways, so no, I was not stereotyping. I mean, did you completely miss the following sentence somehow?

              A lot of the harm that patriarchy causes men is related to the way it encourages such risky behaviors.

              Nowhere did I indicate the tendency for men to engage in more risky behaviors was a natural one. It’s not. We as a society need to stop disproportionately pressuring men into being risk takers and to stop discouraging them from getting help when they need it.

              I also pointed out the following relivant fact, which you seem to have ignored:

              Feminists such as myself do address these issues, but the usual response is to accuse us of wanting to make all men into “effeminate pussies” or the like. Apparently anti-feminists want feminists to help solve the problem of men’s work related deaths without actually addressing the attitudes that cause the problem in the first place.

              I am not kidding when I say that nearly every attempt by feminists to address issues related to toxic masculinity results in accusations that feminists want to turn men into women. In fact, the most vocal opposition is often men who claim to be for men’s rights (MRAs). How someone can claim to be for men’s rights while also deriding men for not being “manly” enough, I don’t know.

            • Lamestllama

              I accept that you are not saying men naturallly want to engage in risky behaviours when you say:

              There is also the fact that men are more likely to engage in high risk behaviors, like dangerous jobs, then women are

              The fact is these workplaces are toxic and in a large part the safety issues are allowed to go unaddressed by the use of shaming about manliness. You are completely right to blame it on toxic masculinity.

              The main issue is that many of these jobs can be many times safer but because people either do not accept that there is an underlying cause other than inherrent risk in a job they dont accept that there is a gendered cause.

              When women make inroads into these supposedly high risk workplaces, there comes a point when safety has to be addressed, simple things like ergonomics of equipment or hygene force a real discussion. Employers can not shame women using the same techniques and suddenly the workplace becomes safer for all.

              So the issue I have with the position of many feminist commentators on this page is not that they won’t do my work for me it is that they actively undermine attempts to improve safety at workplaces where toxic masculinity is the driving cause. They do this in three ways
              1) Denying even that there is a huge disparity between the death rates for men and women. This makes it harder to make workplaces safer because in essence it is a denial there is a problem
              2) Putting it down to high risk jobs and risky male behaviour. Any job that we can realistically expect anyone to do can be made safe, we are even replacing fighter pilots with UAVs. Males have no natural instinct to engage in risky behaviour. But by perpetuating this myth it makes it more difficult to explain to men that taunts about manlyness have no basis in fact. If feminists don’t even recognise a problem with these workplaces then how can I explain there really is something toxic happening in them?
              3) Denying that women are privleged by not being susceptible to this form of shaming. This denial makes it difficult to promote the advantages of encouraging women into the kind of workplaces discussede. It also removes the value of the examples I can give where having women part of the workplacwe and involved in discussion on safety have resulted in much, much safer workplaces (many times safer than the few percent of women can account for) because the management had no mechanism to undermine their responsibilities. In fact to attempt to do so forces the perfect storm of Workplace safety and Anti-discrimination law.

              So in conclusion, I don’t ask for any feminist to do my work in fighting for safer workplaces but I do ask that they don’t actively undermine my attempts to do so.

            • LadySunami

              I think you misunderstand why people are irritated with you and why they came to the conclusion that you’re trying to get feminists to do your work for you.

              The other commenters are not irritated that you are making a case about the effects of toxic masculinity on workplace safety (or rather, the lack thereof), rather they are irritated because of where you decided to make this case. This blog article is about the ways in which men dismiss or disparage women’s opinions and perspectives. It has absolutely nothing to do with death rates of either men or women! If you had responded to talk about ways you feel society discourages men from taking women’s opinions seriously (calling men who consult with their girlfriends/wives “pussy whipped” for instance) or the pressure placed on men to reject compromise and always be right, then you would be providing some valuable insight on the topic at hand. Instead you decided to go along with a few other commenters and hijack the thread to talk about completely different issues instead. Such behavior is inappropriate.

              Here is an analogy that might help you understand the irritation more: Imagine a man of African American decent decides to try and raise awareness of police brutality towards black men. For some reason though, he decides to raise said awareness on a forum dedicated to discussing problems faced by Latin American immigrants and in fact starts posting about his concerns on a thread specifically about immigration reform. I’m sure you can understand why the other posters on that forum would be irritated by this derailment. It’s not that they think police brutality towards African Americans is unimportant, they just don’t appreciate their conversation on immigration reform being taken over. The African American man pointing out that Hispanic Americans are less likely to be shot and killed by police officers then African Americans wouldn’t help either. It’s unlikely anyone claimed otherwise. They really just wanted to go back to their immigration discussion.

              In the future I would suggest bringing up the effect of toxic masculinity on workplace safety in discussions where it’s more relevant.
              One good place to try and raise awareness might actually be the men’s rights websites that engage in a great deal of male shaming. Let them know how you think their actions contribute to riskier behaviors in men and so lead to more male deaths. When they decide to mock certain men by calling them “manginas,” “beta males” and so forth, call them out on it.
              News articles about workplace deaths or forums/blog articles about workplace safety are also good places to have this discussion. If you prefer feminist sites, find articles about toxic masculinity or about women trying to make inroads into non-traditional fields and bring up the subject there.

            • Lamestllama

              I understand your points about context . My remarks here were initially about female privlege (a subject already under discussion at the point I made the remark).

              Unfortunately some paid insufficient attention to the lines

              It isn’t a fact universally acknowledged that a person who mistakes his opinions for facts may also mistake himself for God. This
              can happen if he’s been insufficiently exposed to the fact that there
              are also other people who have other experiences …

              from the original post. By reading the word “he’s” in the second sentence to specifically mean a man rather than a person (which is clearly not the intention given the use of the word person in the first sentence) they ignored the idea that a woman could be guilty of mistaking themselves for God. Thus enabling them to ignore my experience in matters where women do have some privleges not afforded to men.

              The longwinded mansplain is a result of the persistant denial of a fact my lived experience makes self evident to me. Women are privleged in that they are immune to direct manipulation by toxic masculinity. Leading to the gender bias in workplace deaths.

              How does this fit in with the overall ark of this piece? Simply because a man has a position on sexism that differs from a woman it is not always going to be wrong, some of us have insights not available to women because we get to live different experiences.

              I didn’t want to make a case about toxic masculinity, I understand why these deaths are so gendered and why the cause of those deaths is probably one of the biggest causes of misogyny (i.e. a third of each working day having employer enforced toxic masculinity taught and enforced).

              I don’t think anybody here can make a reasonable case that men spending so much time learning negative behaviours towards each other and women is a good thing or something that should be ignored by women and particularly feminists. Yet some here have implicitly expressed their belief that this is not womens buisness in some way.

            • Frieda

              This tired old gripe never ceases to amaze. First of all, obviously this is a class and workplace safety issue; but the day you MRA-types go out and actually get off your asses on behalf of “workers’ rights” is the day I’ll eat my hat. You just want to trumpet workplace safety issues as weapons to use against women, and it’s ever so boring. Typical of an MRA to turn “certain workplaces run by men are hostile to women” into something oppressive that women have done.

              Hey, guess what? I’m a woman who works a labour job where I am at risk of safety hazards on the job. Guess what else? The pay is AWESOME. The hours are decent. I am gaining an excellent skill base. I’m 10,000 times happier in this job than I would be as a waitress or something else coded “female”. And yeah, I have to be very careful with my safety harness, hardhat, and steel toes, and I go through all the monotonous safety procedures because yes, people do get hurt sometimes.

              You know what women say when they hear what I do for a living? “You… you do that? Are there any other women that you work with? They let you do that? Is it rough? Are the guys rude to you?” And… yeah. Guys take things out of my hands and roll their eyes at me when I try to do my job. Guys make sexual comments. Guys talk over me, guys bully me. Guys don’t put me on certain gigs or assume I can’t do things. It’s what’s known as a hostile work environment. I put up with it because I like the work and the paycheque, but most of the women I talk to never even think of my job as an option, becuse they’re told their whole lives that it’s not for them, and in the rare occasion that they do try it they have those fears confirmed by the work environment.

              Women fill more than half of minimum wage jobs and a much smaller percentage of cushy management positions. Labour jobs pay well and are readily available, but women have either been chased out or convinced they can’t do them. Somehow, in your mind, this makes men the oppressed ones. And until you actually push for companies to improve safety conditions as hard as you push for women on the internet to shut up, your faux-concern about workers is just so blatantly hollow.

            • Lamestllama

              Frieda, glad you are enjoying the benefits of a labour job. I hope the union that represents you is a good one (btw is that union a predominantly male organisation?). I have been a union member for 28 years now. The unions in my country were instrumental in forcing equal pay for women. Previously I have taken industrial action (strike, work to rule) once 9 times in a single year on safety based issues. So yes I do belong to an organisation that gets of it arse for workers rights and patrticularly for workers safety.

              No need to eat your hat though it would be a pointless humiliation that benefited neither of us.

              Inevitably more women will end up in these jobs so at what point would you think it appropriate that workplace safety becomes a feminist issue? Would it only be the safety of women in these mixed gender workplaces that feminism should be concerned with?

            • Frieda

              Why do you assume I’m unionized just because I work a labour job? And why do you assume that just being a union member makes you some kind of populist hero? Do you run the union? Are you a union leader? Do you lobby government for better safety regulation? Plenty of union workers are just sponges soaking up things others have already fought for. You seem to use it as license to attack women for not dying on the job often enough. Not impressed, little dude.

              Why should feminists be tasked with workplace safety violations? Now you’re really reaching. Feminism is about gender equality. If you want to lobby for workplace safety, you can do that too. It’s a different thing. A feminist might also be a labour rights advocate. A union leader might well also be a feminist. Why exactly do you think a person who advocates for, say, an end to sexual assault and discrimination owes it to you to also be a union leader before you will take their concerns seriously? You sound ridiculous.

              The fact that more men are hurt on the job is not due to some evil feminist conspiracy, it’s due to the fact that women assume they’re not capable/not welcome in more physical labour industries which are higher risk. That’s something that feminists do address, trying to open doors for women in less traditionally feminine fields so they have the option of taking these jobs. Safety violations are a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT ISSUE. We need better safety standards in these industries of course, so that no PEOPLE are hurt on the job.The fuck does it matter whether those people are male or female?

              The only thing about this issue that is “gendered” is that women don’t have as many opportunities in what is for many a great career. Ask a welder some time if he’d rather be waiting tables in a greasy diner, and he’ll laugh in your face. Ask a waitress if she’d rather be making three times as much plus benefits working as a welder, and she might say, “sure, but I could never do that!” It’s feminist organizations that try to convince women that they CAN do these things, which would mean more women in the industry, which would mean fewer men having to take these risks.

              But actually, that would mean fewer jobs available to men, and more men having to take the crappy jobs that women have had to take up until now, so I think you’ll find its the MRA types bitching about that. But we can’t win. We take the labour jobs, we’re entitled affirmative action bitches taking jobs from men. We don’t take the jobs, we’re heartless bitches who don’t care about the hard dangerous labour that men have to do. Pathetic.

            • Lamestllama

              I am all for women doing these jobs, please go ahead it benefits all workers.

              When women make inroads in to workplaces it reduces the ability for employers to coherce workers to work unsafely., because after a certain threshold the provision of equitable safety and health protection must to be discussed. This forces a discussion for the whole workforce and a movement in attitudes towards safety.

              Why can’t men do this alone? I believe it is simply social conditioning and shaming about lack of manliness if you are not willing to take risks.

              I never said there an evil feminist plot that causes more men to killed at work. What I said was this disparity was as a result of female privlege.

              If there is a negative input from feminists it in their unwillingness to accept that male deaths at work happen at such a terribly high ratio (20:1 male to female) and if they do accept these numbers they consider the deaths to be the faults of the victims (i.e. victim blaming) and finally they dont accept that in this instance women have a special privlege in that they are immune to arguments that involve societal expectation.

              I look forward to jobs in manufacturing and construction (the fields of which I am familiar, include others as you wish) having higher levels of female representation It will ensure a safer workplace for everybody and a lot less deaths overall.

            • Sure–instead, you can join the 4,000 women murdered by their intimate partners every year, you can have a 33% chance of being physically abused, you can be denied basic medicine and healthcare, and you can be less likely to be hired than a person with the same qualifications for a job or an academic post purely because of your gender.

            • Lamestllama

              Well that is the point the 4000 women that are murdered each year represent less than a third of the number of men killed in workplace accidents and around one eighth the number of men that commit suicide per year. I understand that womens lives are more valuable than mens lives, but to be on average five times more valuable seems extreme. I would have thought say only twice as valuable was reasonable.

              Of course those numbers are for the US, but they are proportionally roughly representative of Australia the country I find myself in.

              Our societies differ because we have a form of universal health care perhaps you should consider that for all your people rather than thinking sex is the defining thing here. I am sure there are plenty of poor white guys in the US that are denied health care that wouldn’t be denied treatment here.

              Also here academic positions are equally occupied by men and women and women represent 60% of students at graduate and post graduate level. Since academic positions have to be filled by post graduates the future doesn’t look good for male students. In fact in the UK the authorities have already realised there is a real gender issue with males being under represented in universities and are suggesting within a short period of time the bias will be as big as it is between rich and poor students.

              I could post links but you have google and links mean the comment spends a day in review. Stop believing numbers from 10 years ago. A lot can change in a decade. Perhaps you might consider some of the problems you believe are gendered are actually common to all those that are vunerable in society and perhaps the problem is that your society doesn’t look after the vunerable.

            • iceweasels

              You seem bitter feminists aren’t spending all their time and effort helping men. Perhaps you should take responsibility for your own gender-based problems and actually do something about them. If you’re trying to convince people you’re being oppressed by showing how entitled you feel to have every effort and every conversation be about things that affect you, I don’t think it’s going to work.

            • Lamestllama

              I don’t expect anybody to do my work.

              If I am bitter it is that feminists are part of the problem by engaging in a form of collective Gas Lighting where they don’t acknowledge any gender issues other than those that negatively impact women in an almost pathetically obvious fashion.

              For instance these dead men don’t exist in isolation some of them are decent enough people to have a partner and possibly children that they have shared responsiblity for. It is those partners and children that suffer from this form of gendered indifference to life (because for dead people there is no continued suffering).

            • iceweasels

              Quite obviously you do expect others to do your work. You certainly aren’t accomplishing anything by derailing conversations about feminism. And it’s hardly my fault, in your bitter desperation to blame women for anything and everything, that you’ve actively ignored all the feminist causes that involve improving lives in general. You see what you want to see, much like the Islamaphobes who ignore every Islamic leader condemning violence after every single act of terrorism.

            • Lamestllama

              Bitter desperation? Yeah thats me bitter and desperate.

              Oh no wait, that is you projecting your thoughts on me!

              What a clever ploy, tell me how I feel and what I want, a technique discussed and heavily critisized in much feminist literature. It is ironic that a feminist should try such a ploy.

              However much you want me to be bitter and desperate to blame women for the worlds ills I can assure you this is not the case.

              In fact I would balme most ills on a much smaller group of people who’s only common feature is a desire to promote a society where gross financial inequity benefits them.

              As regarding wasting my time, judging by the number of comments you have made in reply to my comments, I have obviously got your attention. Is that because you don’t like to acknowledge that men are frequently vunerable to gender inequality?

            • …

              Suicide rates for men.

            • MaxUtil

              This would be a stunning critique if we had not just gone through a long process through which women were actively fighting to have full access to military service and which is now leading to the discussion of including them in selective service registration.

              But yes, that dangerous military service you never actually had to take part in certainly proves that women have it easy.

            • MrX

              The military service I faced during Vietnam, and which cost me a couple years of my life in resisting, happened while you were putting pink nail polish on your toes.

              Yours would also be a “stunning critique” except that your comfy Online Feminism ™ ® blinds you to the complexities of the real world with trite assumptions.

              “Female privilege is being able to talk about sexism without appearing self-serving.” Xena Kōan

              —

            • Wandering Person

              It’s so sad that your worldview is so small and terrified that you can’t even bring yourself to listen when women are speaking. You sound like a miserable human being.

            • MrX

              Perhaps you should let go of some of that sadness because not only are your assumptions about me completely and absurdly wrong – but your criticism of my supposed not listening to women (aka womansplaining) is really a reflection of your own “small and terrified” inability to deal with debunking of your “worldview”.
              Not miserable. 🙂

            • Evilin Garnett

              what’s with the pink nail polish on the toes obsession?

            • Ann Newton

              Big deal. How many of you have been drafted in the last 40 years? Yet, it’s men that have been trying to keep women out of the military.

            • ugamau

              If someone on a comment box mentions the opinion of “men”, one is not (hopefully) imagining some clones that lack agency.

              When you use the word “men” your addressing everyone who identifies with “men”. Therefore you are hitting people who does not benefit from the patriarchal system as well and consequently is divisive.

              Patriarchy is a heterogenic system. It does not benefit every one who was born with a penis.

              So, returning to the initial comment about all men being evil, etc.

              According to Foucault power is diffuse and is attached to the language. Therefore those who are able to craft a story about themselves and others, have the said power. I refuse to be crafted the way loberry fantasized the flesh surrounding my penis. Having a penis is no scarlet letter but having a vagina is not carte blanche to define what men will do or will do not.

            • Laura Truxillo

              Therefore you are hitting people who does not benefit from the patriarchal system as well and consequently is divisive.

              All men benefit in some way from the patriarchy (also, not everyone born with a penis is a man), if only by simply not having to deal with the othering crap that girls get from day one, but in myriad day-to-day ways. I’m white. I benefit from white privilege. I may not get to collect every privilege token, but there are things that a person of color experiences and worries about that I will never personally encounter.

              Benefiting from a systemic injustice doesn’t mean the odds are always in your favor. Just that the system is predisposed to being designed for you.

              The initial comment was not “all men being evil,” etc. If you want to add “all” in there to feel personally victimized, that’s your own reading. You also seem a bit obsessed with the word penis. Again, not actually the issue here.

              All that said, while it’s true that “not all men” are awful people, coming into an article about the way male sexualization of underage girls in literature is seen as normal and “classic” to talk about how very sad it makes you feel when people criticize the male hegemony without phrasing their frustration with a life of constantly being subjected to a backseat in literary/academic circles delicately enough for you, then…you’re crafting your own scarlet letter there. It’s not a blanket one assigned to you by gender.

            • Johanna Lopez

              You are just illustrating the point by mansplaining to the women commentators what (you think) they mean. Lol. Just stop.

            • Wandering Person

              Nope. Definitely not an ally. Instead, a grade A misogynist.

            • Evilin Garnett

              what comment about all men being evil? What kind of “straw person” argument are you making? WHo on earth said anything about scarlet letters or carte blanche? It’s not the genitals, it’s the life experience of the “flesh surrounding” them. They are often quite different at this point in time

            • Ann Newton

              Feminists have been saying for a very long time that patriarchy isn’t good for men either, so what’s your point? Just because every white man doesn’t have everything, doesn’t mean he hasn’t benefited from privilege.

            • haily27

              “Patriarchy is a heterogenic system. It does not benefit every one who was born with a penis.”

              The article you are replying to literally just outlined a benefit every male receives — they don’t have to read scores of classic books in which their gender is silent/secondary/dirty/evil/worthless/etc. They are always the default protagonists and their story always gets told. Yes there are books which center around women, but there’s a reason why the presence of “strong female characters” is like some kind of special feature that books (and movies — Netflix has a freakin’ category for it!) have. It’s RARE.

              This reminds me of that one book Anansi Boys (Neil Gaiman), where the protagonists are ethnically Jamaican. And it’s never explicitly stated so the author got a lot of letters asking why they act Jamaican, and had to explain that they are, in fact, Jamaican. Because the default is that they are white until stated otherwise. I suspect if someone wrote a stream of consciousness piece where the gender could be in doubt, the assumption will be that the voice is a white male. I have that assumption as well. That’s privilege.

              Note that this is not any particular man’s fault. But it does demonstrate why a conversation that focuses on women to the exclusion of men is not the same as the other way around– because there are and have always been A LOT of focus on men. An overwhelming amount.

              I avoided Lolita because reading it as a 14 year old girl was (to me) sickening. It’s the equivalent of Anne Frank. I’ve never been able to get past the actual plot and characters to see any allegorical value in it because it’s viscerally disgusting/frightening/sad to me.

              I do recognize why saying “I expect men to…” might be annoying, though. I automatically attach a “some, not very nice” to that. But please don’t pretend that men, yourself included, don’t enjoy privileges.

            • luxuria

              Thank you for being the the voice of sanity.

            • Elenita

              The voice of sanity? Because all the women here who disagree with him (he is wrong, by the way) are crazy, right? Are you trying to reinforce the points made by the author, prick?

            • amysterling

              You don’t need to be an ally. You need to be a man.

            • MrX

              Which cliche of being a “man” does he have to be?

            • amysterling

              Nice try. That would be up to him.

            • DominicBruysPorter

              What does that even mean?

            • ugamau

              ask loberry. She knows all about men 🙂

            • MrX

              Nice try. You used the word – what did YOU mean?

              Since you don’t accept his use of the word ally.

              “Female privilege is being able to talk about sexism without appearing self-serving.” Xena Kōan

            • Wandering Person

              When I say that I hate men, I am specifically talking about men like you. In your case, my generalizations are absolutely correct.

            • TabithaB

              You categorically do not speak from an ally point of view. The position of a privileged ally in a discussion about any form of inequality is to shut up, step back and listen to the people who have actually experienced the effects of that inequality.

              You are doing the opposite of that.

              You cant just throw the word ‘ally’ around like it precludes you being an oblivious twit.

            • Christopher Fisher (Dairo512)

              So the most helpful thing a ‘privileged ally’ can do for a movement is self-censor and forego one of the most basic human rights to create a special place for the people claiming to be suffering? You have an awfully entitled perspective.

            • Christopher Fisher (Dairo512)

              Just be glad you didn’t merit me actually trying.

            • bluesandgolds

              For one thing, you don’t get to declare yourself an ally. That is something marginalized people grant you when you have shown yourself to be not just safe but actually willing to use your privilege for their benefit.

              For another, we should all think of allyship as an action not a label.

              For a third, YOU ARE DOING THE VERY THING SOLNIT TALKED ABOUT DO YOU HAVE NO SENSE OF IRONY?!

            • Wandering Person

              The irony quotient is super high in this thread.

            • Cathy Creswell

              Welcome to put world. Women have been generalized into being trivial.

            • Wandering Person

              If you are talking to people in this way, you are absolutely NOT speaking from “an ally point of you.” First step of being an ally is to listen and take seriously what women say.

            • Ann Newton

              It’s also offensive and tiresome to have to qualify every idea to include every point of view possible. There is literally nothing we can say about humans that applies to everyone. To ignore that some negative things happen most of the time or at least often enough to reasonably conclude that it will again, is disingenuous.

            • Sorry, as a man, I’m going to say I’m embarrassed to be represented by you.

              I don’t find it offensive when people generalize about men. Women have their experiences of men, and I want them to be able to express themselves and recount their experiences without some guy jumping on it to shut them down.

              I don’t want women to walk around pre-emptively guessing if they’ll ‘offend’ me or not and saying ‘men, not all men’. I want women to say what they want to say when they want to say it, and I find it embarrassing to read your fragile defense of masculinity, and entitlement, laden with the expectation that women will cater to you/me/any man.

            • danica_stone

              You definitely are not speaking from an ally point of view.

              Step one in being an ally to any group is listening to their experiences and believing them when they say what they have experienced.

              Instead, when women here describe experiencing a consistent pattern of men telling them their experiences are wrong and their extrapolated ideas are wrong…

              …and express a suspicion that this piece about that will again result in a pattern of men coming to say, “you’re wrong about how this works, and you’re wrong to express that idea in this way”…

              …you respond by coming to complain about that suspicion, by doing exactly what it said you would do!

              This is amazing, is it performance art??

            • Ed

              Some men, myself included, feel the perpetuation of the patriarchy is heinous. More heinous than all the other things. When I was 11, my 15 year old sister was date raped. The perpetrator was the the devil in my 11 year old eyes. There was no room for nuance, no conversation about perspectives, and certainly no empathy towards him. Hence began my distaste for the patriarchy and a delusional distinction between “those men” and the rest of us. When I was accused of the same thing some years later, the world fell apart. 20 years later, I live and breathe these events all day, every day.
              Yes, saying “that men were going to show up and attack Solnit” DID implicate men; all men. There are not “those men” and “other men” when you say “men”. Really, in name of all that is progressive, don’t you think we can be more specific than “men”, “women”, “blacks”, “whites”, “gays”, “christians”, “muslims”, when following with “…are going to show up and attack”?

            • WRSI

              “A lot of men have shown up,” I guess. I’ve got the XY at chromosome #23 myself, and thought our article amounted to a pretty straightforward troll; it’s addressed pretty clearly to “women” but chums the water with enough bait to start exactly the sort of feeding frenzy you’re talking about.

              “I just goggle in amazement at the batshit that comes out of them; it’s like I’m running a laboratory and they keep offering up magnificent specimens.”

              ^ What you say when you’re being provocative in a way that’s “a laboratory” intended to provoke awful reactions. ^ Do I get to count this as a “specimen” with respect to your own behavior?

              “But seriously, you know who can’t take a joke? White guys. …Many white men—among whom I count many friends…”

              When you’re resorting to the “But I have a lot of [X] friends” line, something is badly wrong.

            • lakegirl2

              Well. Looks like you apologized a bit early.

            • Jo Robin

              Derailing is when a conversation about power and privilege is side tracked, most often by a person in a position of power and privilege, to discuss their feelings.

            • Josephus Jones

              Thanks, Ms Textbook.

              No free exchange of ideas here, it seems.

            • marvel22

              I agree, but it’s not really fair to assume that every time a man disagrees with a women that he’s instantly a sexist jerk who’s saying that’s she’s wrong because she’s a woman and he’s right because he’s a man. People need to listen to the arguments before they decide who’s right just based on the debater’s gender.

            • Evilin Garnett

              Here’s how you disagree with someone respectfully:

              You say, I respectfully disagree. Then we do not condescend, insult, demean, scream, sneer, or dismiss each other.

            • marvel22

              Agreed.

            • Evilin Garnett

              Another thing is, only the dumbest of both sides get the attention.

              *Amen from choir.*
              *It’s like Punch & Judy.*

          • SarahBJones

            The position of ‘master’ is also oppressive, though in different ways as the position of ‘slave’ (and less visible, perhaps, and with less threat to your bodily integrity) – imagine that!

            • ugamau

              bodily integrity; I like that concept, specially since I identify with the male sex. That means that although I should not display fear, I belong to the group that is statistical more likely to be victim of a crime.
              (check fear of crime paradox)

              But according to Zizek your future reply and my future counter reply will be ideological! Have a wonderful Friday 🙂

            • Evilin Garnett

              Your also statistically more likely to commit it.
              So really these two statistics add up to zero relevance to the discussion.

            • ugamau

              What discussion? If you are in the mood to engage moi, at least make an effort in following the trail. Aka the comment I replied initially.

            • Evilin Garnett

              Responding to:
              Your comment on crime.
              Aka the one where your more likely to be the victim of it, by gender. To which I replied that since your also more likely to commit it, by gender, the two statistics don’t add up to anything.

              The subject of your discussion seems to be that men have it worse than women.

              I think men and women both have it bad.
              And have it wrong.

            • Frieda

              That’s because astronomically more men than women are involved in gang violence/the drug trade. Which means that, unless you are in a gang or selling drugs, you are very unlikely to be the victim of this kind of violence.

              The casual violence of men against women? Being grabbed, restrained, shoved by a stranger on the bus? Being beaten by your boyfriend? Being raped at a party? Being murdered by a jealous ex? These are things that a woman is the target of because she is a woman. The only way to reduce your risk is to not go outside, to never expose yourself to male attention. And pretty much all the women I know have been the target of one or more of these kinds of violence, violence that men never worry about.

              The long and short of it is, you do not walk around day by day hyper aware of the violence that could be done to you because of the violence that has been done to you in the past. You don’t have to look over your shoulder every time you go to the post office because someone twice your size has been staring at you. All you have to do is stay out of risky situations, and you’re safe. For a woman, leaving the house and walking around in a public space IS the risky situation.

            • Evilin Garnett

              I am going to respectfully disagree with that. It is not empowering for women to make fear of sexual assault their default state,and I’ve been what is defined as sexually assaulted twice. I will not have my freedom curtailed because men are biologically built to be bigger than me and have been told they have a right to do what they want with my body. That said to equate sexual attention with harassment is to accept the patriarchal double standard of sex as something demeaning to a woman. If a guy whistles at me, that does not make it less likely for me to be a powerful politician, lawyer, or even, as he might find out to his horror, his boss.
              Now if he says ” nice tits” he’s clearly trying to demean me.
              But why is it demeaning?
              Because we’ve both agreed that to mention certain parts of my body in public is wrong, and to do it with impunity means he can “get away with it”. We’ve both agreed on the patriarchal double standard as a tool of agression.
              Therefore I am afraid.
              Therefore I need protection.
              Not from a strong man, maybe, maybe from a stronger set of laws.
              But I’m still asking for protection.
              From what?
              From something I have agreed is “bad for me”.
              I refuse that definition. Of sex. Of interaction. Of myself.
              When men and women can give passing, meaningless compliments on EACH other’s secondary sexual characteristics, then we’ll have made progress.
              Nice Tits
              Thanks, Nice Ass.
              Nice Weather.
              Sure is.
              Have a good one.

              That’s the kind of world I want to move toward. Where sex is used as a weapon by no one.

            • Frieda

              I should clarify: I’m not saying that this is OK or empowering by any means. I’m addressing the tendency of antifeminists to derail discussions of sexual assault, harassment, intimidation, and the gendered fear that women suffer because of these things by saying, “Well, men are more likely to be the target of violent crimes, therefore you’re just imagining these things,” because it is a misunderstanding of the data. More men commit violent crimes. More men get involved in violent crimes/gang violence/the drug trade. This doesn’t make the crimes that men are the focus of gender-based crimes; they’re gang related, or drug related crimes. If you are just a peaceful man walking down the street, you’re probably aren’t going to get caught up in a violent crime if you’re not involved in these things. If you are a woman walking down the street, chances are you have been assaulted, harassed, threatened, intimdated etc by a man at least once in the past, just for being a woman in a public place. That means that discussions of male violence and female violence are on inherently different playing fields, so crying, “but men are the targets of crimes more often” is missing the point and misinterpreting the data.

              Of course it’s not empowering for that fear to be our default state – it’s incredibly demoralizing in a thousand subtle (and not so subtle) little ways. That’s why we need to talk about things like street harassment, and how even a little comment like “nice tits” plays into existing fears of sexual attack and perpetuates these small acts of demoralization that are just a part of most womens’ days. But whenever we do that, whenever we try to address the culture of male violence against women and how pervasive it is, there’s always some dude in the comments saying, “Yeah, but men are more likely involved in violent crimes,” as if that somehow disproves it all.

              Guys. Men being involved in gang violence is not the SAME THING as women being stalked, groped, and assaulted when they’re just trying to walk down the street.

            • Elenita

              “But I’m still asking for protection. From what?
              From something I have agreed is “bad for me”.
              I refuse that definition. Of sex. Of interaction. Of myself.”

              This is is not about sex. In that context, women are not afraid of sex. Women are afraid of sexual assault and rape. I don’t want any random stranger saying “nice tits” to me. Not now, not ever.

            • Evilin Garnett

              Because in the context we’ve created, it’s a terrible insult.
              I would ask why we agree that it is one.
              Who has made this definition?
              Who/what does it benefit?

              Why have we decided a breast is more personal than an elbow?

              And why have we decided mention of certain body parts is an assaultive behavior in a public arena?

              My guess is there is a system of control at the base of it, and it is not one that adds to our freedom.
              I am afraid of sexual assault and rape, but not any more afraid than I am of being beaten to death.

              The idea of having someone do ANY thing to your body without your permission is a violation.
              I don’t find the sexual intrinsically more distressing. It’s just that it’s been made to carry more weight than other kinds of violations.

              I won’t give it that weight.
              I wont’t base my actions or responses on the fact that someone could rape me–among other things that people [hysically larger,wealthier and more politically connected can do to me, rape has to wait in line.

            • iceweasels

              Perhaps this is another opportunity for men, such as yourself, to begin taking responsibility for yourselves. Your gender is overwhelmingly the perpetrator in violent crimes. Why is that? Do you intend to ever do anything about it? Or do you plan to continue blaming it on feminism?

          • Gorsh

            I’m also a man, so let me mansplain this to you too. We don’t get to set
            ourselves aside from the privileges we were born and continue living with, even if we believe we are against them and fight them alongside women — and we probably aren’t fully against them either, since we can’t just hit Ctrl-Z on the culture we were born, bred, and reinforced in so long and expect it to dissapear completely from our minds. It’s not that easy and we don’t get that right, not until full equality is won, maybe after some centuries.
            Right now they have every right to generalize over us: we are so much surrounded by a large majority of assholes in our gender, and even unwillingly we continue to enjoy so much unjust privilege, that the only proper reaction to women generalizing over us little pockets of men feminists is to:
            a) suck it up.
            b) take action alongside and/or supporting women.
            c) continue strict reflection and self-vigilance to keep weeding out our own patriarchal culture from our heads.
            Sorry, but we’re not the protagonists this time.

            • Cathy Creswell

              Wow. Well put. You are very nature for saying this. Thanks.

            • Wandering Person

              See, misogynist upthread, THIS is what allyship looks like.

            • Andy

              As someone who is typically on the fence with gender issues – what benefit is there in taking this stance?

      • Viktor Arvidsson

        Affirmation is always double-edged: it consequently means that failure to be a genius, first round pick, or super star means that you failed as a man (much like, then, not being attractive makes you less of a woman). That said, the simplest solution to the (real) problem is to pick something from the boy section. The reverse is trickier: from my experience, and as apparent from the examples given, the pink stuff is more explicitly gender than the blue.

        • ZillaGod

          We need something other than “Superstar” and “Everyone gets a trophy no matter how bad they are.” How about “Be yourself and believe in yourself?”

        • Evilin Garnett

          Because to be a first round draft pick is “good” if your a guy
          To be a princess or “Daddy’s Girl”…..not so much.

          And if “gender explicit”is associated with being “pretty and sweet” and non gender specific is associated with achievements, prowess and assertion maybe the whole things a a bit rigged.

      • ZillaGod

        You are not going to the right stores if you can’t find clothes with empowering messages for girls. I have no problem finding them for my daughter.

        • Ablejack Courtney

          loberry did find clothes with empowering messages for baby girls. The t-shirts that read “Genius”, “First Round Draft Pick”, and “Superstar” all seem to be suitable choices but were not recognized as such.

        • DeniseEliza

          We shouldn’t have to go to the “right” stores to find clothes that don’t put children into restrictive gender expectations.

          • ZillaGod

            Let me rephrase. I don’t have to visit multiple stores to find empowering clothing for girls. Walmart even has them, at least where I live. Girl power is an emerging theme in our culture. The glass ceiling is slowly being shattered. There’s never been a better time to be a girl in this world. I can’t wait to see what my daughter does.

      • Joe Vigliatura

        Where do you live? Under a rock from the 60’s?

      • bortman

        Wow. That’s rather depressing.

        As someone ignorant of infant attire, could a girl baby wear “boy” baby clothes with little to no difficulty?

        • Limeade Youth

          Having had a pregnancy with a boy that turned out to be a girl, we kept the clothes. Everything worked out fine, save some small gripes from one set of grandparents.

      • Ariana

        Did those shirts actually say “boy genius” and “boy superstar”, or have you just decided that these are meant for boys because they have these words on them?

        • Michelle Francl

          They are likely blue – which in this time and place is a tacit code for “boy.” I might recommend Fine’s “Delusions of Gender” which takes a deep look at color coding and gender.

      • Raivi

        Loberry, I wonder what kind of a wicked person tells a boy right off the womb that he is a “genius” or “first round draftpick”? His mother, no? Oh but since she is a woman, even if she tells such things, she surely must be just an innocent victim of the evil male conspiracy, or what? But how about the baby boys? Aren’t they victims, then, too? So my point is this: if mothers telling boys the wrong things from day one are NOT to blame for the current state of affairs, how can anyone blame the baby boys, even when they grow up? At which moment of a boy’s life does the culpability fall upon him?

        • Evilin Garnett

          It’s not about bad parents.
          Parents try to get their kids to suceed in the world they are in.

          it’s about bad ideas that make the world nastier than it needs to be, and it already needs to be pretty nasty apparently, what with birth, death, and all the gross stuff in between.

          And yes, yes, yes, men are victims of this nonsense too. 100%. Many of them end up looking around for feminist sites to go to and polish their sarcasm skills.
          Patriarchy is not about bad men, it’s about bad ideas.

          Bad ideas that hurt humans, of both genders.

          • Raivi

            I agree with you completely. Bad ideas, no matter who brought them up in which context, and how they affect our lives should be the focus of any intellectual discussion on gender roles / feminism. Sadly so many resort to gender bashing and gender generalizations bordering racism. I guess there is something in the human nature that brings this about: when you are anrgy or frustrated, your instinct is to attack someone, the “perperators”, real or imagined. Attacking just bad ideas does not produce enough emotional satisfaction.

        • Elenita

          Women reproduce patriarchal and sexist ideas and stereotypes too. It’s called “been reaised in a sexist and patriarchal society”, but you can call it “evil male conspiracy” if you prefer. We don’t live in a vaccum. Women put each other down frequently. Who do you think benefit from it? Not women.

          Don’t fathers say anything to their sons and daughters? What about relatives? Teachers? Everyone else? What about what they see on tv and media in general?

          • Raivi

            “Not women”. I wonder what evidence you have in support of this claim? Of course there is an abundance of women who benefit from the “system” of gender roles in myriad of ways.

            • Elenita

              Really? How? Give me examples.

            • Raivi

              US women have 5 y. + life expectancy compared to US men.

            • Elenita

              That’s not a benefit. Women live longer than men almost everywhere. Blame nature.

            • Raivi

              Oh really? Why is it not the fault of the nature that not so many women get to be CEOs, then? Is it not dictated by the nature that not so many women win Nobel prices, etc? What if the whole goddam patriarchal system is just in the DNA? How can you tell?

            • Elenita

              For the same reason that there are few black people who have Nobel prizes and few black people who are CEOs. It’s called privilege. Unless you think there are differences in the DNA of black men and white men that make white men more suitable to be a CEOs than black men. If you want to have a debate, don’t insult my intelligence.

            • Raivi

              I was just wondering how do you know that every disadvantage for white men is brought upon by nature and every disadvantage for women and non-white males is brought upon by nurture? That seems a wild disrepancy in need of an explanation.

              And btw, “priviledge” is not an answer. It is the question.

              You are saying that genes determine that men die 5 years earlier than women, right? All kind of male-specific behaviour is related to this fact that they die younger (accidents, crimes, drinking, smoking, drugs, all kinds of stupid risks). But this behaviour is 100% dictated by nature. Okay, fine.

              And then there is the question of behaviour of women. The fact that they don’t get Nobel prices, or that they put each other down, as you mentioned in your earlier posting, must be 100% indepedent of the nature-determined-female-behaviour, right? Because it of course cannot be hard-wired into their bodies that they don’t get the prices or behave badly towards each other – that would be a gross violation of the doctrines of the feminist ideology. The fact that they don’t get Nobel prices and behave badly can thus only be a result of a mix of white male behaviour (male oppression) and female behaviour caused by nurture (internalized male oppression).

              Now what interests me is this: is the oppressive white male behaviour caused by nature or nurture? There are three possible answers.

              1. If you claim that it is caused by nature, you are of course in line with your original claim that shorter male life excpectancy is caused by nature, BUT you would still have to explain a disrepancy like the one that was mentioned above: why is it that negative male behaviour is caused by nature but negative female behaviour is not?

              2. If you claim that it is caused by nurture, you are creating a tension between your original claim that male behaviour causing them to die younger is caused solely by nature and a new claim that the oppressive male behaviour preventing females getting Nobels prices is caused by nurture. You would have to explain why certain male behaviours are dictated by nature and others by nurture.

              3. Final option would be to claim that the male behaviour preventing females getting Nobel prices is caused both by nature and nurture. If you chose this route, you would have to explain both issues mentioned in the options 1 and 2.

              Looking forward to your clarifications.

      • hexrei

        Image searched for “t-shirt that says cute girl”. First one that comes up is a t-shirt that says “this girl is cute!”. Of course, it has elmo on it as well, who is male, thus the shirt is a disgusting artifact of patriarchy.

        Searched “girl’s t-shirt “I will rule the world””. All the first hits were companies that make their “I will rule the world” shirt in a variety of designs aimed at both males and females. Nothing in babies’ sizes, which is also obviously a product of patriarchy since little babies are one of the oppressed classes that white men seek to control socio-culturally and economically.

    • joshua hardy carroll

      This is a splendid article. I am generally unwitting in my sexism, sometimes catching myself mid-sentence espousing opinions I don’t even hold. I’m making progress. I especially like the idea that listening is an act of empathy. It’s simple and easy to do, like going the speed limit (an act of humility if ever there was one).

      White American men have a point of view, sure. It’s not THE point of view. Plus, it’s often wrong.

      • jakonrath

        I fall short, too.

        Back on the playground, I remember the common insult among boys was to call each other a “pussy”. Which was odd, because after a certain age that’s the one thing most boys wanted more than anything in the world.

        At the same time, when someone showed tremendous bravery, they had “balls”. Again, an odd compliment, considering that men are responsible for war, rape, torture, and most of the murder and violence on the planet.

        We got a long way to go. But self-awareness is the first step…

        • Vanessa

          I always argue back that “balls” are one of the most vulnerable and fragile parts of a human body. On the otherhand, the “pussy” takes a lot of abuse, especially childbirth, and can fully recover, thereby making it the toughest part of a human body.

        • johnthebaddest

          What about when someone is called a dick? Where does that fit?

          • Agni

            The difference between calling a man a “dick” and calling a man a “pussy” is a great example, actually, of the difference between feelings and status. The harm of silencing women is one of status, not of hurt feelings, and this is often misunderstood.

            If someone calls me a “dick” in front of my friends, that’s insulting, because I don’t want to be a dick. But I can reasonably expect that being known as a dick won’t make people listen to me less. In fact, people who are dicks can become quite powerful and influential. This hurts my feelings, but it’s unlikely to harm my status, that being my capacity to be recognized and acknowledged by others.

            But if someone calls me a “pussy” in front of my friends, that’s more than insulting; it’s degrading. Being known as an effeminate coward is antithetical to being known as manly. My honor is at stake. If I’m known as an effeminate coward, other men may become dismissive of me and women may ignore me or not be attracted to me. So when I become agitated in response to being called a “pussy,” I’m not just reacting to the insult; I’m reacting to the threat of my losing power and influence, which is real in our society.

            Thus, harming someone’s status is both a practical and an existential issue. It’s practical because someone with low status is less influential. It’s existential because we want to be recognized by others as we see ourselves; we want to see reflections of ourselves in the world. This article is precisely pointing out that white men get to see those reflections more often than other people, and react violently to that status being called into question.

            I’ll conclude this long comment by suggesting that it’s no accident that a dick, insulting but not degrading, is masculine and a pussy, far worse, is feminine.

            • disqusplaya

              Ahhh..I think you’re over analyzing with selective bias. Various terms both gendered and non gendered can be degrading and/or insulting. It’s not just because one is owned by a woman. Consider for example twat, or c*nt (female) or assh*le (neuter). And what of d*ckhead, or limpd*ck, or tool? You may also do a quick read on the etymology of pussy, it’s relation to puss, a cat, and softness.

            • homasapiens

              I think you need to re-read Agni’s comment. Then probably, read it again. Wait a week, read it one more time.
              Maybe come back in a year and read it once more. Then essay a counter-argument.
              Perhaps by that time you will actually address the topic that you completely missed on this first pass of yours.

            • disqusplaya

              A poor argument isn’t wine. It doesn’t get better with time. Irregardless of the consumer.

            • ishicourt

              “Irregardless” isn’t a word.

            • disqusplaya

              Factually incorrect.

            • ishicourt

              That’s cool. Good luck using it in a college essay. 😉

            • disqusplaya

              I have an abundance of degrees. No need to go back there. Lol.

              Are you really ignorant of the fact this word has been used in print for over a century? Is it the negative concord that bugs you? Or ya just trolling me. Coz it’s like super common dude.

            • ishicourt

              …You literally just admitted that it’s not a word used properly. I don’t know where you got your degrees, but I’ve got three from top-5 universities (yay!), and I would’ve gotten a nice, fat grade-point deduction if I’d used such a word. It’s like “ain’t.” Is it a word? Sure. Would you use it in a proper, print setting? Not unless I wanted to look like an idiot.

              I’ll admit to being a bit of a troll, but I also believe in always writing properly. Dude. 😉

            • disqusplaya

              So write properly. I’ll use words I choose, including those around for over a century (in print!)

            • ishicourt

              That’s cool. At least one of us will have the good fortune of looking intelligent when we write (I mean me, for clarification that wouldn’t be necessary if I wasn’t writing to someone who assumes that the presence of a word in print for “over a century” somehow renders it not an asinine double negative or a word that inherently indicates ignorance. I believe the words “definately” and “seperate” are also very popular and have been around in print for over a century. Go crazy and try those out too!).

            • disqusplaya

              somehow renders it not an asinine double negative

              I love teachable moments. Your homework is to research negative concordance. Have fun! I hope you learn something, then you won’t look so ignorant in the future. 🙂

            • ishicourt

              You’re too cute! And your adorable attempt to look educated warms me to the core. While negative concordance *is* generally accepted in academic circles (i.e., a double negative–yes, they are synonymous), the word “irregardless” is not. I honestly am only commenting because I love how you manage to make yourself look worse and worse, and I’m hoping you’ll do it again. Amuse me!

            • disqusplaya

              TIL people refer to grammarians as “academic circles”. TIAL “academic circles” don’t “generally accept” reality as it exists. TIAL some people consider Disqus comments “academic circles”. TIAL I amuse people speaking for “academic circles”. Today I Learned A Lot!!! #themoreyouthinkyouknow

            • johnthebaddest

              Actually it is. Not a very good one. Not one used property (it literally means “with regard” given the double negative). But a word nonetheless.

            • No, the argument will not improve with time, but you might.

            • disqusplaya

              Nope. I’m sliding towards entropy daily, as we all are.

            • DominicBruysPorter

              Insufficient data for a meaningful answer!

            • disqusplaya

              Ok, Indulged you. Read it again.
              Nope, gendered notions of honor and insult are a myth. I gave several counter examples. So shim’s closing sentence is particular unreality based.
              “My honor is at stake”
              Really? What are we in medieval Europe? Oh please. How about don’t be such a narcissist. Or value yourself instead of reflecting others. Or grow a pair. Or man up. ;^)

            • archesh

              I would say it seems very meta to leap to the defense of the honor of honor, if I were at all sure what meta means. But that hardly matters. Nor does it matter, for the nonce, that the Middle Ages, like all ages of the world (including our own) were a mix of good and bad, yet get blamed without thought by an awful lot of people who haven’t a clue as to actual medieval history. The point is that honor is a real thing, like justice, the exact definition of which philosophers are free to debate, but which certainly has nothing intrinsically to do with the abuse of one gender by another, or of one person by another. So stop besmirching it, will ya?

            • Evilin Garnett

              Lets talk about the “good parts” of the middle ages. Illuminated manuscripts? I agree that it may be short hand, but I believe in the general imagination it is summed up in the words of cinne-bro
              Quentin Tarrantino when one character vows to torture another:
              “I’m gonna get medieval on your ass”…
              He’s probably not familiar with medieval history either.
              The medieval “code D’honneur was,as I recall, a mixed bag as well.

            • archesh

              For sure it is. And I like Tarantino as much as most anyone. It’s partly a question of taste, and if anyone dislikes every time, place, and society across the board that isn’t our own, fair enough. But as a medieval historian I am consistently irked by a pervasive belief that this stretch of time was nothing but an unremitting slog through the proverbial mud. And a lot of the things people want to write off as medieval were barely medieval at all. Witch burning? Maybe at the very tail end, but MUCH more a Renaissance and early modern phenomenon. And people have a much more positive view of the Renaissance. Tyrants? Not hardly. Feudalism existed to support a king too weak to be a tyrant. Some people really genuinely like chivalric poetry, the arts and architecture of the period, the philosophy, etc. Maybe I’ve got a Middle Ages inferiority complex, but I don’t see why it’s cool to like some other random time and place that doesn’t have modern standards of gender equality, but not THIS one.

            • Heather T

              The concept of “honor” in fact has very much to currently and “(intrinsically) do with the abuse of one gender by another, or of one person by another.”

              But perhaps the so-called “honor killings” of female rape victims doesn’t sound nearly as exciting as two men duelling with swords at dawn.

            • Heather T

              It’s unfortunate for it to be pointed out that the concepts of “justice” and “honor” have historically been reserved as the sole province of men – that is, if one actually gives a rat’s ass about “besmirching” historical traditions.

            • homasapiens

              well no. Your counterexamples do show one non-gendered insult, I.E. “asshole” and several male-gendered insults, which show that we do use male gendered insults as well as female-gendered insults, and that non-gendered insults are also a thing.
              However, they do not show that “gendered notions of honor and insult are a myth.” Rather the opposite; they show that there are several gendered notions of honor &etc, beyond the ones she addresses specifically in her essay.

            • Evilin Garnett

              which is like saying because a black man is president, there’s no racism. Because you can offer a counter example, does not rob the examples of either their factual accuracy or their heft. Their are still fish in the sea. Doesn’t mean many forms of life did not evolve from fish.

            • homasapiens

              quite so.

            • disqusplaya

              Shrugs. The answer is pretty simple. Don’t get so butthurt about it.

            • homasapiens

              LOL
              Your assertion is incorrect, that’s all. That is true no matter what anyone *feels* about it.

            • The etymology of pussy may indeed by a cat, puss, way back in whatever century. But most people saying it today –ask them– believe they are hurling a genital insult. So maybe the meaning has evolved to something more despicable.

            • The etymology of pussy may indeed be a cat, puss, way back when in whatever century. But most people saying it today –ask them– believe they are hurling a genital insult. So maybe the meaning has evolved to something more despicable.

            • disqusplaya

              Nah… it always indicated effeminancy. Why that would be an insult to a man is a gendered notion. Patriarchy!

            • amysterling

              Douchebag.

            • Heather T

              If one simply must insult another person at all, it should be preferable to refrain from using any type of gendered slur while doing so.

              It is perfectly possible to effectively critique and/or demolish another person’s arguments/position/character – by confining one’s remarks to those specific areas. As opposed to (quite lazily) relying on tired gendered slurs and stereotypes in order to prop up what is often a sloppy critique.

              And it seems that people are slowly waking up to the realization of how that reliance undermines the entire argument itself; because it is a sign of bad faith, unfairness, and untrustworthiness on the part of the speaker.

              When one is determined to win an argument at all costs, they will only ever do it at the expense of everyone else. Never their own.

            • Heather T

              Yes, “softness”.

              Which is coded as a feminine trait, and therefore less (if at all) valued, by the same society in which “strength” is assigned higher value and coded as a masculine trait.

              In any case, language is also fluid, and particular words can change meaning and significance to reflect/communicate changing social attitudes and values. For better or worse.

            • disqusplaya

              Ahhh..I think you’re over analyzing with selective bias. Various terms both gendered and non gendered can be degrading and/or insulting. It’s not just because one is owned by a woman. Consider for example twat, or c*nt (female) or assh*le (neuter). And what of d*ckhead, or limpd*ck, or tool? You may also do a quick read on the etymology of pussy, it’s relation to puss, a cat, and softness.

            • johnthebaddest

              The problem is there are lots of examples that don’t fit your analysis. Being called a cunt or a bitch, for example, is tantamount to being called a dick. Just as being called a limp dick would be equivalent to being called a pussy. They are just variations of being called a jerk (dick, bitch etc.) or weak (limpdick, pussy etc.)

            • Agni

              That doesn’t match my experience at all, but there’s no point in arguing over anecdotal evidence of what insults mean. It suffices to say that their meaning depends on context, like who says them to whom (for example, the difference between calling a man and a woman a “bitch”). If you accept that there’s a categorical difference between hurting someone’s feelings and degrading their status, and you can see how some forms of degradation are gendered (I am not saying all), then you should be able to understand part of what this article is pointing out. Men position themselves as authorities and invalidate women’s opinions to protect their status, and their intentions don’t matter so long as their power is real; women and marginalized groups fight for representation and the right to valid opinions for practical and existential reasons of status, not out of mere hurt feelings, as they are sometimes accused of. I think it is important to understand this in order to understand our society, so I hope it is persuasive. That’s all from me.

            • johnthebaddest

              fair enough.

            • S3r3nity

              No, not really. “Dick” reduces someone to a body part known for acting without forethought. It always connotes agency. “Pussy”, “Cunt”, “Twat”, and “Asshole” reduce people to body parts which can be raped. If you listen to usage I suspect you’ll start to observe that people who are called the latter list are also being accused of acting above their station and the speaker is threatening to put them in their place.

            • Sorry but you are stretching your linguistic analysis to the breaking point. The point of calling someone a dick is not to pay them respect because they possess agency. It’s to punish them by calling them out for being mean. Likewise with cunt. Cunt and Dick mean the same thing. There is really no value judgement about agency or lack of agency intended by using either word. Pussy on the other hand – is meant to insult someone for being a coward. There you have a fair beef. Twat is sort of a milder form of Cunt. Asshole is basically the same as Dick except a little stronger and conveys more disgust by the speaker. The idea that those orafice words are used because they reduce the target to something that can be raped is unconvincing. If your point is that, regardless of intent, we should be careful about using those “orafice” words because they will encourage rape, that’s kind of a stretch too. I think your arguments would be stronger if you didn’t stretch so hard. My two cents. No offense intended.

            • Heather T

              “There is really no value judgement about agency or lack of agency intended by using either word.”

              Yes, there is.

              “Suck my dick” carries an implicit and completely unambiguous message to anyone towards whom it is directed. It is both metaphorical and literal command to submit and to obey – and in the context of humiliating its target via symbolic or literal male sexual aggression.

            • Sure but now you are changing the subject. You never mentioned the term “suck my dick” in the original post. That means something totally different than calling someone a dick. You can’t equate the two, unless you don’t understand how language works. Just because a phrase contains a certain word, it doesn’t make that word mean what the new phrase means.

            • Heather T

              You’re are deliberately ignoring the existing power differential between female v male gendered slurs. I am terminating your mansplaining session as of now.

            • Sigh. I wish you were able to make a coherent argument instead of flailing about and then shouting “mansplaining” when your assertions make no sense. I support the feminist cause and I’m interested in intellectual discourse that can refine arguments and thus make them more convincing and compelling so they might change minds. When you make nonsensical assertions you harm the feminist cause, and give fodder to its enemies, for they will be all too eager to dismiss the whole thrust of feminism when presented with such specious arguments. I’m attracted to this website because it seems a good place to discuss and debate ideas, but for some it’s all about diffuse unfocused grievance. The lesson here for me is to be more selective in the people I engage with here.

            • Heather T

              “Feminism: ur doin it rong”.

              Thank you for your concern trolling, but it’s worth calling attention to it when you try to minimize the impact of words just because your privilege protects you from the harm they cause towards others.

            • Heather T

              And the reason why my assertions are “nonsensical” to you is because you have spent zero time listening to the perspectives of others who aren’t YOU.

              I may not agree with arguments which arise from a privileged perspective, but that does not prevent me from understanding them. Because for one thing, privileged perspectives have been dominant for far too long and have been the main and inescapable narrative.

              Try listening to other people, and with any luck you may one day arrive to a place of understanding.

            • DominicBruysPorter

              You’re not using the word in the same sense.

            • Heather T

              And btw, “intent” is not magic. One’s intentions are irrelevant when their actions create harm.

              And those who are harmed should not themselves have to “stretch so hard” to reassure those who have harmed them.

              If one is unwilling or unable to be “careful”, they can at least make an honest effort to avoid being careLESS.

            • Tribe

              For what it’s worth, I thought your post was one of the most logical assessments in this entire thread, despite this Heather person getting all huffy at your “mansplaining.” I found it hard to disagree with anything you said, despite you being a feminist.

              As for this whole “gendered insult” debate, there’s a reason why there are certain words used to insult the two sexes. It’s an evolution of our shame as human beings, and whether you’re a male or a female, there is enough shame to go around. Men and women experience different kinds of shame, and thus there are different kinds of insults that apply to each sex. That’s just how it is and will likely always be.

              I happen to be on the other side of the fence on this whole “social war,” but I thought I’d do some feminist reading just to see what these people think; perhaps gain a little insight so as to, I don’t know, gain more empathy… and it’s all very one-sided and rhetorical, sadly enough.

            • johnthebaddest

              You’re really trying too hard to make this work. Calling someone a dick or an asshole or a cunt or a bitch is pretty much synonymous. They describe someone who is showing severe levels of disregard and rudeness toward other people. They are essentially interchangeable. And meaning depends on context. Bitch, for example, can mean a subservient person or it can mean, well, a dick (see definition above).

              In other words, I see where you guys are going in trying to go with this tidy, “look how insults are neatly gendered and used to reinforce patriarchy,” but really, you’re trying too hard to make it work.

              And if you think a dick can’t be raped, well, that says a lot.

            • Really, to the rest of us (or a great, great majority of us), “dick” is a very different level of slur than any of the others. I can’t see how anyone thinks that dick is equivalent to cunt, pussy, bitch, or even asshole.

            • johnthebaddest

              You speak for the majority eh? Dick is very different if you want it to be. Especially if you want it to fit the analytical categorical distinctions you’ve created.

            • John:
              Pathetic.

            • johnthebaddest

              I feel like you are trying to silence and control me.

            • whatever_dude

              Haha! Clever.

              But you are presenting your opinion as to the meaning of these terms as incontrovertible. I think that’s why you are getting flack. And that’s kind of the textbook definition of “mansplaining”.

              Language is sort of a “guess the pig’s weight” problem: no one gets it exactly right, but if you average all the estimates, you magically arrive at the precise value.

            • johnthebaddest

              Everyone is presenting their opinion as right. That’s why it’s their opinion. Mine is dismissed because it’s coming from a male. Criticizing feminism and not swallowing it wholesale is dismissed as illegitimate “mansplaining.”

              Enjoy your echo chamber. I would say enjoy the circle jerk but that’s probably patriarchy.

            • DominicBruysPorter

              For real? Like really? In the actual engagements you have with other actual humans “dick” has a special place? I am well and truly honestly surprised and confused. I don’t think your experience is as representative as you think it is. Oooor, what appears to be going on here is that some people hear “dick” and ascribe this other meaning to it and never tell the rest of us who use it simply as a derisive dismissive.

            • Heather T

              No dicks were raped in “Lolita” – a book which is being critiqued from a woman’s perspective. But of course, all roads lead to what about the menz. Naturally.

            • DominicBruysPorter

              I don’t think a single individual in history has ever been called an Asshole with any suggestion that they were somehow on the receiving end of anything. “That Asshole, is the guy who raped that Twat, what a Dick,” has none of the implied meanings you are suggesting. Call a spade a spade.

            • Evilin Garnett

              Donald Trump is a dick. He’d probably kind of like to hear that about himself. being called a “cunt” or a “bitch” is not the same thing. It is not said about a powerful woman with grudging admiration. Additionally the reasons for the insult vary. If some sw guy asks to see more people like him represented in fiction, they won’t call him a “masculinist delusional dick”. They’d just call him blind, because they are everywhere. If I interrupt two times in a conversation I’m a bitch. If my ol man does it, he’s….nothing.No one notices. If he destroys his opponent in business, say, then….he’s a dick, said with fear, said with anger, said, with….grudging respect. If I do it….then….I’m not a cunt…..I’m a dick. The default association of pussy with weakness and dick with strength is ingrained, the default is invisible.You can’t see the default. Which, by the why, is no one’s fault.

            • Heather T

              Until someone spells it out clearly and concisely (as you’ve done), and that person doesn’t make any effort to change their behavior. Then it’s their fault.

            • Evilin Garnett

              Thank you Heather T.
              Facts and logic don’t seem to apply to….anything anymore….

            • Heather T

              You can see how squirelly everything gets when “facts and logic” become revealed for what they are: the perspective of oppressors.

              There’s really nothing else to it. Hunh. I really thought there’d be more….

            • Evilin Garnett

              Oh I dunno, I tend to think facts and logic are things the opressor, whoever it happens to be at the moment, ignores.
              Like the fact that there were NOT pro-al quada tailgate parties on 9-11. Like the fact that humbert humbert wanted to get lolita pregnant so he could have sex with his daughter and then his daughter so he could have sex with his grandaughter
              Like the fact that finding that passage disturbing does NOT mean you don’t “get” the book…

            • Heather T

              Fair enough, Evilin. To be clear, what I mean is that privileged people have often declared themselves and their arguments as being supported by “facts” and “logic” and thus their arguments had greater value because they consisted mainly of objective truths.

              But now people who identify as belonging to marginalized groups are reporting their experiences and discovering that what they might have thought were individual, subjective perceptions, Are in fact a collective, shared experience, and they are also an observable, objective truth, formerly and vehemently denied by those whose first and only priority was in protecting, upholding, and maintaining their own privilege.

              And that’s why privileged people get so upset when they hear about the facts and logic which completely support the perspectives of those who are oppressed.

            • whatever_dude

              Facts and logic are used to win. When they don’t do that, they are disgarded.

            • Heather T

              Facts and logic are a double-edged sword, because facts can be misrepresented in order to support arguments that uphold privilege at the expense of marginalized groups and individuals – and if you’ve ever encountered “logic’ being used as a weaponized buzzword by a racist/misogynist, etc., it becomes clear that the word itself loses all sense of reasonable definition.

            • DominicBruysPorter

              Who says “dick” with admiration? Nobody I’ve ever met.
              In the same vein of erroneous alignment, why do some people match “slut” with “player”?
              I feel like in some cases we end up with really weird criticisms purely because there’s an underlying imbalance and not because a given term is causal. I feel like it would be much more productive to encourage more balanced and precise use of terms rather than getting caught up on them. In the same way we generally dscourage the use of the word ‘gay’ when referring to people or things that are not in fact gay.

              Just to pick nits, and because it’s a case in point, since the main word in the air here is Pussy, its meaning in use dovetails extremely closely with “scaredy cat” / “pussy cat” and has at least as much to do with the perception of Felis Catus as skittish as it does with subordination.

              ‘Dick’s’ connotations have a lot more to do with the behaviour of the insecure, in my experience; which then does have a kind of alignment with the discussion about Status versus Feelings. Though as much as they are different, i think all the discussion here has conclusively proved that having someone undermine your status is liable to hurt your feelings. I think the point to be made is that the converse is not as true.
              I wish i knew more about the social mechanics of relative status between women. The other point proved here is that the default is male to such an extent, that there’s very little useful out there that doesn’t constrain female status to a simple pair of dichotomies: is she a slut or a virgin, or is she ugly or pretty.

            • I would prefer to call Trump a Douchebag: a useless, sexist tool forced on women.

            • Isa Kocher

              no cunts and bitches are so far removed from dick that they’re in they’re own separate universe.

              cunts and bitches are serious character defects. dicks are just stupid.

            • Heather T

              When was the last time you heard ANYone call a woman a “limpdick” in a way that was “tantamount” to a man being called a “pussy”?

              Word games aside, gendered slurs derive their meaning and significance from the respective underlying messages they convey. Calling a woman a “pussy” does not achieve the same objective as calling her a “cunt”, because “pussy” would be redundant in highlighting her “weakness” – which has already been established by general, societal, misogynistic beliefs.

              Calling a man a “limpdick”, for example, does not achieve the same objective as calling him a “pussy”, because “limpdick” carries the message that the man in question still HAS one, and is thus “still a man”; as opposed to someone comparing him to a woman, which, to many men, is the very worst thing to be.

              Your equivalents are false, and completely ignore the power dynamics that underwrite gendered slurs to begin with.

            • Why do you believe that the obligation to win and constantly prove status is a sign of your privilege and power?

              It’s like believing that blacks are powerful because they are under some obligation to prove they are “good blacks” to racists who eye them with suspicion.

            • slartybartfastiq

              hmm… your point is interesting.

              I’d be more interested though, in the difference between:

              a. calling a man a pussy and calling a woman a pussy

              b. calling a man a pussy and calling a woman a dick

              c. calling a man a dick and calling a woman a pussy

              d. calling a woman a dick and calling a man a dick

              What immediately stands out is that I have never, in my life, called a woman either a “pussy” OR a “dick” which raises an additional interesting question:

              Why do we only use these particular sexual epithets to insult men?

              *edit* please refrain from men’s-rightsing this shit, the most likely explanation, honestly, is that socially women cannot be reduced since they’re already at the bottom of the totem pole. */edit*

            • Heather T

              These fancy word games via equivalence arguments tend to get tedious and a little ridiculous when allowed to roam free and unchecked.

              How about everyone just not insulting people through gendered terms altogether? There. See how easy equality is?

            • joeb99

              Or just not insulting each other at all. But your idea is a pretty good start.

            • Tribe

              That’s never going to happen… but you can keep wishing.

            • Shireen Liane

              if you want to downgrade a man, you call him a woman/downgrade a woman, call her an animal.

            • Christine

              Downgrade an animal, kill it.

            • Heather T

              If you want to downgrade a man, you call him a woman; if you want to downgrade a woman, you call a man a woman.

            • jeannebean

              By calling a man a pussy, you are expressing contempt, not just for him, but for all women. Sure, het men may think pussy is necessary to life, but so are toilets. They are both receptacles for men’s excreta. Neither is worthy of human consideration.

              Contempt is corrosive. There is no overcoming it, or working around it.

            • Heather T

              Unless that contempt is directed towards misogyny itself. Believe me, there are PLENTY of workarounds for that.

            • Heather T

              The misogynist argument is that men are more “hurt” by being labelled a “pussy”, and that their feelings are thus the larger thing at stake.

              But the underlying message of the slur is that the female genitalia is universally symbolic of human shame and weakness.

              And the slur’s power to “hurt” men lies in direct proportion to how invested they are (or aren’t) in upholding that belief; the belief that women are inherently “less than”.

              That is a privilege that women simply do not share. Directly or indirectly, we are hurt no matter whom the slur is directed towards. And I think misogynists understand this very, very well.

            • Tribe

              I’m going to come at this from a male’s perspective, because I actually *do* have balls, and I just have to tell you, you don’t really “get” why men don’t like being called a pussy.

              First, let me explain that I don’t get called that very often, because I don’t really allow people who degrade me into my life. I rarely take shit off of anyone, kind of like a Marty McFly syndrome. Still, I do have memories of being in high school where that kind of behavior is most rampant.

              That said, if someone called me a pussy, there are a number of feelings and thoughts that would enter my mind. One, there’s the thought of being penetrated by another man, which in itself isn’t very pleasant if you’re a heterosexual male. Nothing wrong with being gay, but if you’re straight, it’s not a pleasant thought. Second, there’s the visual idea that you’re being accused of having an inverse of a penis, which is the very essence of male sexuality, both metaphorically and physically… and I can get into the kinds of insecurity of male ego this can inspire and nightmares that follow it, but I’ll leave it at that.

              Now, you and a few other people have said that to degrade a woman, you call her an animal… or you call a man a woman… or something. But I don’t think this is true at all. First off, there would have to be at least three people present for this woman to be offended; you have the accuser, the man, and then this woman, and she would get indirectly offended by this insult the man suffered… which is pretty selfish if you ask me.

              Besides that, however, I believe that any woman would be more upset with being compared to a man, because being manly isn’t very flattering when you’re a woman (let’s just say she’s heterosexual for a fair comparison). Men are associated with being rough, coarse, hairy, harsh, smelly, gross, rude, loud, obnoxious, dumb, etc. Women are associated with being beautiful, intelligent, well-spoken, delicate, polite, cute, colorful, soft, pleasant, lovely, etc. I’m using these words as descriptors for “masculine” and “feminine” traits, and to be clear, both men and women can be either of these things… but these are just the most commonly identifiable traits for both sexes.

              Feel free to disagree with me, but keep in mind women call men “pigs” all the time, so there’s more than one way to hurt a man… just as there is more than one way to hurt a woman. That sounds scary, but you get my point.

            • Heather T

              Yeah, I also avoid letting a certain kind of person into my life, and I know a veiled threat when I see one.

              Please refrain from replying to me any further; your comments will not be welcome.

            • Tribe

              LOL A VEILED THREAT??? Wow, you people are deluded. I’m sitting here in my undies, I have no interest in “threatening” you or anyone else… Only someone who is that self-absorbed and that paranoid would see what I said as a threat… You’re not really making a good case for other feminists if you just shut down debate like that. In fact, you’re only proving how biased and illogical any of you actually are, and why being a “feminist” isn’t something to be proud of.

            • Heather T

              Yep, right on time: I request that you leave me alone, and naturally you are utterly incapable of respecting that. Quel surprise.

              Nobody owes you their time or attention. Especially to your rambling, go-nowhere posts in which you pretend that men’s fear of being penetrated by another man is somehow more unique and special than that which women feel at the thought of being raped.

              You have something like a 1 in 71 chance.

              We have 1 in 4.

              Both at the hands of men.

              Now for the last time, go the **** away.

            • Tribe

              Well at least you have a 1 in a million chance.

              Good day, ma’am.

            • Heather T

              Rape is not a compliment.

              Good day, douchebag.

            • Yngvar_Natland

              That is a very strong putdown when you are participating in a debate. I really dont understand why. In an attempt to learn: Could you please explain what it was in his comment that made you so offended?

            • Heather T

              Hey @Yngvar_Natland:disqus, thanks for your reply/question.

              I don’t customarily answer a question with a question, but unfortunately, we can’t always get something for nothing.

              I think perhaps we can ***both*** “learn” something if you answer the question of why you require an explanation of my post in particular. Perhaps it is because you don’t understand the concept of nuanced condescension – and how it can be perceived as especially unacceptable when it is coming from a rape apologist – such as the one I was engaging earlier.

              Then ask yourself why you would choose to introduce yourself to me via an oblique siding with a rape apologist by putting (his) opponent on the defensive.

              Edit: OR, you could just trust me when I say that I have my own valid reasons, and that I know what I am doing, thanks.

            • Yngvar_Natland

              I have read his reply again, and I noticed the “..as there are more ways than one to hurt a woman. That sounds scary, but…”. I thought that could be it, but you are talking about condescention. To me it seems like he is explaining his point of view. Can you be more specific as to how/where he is condescending?

              My reason for asking is that I thought your reply was pretty brutal given the context of a debate and the way I read his post.

            • Heather T

              Again, why is it so important to you that I should educate you? How will this help you in your own life? Ask yourself these questions first.

            • Yngvar_Natland

              Communication is my job and life long interest, so I want to know more about why people react the way they do. I thought this could be a lesson in how not to step on someones toes.

            • Heather T

              This is not about my toes being “stepped on”. It’s not about being offended. It’s about pushing back against entrenched and insistent rape apology that permeates the discourse of many people with whom I engage.

              With you being a communications person, I would urge you in particular to educate yourself on how this society needs to learn **how** to discuss the difficult topics of rape and sexual assault – and in a productive and helpful way.

              As these boards would suggest, that particular skill set is woefully lacking in our society – but to be kind, it is a skill that can be learned and mastered, if people were more willing to learn, and less willing to fall back on the easy answers that rape apology and slut-shaming have always provided.

            • Yngvar_Natland

              Well, I seriously want to “learn **how** to discuss the difficult topics of rape and sexual assault – and in a productive and helpful way.”. Thats why I’d like to know more specifically where, in his first post, you felt he went over the line. But if you don’t want to that’s fine. Thanks anyway.

            • Heather T

              @Yngvar,
              This is but one example of the original poster’s material:

              ” One, there’s the thought of being penetrated by another man, which in itself isn’t very pleasant if you’re a heterosexual male. Nothing wrong with being gay, but if you’re straight, it’s not a pleasant thought.”

              The author posits that being “penetrated by another man” is an “(unpleasant) thought” if “you’re a heterosexual male”; and given the subject upon which this discussion has been centered, one would presume that the penetration to which he refers is a **forceful penetration**.

              “Nothing wrong with being gay, but if you’re straight, it’s not a pleasant thought.”

              It is the “but” in this sentence which suggests that straight men have more difficulty coping with the thought of forceful penetration (by another man), than gay men do.

              He’s either suggesting the above, and/or conflating consensual male-on-male sex, with male-on-male rape. Many men who are homophobic make this conflation unconsciously.

              Can anyone tell me why a gay man would feel any less pain, fear and “unpleasantness” from forceful penetration, than a straight man would feel?

              Anyone? Beuller?

            • Yngvar_Natland

              The post was part of a thread starting with the question “What about when someone is called a dick? Where does that fit?”. Therefore I think it should be read as a comment on language, not as a comment on rape. It is typical for forum discussions to stray far from the original article.

              As you point out he states ” … there’s the thought of being penetrated by another man, which in itself isn’t very pleasant if you’re a heterosexual male.”. Here “in itself” is key. He is talking about the act of male on male penetration in and of itself, and not in the context of rape. That he even mentioned gays feels redundant to me. It just seems like an attempt to show awareness of the most obvious exception.

              That is why I didn’t understand your reaction. To me it still stands as an ok attempt to describe why being called a pussy is unpleasant, even if you are not a misogynist. Although I don’t totally agree with him, I still think it stands as an ok continuation of a, to that point, productive and helpful discussion.

            • Heather T

              Then next time use your own brain and don’t waste my time with inane questions. One would think a communications major (you did take in SCHOOL, right?) would be able to ask and answer on their own.

            • Yngvar_Natland

              Learning to understand why people react strongly enough to want to shut down a discussion is not inane. It would be impossible for me to tell if I had missed something in the text if I did not know how you read it. I have tried to keep my questions specific to that point. I guess it is not for me to judge whether my questions have been inane or not, but feel free to point out where you think I went wrong.

              What I have learned about discussing in a productive and helpful way (all of which I have transgressed against at some point) is this: Discuss the arguments not the person making them. Even if you think you know something about a person just based on a paragraph or two in a forum; remember that in general it is wrong to generalize about people. The format is very limited and spontaneous, so give the person the benefit of the doubt.

              Most of the wisdom I have in my life has come from discussion, so thanks for answering my inane questions. It has been helpful.

            • Heather T

              You have to understand that a certain level of guardedness becomes necessary when dealing with ppl I don’t know. Your questions had a decided slant towards putting me on the defensive – in that they tasked me with justifying my responses to that other person. This kind of behavior is not always welcome to me, as I am already busy doing my part to dismantle rape culture in the various communities in which I visit and live. From time to time, educating others becomes tiring at best.

              Thank you in advance for your understanding.

            • Heather T

              And in my experience, men who think of men being raped as more “unnatural” of an occurrence, also tend to have a belief that women are “built to be penetrated”, and therefore should have the ***least*** difficulty with being (forcefully) penetrated (i.e. raped).

            • Heather T

              And when the discussion turned to statistical “probabilities”, I pointed out that men have something like a 1 in 71 chance of being sexually assaulted; whereas women have 1 in 4.

              To which he, or another poster, replied that (I) “have a one in a million chance”, as a way of suggesting that: a) I am ugly; and b) rape is something that only happens to “attractive” people, and is thus some kind of “compliment”.

              If that is not “over the line”, I don’t know what on earth is.

            • Heather T

              And if you’d like to see what REALLY constitutes a “strong putdown”, be my guest and take a look at my posting history and some of the trolls who have engaged with me in the past.

              Pay **special** attention to the ones who denigrate my personal appearance; cast aspersions on the state of my mental health; call me a c*** over and over again; and encourage me to kill myself immediately…..And then observe my responses to them.

              Thus you would learn the difference between “strong putdown” and “mild trip to the verbal woodshed”.

            • Yngvar_Natland

              I’m sorry. I don’t know you, so I can’t just trust you.

            • Heather T

              And right back at you. I’ve learned where (and where not) to invest my time and energy, and idly playing semantic word games is identifiably a waste of both of them. Educate yourself on the subject.

          • SarahBJones

            Wait…can we really assume that the meaning of “dick” = penis came before the meaning of “dick” = jerk?

            In fact, according to wikipedia: “The word connoted a person of questionable character long before it became a nickname for the penis. For example, in the 1665 satire The English Rogue by Richard Head, an unsavory character is referred to as a “dick”…”

            Then later, when Dick became a nickname for Richard, it became associated with masculinity or the everyman (ie: every Tom, Dick, and Harry), and then was used for male genitalia.

          • Kim Harrison

            I think we know where a dick fits.

        • ZillaGod

          Boys want the “pussy” but they don’t want to be the “pussy.” The “balls” issue comes down to the tasks men have had to perform in a patriarchal agricultural society. Slaughter the animals. Protect the family. Fight the wars.

          • homasapiens

            kill the hyenas..

        • amysterling

          People tell me I have balls all the time.

        • What’s odd about it? Women have value by default but men’s value is conditional, not only in the eyes of other men, but in the eyes of women. That is why there would be some differentiation between “men” and “real men” or why we should care so much about the distinction between men and boys. The conditional nature of their value or social standing is a sign of male social weakness, not their power and privilege. Women are never asked to prove they are “real women.”

          • homasapiens

            except that Rebecca’s entire essay in fact addresses some of the many reasons women feel required to apologise for their own existence. Because a hella lot of women do. Your talk about how pure and valuable women are ignores the fact that only a very few women can actually make that grade, just as there are only a few of those Manliest of Men.
            Also, you really cannot conflate the justifications that in-groups of men use– with the realities beyond their justifications. Because they might be spreading the Pure Woman line around, but you and I both know they really want power and the gold, or the grain, or the crude oil, which has nearly nothing to do with women.

            • Right, everything you feel is my fault. Isn’t assigning imaginary intentions to others a symptom of borderline personality disorder?

              “our talk about how pure and valuable women are ignores the fact that only a very few women can actually make that grade, just as there are only a few of those Manliest of Men. ”

              You seem to have misread the tone in which I wrote that. Obviously women are just people like anybody else, but then again, women don’t seem to mind being pedestalized. Solnit herself has made a career out of castigating men for not pedestalizing women.

              As far as women “making the grade,” there is no grade to make, since women do not face the real prospect of being ejected from society in the way that men do. If you don’t believe me, go sit at a bar with a female friend. Let her sit at one end and smile and observe her social power as a revolving cast of men appear and try to qualify for her approval like men interviewing for a job during the middle of the Great Depression.

              You do the same. Guess which one walks out with more phone numbers.

              Men aren’t that choosy. They can’t afford to be now nor at any other point in our history. I guess that’s why geneticists can show that we are descended from twice as many females as males, yeah? Men are disposable. The only gender which has a grade to make is ours, not theirs. They fret about suboptimal mates who they reject. Men fret about becoming invisible and having no mates at all. An unattractive woman can lose weight. What does the unattractive man do in a failing economic and political system? Overthrow the government?

              “Also, you really cannot conflate the justifications that in-groups of men use– with the realities beyond their justifications. Because they might be spreading the Pure Woman line around, but you and I both know they really want power and the gold, or the grain, or the crude oil, which has nearly nothing to do with women.”

              Why would anyone want power unless they recognized the possibility of powerlessness? Without recognizing this possibility, power itself is unknown. And why can’t we conflate justifications with the reality beyond the justification? Are you suggesting that men are all-known, all-powerful, and that they work in concert like a team? The Man Borg? Do men who fight wars all secretly know they’re full of shit, but they’re putting you on? The bad guys always know they are the bad guys? Surely you’re kidding.

              The value of “gold” and “grain” was that it made you more attractive to women. And that was pretty important if you faced the real risk of disappearing socially entirely. It’s still important. It’s fascinating how you seem to believe that men get to decide what women want and expect of them or that you would further assume that women’s expectations of the opposite sex would have no relationship to the development of our institutions historically.

            • homasapiens

              “Isn’t assigning imaginary intentions to others a symptom of borderline personality disorder?” Funny, that hadn’t occurred to me, but is that your problem? You’ve been assigning imaginary intentions to men, women, the ruling class… me… and then some more to women in general, just to make sure.
              The internet of course, is no place to have a real, in depth discussion, and I don’t want to upset you any further. You sure do have a point of view though, I’ll give you that. LOL

            • Evilin Garnett

              You seem to be arguing on a global scale about who has it worse, men or women.

              We have it different. One example you gave:

              women do not face the real prospect of being ejected from society in the way that men do. If you don’t believe me, go sit at a bar with a female friend. Let her sit at one end and smile and observe her social power as a revolving cast of men appear and try to qualify for her approval like men interviewing for a job during the middle of the Great Depression.

              The social power you describe is extremely limited in both scope and duration. It’s the patriarchal double standard imho, that having sex is a win for a man and a loss for a woman,that makes a sex a rarified commodity.

              It also disappears outside of a very limited series of sexualized situations. And when she gets older

              Think of this, being a female prostitute–and a male one, too—is the only profession that you are guaranteed to make less at the longer you’ve been it and the more experience you have at.

              I am a recovering alcholic and I was a die hard barfly.

              When I was 19, it was fun to have men flirt with me.
              It wasn’t so much fun to have to have sex with them for alcohol or company but I was broke and lonely. If In that case I was “lucky” to be a woman because the double standard insured that I had something, my genitalia, that I could use to enable my addiction.

              but….
              The last year b4 I got sober, all I wanted was to go to a bar and have a couple shots in peace, no one talking to me. I’d “worked hard” to get the money to do so.
              Don’t I have that right, same as any tired, grumpy, lonely, dude with an incipient case of the shakes?

              And that little bit of what you call “power” pales against the ability to set political agendas, head corporations, control giant entertainment conglomerates etc.

              The wars men fight, the horrors men face, are perpetrated on them by other men most of the time. So being oblivious of others p.o.v. can be deadly.

            • Joshua White

              >”Right, everything women feel is our fault. Isn’t assigning imaginary
              intentions to others a symptom of borderline personality disorder?”
              Explain precisely where homasapiens said or tried to demonstrate that “everything women feel is our fault”.

              I consider the rest of your comment dispensable until you do so. Since I see no such polarized thinking style it looks like mere name calling. I want to offer you the chance to show me your reasoning.

            • “except that Rebecca’s entire essay in fact addresses some of the many reasons women feel required to apologise for their own existence. ”

              I’m pretty sure the author is asking men to apologize for their own existence. That’s what all this is about. If I have an opinion on something, it’s “mansplaining,” because patriarchy, rape culture, women are oppressed damsels, how dare I lord my supposed power over them by disagreeing with them, etc etc etc. – in other words “apologize.”

              I have nothing to apologize for.

              And I don’t care if you consider my comment “dispensible,” since this just amounts to an excuse not to address it. Address it or don’t. I don’t care one way or the other.

            • Joshua White

              >”I’m pretty sure the author is asking men to apologize for their own existence.”
              Which part. Be specific now.
              >”That’s what all this is about.”
              To you. You seem to have an inability to understand what this is about to others.
              >”If I have an opinion on something,
              it’s “mansplaining,”…”
              I’ve seen it before even as a while male. I will need to see your examples to give a fuck.

              >”…because patriarchy, rape culture, women are
              oppressed damsels, how dare I lord my supposed power over them by disagreeing with them, etc etc etc.”
              Such hyperbole, very impress. (see the internet meme “doge”) Why should I take your emotional impressions as fact?

              >”- in other words “apologize” because of her mystical, all-important feelings, as if everybody can read her mind or as if it’s reasonable to expect us to be able to read it.”
              Now this is just insulting as a male. I’ve seen examples of what you refer to and they look nothing like this so I would like to see the ones you are referring to because as written you only include the item “female” as a category to consider from my perspective (hence my request for your example).

              >”I have nothing to apologize for.”
              That remains to be seen.

              >”And I don’t care if you consider my comment “dispensible,” since this just amounts to an excuse not to address it. Address it or don’t. I don’t care one way or the other.”
              You obvious do care of you would not have mentioned anything otherwise. And your comment was dispensable for reasons you refused to address.

              >”Have you ever read Susan Browmiller?”
              I think I am about to want a link.

              >”She speculates that the patriarchy constructed her sexuality and that “internalized misogyny” is the reason she’s attracted to male power.”
              Yeah, I definitely want a link.

              >”Never mind the fact that this “male power” is very often imagined by her, her argument is that her own sexual feelings are literally men’s fault. Her reasoning is identical to that of a medieval monk who thinks women are evil for giving him an erection.”
              Emotional impression of another person’s argument, yeah, I definitely want a link from you.

              >”It’s the same thing at work in Solnit’s thinking. She’s not writing articles about socially invisible, unsuccessful, powerless men she barely notices.”
              Why the fuck should I believe this? You offer nothing but opinion.

              >”She’s complaining about male traits she finds attractive. Isn’t that obvious?”
              No. Now get to the “fellow-mansplaining” (based on your misuse of the term) because I am very much unimpressed by your words.

            • “Which part. Be specific now.”

              Ok, are you not aware that the concept of “mansplaining” originates with this author? Haven’t I already been specific? In a normal disagreement between two people, one doesn’t turn around and assume that the other’s argument is based on “patriarchy” and thousands of years of domination, blah blah. To do so would be asking that person to *apologize for their gender,* for a supposed privilege which they may or may not even have. It’s also to have projected on to them intentions they may not even have had.

              That’s what “mansplaining” amounts to, telling men they should apologize for being men while having a differing opinion or thinking they could voice that opinion without being accused of being woman hating, oppressing, degenerate, privileged monsters. How does anyone disagree with Ms. Solinit without being accused of trying to control her?

              “To you. You seem to have an inability to understand what this is about to others.”

              What’s it about then? It’s strange that I have to ask. You’d think you’d be jumping at the chance to tell me.

              “I’ve seen it before even as a while male. I will need to see your examples to give a fuck.”

              I don’t care if you give a fuck. Personally, I couldn’t care if you got hit by a bus, but that’s neither here nor there. Refute the argument or don’t. I don’t care about your feelings.

              “Now this is just insulting as a male. I’ve seen examples of what you refer to and they look nothing like this so I would like to see the ones you are referring to because as written you only include the item “female” as a category to consider from my perspective (hence my request for your example).”

              You typed a lot of words here without actually saying anything. I can’t hold your hand like you’re a child just because you’re afraid to confront whatever weird cognitive dissonance you have regarding criticizing things women say. The mansplaining concept, which belongs to Ms. Solnit, is the textbook example of this. That is in fact what I was referring to and I’ve already explained how a number of times, so…

              “Such hyperbole, very impress. (see the internet meme “doge”) Why should I take your emotional impressions as fact?”

              They aren’t my emotional impressions. They’re Ms. Solnit’s. Read the first paragraph of the article. She leaps from some guy disagreeing with her to somebody trying to control her.

              “I think I am about to want a link.”

              You want a link to Susan Browmiller’s Against Our Will? I assumed most educated people had read it. The fact that you haven’t explains a lot. It’s hardly some obscure, esoteric feminist text. You seem more familiar with internet memes than you do feminist ideas or literature. That’s strange for somebody who I’m assuming claims to care about women’s issues. You didn’t care enough to read Browmiller, apparently.

              “Why the fuck should I believe this? You offer nothing but opinion.”

              Because reading comprehension and logical implication.

              “No. Now get to the “fellow-mansplaining” (based on your misuse of the term) because I am very much unimpressed by your words.”

              I wasn’t aware we were supposed to be impressing one another.

              Keep going.

            • Joshua White

              >”Ok, are you not aware that the concept of
              “mansplaining” originates with this author? Haven’t I already been
              specific?”

              I am aware of the concept of mansplaining, where were you
              accused of doing it? Since I did not use the words it seems like a red herring.
              I’ll address the rest of what you said about mansplaining when you can point to
              where you were accused of it.

              >”I don’t care if you give a fuck. Personally, I
              couldn’t care if you got hit by a bus, but that’s neither here nor there.
              Refute the argument or don’t. I don’t care about your feelings but about truth
              and falsehood.”

              Coward, give me your examples. You are hyper-focusing on my
              “don’t give a fuck” to avoid doing that.

              >”You typed a lot of words here without actually
              saying anything. I can’t hold your hand like you’re a child just because you’re
              afraid to confront whatever weird cognitive dissonance you have regarding
              criticizing things women say.”

              I asked you for examples above and you just tried to reflect
              them back on me. Give me your examples you coward. I don’t want your emotional
              impression as reference, I want the specific example of what you are talking
              about cited and linked if necessary. Get to work.

              >”They aren’t my emotional impressions. They’re Ms.
              Solnit’s. Read the first paragraph of the article. She leaps from some guy
              disagreeing with her to somebody trying to control her.”

              Then show it to me. If you can claim a problem, you can
              demonstrate a problem. It’s a basic part of threat assessment. If you can’t do
              this it’s easy to assume that no threat exists. Give me real examples and
              functionally engage with the material you intellectual coward. I can cite and
              respond to you so tyou can do likewise.

              >”You want a link to Susan Browmiller’s Against Our
              Will? I assumed most educated people had read it. The fact that you haven’t
              explains a lot. It’s hardly some obscure, esoteric feminist text. You seem more
              familiar with internet memes than you do feminist ideas or literature.”

              Given your attitude so far I have no reason to respect your
              view of feminist literature and the fact that I have not seen your pet example
              means nothing when you can cite what you are concerned about, unless you are a
              fear soaked wretch.

              >”Here I just thought we were concerned with what’s
              true and false.”

              I can’t tell what’s true or false until you get with the
              citing instead of the indirect emotional impressions.

              >”Now, am I mansplaining? Can one man mansplain to another?”

              Not really, I can admit that it was a bad attempt at what I
              was trying to do. No get back to the substance and start citing what you have a
              problem with coward.

            • Evilin Garnett

              “what “mansplaining” amounts to, telling men they should apologize for being men while having a differing opinion or thinking they could voice that opinion without being accused of being woman hating, oppressing, degenerate, privileged monsters.”

              That’s what you call a straw-man argument. Poor straw man. If someone explains to me how to change a tire,it’s not mansplaining unless
              A: I don’t know how to change a tire.
              B: The tell me that since I don’t know how to change a tire, I also must not know how to drive.

              This kind of think is indulged in by lots of folks, but by SWM in particular, but that is ONLY because if you are trying to get along in this particular world your gonna run into a lot of them who’ve never had to question their own notions and opinions.

              It doesn’t mean that your lack of melanin or ovaries makes you evil.
              Just used to having your point of view be the default point of view.

            • johnthebaddest

              I am reading. Well said.

            • So many buzzwords instead of words you actually read; so much feelz instead of realz. Perhaps stepping away from hurtful female-oriented anything would save your paranoia from seeping over onto the public Internet.

              This is my first encounter with this author. She is SPOT-FU¢KING-ON in her insights. She very masterfully put into words precisely what so many have felt, I dare say over and over in our lives. Someone sent me this link with just the single word “manna” to describe it. And yes, this piece was JUST that good.

              If the way [some] men are well-known to treat [most] women offends you, please do not turn it around and think you’re hearing all of that inane manospherian buzzwords/absurd-speak that you just claimed to think you read in this piece. It only makes you look like you’re the one with the guilty mind here.

            • Go see a therapist.

            • Evilin Garnett

              oooh…snap. you really DESTROYED her.

              ie, she spoke things you could not address so you acted like a baby.

              May I suggest you go stick your head in gravy.

            • Neither of you addressed anything I said. It’s just verbose name calling, as if I care about your opinion of me personally.

            • Evilin Garnett

              It seems to me there are a lot of people desperate to “disprove” statements from groups of people at whom they are angry.

              Feminism is often falsely equated with manhating.

              But I’d never, ever go on a group with whom I a priori diagreed and start bashing around to “destroy their pathetic arguments” etc…

              My feeling is that anyone who does this is probably sitting alone in a basement somewhere or they would not feel threatened by these opinions in the first place. I am new to Disqus, so it’s really fascinating to see who comes around.

              I think men fear attack from other men, as well btw. A trans man said he couldn’t believe how when he was a woman he walked the streets invisible, coz he wasn’t a man, just a butch woman, but when he transitioned he’d get shoulder bumps etc.

              Difference is, he wasn’t afraid to discuss this fear, since he’d gone through so much to get his balls, it was clear they weren’t gonna drop off if he admitted feeling vulnerable.

              I think men are scared of being beaten up by other men, and some of them do not think it’s manly to admit it.

              So they send indulge in a little lateral and downward aggression. What they really want to say, is “Im scared of men, too”.

              My sense is that in order to get toward a happier species, we need to evolve out of those dominance and agression rankings that served us well as baboons, but no so much as hom sapiensn

            • Evilin Garnett

              I have a feeling the socially invisible powerless men are the ones looking for fights in feminist centered comment corners.

            • Evilin Garnett

              Respectfully, u got nothing to apologize for, then don’t
              no where in this piece did that writer demand or request an apology.
              She talked about a phenomenon she ran into as a result of dominant group think., that it was men doing it most of the time is result of dominance, not “maleness”. And I have read SB. I don’t think you have. I think you have heard her work used in some kind of men’s forum, misrepresented and distorted, to support some kind of statement made there.

              And to tell someone you disagree with “go see a therapist” is like admitting you just lost a debate but won’t admit it.

            • I already explained how the mansplaining thing is a demand for an apology elsewhere in this comments section. I don’t feel like repeating myself. Scroll for it, find it, and respond to it, if you like.

            • Heather T

              Most if not all of your examples cast women in a sexual or reproductive role as the means by which her “value” is determined. that reflects your own expectations – I’ll let you take a minute to consider whether that’s a reflection on your gender, or just of your morality.

              Some women may decide to benefit from sexist social expectations by complying with those norms in exchange for feeling some sense of social value.

              Some women may feel too constricted by such narrow imposed limits, and decide to challenge them.

              In both scenarios, we as women are all working our way through a system neither set up nor designed originally by ourselves, no matter how much anyone wants to pretend that we did.

            • “In both scenarios, we as women are all working our way through a system neither set up nor designed originally by ourselves,”

              How would you know? You’re assuming that you understand the role women play in men’s lives. How would you know this? You don’t have a man’s experience of the world. And any guy who explained it to you would be disregarded as a woman hater, knuckle dragger, rape apologist, etc. if he should say anything that doesn’t confirm your ideological narrative. Whatever that role is, you’d never know it, and you don’t seem particularly interested.

              Whatever that role is, it would have been just as true for all those evil ruling class men who you believe designed the system.

            • Heather T

              No, that’s not what I’ve said at all. It’s not a matter of hatred; it’s a matter of normalizing limited roles for women in society.

              I have more exposure to men’s perspective – because their voice has been the dominant cultural narrative for all of my life – and the one I’ve been expected to give priority to – for all of my life.

              To listen to and understand a woman’s perspective is not an act of “hatred” towards men – and/but it’s very telling that you and many others like you – automatically consider this to be so.

            • “I have more exposure to men’s perspective – because their voice has been the dominant cultural narrative for all of my life”

              Yeah, typical response. Ok, then, if masculinity is artifice, then why do you assume that a “male dominated society” would produce an authentically male narrative, wouldn’t it simply produce an artificial one? If that’s the case, then you wouldn’t know the first thing about men’s experiences.

              Now, if you’d like to argue that masculinity isn’t artifice, then I guess we scrap the entire feminist project, since there is no masculinity to deconstruct in the name equality, yeah?

              You’re assuming that men have gender consciousness in the way that women do. Clearly they do not, nor have they ever, which is why they’re competing with each other to make women happy and it’s why they defer to women when judging themselves and other men. You wouldn’t know that, of course, because there never would have been anybody there to explain it to you. Even if I just did explain it, it will be disregarded because it isn’t the ideological narrative you want.

              Go ahead and explain to me why my experiences are now, since you would know better than I.

            • Heather T

              Ask yourself whether or not you feel your role as a man has been determined by you alone, or if it is something which has been imposed upon you.

              Then decide whether or not you are happy with the answer.

              I don’t think it’s something that can be decided in one day, at any rate.

            • Please read the edit. You’re tearing down strawman arguments. Obviously men’s role is imposed for all the reasons I’ve already explained. Try reading the other comments I’ve already posted here.

            • Heather T

              I may do that when I have the time and inclination – and please keep in mind that the original article described the inherent difficulties women face when their perspectives are largely unacknowledged and dismissed out of hand – by the very fact that they are being forwarded by a woman.

            • Often this isn’t what’s happening at all. They’re imaginary attitudes and intentions that she’s projecting on to others, and all of this underscores the degree that women do not understand the opposite sex. The reason they do not is because they don’t have to. It’s our job to understand you, not the other way around.

            • Heather T

              “You’re assuming that you understand the role women play in men’s lives.”

              I’m understanding the roles you **expect** women to play in men’s lives, based on the examples that you yourself provided.

              Women as sexual conquests. Women as mates. Women as child-bearers.

              Is this all you see women as?

            • “I’m understanding the roles you **expect** women to play in men’s lives, based on the examples that you yourself provided.”

              No you don’t.

              “Women as sexual conquests. Women as mates. Women as child-bearers.”

              Men as providers and protectors, men as economic surplus producing, disposable mules. By your reasoning, this must be what I’m arguing men should be.

              I don’t believe your reading comprehension is this poor, so I’m having assuming the question is in good faith.

            • Heather T

              When women have less bodily and economic autonomy, men will continue to be cast in these imposed roles.

            • As I’ve pointed out elsewhere, men are 4 times as likely to be assaulted and die by violence, so it’s really men whose safety is imperiled, not women. Western white women are literally the safest demographic of human beings that exist on the planet and in the history of our species.

              Do you realize how egregious what you just said here is when in the United States, which has 25% of the world’s prison population while only 6% of its general population?

              How egregious is it when the sentencing disparity between men and women is 6 times the one that exists between the races? Bodily autonomy? When 90% of workplace injuries and deaths are attributable to men and when we know that women go on regarding men as economic mules who either succeed financially or disappear socially and sexually? That’s what it means if married men out earn women and unmarried men. It means that women still expect breadwinners. And if you think this isn’t worth considering, why do you think that somebody’s ability to achieve things as basic as intimate relationships or start families isn’t central to somebody’s life?

              While we’re on the subject, why do you think that men have economic autonomy in a country where women can force men to be fathers? Nobody can force women to be mothers, but men absolutely can be forced to be fathers against their will. I guess it isn’t his body at work for 18 years paying child support payments which may be in excess of his income, I guess he has “economic autonomy” when he does this under threat of debtor’s prison. You realize that’s what it is, right? Debtor’s prisons. That becomes instantly clear when you drop the cartoon boogeyman of the “deadbeat dad” and consider the wild possibility that men fail to make child support payments *because they cannot afford them.*

              I fail to see how greater male earnings are proof of male economic autonomy if they face pressure from women to be breadwinners. We know that the wage gap does not show that women are paid less for the same work – that’s illegal and has been for nearly half a century. It’s been shown over and over and over again by an army of labor economists by now that men make more on average because they work longer hours and are more likely to choose careers based on how much they pay than women are.

              Why is this “economic autonomy?” It actually measures men’s lack of autonomy, since they have less choices regarding careers, not more, if women demand they be breadwinners and impose profound social consequences if they should fail in this. Men are not “free” or “privileged” because they are obligated to work more hours and subordinate everything to making money. They don’t get to consider “work life balance” the way women do because women have denied them this choice. That’s what it means if women go on expecting breadwinners.

              I don’t know if I’ve made this argument already elsewhere in these comments, my hunch is I probably have.

            • Heather T

              You need only to look at the current state of reproductive rights (or lack thereof) for women, both western and planet-wide.

            • Heather T

              And venting your spleen with a gigantic what-about-the-menz post in a comments board which originally pertained to a woman’s perspective on a BOOK – is the very example of the author’s original point. Where is her voice now? What have you turned the priority into? Do you think this is a unique occurrence?

              Spoiler Alert: It’s NOT.

            • “What about the menz,” case in point. Thank you for proving virtually everything I’ve argued here about the imposition of masculinity. Am I supposed to feel shame now for being a “whining man baby” and not a “real man?” Is that how this works, person who just imposed the very same masculine role she blames on the patriarchy?

              What do you mean “where is her voice now?” She’s a famous published author, I’m some guy in a comments section. Surely you’re kidding. And what does that even mean? Are we supposed to put women on pedestals and never engage with their ideas critically in the name of equality? Is this how you imagine men’s lives? They say things and nobody ever challenges on them if they think they’re wrong?

              What planet do you live on?

            • Heather T

              It’s about constantly and consistently prioritizing your own voice regardless of appropriate context.

            • No, it’s about telling other people that they’re evil if they disagree with you. It’s about finding excuses to silence other people rather than just deal with their criticisms. Look, when you put your views out there, people have the right to criticize them and no amount of attempting to shame them out of it or pathologize their reasons for disagreeing is going to change that.

              Can you step outside of the solipsism for two seconds and consider my position? The overwhelmig majority of people who post here and read this are going to agree with the author. I’m arguing what I’m arguing because it’s what I legitimately think about her position, not because I’m trolling her or trying to silence her. I fully expect criticism here and virtually everywhere else. That is what it means to put your views out there. Why would you put them out there if you didn’t want criticism? Does she want a gold star? Even when people disagrees with her? Are we supposed to pretend that her argument is a good one? Why would she or you even want that?

            • And if we were to just defer to whatever she says uncritically, how does this constitute equality? Nobody treats me or my views that way. Nobody is going to defer to me because I have a penis, nor would I want them to. I assume that when somebody disagrees with me and engages with something I said critically, it’s because they’re taking my views seriously – that *is* equality, is it not? What does equality look like then? Giving her a pass just because she’s a woman? Or what? Nobody gives me a pass. The author wouldn’t.

            • Everybody prioritizes their own voice.

            • Heather T

              No. I advocate for the rights of people of color, people at economic disadvantage, people with disabilities….etc. etc….in other words, people who don’t necessarily happen to be ME.

            • Heather T

              Nice segue with the implicit suggestion that I don’t live on the same planet as you because I disagree. Just another “female crazy”, yeah?

              It’s not like you can ever argue with a woman without bringing her sanity into question.

              Same old misogynistic tricks.

            • Well, you are “crazy” if you’re not going to address the criticism directly. You didn’t, you just ignored it.

              Do you not get that this argument has nothing to do with you being a woman? Go ahead and look at the arguments I had with men in this very comments section. Do you see a difference?

              Consider the wild possibility that I disagree with you because I think you’re wrong, not because you’re a woman. And the fact that I have to keep emphasizing this point only lends credence to my argument.

            • So far as I can tell, the only person who has difficulty with equality here is you.

            • You’re essentially arguing that a nobody in a comments section is “oppressing” a famous author with a public platform because he disagrees with her. Is there ever a point where reality intrudes? How does one disagree or voice disagreement without becoming an oppressor? Why aren’t you the oppressor? Nobody is accusing you of being evil for having an opinion. Why isn’t that your privilege? What do you think, morally superior one?

            • Heather T

              You have driven the conversation directly back to where it may serve your own needs and agenda – which is inappropriate in this context.*

              *See both this article and her follow-up to it.

            • I don’t even know what you’re talking about. The article is essentially about “mansplaining.” I have driven the conversation nowhere.

            • Heather T

              If you are truly concerned about men being “forced to be fathers”, then try to advocate for men to be more proactive in taking control of their own fertility; i.e. corralling their own semen, or even promoting better access to contraception and abortion services for women. Legislation is being created at this very moment which is intended to further and further erode those choices for them.

              But it’s harder for men to acknowledge this when it’s so much easier to place the blame solely on women’s shoulders. This legislation is forcing WOMEN to become parents against their wishes – and additionally seeks to limit the access of birth control for women.

              Wake. Up.

            • Ok, this is literally like telling a woman to keep her legs closed if she didn’t want to have a baby. It’s literally the “personal responsibility” argument that conservatives make. Apparently young men aren’t allowed to make mistakes, but young women can. Equality.

              Why are you talking about women’s choices? You have how many forms of contraception, the morning after pill, abortion, and even “baby Moses” laws which allow you to legally abandon a child at designated places.

              “But it’s harder for men to acknowledge this when it’s so much easier to place the blame solely on women’s shoulders.”

              But you just placed the blame on men’s shoulders and effectively excused modern day debtor’s prisons. If your argument is “well keep it in your pants, son!” Why couldn’t I argue that this is an attempt to “control male sexuality” by the very same reasoning you people employ? In fact, I could interpret a lot of things coming from the feminist left as attempts to control male sexuality, couldn’t I? Can you think of a few more?

              The take-away from all this is that you think of women as damsels in distress while imagining a male power and freedom which doesn’t even exist. Men powerful, women powerless. How progressive. As if this isn’t what we’ve always believed about the genders going back 500 years.

              I don’t even know what to say.

            • Heather T

              No. I’m not telling anyone to “keep their legs closed”.

              I’m talking about being pro-active in controlling one’s fertility if one does not wish to become a parent. Male birth control options are not what’s being legislated away at a frightening pace. Stop criticizing and start helping.

              You could begin by refraining from misrepresenting just about everything I say.

            • “No. I’m not telling anyone to “keep their legs closed.”

              You’re telling men to keep it in their pants if they don’t want to be fathers under penalty of debtor’s prison. That’s the practical, real world implication of what you said.

              And male birth control options can’t be legislated away because they do not exist outside of condoms, vasectomies, and abstinence. Incidentally, it is common practice to refuse married men vasectomies without their wife’s consent, did you know that?

              I didn’t misrepresent anything you said.

              Maybe I’d care about women’s birth control options if they cared about mine. They do not. No feminists are advocating we do away with compulsory child support. You don’t care about my reproductive rights, so I don’t care about yours. Fair enough?

            • Heather T

              Advocating for men to obtain birth control methods for themselves if they do not wish to become fathers, is in no way the same thing as telling them to “keep it in their pants”.

              I urge you to learn the difference if you do not wish to have the choice of fatherhood made FOR you by anyone else.

            • Heather T

              “No feminists are advocating we do away with compulsory child support.”

              As I’ve said, over and over, if men do not wish to take responsibility for controlling their own fertility, decisions will be made FOR them by others – and no feminist is going to advocate for your “right” to knock someone up and then dump a resulting born child like trash.

              You’re an adult. Act like one.

            • “As I’ve said, over and over, if men do not wish to take responsibility for controlling their own fertility, decisions will be made FOR them by others – and no feminist is going to advocate for your “right” to knock someone up and then dump a resulting born child like trash.”

              Really? I thought feminism was about equality. But apparently it’s a woman’s lobby. Thanks for admitting it.

              This is a bit of a problem though since feminists have hijacked our public dialogue about gender while anybody who disagrees is accused of hatred of women, predation, and criminality. They did this because they keep talking about justice and equality, even when both of us – apparently – can agree that it has nothing to do with either.

              Nobody is suggesting anybody “dump a child like trash.” What I am suggesting is that women decide if they want to have children or not, since it is their body and their choice, while men get to decide if they want to be fathers or not, since it is also men’s bodies at work to pay for a child or men’s bodies in prison when they are behind on child support arrears. It’s her body, her choice. It’s his body, his choice. See?

              If a man wants to take care of a child, great. If not, well too bad. The woman has the option of aborting it, abandoning it, putting it up for adoption, and so on. Nobody is forcing her to be a mother.

              If you want to trot out stupid scenarios like a woman having a child with the understanding that the father was going to support it and then the father bails, it’s easily remedied by a legally binding contract which is no different than any other kind of contract regarding income and property.

              That is what equality would actually look like. But we’ve established that feminism has nothing to do with equality, haven’t we?

              The truth is that women don’t care about this issue, feminists don’t care about equality, and anybody who would call them out on this is an evil misogynist and relegated to a fringe. So, y’know, I guess this is “social justice.”

              So feminism is about legally enforcing chivalry. How progressive!

              “Feminists care about reproductive rights for everyone;”

              But wait.. didn’t you just say…. oh forget it.

              “And **I** care about men who are forced into fatherhood against their wishes – that is why I encourage men, over and over, to take control over their own fertility.”

              If you cared about it, you’d question the efficacy of child support. You’re never going to do this because you – like feminists – don’t care about equality. You never did. And what else are they going to do to take care of their own fertility in the legal and political sphere if not oppose feminists who have no interest in men’s reproductive rights? Is that not how men would take control of their fertility? By abolishing debtor’s prisons for men who can’t afford child support payments and creating the legal option for men to opt out of pregnancies they do not want?

            • Heather T

              You are wasting your time with these gigantic diatribes, and forwarding the ridiculous suggestion that men cannot take control of their fertility without first abolishing feminism. People who believe this sometimes end up killing us because feminism.

              I am interested in upholding the rights of everyone; not just for people I like or agree with. Because that’s how feminism works.

              What YOU are advocating for would infringe on the rights of others while serving your own interests. Don’t want to pay child support? Take control of your own reproductive destiny; feminists already have their hands quite full trying to convince legislators that our bodily autonomy is something that should not even be up for DEBATE to begin with.

            • No, I think it’s pretty obvious that my argument is that feminism stands in the way of equality. It never had anything to do with equality. And you’re not interested in holding up the rights of everyone. If you were, you would look at feminism more critically.

              Also, my “diatribes” sometimes become the seed of a blog post, so it’s not a waste of time for me.

            • Heather T

              Oh, and I do look at feminism critically, which is to say that I look upon feminists as individual persons with whom I may agree, or disagree. As opposed to seeing feminism/ists as a faceless monolith. For me, this is part of the very appeal itself. Disagreeing with any other feminist on a particular issue does not have to lessen my own convictions, or oblige me to reject its ideals wholesale. I find this freedom to extend to all other persons with whom I interact.

              With the exception of any person who is hostile to human agency and choice – even those who claim to identify as feminists.

            • Heather T

              Feminism is something that has always been evolving. I tend to participate in inter-sectional feminism because in it, I see a broader inclusiveness, as opposed to feminism which may limit itself to (for example) addressing the needs of those in my own “demographic”, eg, white, heterosexual, (relatively) able-bodied, cis-gendered, etc. It’s not a “male v female” proposal – but of course, YMMV.

            • Brad M.

              Please provide links of this alleged MRA “hatred” and “contempt.” Let’s see some evidence.
              In return, I will provided links of feminist hatred towards men and women.
              MRA advocates are discredited by people like you, because you despise their real agenda… promoting actual equality, not the feminist version which doesn’t want to sacrifice the clear entitlements women enjoy over men.

            • Like I said, feminism can’t be about equality because it’s based on an inaccurate understanding of gender and masculinity. It’s essentially trying to achieve equality by lifting women up into an imaginary male power and privilege. It doesn’t matter if you think it is about equality, since it begins with assumptions that aren’t rooted in reality, it can never actually achieve its aims.

              Your characterization of the MRA position(s) is based on the same misunderstanding.

              You seem to imagine that men and women are teams and that team men is on top and oppressing team women. In reality, as I’ve already pointed out, men’s life outcomes tend towards extremes in ways that women don’t. A few men win big and many more lose bigger, bigger than any woman in fact. The statistical picture shows that clearly and obviously this could not be the case if “male privilege” works the way you think it does.

              Men do not oppress women. Men oppress one another while adhering to a female imposed gender role. Both genders have privileges and weaknesses that are particular to them, and each socializes the other. So if you’re identifying masculinity as the root of women’s oppression, you would have to ask how women created that very same masculinity, since men don’t exist in a social vacuum.

              As far as intersectional feminism goes, we can use that frame work to argue that a wealthy white woman is still oppressed like a poor black woman by virtue of the fact that she’s female and oppressed on that gender axis in addition to the class axis. By the same reasoning we would have to conclude that a wealthy white man is oppressed on the gender axis since he is still a man and regarded like one.

              As I said, the sentencing disparity between men and women is 6 times the on that exists between the races. If you want to establish some intersectional matrix of oppression and victimhood, why not simply measure it by how many people in a particular group are incarcerated? If you did, you’d find that the percentage of white men incarcerated is roughly equivalent to the percentage of black women incarcerated. Why wouldn’t this tell us just as much about how power actually works as counting up the number of white men in board rooms or in congress?

            • Heather T

              “This or that form of feminism” excludes a vision of a possible form of feminism that is as all-inclusive as it can be.

              Seeing things as they currently are, does not exclude an ability and desire to envision and work towards everything that might yet be.

              I will not limit myself to within the deadened parameters of someone else’s definition of feminism, and I will always encourage myself and others to seek their full potential as human beings, despite limitations, both real and perceived.

              But you cannot expect feminists to advocate for a group of people who actively silence our voices to begin with – with rape threats and death threats and threats to our families and livelihood. Advocacy becomes less and less safe for us, not to mention making our work exponentially more difficult.

              And you performed an interesting* sleight-of-hand when you correctly touched upon the hierarchy of privilege, then suddenly inserted “white men” in there, right along with black men as an oppressed group. I’m sure the black community would not appreciate you playing Oppression Olympics, not least because you would surely lose.

              Yes, I’m privileged along some axes of privilege, and marginalized along others. The point is, because I am able to, I advocate for those with less privilege and voice than myself. Not the other way around.

              *sneaky

            • It’s not sleight of hand, it’s just the logical conclusion of any intersectional analysis if you applied it to men. If the logic doesn’t hold, then show me where it it doesn’t. If it does, then to argue the former about women would be to also argue the latter about men, unless there some other dimension of it I’m not aware of.

            • Heather T

              Then let me be more specific. White men, as a group, have the largest share of privilege, with varying levels of privilege as individuals within that group.

              For example, a white man may have a physical disability or economic disadvantage, but, as a white male, he will still have some advantage over a person of color with the exact same disability or economic disadvantage.

              As white people, you and I have privilege whether we want it or not; the question is whether or not we are willing to exploit it at the expense of marginalized people. Personally, I’m not willing to do that – and even so, I can be fairly sure that my privilege as a white person has advantaged me over another, without me ever being made aware of it.

              That’s a big part of how/why most of the time our privilege is invisible even to ourselves. But it’s not the only part.

            • “Then let me be more specific. White men, as a group, have the largest share of privilege, with varying levels of privilege as individuals within that group.”

              I’ve already addressed this. Men and women are not teams. *Men oppress each other* while adhering to a female imposed role. The only reason some guy is a CEO or in congress isn’t because he is “privileged,” but because, for his entire life, he was socialized in relationship to female expectations of him. As I’ve pointed out, married men out earn women and unmarried men, marriage is eroding at the bottom end of the socioeconomic spectrum more than it is at the top, 90% of workplace injuries and deaths are attributable to men – men are *obligated* to be breadwinners because women *expect them to be.* Their place in society is conditional in a way yours is not. That is not a privilege.

              Obligations are not privileges.

              This is why men work more hours, it’s also why men subordinate their career decisions to money more than women do. Men will major in things they aren’t even interested in and spend their whole lives doing those things because if they did not *they would be socially and sexually excluded by women.* They will work more hours and do jobs they don’t even want to do because they face far greater and more profound social consequences *from women* if they fail to do those things. Those are not social pressures that you will understand because you have no idea what it means to have your existence in society tied to your ability to earn income like a mule.

              There is no privilege. If anybody is privileged, it’s the guy’s wife who spends his money while he gets relegated to the “man cave” in the house he worked longer hours than her to pay for.

              Men do not exist in a social vaccum. There is no pattern of men’s lives, no identifiable masculinity, no statistical trend in men’s behavior *which is not a direct product of women’s expectations of them.*

              So what you imagine is “male privilege” isn’t privilege at all.

              “As white people, you and I have privilege whether we want it or not; the question is whether or not we are willing to exploit it at the expense of marginalized people.”

              Statistically speaking, the white men you’re taking about AGAIN, are 3 times as likely as you to be homeless, 4 times as likely to die by violence, less likely to graduate high school and college. If those white men major in STEM occupations, you have a 2 to 1 hiring advantage over them if you major in a STEM occupation.

              What’s more, the overwhelming majority of those white men have seen stagnant wages for a generation with incomes falling at the bottom, even while women statistically still expect them to be breadwinners.

              You are literally telling men who are more likely to live with their parents, have been destroyed by student debt, increasingly can’t make enough at precarious jobs to even support themselves let alone families, and who have increasingly no meaningful relationship to all of society’s core institutions that they need to “use their privilege.”

              I’m sorry, but the real world is not going to bend to what is basically an ideological fantasy cooked up by college educated white women in the affluent consumer culture of the mid 20th century. It’s just time to re-evaluate.

            • Heather T

              I may come back to this when I have the time/inclination, but for now, I’ll leave you with **this**:
              “Women oppress each other while adhering to a MALE-imposed “role”.

              And I very much appreciate the complexities of intersection privilege and oppression. If it wouldn’t be too terribly much trouble, would you mind refraining from projecting all of your undesirable traits and thinking patterns onto me?

              It is difficult to engage with anyone in good faith when their ultimate goal appears to be the preservation of white male supremacy.

              Class conflict indeed has a lot to do with race and gender – because those who are marginalized by dint of their race and gender, etc., are the same people most likely to be denied economic opportunity in the first place – creating stark racial/gender differences between the classes.

            • “”Women oppress each other while adhering to a MALE-imposed “role”.”

              Well you can’t have it both ways. If men collectively produce the power structure, then that power structure would reflect women’s choices in mating. The reverse would not be true, unless you’d like to toss the core claims of virtually any feminist school of thought.

              “Class conflict indeed has a lot to do with race and gender”

              It has “a lot to do with race in gender” if intramale competition reflects women’s expectations and demands of the opposite sex. In other words, class conflict *originates* in women’s expectations as much as it originates in anything else, like “the patriarchy.”

            • Heather T

              “Those are not social pressures that you will understand because you have no idea what it means to have your existence in society tied to your ability to earn income like a mule.”

              Excuse me…..did you just assume that I have no idea what it means to have my “existence in society tied to (my) ability to earn income like ‘a mule’?

              Not ONLY have I been no stranger to working for a hardscrabble existence, but I have ALSO simultaneously done so while being chased around the cash register by a 50-year-old pervert who owned my workplace, and who, I assume, told himself that he was “working like a mule” at a job he despised – JUST to keep the little woman at home in jewels and ivory backscratchers.

              When I met my husband, he did not yet even HAVE a proper job, and still lived at home; but more as a cultural thing than some inherent inability or lack of ambition. His kindness, moral strength, and consistent adherence to his own ideals of fairness and decency, made him stand out as a person I’d like to share a life journey with. We’d build something together.

              Before then, I’d received three marriage proposals from three different men, ALL of whom could have put me in the lap of luxury – but my PRINCIPLES inform my life choices; not stereotypical “roles” imposed upon me by a sh***y sexist society.

              And I’m happy to say that sticking with my core values has yielded a greater life success – and not just in a material context.

            • “When I met my husband, he did not yet even HAVE a proper job, and still lived at home; but more as a cultural thing than some inherent inability or lack of ambition. His kindness, moral strength, and consistent adherence to his own ideals of fairness and decency, made him stand out as a person I’d like to share a life journey with. We’d build something together.”

              That’s nice but the statistical picture shows that women select for breadwinners.

              “Before then, I’d received three marriage proposals from three different men, ALL of whom could have put me in the lap of luxury – but my PRINCIPLES inform my life choices; not stereotypical “roles” imposed upon me by a sh***y sexist society.”

              Wow, so what you’re saying is that you an option, a way out, one that men don’t get. Thanks for that. It kinda proves my point doesn’t it?

            • These racial and gender issues are the effect of underlying economic disparities, not the cause of those disparities. You guys have the cause and effect reversed. Religious conservatives and racists think that culture produces economic outcomes. People on the left are supposed to recognize that economic outcomes produce culture. But that’s not the case with you people. You’re actually on the same side of the debate as racists on that question. Do you realize that?

              That’s really a shame. It seemed like after 2008, people were starting to question the efficacy of capitalism. They were starting to listen to its critics and it seemed like maybe we could change things. Then the identity politics idiots overran the left, including all attempts to revive the labor movement. Now there’s no hope.

              You go on telling men who have no reason to live and no future that everyone else’s suffering is their fault and see what happens.

              Whatever, I give up. I no longer care.

            • Really think about how ridiculous this argument is. On the one hand, you create social consequences for men who fail to earn as much if not more than women and leave them little choice but to make as much money as possible and choose careers that pay the most even if they aren’t interested in them, then on the other, you blame men for those greater earnings and take them to be a sign of women’s ongoing oppression or their lack of “economic autonomy.” That is outrageous.

          • Joshua White

            >” Women have value by default but men’s value is conditional, not only in the eyes of other men, but in the eyes of women.”
            This does not make sense to me, not only because I have a different experience, but because your examples don’t seem to support your view. I think instead that there are places where society stereotypes male and female people in terms of innate and conditional value, and it takes a certain kind of mind to even think of people as only having conditional value (no implications intended)

            >”Are we supposed to think that men fight those wars because they are inherently morally inferior?”
            This seems to me to be an example of where society says that male people have (or are assumed to have as a group, which is why I use the terms “male people”) innate value as soldiers. Sure those people often went to war to defend their families, but there is a difference between social messages and personal motivations.
            I have no reason to question the fact that a male person would throw
            themselves on a grenade for the reasons you mention, but again society
            assumes that men have innate value when it comes to these things.

            >”… men experience 90% of workplace injuries and deaths today…”
            Here again male people are assumed to have innate value when it comes to certain jobs and female people are devalued in those jobs. If society changed these assumptions it’s a safe hypothesis that the injury and death numbers would normalize (independently of safety changes).

            >”Any power structure is essentially an alliance between members of some
            national, racial, or religious tribal in-group of men against some
            demonized out-group, and the ideological justification for it is always
            intimately bound up with our relationship to women and children….”
            This entire paragraph simply cherry-picks parts of the social structures that have existed. The relationship between men (certain kinds of male people) you neglect and that relationship results in actions that very often actively exclude female people and interpret the opinions of them as impositions. It’s why there are insults like “hysterical”, some people simply can’t stand headstrong, opinionated women and attack the whole sex with their insults to “keep them in their place”.

            Male and female people are oppressed by society in different ways and we seek approval from one another on a regular basis for many things. To simply hyper-focus on some of them and present them as the whole is not at all consistent with reality.

            • “This does not make sense to me, not only because I have a different experience, but because your examples don’t seem to support your view. I think instead that there are places where society stereotypes male and female people in terms of innate and conditional value, and it takes a certain kind of mind to even think of people as only having conditional value (no implications intended)”

              This doesn’t make sense to you because anecdotal experience. Ok, but if you take a look at our culture, we would probably have to ask questions like “gee, why are men 3 times as likely to be homeless yet nobody recognizes that it’s a gender issue?” We might ask questions like “why are we worried about women’s safety when men are 4 times as likely to be assaulted or die by violence?” We could ask why it is that we care more about getting women into STEM fields they aren’t interested in when men experience 90% of workplace injuries and deaths.

              But we won’t be asking those questions because we don’t care. We don’t even notice. It’s the wider society that assigns value and clearly homeless men are deemed to be of little value. That is why male homelessness is not a gender issue and why we’re supposed to care more about “mansplaining” and “manspreading” then male suicide. Do you have a better explanation? If so, what is it? Be very specific.

              “This seems to me to be an example of where society says that male people have (or are assumed to have as a group, which is why I use the terms “male people”) innate value as soldiers. Sure those people often went to war to defend their families, but there is a difference between social messages and personal motivations.
              I have no reason to question the fact that a male person would throw themselves on a grenade for the reasons you mention, but again society assumes that men have innate value when it comes to these things.”

              Oh they have “value” as soldiers. And should they be unable or unwilling to fight? Did slaves have “value” as cotton pickers? The argument is that male value is conditional. Can you not see how value is conditional? Is it the “real man” that fights the war? If men have to prove they are “real men,” what this suggests is the possibility that there are fake men, or that masculinity must be proved at all times, yeah? Do you not understand what the word “conditional” means?

              See, women’s value would be that they bare and raise children if men’s value is their labor utility. But look at the difference. Women’s value is innate, conferred on to them biologically. Men’s value is not, since it would require functioning institutions and a wider division of labor. See why men’s value to society would be conditional while women’s is guaranteed? I don’t believe this argument is so difficult that you would have this much trouble grasping it.

              “This entire paragraph simply cherry-picks parts of the social structures that have existed. The relationship between men (certain kinds of male people) you neglect and that relationship results in actions that very often actively exclude female people and interpret the opinions of them as impositions. It’s why there are insults like “hysterical”, some people simply can’t stand headstrong, opinionated women and attack the whole sex with their insults to “keep them in their place”.”

              It’s hardly “cherry picked” if it can be said of literally every single power structure past or present, which it can. And clearly no “female people” are excluded if the whole power structure is based on providing for them and protecting them. And it is.

              Your rebuttal to this is that somebody called a woman “hysterical” once? Nobody asked women to die by the millions to protect men and children, so… I don’t know, I think my example trumps yours, but whatever.

              And which gender has a “place?” Apparently men’s place is dying in wars or at jobs that destroy their health.

              “Male and female people are oppressed by society in different ways and we seek approval from one another on a regular basis for many things. To simply hyper-focus on some of them and present them as the whole is not at all consistent with reality.”

              Sure, but that’s not what feminists like Solinit are arguing, which is why “mansplaining” is thought to be a thing while there is no “femsplaining,” yeah? The argument coming from feminists is that men oppress women. Not that men and women have different obligations and privileges specific to their gender. The only people making that argument are men’s rights advocates and antifeminists. You see to be confused.

            • Joshua White

              >”This doesn’t make sense to you because anecdotal
              experience. Ok, but if you take a look at our culture, we would probably have
              to ask questions like “gee, why are men 3 times as likely to be homeless
              yet nobody recognizes that it’s a gender issue?””

              NO. Answer my challenge about innate value and men with
              respect to military service before I respond to anything else coward. Why
              should I let you change the subject so casually?

              >”Oh they have “value” as soldiers. And should they be unable
              or unwilling to fight? Did slaves have “value” as cotton pickers? The
              argument is that male value is conditional.”

              This is not addressing my argument that men are assumed to have innate value as
              soldiers, and you cowardly tried to shield yourself with black people. Grow a
              spine.

              To answer your rhetorical question (the first one, not your
              bigoted second one) if men refused to fight in some countries they faced consequences,
              in part because they were assumed to have innate value as soldiers. The people
              in power (male people most often) did not want to let that value escape.

              >”Do you not understand what the word
              “conditional” means?”

              Perhaps you should try to educate me.

              >”It’s hardly “cherry picked” if it can be
              said of literally every single power structure past or present, which it can.
              And clearly no “female people” are excluded if the whole power
              structure is based on providing for them and protecting them. And it is.”

              You coward. The selective role that female people are expected
              to play is my point, actually address it. I will address your homeless men,
              when you can actually address the issue of men being assumed to have innate values
              as soldiers.

              >”Your rebuttal to this is that somebody called a
              woman “hysterical” once?”

              An utterly dishonest portrayal of my use of the word
              “hysterical”. I spoke of it’s general function, not how often it was
              used. Please try to use more comprehension, as a person with ADHD I realize
              this can be challenging but it is possible.

              Screw the rest of your comment until you start answering
              what I really say, of until you answer the substance of my comments at all.

            • Evilin Garnett

              It is so very true that men have been asked to protect women and children,…..
              from other men.
              Patriarchy hurts men as much as women.

            • Catherine Reed

              “We could ask why it is that we care more about getting women into STEM fields they aren’t interested in when men experience 90% of workplace injuries and deaths.”

              Life is not a zero-sum game. Encouraging talented women to pursue STEM careers does not come at the expense of promoting male worker safety, in any field. I’ve discussed in another thread the topic of workplace safety in science/R&D, which I won’t repeat here. You haven’t cited any data to support your assertions, it would be helpful to see a breakdown of types of injuries/deaths, by occupational categories and country of origin.*

              “Ok, but if you take a look at our culture, we would probably have to ask questions like “gee, why are men 3 times as likely to be homeless yet nobody recognizes that it’s a gender issue?” ”

              Gender issues abound here, but perhaps not quite in the way you think. And this goes back to your earlier statement, as follows: “…women do not face the real prospect of being ejected from society in the way that men do. If you don’t believe me, go sit at a bar with a female friend. Let her sit at one end and smile and observe her social power as a revolving cast of men appear and try to qualify for her approval like men interviewing for a job during the middle of the Great Depression.” There is a disparity in the numbers of men vs. women amongst the ranks of the homeless. Some of that disparity may lie in the greater prevalence of schizophrenia in males, a disease that often manifests during late adolescence, a period in one’s development that is already fraught with change and upheaval. Young men, particularly young men from marginalized groups, are vulnerable to mental instability; the rate of suicide in teenage boys in arctic communities in Canada is staggeringly high, and utterly heart-breaking. But that doesn’t mean women don’t end up on the streets with nowhere to call home. They do, every single day. But as you stated, women attract attention from men, whether they want that attention or not. Young women in dire straits are highly vulnerable to exploitation and trafficking. In other words, they aren’t homeless for long. Is that a manifestation of female power? I don’t think so.

              ” The argument coming from feminists is that men oppress women.”

              No dude, you don’t get to make absurdly reductionist statements like that, and still expect us to take your arguments seriously. Elevate your game, son.

              *I’m assuming the data would only show lost time accidents, where a worker would have to take time off work to recover from an injury. One type of injury prevalent in STEM that doesn’t get reported is the chronic low-level debilitation caused by repetitive actions; those affect men and women in equal numbers, going by my personal experience.

      • GodsAccident

        “Plus, it’s often wrong.”.. I think it’s okay to say that *if* generally speaking, but I never use someone’s race/ethnicity/religion/sex/etc as a retort to an point they make, and instead retort their point with substantive stuff. Way too often I see white males shut down SOLELY because they are white males and that’s just as bad as shutting down a woman solely because she is a woman I think. And when I point that out, I hear response I just get more replies that since they are white male, they can be shut down for that reason alone. I think it’s obvious that if everyone could hide their race/sex/etc we’d have a much better discourse as no one would take the short cut to discount someone’s point they didn’t like just by calling out their gender/race/etc.

        • Ms. Pris

          “Way too often I see white males shut down SOLELY because they are white males”

          I doubt that you do, to be honest. I see this complaint a lot on the internet, but it always turns out that what the complainers are actually describing are conversations in which a white man says something disparaging or dismissive about the experience of another, and the other responds by pointing out that the white man, being a white man, hasn’t had the same experience the other has, and that therefore his opinion is less valid. Sometimes the other will even plainly say that they don’t care to hear the white man’s opinion on the subject.

          Then the white man goes and claims that he was “shut down solely because he was a white male” because he still cannot acknowledge his privilege, and any situation that does not privilege his opinions must be victimizing him.

        • Sunnyhorse

          Honey, those men are not being shut down “because they are white males.” They’re being shut down because they’re assholes without empathy.

          • johnthebaddest

            Which is the problem and the point. They’re considered assholes without empathy because they’re white males.

            • Sass

              Nope, sorry. I don’t consider someone an asshole without empathy unless they have been loudly asshole-ish and demonstrably unempathetic. The fact that these people are disproportionately (but far from exclusively) white, male, cisgender and straight is on them, not on me.

            • Giswok

              And yet, here you are Sunnyhorse, describing these hypothetical people as assholes for their hypothetical statements purely because all we know about them is that they’re white males with an opinion that you might hypothetically disagree with.

            • AL

              Sure. Except it’s not a stretch to imagine that we’ve all had so many experiences with that kind of person that we’ve long ago lost count. The person is different, but the pattern/discourse is the same: Person asserts his opinion about someone who is not like him (female, of color, transgendered, etc). This opinion is clearly limited in its scope and understanding. Other people try to engage with person, but person is uninterested in engaging in discussion that might challenge or enhance his understanding. He is only interested in sharing, or yelling, his “logical, objective” viewpoint, which generally involves some amount of condemnation and dismissal of the subject (which, again, he appears to have very limited understanding of). Sometimes, person erupts into threatening, sexual, and/or overtly bigoted behavior.

              The point isn’t that he’s white or male. The point is that too often, he is white and male. Sorry for being human, but after awhile, when you experience that pattern over and over and over and over…it’s tough to have as much empathy and generosity of spirit as you might like to have when someone, not always a white man but often, yes – proves himself unable, or unwilling, to reciprocate. But I know a lot of great, kind, intelligent white men, and I always start hopeful.

            • Giswok

              I’m sure all of us here would agree that sort of behaviour is both unacceptable and, unfortunately, commonplace. The trouble is (or, one of the troubles!) that white men wishing to engage in genuine respectful discussion are often tarred with the same brush, and their opinions, where they differ, often equated with a lack of thought or understanding. This can both lead to disengagement and contribute to a certain uniformity of “acceptable” voiced opinion in the community.

            • johnthebaddest

              I didn’t describe them at all.

            • Sean T Poindexter

              No, they are being considered assholes without empathy because they were being assholes without empathy. The fact that they were white males simply underscores the point that white men in our culture have a long and rich tradition of being condescending to women about things like this. I’m a white male and I certainly didn’t feel “shut down” but this essay.

            • ZillaGod

              White men did not invent nor perpetuate the powerful phenomenon known as hip-hop culture, which is as misogynistic as it can get. While the “Girl power” movement is coming on strong in many parts of society (especially white), hip-hop degrades women as nothing more than disposable toys for men. You want to go after something, start with that.

            • AL

              Wow, thanks for the suggestion! *eyeroll* Sorry to be rude, but did you actually *read* the essay, or many of the lovely top comments, or even the comments on this thread, before commenting yourself, where the author and others describe how odd it is to constantly receive these little suggestions (clearly, critiques) in response to anything they write/say? Not that suggestions themselves are harmful, but when they are done in the spirit of ignoring/dismissing what has been said or experienced, or of assuming the speaker does not have the intelligence that you do, they are generally more funny/infuriating than helpful. You don’t think we are aware of hip hop culture? You don’t think there might be reasons why we are not talking about hip hop culture right now, but instead of addressing the complaint, voiced by Godsaccident, that white men are too often being unfairly shut down?

            • amysterling

              Zilla, one type of music does not an argument make.

            • Selina Style

              For a moment, consider that the crux of your argument why you can’t make sweeping statements about a demographic is to make sweeping statements about a genre of music and the culture associated.

              But rather than mock you for this, let’s use it as an attempt to find common ground!

              It’s easy to understand why you’d believe that hip hop culture is “as misogynistic as it gets”, because historically what’s been positioned as hip hop in the mainstream *is* incredibly misogynistic. The truth, of course, is that what’s branded and sold as hip hop doesn’t represent the whole culture by a long shot. But that’s irrelevant to most people outside hip hop, because the misogynistic shit is all they get to see. It’s what’s promoted and most commonly discussed/analyzed, because it gets the most airtime and (here’s a really important bit) SELLS THE MOST.

              Because in our incredibly fucked up society, it’s more commercially viable to rap about brutally murdering your wife and dumping her body off a bridge (like “Kim”, and about a dozen other songs by Eminem) than it is to rap about systemic oppression and classism (like Immortal Technique and Public Enemy) or a woman-centric perspective on sexuality.

              So hip hop isn’t as misogynistic as it gets — there are many voices in hip hop espousing a myriad of views, but the critically recognized core body of work (which has been influenced greatly by which works were most commercially successful) has a strong misogynistic streak, worthy of discussion and review. Sound familiar?

            • homasapiens

              “tu quoque” (You also) is a fallacious argument. Someone else doing the same thing does not mean that it’s okay when you do it.
              Not even when you claim they do it more and worse.

            • Evilin Garnett

              And if the article had been about hip hop culture, she might have.

            • Ann Newton

              Hip hop culture has been around for about 25 years. Misogyny did not start with hip hop culture. What you’re basically saying is that the problem isn’t white men, it’s black men. Way to project. It’s no accident that a black man was able to win a presidential election before a woman could. In society, any man is “better” than a woman.

            • Rhiannon Admidas

              Cool strawman argument.

            • SarahBJones

              No, John. It’s more complex than that. Many white men are taught their whole lives that they are the default human being…that they never have to reach outside themselves because they represent the universal human experience. They act in the world on this basis, and end up acting in ways that are un-empathic and condescending because of it. There is a dialectic to it, not a simple little cause –> effect. And it’s not doing men any good, either. Instead of arguing it doesn’t exist, it may do you better to recognize the ways it holds men back from experiencing the world in a more textured and empathic way.

            • powelstock

              Exactly right: “the default human being.” That’s exactly what I am trying to learn to notice and interrogate in myself in my own fitful journey to enlightenment.

            • Romantic Placebo

              It doesn’t do white men any good because then when they don’t succeed to obtain the success or prestige they grew up identifying with, they get angry and lash out, at other men, but also at groups who aren’t in as high social standing like women and minorities.

            • amysterling

              Well – if this guy above is any example, he is kind of a dick and it only makes sense he’s commenting because this article has thousands of shares and he wants a piece of the action.

            • Evilin Garnett

              No, they are considered assholes without empathy because they don’t listen, assume their experience is Reality rather than A Reality and discount they reality of others. That’s assinine behavior no matter your gender/color place in on the privilege ladder.

        • S3r3nity

          “Way too often I see white males shut down SOLELY because they are white males ”

          In the cases I can think of where this happened, the entire Q&A period had been dominated by white males commenting on the topic at hand and in the few minutes which were left some of the women and non-white males (and people with disabilities) wanted a chance to speak. (Although it is true that there is almost never enough time for everyone to have their say.)

          • AL

            Yes! In all the discussions on this topic I’ve seen lately, this is rarely addressed directly. Thank you. This explanation is in some ways the simplest, but it – white men dominating discussions, apparently unaware of the fact that other people have different, equally valid opinions or might be a little tired of hearing theirs – happens so often, it might be the most important.

            It’s not that we don’t care what you have to say. It’s that we don’t care ONLY about what you have to say. Leave some air time for other people, always. Learn to really listen, not just poke holes or prepare your argument. Especially when the topic is not something you actually know much about.

            I used to teach English in middle and high school and it was fun to practice student-led discussions. Sometimes, after it was over, I would show them a picture with lines depicting who was talking back and forth to each other, or with notches showing the different amounts people talked, so they could reflect on how the discussion went. This isn’t something I blame people for – some of us come from cultures or families where interrupting and shouting over each other is expected, or where debating is a valued skill – but it is something that we can all be made aware of and improve.

            • Heather

              That’s a great teaching idea!

          • Joshua White

            I have also observed this, which is one reason why I take the social conflict aspect of this seriously. It’s often not the intent of the people doing this, but we white people and in particular white males like me are used to having our say in just about any environment. The effect of this, independent of intent, is for white (or white male) voices and identity to dominate and become one of the themes that resonates in memory.

            At this point it’s important for others, and white people in particular, who can to refocus the conversation. It’s a way of using our in-group psychological privilege as a benefit. The conversation should be refocused on the others present (especially those who the discussion is about), and to use your voice to support the messages of others.

          • Tall Muse

            Dominated by white males who had neither read Lolita nor this article, but wanted to make sure that all women knew they were wrong.

        • words dark & light

          I’m a white male with fairly strong and blunt opinions, and I can’t say that, in 50+ years I’ve felt “shut down” just because of that. But then, I’m not hypersensitive or prone to whining, and I can agree and disagree – and do both respectfully.

          • Giswok

            Interestingly, “hypersensitive” and “whiney” are words that are often used to shut women down, as words associated with being stereotypically “girly”. I’m not sure it’s progress to apply them to just anyone who expresses an opinion. Respect gets respect, and despite your claim you are not showing GodsAccident respect here.

            • AL

              Good point, Giswok, and it’s important to draw attention to language. 3 things:

              1) He may have been using the language consciously, and ironically, for the very reason you say (these terms are gendered and thrown at women constantly). But maybe not, and if not, I hear you that it’s fair to think about how we engage with everyone.

              2) This doesn’t invalidate your comment, which I thought was a fair one. But as a thought experiment, just for a second: imagine what it might be like if a woman had critiqued language of a commenter with a popular viewpoint on a site that speaks to validating the male experience and where the commenters are primarily men and others who are thanking the author profoundly, genuinely, for saying something that in the depths of their beings feels so important. Do you think our comments and critiques would hold the same level of respect by most men that you are assuming we should afford you (and you’re generally right, on this site)? Would I be respected, or told I was being nitpicky, too sensitive, had a victim mentality, was a marxist, was on my period, was being a libtard/godless liberal, or some other phrase that suggests just shut up already, because the person’s main point was more valid than my ‘silly critique’ of his word choice? Depends on the site, and on the commenters, of course. But I’ve been on many sites recently, trying to understand the experiences and viewpoints of others different from myself, and I’ve seen women and others who critique the dominant, status quo view shut down, often rudely and obscenely, for much less. More often than not, women or other dissenters don’t even speak up. We self-silence because we are all too aware of what happens – and the sometimes violent, bigoted threats that occur – when we open our mouths.

              This is not an argument in favor of being disrespectful on this site because “they are too!” But if you are a man, as I’m guessing, I’m curious if you can imagine, for a moment, what it might be like to NOT be, in a world still dominated by male voices and male power. If you can see that the very fact that you can make comments like yours on this site and not be shouted down or personally threatened is something that doesn’t necessarily happen the other way around.

              3) Maybe I’m unfairly making an assumption that you’re not a woman. Either way, as far as I have seen thus far, you are lending your voice and power not to celebrating or showing that you’re thinking about any of the insights expressed by Rebecca’s essay, but instead to making sure we all know that the main issue we should be discussing is the fact that white men are being unfairly maligned. It’s an interesting choice. You seem like a reasonable and thoughtful person. Is this really the main thing that needs to happen here? There’s nothing else of value we could be discussing?

              Anyway, thanks for your views. I fear I’m not being as coherent as possible, and apologies for that, and for misunderstanding/misjudging your comments, if I have indeed done that.

            • Giswok

              Hi AL, sorry it’s taken me a while to get back to you! A belated Merry Christmas by the way, if you celebrate it :).

              Thanks for taking the time to write a detailed and well thought-out response. I’ll dive in on your third point. It’s a fair critique – truthfully I wasn’t able to gain much from Rebecca’s essay as I’m not familiar with the literature involved, and so struggled to follow her reasoning on Lolita. It does seem to have touched and meant something to many people and that’s to be applauded.

              I was brought here simply by a friend posting it on Facebook, who specifically mentioned the comments on the essay being unusually worthwhile reading. And being interested in gender I did, of course, read them and happened to come across those comments I’ve responded to, hoping to add something to the discussion.

              I appreciate you feel this isn’t the time or place. Perhaps you’re right. I feel like the above process is ok though, you know? People come across things on the internet and discuss them, sometimes that leads off topic. I’d also wonder, if not here, then where? One of the many websites dedicated to sensible and respectful discussion of gender which welcome male input? 😉

              On your second point, I don’t doubt the truth of what you’ve said. With respect; I know this. I’ve known it ever since I was a small child who liked playing with his doll but sensed in some way this wasn’t quite “normal”. Then a teen and adult regularly sniped at or excluded for being “girly”, including by girls and women, with the result that I got into the habit of suppressing my full identity for the sake of a simpler life. We all come through life in different ways, and I can’t completely know what it’s like to be female, but the idea that gender is something society wants to fundamentally define you by, and that you can recieve abuse for your determination _not_ to be defined by it is a theme I’m familiar with. It’s a theme I see reflected in some other comments here.

              What’s more of course I have a sister, mother, girlfriend and any number of female friends and we do talk. With the male ones too. This isn’t intended as a sob story, life’s a pain in the bum for all of us sometimes. But you did ask 🙂

              One point I’m trying to make here is, whatever amount of nonsense many self-declared men’s right activists and the like might come out with, there are some white men who are well informed and might genuinely bring a perspective that isn’t much considered by women in mainstream feminism, because we all walk different paths. That mught include some disagreement on some issues. There actually isn’t much space to air those views in a feminist context, as some feminists can be overtly hostile to male voices, but of course we often don’t fit comfortably into patriarchal society either. I consider myself an ally (for whatever that word really means), but allies sometimes disagree and that’s healthy.

              I don’t think I’ve claimed that unfairly maligned white men should be the main issue? But it’s objectionable to be dismissed as assholes simply because of the body we were born into or because of the behaviour of others with whom we happen to share a gender or race, as some well-recieved comments on this page have done.

              This has turned out longer than I’d like – as usual I could do with a ruthless editor ;). I hope it makes some sense.

        • No, it’s not as bad. Not all places of communication are the conquered domain of white males. Sometimes our (I am a straight white male) opinion, whether positive or negative, is not required in their space. Get out of their space.

        • Scribal

          I thought this was a discussion about a book that features serial rape of a girlchild.
          But here we are talking about the identity and concerns of men. Again.

          I would shut down NOBODY who wanted to talk about the complexity and pervasive power of this book. But, if you insist that it’s really a “black comedy,” or that I just don’t “get it,” and you do NOT understand that regardless of how many other levels such a work has it is still a book about the rape of a child, and you ignore that as a female reader I will always “get” rape and sexual assault and powerlessness on a fundamental physical level no matter what else is going on…. doesn’t matter who you are, I will shut you down.

          • Scribal

            I meant “you” as in the unversal “you” of potential posters, not anybody specifically

          • John Pettimore

            In other words, you refuse to listen to those with whom you disagree. Got it.

            • Evilin Garnett

              No. They said that if you shut them down by telling them that that their response to the book is invalid because they know better than she does for some reason….she will shut them down. Disagreeing is fine, condescension is not.

          • Tall Muse

            Exactly! This comment thread on Lolita and the female perspective was entirely shut down by an angry man ranting… Despite the fact that he admitted that he had never read the book, NOR EVEN the actual article! The irony is entirely lost on him. The irony of every single argument he makes… Is lost on him. This whole behavior is exactly what the article is about.

      • Faith Bavonese

        The thing that I love about my husband isn’t that he’s some sort of urfeminist, it’s that when he says something sexist or privileged and I say, “Hey, think about it from my point of view as a woman,” he does. He doesn’t always agree with me or really “get it”, but he tries.

        That’s all we’re asking. Try. Shut up and listen to us occasionally and then try to understand.

      • JamesWynn

        “White American men” don’t have the same point of view. Nor do White American upper-class, elite educated women. Neither to black people. Whatever. I’m sick of it.

        • AL

          Of course not.

          Somebody on this thread, somewhere, said something useful I can’t find about how just because classifications like racial categories aren’t objectively real in a scientific sense, doesn’t mean they aren’t real in a social sense.

          Of course not every white man or black person thinks the same thing or has even experienced the same thing.

          But we’re all imperfect being trying to communicate in a confusing and multi-faceted world. Sometimes it helps the play the odds. The gentleman above is playing the odds that he, as a white man, probably, if you look at his collective sum of experiences, hasn’t had similar collective experiences to people who are women, or people who are not white.

          He is allowing for that space to exist between his perception and the rest of the world. Some call that humility, and see it as a virtue.

          And when he says “White American men have a point of view, sure. It’s not THE point of view. Plus, it’s often wrong” I think it’s safe to assume he’s using “White American men” not to literally mean all white American men, but as shorthand, in a forum where he’s assuming that most of the readers will know what he means, because long comments aren’t always as helpful as short ones – though they can be misread by people who aren’t coming from a similar worldview or set of assumptions (like you, perhaps).

          And what is that shorthand for? Well, I can only guess, but my assumption is that he’s referring to exactly the same types of critics Rebecca refers to in her piece: men who, in general, have grown up in a world where they get to see their own faces and experiences reflected back at that from everywhere – the media, the government, business, books, entertainment. They get to feel as though their thoughts and feelings are the default. They are occasionally challenged, as most of them take the time to know women or non-white peoples in their lives, but it is not a requirement for them to to live in empathy of the other as much as it currently is for most women or people of color in our society. Again, these are common collective experiences, and I’m sure it doesn’t apply to every single white man or every single woman or person of color. But again, if you play the odds, these are the viewpoints you tend to hear the loudest and the most if you’re Rebecca and you write a piece challenging and poking fun at an article about male literature, or if you’re a woman journalist writing about anything having remotely to do with equal rights, paid leave, or the dreaded “f” word of feminism.

          Is she, are we, expected to totally ignore the data, that the vast majority of the “But you don’t understand, let me explain it to you”s and “You’re just being sensitive!”s and “women are a bunch of whining marxists”s are coming from a certain segment of the population? It doesn’t mean we, therefore, judge every member of that group. I always start out hopeful for a real, open discussion. But to deny that there are common experiences those of us with vagina generally have that people with penises just don’t have, or people who look dark or “foreign” have that people who look Nordic just don’t have, seems to be expressing a bit of willful blindness, or just denial.

          • Evilin Garnett

            I prefer the term “default tribe” or something. It’s not about melanin, but about who controls the discussion in whatever your society you find yourself. Today, “white Men” tomorrow something else. The point is no one group should be the describer, another the described. It’s just an evolutionary hangover that’s outlived it’s usefulness. The dominance structures and xenophobia that allowed us to propagate our genes have become maladaptiive. What allowed us to stay alive and swinging from branch to branch is the same thing that’s going to wipe us out if we can’t ….evolve.

            • AL

              I like that: “default tribe.” Thanks, and yes, good points.

              Labels do matter, language matters. Maybe it would be more productive for these sorts of discussions if we got rid of using “white people” or “white men” or whatever and replaced them with something as you suggest. Seems we always get caught up in the weeds. We’re on this site, where (in my opinion) this awesome author has written this pretty amazing thing about art and life and perspective and yet so many of us are talking about whether she went too far in insulting white men. Bummer.

              On the other hand, there was a comment from a white man on here awhile ago who said he was glad she uses the term “white men,” and he wished she didn’t feel the need to always explain herself (“I don’t mean all white men; some white men are great.”) Because he said when he hears those terms it reminds him to check himself, that even though he tries to be an ally/feminist/whatever he constantly slips up and he appreciates being reminded that he is a part of the dominant culture.

              I suppose I kind of feel the same way, when I think about it, when I read perspectives on race, as I am white. It’s a good reminder that as much as I’m trying not to be an a**hole and to constantly learn I’m still not someone who actually knows what it’s like to be someone who’s not like me.

              Still, on balance, I fear these culture wars are making us more and more divided. Perhaps it’s worth playing with some new, not-as-hot-button words instead of “white men” and seeing if that allows us all to talk without getting as bogged down…

          • rjgwood

            You do not want to have white males collectivized, but people of color are typically collectivized. The facade of individualism.

            • Evilin Garnett

              I do not want to have people of color collectivized either.

              I do not want any thing collectivized except maybe farms and medical insurance.

      • Cathy Creswell

        You are really on the road to menschville.

      • Alexander Stern

        It’s less that the white male opinion is “wrong” (facts can be right or wrong. Opinions, not so much. Then, of course, there is the problem of people confusing fact and opinion, which is where a lot of misunderstanding begins), and more that it comes from a place of unrecognized privilege.

        When a white (heterosexual, cis) male finds his opinion challenged, his first reaction is to defend what has been, until recently, unquestioned. No woman ever called out Don Draper! Well, except Peggy. And Sally. Sorry, bad example.

        There’s nothing inherently “wrong” in the traditional white/male/hetero/cis worldview. It’s only when the opinion holder refuses to recognize that other worldviews have always existed and are equally valid. That Columbus discovered the Americas for Spain is a historical fact. It is equally factual to say that Columbus violated an indigenous people’s sovereignty, stole their land and their resources, introduced deadly diseases, and brutally raped/mutilated a population that welcomed him. Both things are true of Columbus. It’s not “politically correct” to point out the latter.

      • allstaken

        Nobody is perfectly egalitarian. What separates sexists from non-sexists (and racists from non-racists) is that non-sexists are aware of that fact.

    • I love this essay and its companion piece, “80 Books Women Should Not Read.”

      When I read about Humbert Humbert (or a Rabbit, or Portnoy, or even a Bascombe) I always feel I’m reading about men who are self-strangulatingly confused and lost. They don’t understand beauty, sex, romance, women, themselves, and, most certainly, love. Those stories — and so many more from the 20th century — are mappings of the very limited male consciousness that grew out of the Victorian era — most of our grandfathers and fathers were basically turds when it came to matters of passion and eros.

      Men are still on a quest to liberate themselves from not being very good at understanding emotion. Men are still trying to unshed the skin of their lizard sexuality. It isn’t easy. I’m not apologizing here or ‘splaining (I hope not anyway). Those books from the last century all too often show men as pathetic, in my opinion, and not necessarily on purpose. I have read them as case studies on how not to write about my ilk.

      I have hope for my generation and the ones that have come after. We aren’t like Humbert, Rabbit, Portnoy or Bascombe anymore. Look at Anthony Doerr’s work, David Wallace’s, Murakami’s, or Roberto Bolano’s. We’re never really going to understand ourselves, but at least them guys is trying.

      Forgive me for speaking in generalities. I am well aware that there are hundreds of great writers who are/were more enlightened. Every man and woman, in my book, should read Dostoevsky, Salinger, and Cheever.

      • Persia

        Rabbit was always, I thought, about a man who didn’t/couldn’t grow up on some level, still clinging to the person he’d been in high school. I kind of thought that was the point of Rabbit, Run. (He said he wrote it in part as a response to “On the Road.”) It’s interesting to see how sometimes even critical works are ‘normalized’ and romanticized.

        • Hmmm. I didn’t know about the On the Road connection. I hear you on the perpetual youth aspect of Rabbit. I guess my problem has always been how shallow and disconnected he was (and many other male characters in other novels from that era) from emotions and personal responsibility, esp towards women. I get the dramatic reasons for that, I just think men are far more complex than Updike’s depiction. Maybe they weren’t back in the ’50s, but they certainly are now — at least some of us. Same goes for Nabokov’s HH. More than anything, I think what I’m saying is that I don’t identify with those guys at all. For what it’s worth, I often don’t identify with the victims they make of women in their lives either.

          • Persia

            I think Updike was criticizing a very specific guy–the one who defined himself as a high school star, as an athlete, and then once he got into the adult world found out that none of that got him anywhere and he wasn’t sure what he was, at all. And somehow Rabbit got labeled an Everyman, and there the troubles began, I guess.

            I think it’s pretty common to identify with aspects of a character even if you don’t identify completely with the characters themselves. I mean, I’m sure hoping no one in this discussion is Humbert Humbert, but almost any of us can get captured in an obsession. We aren’t monsters so hopefully we step back (and even more hopefully our obsessions are less destructive) but it’s a human feature, that grasping, destructive hunger. With Rabbit, it’s the fear that whatever we did–that great dunk in high school, that wonderful paper in college, whatever–will be our ‘peak’ and it’s all downhill from there.

            • You bring up an interesting issue. All stories are about specific types of people. But what readers and critics do with that type of person, and what the writer was thinking unconsciously as well as consciously are usually fair game. In response to Rabbit as a “specific guy” I think there is a lot of him in what men used to be like. Forget the star in high school thing. What about just the idea that men need to see themselves as stars in life — as do their parents, especially when they’re young. I spent years coaching kids in baseball. One of the biggest problems I faced every year was all the younger kids who were used to thinking they were special and who needed to be the star hitter or star pitcher, etc. The problem came in the form of having to get them to handle not being the star and not even being that special. (Which is one reason I love baseball so much as a teaching tool for kids…boys and girls).

            • Persia

              The kid and I were actually talking about this (and the related issues around sports) tonight–she has two teammates who are good, but they’re never going to be great, and their parents are not going to take that well when it finally sinks in. But their parents aren’t as overinvested in basketball so they can more be themselves on the court.

            • That’s one small thing that has developed for young women (and their parents) since Title IX went into place, isn’t it? The chance to dream. The right to want to be a special athlete (by extension too most other things like scientist, lawyer, physician, engineer, writer, artist, etc).

              I thought yesterday about the reality of so many young men I’ve coached over the years, showing up wanting desperately to be “the star catcher” or whatever and how they self-sabotage in so many creative ways. Is that because they realize they can’t be a “star” and they’re doing something bizarrely creative to back out of their dream? Or is the sabotage a mechanism of self-fulling prophecy because there’s just too much pressure — especially in feeling like you are failing your family or even teammates.

              I have too much to say here on this topic. It is def an issue confronting young women these days as much as young men — and not just sports. I watched a young woman a few years ago enter college totally gung-ho on becoming a journalist who changed direction after at the end of her sojourn and is now in law school. She was a passionate writer and had a good nose for research.

            • Evilin Garnett

              this is how a character becomes an archetype. We tend to generalize. And I for one found Rabbit a tragic study. Not a tragic hero. Just a tragic character/man. There’s more than one of everything, thus our tendency to create types. It works both for and against us.

    • EdwardChampion

      This is a marvelous and very thoughtful essay. The Boring Old Fortress of Magnificent Me appears to be an ever more intoxicating realm in this age of likes and favorites and Facebook narratives and blocking “uncomfortable” viewpoints in which unwitting and seemingly agile minds prop themselves up as the only possible heroes of their singular story, with these supermen often forgetting that this selfsame place is also a Fortress of Solitude in a frozen and static territory. Thanks for the important reminders that anyone who writes and reads and thinks and feels should have built in automatically. We’re all fallible, but all of us can learn.

    • Kailibigot Bonin

      So you are saying you lost the argument? this reminds me of driving around with nerd friends in high school, a couple of whom were or were once a marginally het couple. I am not being vague on purpose i dont think they got past kissing, so tree falls in a forest and no one hears it? anyway one of their serial arguments was about who was less spontaneous. it was as rehearsed or at least repetitive as could be. to the point they must have been trolling us. anyway this is like that with the whole not taking a joke. tears, etc…you are implicating men in your sins. isn’t that what is so offensive about lolita? why all the clap trap about a proposition. that this behavior is truly deviant, but we all(men) maybe women have deviant things we think we want or think we might do, but the reality of them makes them less than desirable. I think I know women exist in this frame on many things. our culture has dilineated the self-denial of women has it not? has it not made it a matter of women not choosing to be deviant mostly for the nicest reason of all, they don’t want to? I think at it’s core Lolita is about a fantasy run amok. ok young girl, desirable and desirous and wholly dependent. but what would it take, who would you have to be to actually bone her? it’s like a prop bet of a book. a creation of an entire entity to fulfill the forbidden most fantasy other than being queer of course.

      • Keith Krepcho

        Your post reads like one of those Spam posts about how I can make thousands of dollars working from home, except it doesn’t make as much sense.

      • Boooornett

        This argument would work if Lolita wasn’t a literal child. Pedophilia is not queerness.

        • Kailibigot Bonin

          my point is, at the time you could write a book exploring the machinations of sex with an adolescent. a hebephile fantasy. Nabokov was trying to walk the line of relatable deviance, the outer most limit of what people will let themselves think about. but he couldn’t write about a straight man intitiating a sexual relationship with a person of his own gender. that was apparently too far. the idea of sexual fluidity being more taboo than sex with a teen. not intended but a point to be scored against the author in retrospect. hebephiles are not pedophiles and the fantasy is something entirely different.

          • Boooornett

            HH is a pedophile. “Hebephile” is what older men call themselves to justify their relations with teenage girls. Also, you’re a perfect example of exactly the kind of man this article is about. So kudos to you.

            • Kailibigot Bonin

              The term is a bit more valid than you need to believe because it encompasses a much wider set of attractions and expectations as well as outcomes. It’s fair to say that puberty is kind of a big deal. and attraction to partners before puberty is different than attraction to partners during or just after puberty. I am more interested in Lolita being about America, or Fascism, or language. What if Lolita represents the Nazis. What if her abuser was something of Stalin? What if the book is allegory for the english language and globalization? american military ascendancy, the mind boggles at all the ways the text could be interpreted. it seems shallow to confine the story as such to outdated gender politics. women in their interpretation erase all other identites in their desire to be victims of literary injustice, perhaps like fascists.

            • Boooornett

              Nah. Pedophilia is still pedophilia even if the younger party is past puberty. Nice try though. And again, you’re proving the author’s point.
              It’s not about Lolita. It’s about you identifying with a fictional pedophile and being uncomfortable about having that pointed out.

            • Kailibigot Bonin

              I don’t care if this proves the author’s point. She has a single-minded exclusionary view. You parrot her stylistically when you choose to ignore what is relevant research. We are discussing a book that explores a great deal of psychological aberrance. Is it also sociological. I do understand there are rape fans. they see things through an ideological prism. It’s ironic that they must ignore so many facts to do so. folks with her view point want to take up progressive time and energy but their views are far more consistent with dogmatic right wing view points. this is how totalitarianism and censorship happens. censor the censors.

            • Boooornett

              “People on the internet having different views than me on the things I like is censorship”
              Cry me a river, tbh.

            • Kailibigot Bonin

              yeah we know that ejaculates of the fitzgibbon school of public relations, their sympathizers and accumulated run-off believe in censoring beliefs unfriendly to their own. but lets not forget they all stayed silent in full knowledge of this, while making money pretending to oppose these types of thing on principle, and people (other than themselves and people on their team) who conducted them based on strategic gain. there isn’t a principle left to stand on for folks on that side of the argument including rebecca and you.

            • Kailibigot Bonin

              no i am unconcerned that she has a different view point up until her peers cover for a rapist and sexual harasser apparently. I mean if your gig is finding rape everywhere, this is low hanging fruit. my point is that it is too obvious to identify with the characters. identify with the person listening to HH in therapy. to me that is the best way to read the book. I still say the book is allegorical. some folks in the professional literature business call it satire. I think of it as something writen by a russian in america uncomfortable with how america moved on from the war. I do think perhaps this could be a revenge novel. I mean it was better to be in America than living in the final throws of Stalin’s purges. As I said I understand people identify with Lolita. I have no problem with people who choose to do so. I have a problem with declaring that this book must be satire and nothing else. about raping a child and nothing else. i think it’s ahistoric and counter to prevailing research to label Lolita a child and thus HH a pedophile. we have a fairly modern construct and yes i believe in age of consent laws, but i am not unaware that teens present different people with arousal than children do. that people who are psychologically healthy can have this as a fantasy. that people can actually test their capacity in this regard which may be one allowable interpretation. I think it comes down to for me. the audience is cast in the novel as the therapist. If you want to scream at the man for doing what he claims to have done, and the way he deals with it, and how he describes it, that is fine, that is probably what inexperienced poorly trained therapists do or want to do. I think if you play your role you do something more with the information provided.

      • Elizabeth

        “A fantasy run amok” — for Humbert. For Lolita, it is a nightmare that never seems to end. The key issue is that the focus is on the fantasy and the nightmare is utterly ignored or downplayed.

        • Kailibigot Bonin

          yes there is no doubt her story ends with her seduction. the argument about what motivates him is much different. the author explores something that is still now debatable, whether or not this desire is pathological or normal. the author puts you in the position of therapist in a way, your job isn’t to care for Lolita your job is to understand the main character. His manifestation is criminal, but is the desire itself pathological, or normal?

          • Stephen Robinson

            Delores wasn’t seduced. She was raped. A sexual relationship doesn’t even happen until *after* her mother dies and Humbert is her only guardian. Nabokov doesn’t shrink from the odious facts of what Humbert does. And since the story is from his perspective, we have little reason to believe that she was even flirting with him all that heavily (no more than a pubescent girl might). Jared Fogle’s version of events would also be equally unreliable.

            • powelstock

              The scene of Humbert’s initial rape of Dolores (not counting the davenport scene–although may also be rape) is a perfect example of how Nabokov’s technique reveals Humbert as a lying sack of [choose your collective noun]: Humbert’s main argument is that “it was she who seduced me.” But careful reading reveals not only that Humbert tricks Dolores into “seducing” him but also that what Dolores is doing is far from a seduction, since she has no concept of seduction: she thinks she is teaching H a child’s game that he, unbelievably to her, has never played before. (Perhaps because he’s foreign.) At this very moment, Nabokov deliberately emphasizes Dolores’s childishness. Moreover, the ensuing scenes make it clear that Dolores has been physically injured by Humbert’s (repeated) rape. Another way of putting this is that Dolores, as a child, is incapable of giving consent, much less of seduction.

            • Kailibigot Bonin

              many therapists especially in Freudian psychoanalytical practice feel this way about their clients. if one posits that Nabokov is creating a therapeutic novel and guiding the reader through the motions of the care giver, then these are classic narcissistic traits. I am a fan of this first level interpretation though I do understand those wishing to empathize with Lolita would prefer her not be confined to object. I tend to think there is a secondary allegory that of language or war or fascism and communism. the two main characters representing Russia and Germany. Or an American hegemony. I mean once opens oneself to the idea that there is no concrete or right answer, which handicaps some of the more educated people assuredly, then you can use the narrative to satisfy many interpretations and you probably should. writers tend to not be fans of literary criticism.

            • annprof1

              Nabokov loathed Freud and psychiatry in general. I recommend you read his Lectures on Literature and Lectures on Russian Literature, which give us a pretty good idea of his views on, uh, literature and the writing of it. None of it includes any of what you’ve written here.

            • Kailibigot Bonin

              which follows on the second allegorical premise. if the novel was published in 55 and Lolita was 13 or so, that would mean she was born in 42 or there abouts. the Russian perspective on ww2 is vastly different from the American glory to America version. It’s a set of things that may have been on the writer’s mind. I don’t doubt he was trying to be critical of his unreliable narrator. I still think the framing of a therapy session allows for him to do so with the biases built in. Again he is taking a shot at explaining the unexplainable in the terms which a Russian might understand America. A country to soft for a more direct stab at war. At least what he had to say about it. But sexual issues we understand. It’s strange how the protagonist could represent any of a number of countries or all countries although most certainly Lolita represents Germany and Nazis. Maybe a deeper dive has her representing the questions about Jews and their role in the west. i thin what I have read of Nabokov suggests he felt he got away with something in that book by making it controversial people missed the allegorical controversy he could not address. He did not want to write a rape book. One finte interpretation is that it is satire. this seems to be the educated guess.

            • Kailibigot Bonin

              disagree. he wrote from the perspective of psychoanalitics a novel about politics. he used hebephilia as a tool for describing his world view. with that in mind statutorally consent is not an issue. some people who have had the experience insist their consent made and makes a difference. these are debatable topics with reasonable people. I have lost my default assumption that people in this discussion are arguing in good faith.

            • annprof1

              No, really. He hated Freud and psychiatry in general. He said so. He wrote so. I am arguing in good faith because I’ve done the research,

            • Kailibigot Bonin

              you’ve inserted facts to assist your narrative. I’m not mad it’s what makes it a great book. it could be about a lot of things. raw sexual fantasy many have had taken to logical and paradoxical extremes. language, war, geopolitics. I guess since the author originally declares that there is only one way to read the book, and one way to feel about the events as described even though all indications are that this is a rube’s interpretation, the author of the article above stands refuted. I will concede even as a queer and given the victimization or our community there is a gendered element to this literature and the interpretations it provokes

    • Wendy Kiana Kelly

      This is the second time this month that I have stumbled upon something written by you. Thank you for writing what I have always wanted someone to write.
      I remember the disillusionment I felt reading book after book for my English degree (1985 – 1988) — noticing that many of the female characters, written by men, were not really “female” at all — they were close approximations of what they could imagine a female might be…and not that close at all, many times.
      I remember understanding Lolita at both the plot level and in deeper ways, but being confused that no one would talk about what was actually happening in the novel — same with Tess, actually….

      I think, having gone through that age-old college initiation of experiencing rape freshman year, then running through an English degree and finishing at age 20 left me reeling for years, wondering what the hell had happened.

    • Pingback: Star Wars Day Links! Yay! Episode II Attack of the Procrastination | Gerry Canavan()

    • Jenna Brownson

      Great piece. I’ll be meditating on this as I write later this afternoon. Thank you for the expansive thoughts.

    • A very well thought out and thought provoking piece.

      Art imitates life, art is life, are two canons one learns as an art student. Art, all of the fine arts, are directly drawn from the human experience. Art appreciation is subjective and is often 180 degrees different from what the artist wanted or intended to express. Yet, how ones sees or appreciates art has no effect on its intrinsic value when one understands the two canons one learns as an art student. Art is dangerous, ideas are dangerous, life is dangerous, but that is the human condition.

      The human experience isn’t always rainbows and unicorns and it is more often than not an ugly and indefensible state of being. Lolita is a prime example of this indefensible state of being, yet it is so much more than one man’s view of women. That is part of the beauty and horror of Lolita, but most people refuse to see the horror along with the beauty, which makes them blind to the true state of being of our greater world.

    • jakonrath

      When I was growing up, one of my favorite movies was The Graduate. Besides being a funny portrayal of the alienation and doubt guys feel after graduation, it also worked as a fable. The knight can save the princess and have her for his own.

      I’m now 45. Watching it again, the film is still funny, and touching. But the villain is a lonely older woman trapped in a bad marriage, yet still enjoys sex. How is that evil? And the hero is a self-obsessed stalker who shows that all you have to do to win the girl–and girls are prizes to be won–is to pester her for so long she eventually relents.

      Yuck.

      On a semi-related note, I missed another, equally famous Mike Nichols movie, Breakfast at Tiffany’s, when I was younger, and only saw it recently.

      Yuck again. I can see how, during the time it was released, Audrey Hepburn’s character was held up as a positive example of sexual liberation–which is a good thing, because women have the right to enjoy sex with whomever they please. But instead of just being sexually liberated–which would have been too progressive for the time–Holly Golightly was an escort. During the whole film, she’s used by men. Her clients, her husband, the criminal in jail, and ultimately George Peppard. Being able to handle those men, to the extent that she’s able to by either running from them or manipulating them like lovesick puppies, does not mean Holly isn’t dependent on these men for her financial and emotional well being. Holly can’t be complete unless she has a man to fill some hole in her life (and that can be taken figuratively as well as literally.) Which is why, at the end, she gives up her manic pixie dream girl ways and cleaves to Peppard.

      Then I watched Supergirl, which treats women like people.

      Scott Adams is right, but he’s also wrong. This would be a matriarchal society–something I’m all for–if men did respect women. But some men don’t, so this isn’t a matriarchy. And it isn’t going to happen unless men are taught to understand that everyone is equal, because no one willfully gives up a position of power, ever.

      Women need to write books, and TV shows, and movies, with women as the heroes. These should pass the Bechdel test. And they should empower women, while simultaneously teaching men that women are equals, not conquests. They way to do that is to make the hero compelling, sympathetic, and entertaining. Where romance doesn’t have to be the center conflict, or maybe is even entirely absent from the plot.

      We have hundreds of years of wish-fulfillment narratives written by men for men. But this is changing. And if it keeps changing, we might be able to weed misogyny right out of the gene pool. And Lolita will be a book that all men should read, as a cautionary tale about how fucked up things used to be.

      • Jeremy Pinkham

        “Breakfast at Tiffany’s” was directed by Blake Edwards, not Mike Nichols. Nichols had a very dry sense of humor; don’t think he’d be responsible for “Tiffany’s” supposedly humorous scenes with that grotesque Mickey Rooney racist caricature.

        • badphairy

          Hmmm, that does explain Rooney’s caricature because it’s just another facet of Edwards’ Asiaphobia usually experienced in the persona of Cato.

        • jakonrath

          for some reason I keep forgetting to go to the doctor to have my memory checked…

          • Jeremy Pinkham

            he he!

      • Ms. Pris

        ” the villain is a lonely older woman trapped in a bad marriage, yet still enjoys sex. How is that evil?”

        The evil part is when she lies and accuses him of raping her. Did you miss that part?

        “But instead of just being sexually liberated–which would have been too
        progressive for the time–Holly Golightly was an escort. ”

        No, she wasn’t. Golightly was a sex worker in the novel; in the film, she very specifically was *not*, because Hepburn said, before shooting ever started, “I can’t play a hooker.” I don’t know what film you actually saw, because there was nothing about sexual liberation in the film “Breakfast at Tiffany’s.” Golightly is a young woman from poverty, running from a life she wanted to escape, without any real skills at making a living, so she’s trying to make her way around a system of people who want to exploit her, without being exploited.

        “During the whole film, she’s used by men.” One could argue that she uses them, though. For example, the mobster in jail is not “using” her, he is paying her to do a job. Men who take her on dates expecting sex don’t get it; instead she gets $50 “for the powder room” and left at the door to her flat. Golightly subverts the paradigm that taking an attractive young woman to dinner = one has purchased sex.

        She keeps everyone at a distance so that no one can know the truth of her situation, but eventually finds someone who can accept the truth of her, the whole truth of the country girl and the party girl combined, but who is not so enamored of her that he will just accept any horrible thing she does (his revulsion when she abandons the cat.) This shows her that he sees *her*, not a fantasy of his own making.

        • jakonrath

          The evil part is when she lies and accuses him of raping her. Did you miss that part?

          But why did she do that? The movie doesn’t explain her motives for that, but I’ll suggest that she did it as a way of explaining the affair to her wife and husband, and trying to keep her family together. “I was horny and Ben was hot an available” wasn’t a good excuse in the 1960s. In our more enlightened time today, a woman can file for divorce based on lack of sex. Mrs. Robinson had needs her husband wasn’t providing, but that wouldn’t work as an excuse back then. So she wound up being humiliated and potentially ruined because of her own desires, so she lied to cover her own ass.

          That doesn’t make her evil. it makes her selfish, and human.

          Golightly was a sex worker in the novel; in the film, she very specifically was *not*

          I did say “escort” which could mean having sex, or just being a date without any sex. Which applies to Holly. I’m pretty sure most women don’t get $50 from their date to go to the powder room. While it isn’t referred to as sex work in the film, it’s pretty clear that Holly takes money in exchange for her companionship, and that’s her sole means of support. We can discuss what “companionship” means, but this is a woman who survives via men. Does she sleep with them? And does it really matter? It’s sad that there is a stigma (and a law) against women doing what they want with their own bodies, freely or for money, but there are stigmas and laws against that.

          For example, the mobster in jail is not “using” her, he is paying her to do a job.

          She winds up being arrested for that job. That isn’t being used?

          This shows her that he sees *her*, not a fantasy of his own making.

          Following your train of thought here, he sees her and rejects her bad behavior, having to step in and show her what’s right. Holly can’t figure that out for herself; she needs a man to show her the way. Holly doesn’t change as the result of any personal power or insight. Some guy has to rescue her. Worse, he has to tame her. The very spirit she had that he was attracted to will be squelched if she enters into a “normal” relationship with Peppard.

          In The Graduate, Ben’s defining moment is chasing after the woman he wants. In Tiffany’s, Peppard does the same thing. Elaine and Holly are trophies to be won. But in Holly’s case, first she has to admit that she’s a horrible person before she’s worthy of the love of a man (who, actually, is a sex worker and not much different than she is, but doesn’t have to apologize for it at the end.)

          Or maybe I just saw the movie while in a bad mood and I’m reading too much into it. I hated the movie. A movie with similar themes that I loved was Something Wild with Melanie Griffith, who played a tougher, smarter version of the Golightly character and arguably didn’t need a man to save her at the end.

          • Stephen Robinson

            Re: Holly Golightly. I think Capote himself said that Holly was an American “geisha.” She’s somewhat different from our concept of a sex worker. I think her introduction in the book involves her actually shutting the door on a guy who thought his attentions all evening would result in sex. They don’t.

            I love BREAKFAST AT TIFFANY’S and regret that the movie is so popular, when it’s such a bad adaptation and arguably not a very good film. I also love Audrey Hepburn but I think she’s terribly miscast — Holly is creation, but Audrey is too naturally sophisticated to have that come off realistically. She’s also too mature (not just physically — though she is 10 years older than the character in the book — but just her whole bearing).

            And the erasure of a gay male character and an actual platonic “romance” between a man and a woman in exchange for a convention romance is very disappointing.

            • Aryno Wyrth

              Agreed. I’d love to see a new adaption of BAT.

        • powelstock

          Great interpretation of “Breakfast.” Wow!

        • Evilin Garnett

          hg is playing a game she didn’t invent,with rules that she didn’t set.
          also it’s a short term game.

          being a hooker, a mistress, or just professional pretty girl is the only job in the world you are guaranteed to make less at the longer you’ve done it.

      • smartygirl

        “Women need to write books, and TV shows, and movies, with women as the
        heroes. These should pass the Bechdel test. And they should empower
        women, while simultaneously teaching men that women are equals, not
        conquests. They way to do that is to make the hero compelling,
        sympathetic, and entertaining. Where romance doesn’t have to be the
        center conflict, or maybe is even entirely absent from the plot.”

        A lot of women are already doing that – writing the books, shows, etc. But the publishing, film and TV industries need to get onside. Lotsa good books out there that don’t get published because they are “lacking a central romance” (direct quote from a friend’s agent rejecting a manuscript – friend in question has published several novels and has a WGA award, no shortage of talent or drive on her part).

        And having worked for years in broadcast television… ugh on so many fronts. Kinda almost glad that industry is dying.

        • jakonrath

          Changing the system from within is an uphill battle.

          Instead, work outside the system, and make that where the millions sick of the system go for alternative entertainment.

        • sieteocho

          Well then, women need to run publishing houses so that they can get out books written by women for women to read.

          • annprof1

            Women need the money to run publishing houses.

            • sieteocho

              Women get the money to run publishing houses when women buy books from women.

          • Evilin Garnett

            they’re working on it. kinda like saying “you need to have a corporate empire.”
            Why yes, I godamn, do.

      • MLChadwick

        Yes, women “need” to write books and make movies with strong female characters. Problem = getting the books published and the movies produced.

        As a film student some years ago, I attempted to discuss sexism in films and commercials and was informed that unless I “bothered” to make prize-winning pro-female movies and commercials on my own, I was merely a girl who enjoyed whining. Yet I got no support for my efforts to do so.

        • jakonrath

          Very few people get support for their efforts.

          Do it without support. It is possible to make films, music, and books without studios, producers, or publishers, and still reach an audience.

      • ketac6

        Like you I only fully watched Breakfast at Tiffany’s fairly recently as an adult. I don’t take Audrey Hepburn’s character as any kind of aspirational role model and I’m surprised that anyone would. She’s undoubtably beautiful so perhaps as so often happens the image has overtaken the content and that is why her Holly Golightly image is iconic.

        Holly is completely used by men and I think she only manages to keep going through massive acts of self delusion. This is her only agency in the film, the way that she twists her perception of events so that the criminal she visits is just a nice man and so she can believe that she is going to start a whole new life is South America when it is clear to the viewer that neither of these things are true.

        Perhaps we should remember too that George Pepard starts the film as a kept man who feels disgust at this role and perhaps he’s also projecting this romance onto Holly as a way of escape?

        As an alternative my favourite film of the year was Wild in which a woman gets to undertake an adventure and mature and reach self-acceptance while also acquiring some blisters and bruises along the way. That was aspirational.

      • Great points here, jakonrath. I have been gearing myself up to write an essay somewhere on the new Supergirl TV show. I am usually not very sentimental when I watch TV, but I get teary sometimes when she says, “I’ve got a job to do,” or whatever, and then shoots off to save the day. This is why I also find Homeland to be such an important show.

        I’d add to your points that men themselves need to write more books, and TV shows, and movies, where men see women as heroes and love them as heroes. Or just stories where women are simply strong and able to manage life on their own — especially dealing with men and bosses — but must struggle too with the all the problems of empowerment, like feeling responsible for others, loneliness, and feeling so tired and put upon by a world that needs to be propped up.

        Men need a lot of help seeing the world of women as it really is (as opposed to our fantasy that all they want is a stud). That’s one thing we can do as storytellers. The same goes too for writing stories about hetero-men learning to relate positively to gay men (and vice versa!), minorities, children, and their freaking in-laws for that matter.

        • jakonrath

          I’d add to your points that men themselves need to write more books, and TV shows, and movies, where men see women as heroes and love them as heroes.

          That would never work. Female heroes don’t sell. Especially strong female heroes. Any guy who tries to do that will be doomed to poverty and obscurity.

          • Max Blancke

            Like Hanna, the Bride, Hitgirl, Matilda, Alice, Ripley, Katniss, and uncounted others.

          • ishicourt

            Check out the awesome success of Jessica Jones on Netflix. I’ve actually seen a couple articles on ESPN comparing male athletes to her in passing. Which is just nuts. An ESPN article discussing Aaron Rodgers’ mental toughness compared him to Jessica Jones. I was floored. If that isn’t evidence that female heroes can have a profound effect upon male culture, I don’t know what is.

          • I think what we’re talking about here is a new world — not the bullshit world that we’ve been dragging behind us for the last dozen or so decades (can I say All Of History?). Perhaps not enough people have figured out a new model that works yet. Remember, I’m talking about men seeing women as heroes and as strong, independent agents.

            One of the most important functions of art (even popular art) is to create NEW meaning and NEW thinking in the world.

            And, seriously: 80% of today’s readers (maybe not yours) are women. I don’t think I’m going to starve writing stories where my male protagonist is supportive of his girl friend leaving home and heading to Arizona to follow her dream and play college softball.

            What about John Green’s novels? Or Stephen Chbosky’s Perks of Being a Wallflower? Or Jennifer Garner in Alias? Or, dare I say it…Katniss Everdeen! Shoot, if J.K. Rowling had focused on Hermione instead of Harry I would have gladly read more than 1.25 books in the series.

            (Sorry, man, I get your point, but I ain’t buying it in the context of everything Rebecca here is laying out for us)

            • I was funning you, David. I’ve sold over a million books with female heroes, and I’ve been doing this since 2004.

              There is a huge market for strong female characters, and men do enjoy them. We need more writers of all genders to write female heroes that all genders can root for. It’s getting there, but we haven’t hit the tipping point yet.

            • You are the Man! And I should have known better.

          • magistralatina

            How is that consonant with your advice, just a little up the page, to a women that she ‘Do it without support. It is possible to make films, music, and books without studios, producers, or publishers, and still reach an audience’ or to ‘work outside the system, and make that where the millions sick of the system go for alternative entertainment’?

            • Because I did it indie, without support. I’m not the only one abandoning the system. The majority of ebook sales are independent.

              Google me. Read my blog.

              Or perhaps you didn’t read further down, where I mentioned I was kidding.

              There are many writers promoting female heroes.

            • magistralatina

              Lovely for you, I’m sure.
              But that still doesn’t answer my question: How is your statement that ‘Female heroes don’t sell. Especially strong female heroes. Any guy who tries to do that will be doomed to poverty and obscurity’ consonant with your advice up the page to ‘Do it without support. It is possible to make films, music, and books without studios, producers, or publishers, and still reach an audience’ or to ‘work outside the system, and make that where the millions sick of the system go for alternative entertainment’?

            • You must have missed my other comment.

              I was being sarcastic. I’ve sold over a million books with strong female heroes. And I’ve done it without support. Hence the joke. Of course female heroes sell. That’s why I have a career.

      • ishicourt

        I think it is essential that women write more books, TV shows, and movies with women as heroes. However, I think that it is essential to not disregard certain elements of femininity, such as the romance angle.

        I’ve been reading almost exclusively novels with female heroes (both acclaimed novels and purely fun ones) in recent years, and I have been a bit distraught by much of the critical commentary of some of them. If a female heroine is “too girly,” regardless of how tough she is, she is condemned as “ditzy” or “empty.” Trappings of femininity do not render something “ditzy” or “empty,” and they don’t render a medium any less serious. In an effort to make female heroes more mainstream, I don’t think that it should be necessary to make them more like men.

        I always use the film “Marie Antoinette” as an example. The criticism of the film revolved around what people viewed as “superficial,” i.e., the focus upon dresses, pastries, elaborate hairstyles, etc. Things that, at their very essence, are “girly.” In contrast, James Bond films are full of similarly superficial imagery; however, it is of guns, explosions, sexy women, expensive cars, etc. To date, I have yet to read a review of a Bond film that condemned the “superficial” focus upon beautiful cars and scantily clad women. This is an unacceptable double standard.

        Rather than eliminate “girly” elements from books, TV, and movies, I think it would be preferable to include them when desirable and inundate the public with them until they are no longer perceived to be “superficial” or “empty.” Expensive cars serve no more utility in a film than a beautiful dress; however, because one is enjoyed more often by men, it has become socially acceptable to enjoy such eye candy.

        The vast majority of women like romance. We shouldn’t eliminate it just because society has, like with so many feminine trappings, deemed it “girly.” We should embrace what we, as women, enjoy.

        • I’m all for romance. It should never be eliminated. But very few men read romance novels. They are mostly for women.

          That’s fine. But men can’t learn from something they won’t read. So authors, and filmmakers, need to put strong female characters in books and movies that both sexes are interested in.

          Westerns seem to be a male-dominated genre. Sam Raimi’s Quick and the Dead, with Sharon Stone as the hero, was awesome. As have been all the James Cameron films in regards to women. The Heat was great. The Ghostbusters reboot is a great idea. Frozen is one of the top movies of all time for a reason–it was women dealing with other women. And men enjoyed that film. There was some viral article about some little boy who wanted to dress up as Elsa for Halloween and his parents said “hell yeah!”. George Clooney had an unproduced script with a male lead, been sitting on it for years, and Sandra Bullock said “What about me?” and now it’s getting made.

          We’re breaking down barriers, slowly but surely. That doesn’t mean we ever get rid of chick flicks or romance novels. But in order to teach men that all people are equal, we need to put more diversity into the media men tend to consume.

        • Evilin Garnett

          too much ribbons OR sportscars are stupid. Bond gets to drive fast, RIch chick gets to dress up.

          Of the two, I’d rather know what it’s like to drive fast.

          But if everyone cheered oohed aahed and admired me for putting on a silk garter and built a multi billion dollar franchise around me…who knows, I might put on the silk garter.

    • sharknami

      I love this article. I was absolutely influenced by the literature I read growing up. Once I got to middle school and high school and was introduced to Serious and Important Literature, I realize now that that was when I started harboring some internalized misogyny. As beautifully written as much of the classics were, a great majority of these novels were written by men and very few of them had realistic, well written female characters. When women and girls were there at all, they often served as symbols and metaphors and ok, that’s nice, but I hated them for being shallowly written, weak, passive, and hardly even a little bit self aware. They were only there to have things happen to them, and if they did anything, it was glossed over or done peripherally on the edges of the man’s story. As an introverted kid who didn’t socialize much, that started shaping my perception of women and made me think these badly written characters were a reflection of reality. So all these babies who whine about political correctness ruining everything, meaning not every piece of media is no longer 99% white males, yeah they can go fuck themselves.

    • Stamos

      the need to identify is a fraternal and misogynist impulse when it is made into a criteria of quality. sameness and identity are the field of masculinity ever since plato. i’m sure she’s right that a lot of the response has patriarchial underpinnings, but in argumentative terms this essay isn’t serious

      • upton

        Your apparent ability to reason would be seen as lacking even at a primary school level. Your (only slightly correct) invocation of Platonic ideals as something to be treated with anything other than derision is laughable.

        If only you didn’t seem to take yourself seriously.

        • Stamos

          you don’t understand. i am saying her love of identity makes her platonic, and therefore patriarchal

          • I think you both are engaging in pseudo-intellectual self-congratulatory mental masturbation. But have fun, boys.

            • Stamos

              good point. you’ve convinced me to die of stupidity

            • badphairy

              Please do so as expediently as possible.

            • Antonio Grub

              now now. though i love the enthusiasm!!

      • Antonio Grub

        Finally, someone understands lolita. I’ve been telling everyone to read it for ever. I’d say go read lolita, it’s beautiful exploitation. I mean, I agree in every possible way with Rebecca Solnit, except I like the book and she doesn’t. So what? that’s just the nature of opinion, and i’m not going to take that right away from anyone. otherwise democracy breaks down. what i admire about Ms. Solnit is that she is not afraid to destroy and embarrass people, hammer others into the ground, with what aplomb! It feels entirely effortless, but also genuine. Her book on walking, Wanderlust, is v v good. She’s like f. nietzsche. She’s one of the great haters, an american polemicist

      • LB

        I’m glad you enjoyed your Intro to Critical Theory class! It may be helpful to understand that Lacan’s influence on literary criticism is the reason new recruits are often indoctrinated with this complete dismissal of identity as holding any value–and that you don’t actually have to hold that line to make a serious argument. Please read this. Dogma is bad for you. http://thepointmag.com/2015/criticism/when-nothing-is-cool

        • Stamos

          i think it’s clear who the dogmatists are: my intelligence has been insulted and i’ve been asked to die (in what can only be said to be a semi-humorous way) in response to a civil and argumentative objection to solnit, specifically her very traditional investment in identity and identification. i think her position will end up being misogynist in spite of itself, but clearly no one here cares about that.

          and no, lacan doesn’t have a monopoly on questions of identity. neither you nor the author of the piece you’ve posted the slightest idea what they are talking about

    • Elizabeth

      Knowing that I *would* identify with Lolita, I have not read the book. But it never occurred to me that anyone would consider failure to identify with a book’s character a necessary ingredient to understanding it. So unless Nabokov was making yet another point about how crappy people are in general because they refuse to extend empathy to a victim of child rape (fictional or otherwise) in the name of “understanding the allegory” — and certainly that’s possible — that argument, to me, says more about the people making it than it does about the book.

    • Emer O’Toole

      I love you, Rebecca Solnit.

      • flimbus

        … especially for your taste in art critics.

    • Glen Wells

      Because the world makes art, because the world matters, because the world makes us, then breaks us.

    • Emily Mills

      I just needed to comment to say how marvelous this piece (and the one that preceded it) is, and how I literally whooped and clapped out loud quite a few times while reading it. THANK YOU for this. I only wish more folks would take the sentiments and ideas to heart.

      • ghorton

        I whooped and laughed and clapped, too– and my husband poked his head into my study and asked what i found so funny. I read the paragraph to him: but he didn’t laugh along. He said: “Oh. That.” Oh dear, dear. But he’s so much better re: equality than my father was!

    • llLeoll

      Not sure if it takes a man. But it seems clear that Humbert Humbert is a monster and Nabokov wanted us to feel that. He is fixated on nymphets — due to psychological trauma of a his first love dying when he was 9. Since then, he’s found himself sexually attracted to children. And when he tries as an adult to have a pimp bring him a 10-year-old, he becomes absolutely repellent.

      That backstory of first love lost sounds like an excuse to me. And I think that’s how Nabokov meant it. If we strip the narration away and focus on actions, HH’s just a creep.

      Funny thing is, there is a sense that HH loves Delores (at least he says so… not the same as the truth with an unreliable narrator). He seems to want her to do well. And yet he cannot get past his sexual attraction. Worse, HH feels like a monster for being unable to suppress his desires.

      That is why *Lolita* is a classic. It’s creepy, and we hate HH for how he destroys a child. And yet, we understand him.

      We all have desires that are destructive we cannot control. We eat junk food, knowing its killing us. We smoke. We go to happy hour, have a few drinks, and drive home.

      Many of those vices also threaten others. Like how driving tipsy after happy hour can put other drivers at risk. Nabokov makes that clear with HH. We can destroy and act like a monster, and yet trick ourselves into believing we are not monsters.

      A very complex book. It is not a simple political statement in novel-form, like *The Jungle*. I hate HH, feel bad for Delores while hating the way she turns out, and yet still love the book,

      • double_you_tee_eff

        This question might sound rhetorical, but I mean it genuinely: is the writer of this essay the intended audience for this comment? If so, do you truly think that she didn’t understand this already?

        • Josh

          If there’s anyone who doesn’t understand that already, it’s Solnit’s detractors.

      • MLChadwick

        You express some genuine insights, but I call minimizing on your comparison of child rape to “driving tipsy” and exposing people to second-hand smoke.

    • bobledrew

      Is it odd that people are taking this as an essay about Lolita? And not as an essay about how men and women react to literature which is perhaps not overwhelmingly, but mostly, made by men? Thanks for writing this, Ms. Solnit.

      • AL

        Your comment feels even more relevant now. So many angry people, so many misunderstandings. Thanks for your comment, bobledrew.

        I’m trying to imagine what would help this issue. A different title? A more clear breakdown (“trigger warning” – ha) in the beginning of the essay, preparing the reader, defining terms, and explaining what this essay is and is not?

        “This is not an essay about Lolita. This is not an essay about all white men. Yes, I do appreciate criticism, when someone has taken the time to understand what I am actually saying…” 😉

    • janners11

      Two authors to consider adding to the list of empathic males: George Meredith (“The Egoist”) and Paul Scott (“The Raj Quartet”).

      • malilo

        Thanks. I have to admit that as I get older my reading gets more narrow, because as soon as I realize a writer doesn’t “see” women as real people, as soon as their motivations are incongruent and clearly designed to move the story along for more important (male) characters, I stop reading. It happens a lot. I’ll check these out.

        • MLChadwick

          Me, too! I love mystery novels, for example, but have almost entirely given up on male authors because I no sooner get involved in the story (from the detective’s POV) than I find “myself” staring down the bodice of a sexy female prosecutor’s (medical examiner’s, lieutenant’s, witness’s, etc.) dress. I jump back, saying “What the heck?!” since this had nothing to do with the plot. My suspended disbelief has crashed and shattered. That got annoying.

    • soccerteesandplaydoh

      Upon my first reading of Lolita at age eleven, I identified fully and completely with Lolita. Then someone (actually, okay, my mother) suggested that Lolita’s “cruelty” to HH somehow mitigated his treatment of her, and that they were more of a warring couple than a sinner and a sinned against. This seemed utterly wrong to me, but her words haunted me and it took me many years to feel comfortable rejecting her interpretation as a by product of her own experience of abuse and guilt.

      In the meantime I read “canonical” books by John Updike, Ian Fleming, Czeslaw Milosz, John Fowles, Kingsley Amis etc., that talked incessantly about observing and interacting with a thing called “women,” and their words swept me ever farther from my own experience and my own gaze.

      I believe a much more complete and human canon of great writers is crucial for the development of a healthy psyche for both women and men. Thanks for this piece. It continues the work of undoing in my heart the idea that Lolita somehow brought her own fate on herself.

      • powelstock

        Very interesting perspective and post. As for Dolores Haze, the idea that she is to blame for her own victimization is Humbert’s lie to *his* readers–although even he cannot maintain this falsehood all the way to the end of the novel. Close reading, I think, reveals that Nabokov himself clearly shows Humbert up as a liar and a monster. For what it’s worth!

        • Josh

          Generations of male critics have ignored that though: The New Republic recently had an article on the subject.

          • powelstock

            Do cite or link, please. I’d be interested to read it. At the same time life is too short about *bad* readers, except to the extent they reflect social and cultural patterns. In this regard, I think the most symptomatic aspect of American society’s sexism in the reception of the novel resides in the way the name ‘Lolita’ has become fetishistically eroticized.

        • Elizabeth

          The only problem with this is that it shouldn’t NEED a close reading. The mere fact of an adult man blaming his behavior on a 12-year-old girl ought to be enough to recognize that the man, not the child, is the one whose behavior is at fault. Sadly, our society is so thoroughly inculcated with the idea that even as children females are intent on being “sexy” and “seductive” and thereby control male desire that many readers accept this without questioning it. I recall a case I read in the paper when I was growing up where a judge found a child rapist not guilty because of the claim that the child had “flirted” and “acted seductively toward him” — she was 5 years old. How is that not a shattering judgment, not only to the girl in question but to every girl everywhere? It’s not as if men are helpless robots who can’t manage to refrain from unzipping their fly at the first sight of feminine flesh regardless of age — that’s a bogus excuse used by those who don’t WANT to exercise self-control.

          I wonder if Nabokov was making exactly that point. The readers who put the book down in disgust may have been the ones who already “got it” and the readers who followed through and read it thinking it was a “naughty romance” or “salacious” story were the ones he was skewering. If so, kudos to him… and I still can’t bring myself to read it.

          • Max Blancke

            But sexuality, and the power dynamics involved, are complicated. They do not always follow rules and conventions. I have noticed in the US, that people have convinced themselves that sexuality develops spontaneously on a person’s 18th birthday. And often teens experimenting with their sexuality with others of the same age are thought of as criminal deviants. I am a little surprised that Americans can even discuss Lolita at all.

          • amysterling

            It’s just nasty. It’s not a good book – certainly not a great one. And the very thought it is regarded as “great” and is so much-assigned to this day, and has had the film and TV versions of it – well that does speak for itself. Also adaptations such as American Beauty. This article wouldn’t have so many shares and so many attention-whores horning in if it were about another book, not Lolita; another author, not Nabokov. I always thought Nabokov was sympathetic to the bastard, a nasty, small, pervert, a selfish failure of a man. And that’s great literature.

            • slartybartfastiq

              Nabokov did something terribly clever, if you read the whole novel.

              The first half, he uses language which lend sympathy to the man.

              The second half, he switches all his adjectives up. Whatever small monstrous part of you was relishing in the man’s victories in the first half is speared for its hypocrisy and then revealed to you, bleeding on the pike.

              The point of Lolita is to bring that bloody mess around in front of you and say “hey look what I found! In you.”

            • Evilin Garnett

              I agree with both of your opinions,

            • haily27

              When I read it I honestly never managed to get that first part. I couldn’t find anything but disgust in it. There was nothing very seductive about it past the first few pages (the part where he is just watching and not acting in any way). Because of this I never managed to read to the end and had to throw it away as a book glorifying child abuse. As a teenager it temporarily skewed my perceptions of men as a gender that this book– the equivalent of Anne Frank to me– was considered even remotely “sexy”.

              I always thought you had to be a man to get it. But judging by responses here that’s false. Maybe age? I read it at 14/15…

            • slartybartfastiq

              Age might be it.

              I encountered it in my 20s during a summer lit course between one university and another. I’d had plenty of time to find my own (different) demons and have long conversations with them, so the “voice of HH” was foreign only because of subject matter and extremity, not foreign because I’d never heard that voice before.

          • powelstock

            Elizabeth: A good point about sexism and rape culture and their role in certain possible receptions of *Lolita*. At the same time, my comment was really a response to soccerteesandplaydoh (excellent tag, btw!), an attempted contribution to the process of undoing such misreadings of the novel that s/he noted. I’m not really sure what to make of the idea that a novel shouldn’t need a close reading, other than as a criticism of readers, not of the novel. Otherwise it doesn’t make any sense to me, since it would all but eliminate the possibility of any modern literature. I think that most readers, today at least, will readily identify Humbert as a moral monster. Any failure to do so would certainly very worrying! The novel is quite clear about this.Nabokov’s trick to is to make the reader complicit in Humbert’s crimes through the latter’s seductive prose–the reader is sometimes made to forget Humbert’s awfulness. Close reading is what ultimately brings the reader *back* to heris senses, with a greater understanding of the dangers of narcissism, solipsism, and–especially–the confusion of art and reality. Without this painful dynamic, the novel could be replaced by a (sadly too frequent) headline. So, IMO, novel works something like what you say in your second paragraph, but in a sort of inverse way, if that makes any sense.

          • powelstock

            [I apologize if this shows up twice. I thought I posted it but now don’t see it….] Elizabeth: A good point about sexism and rape culture and their role in certain possible receptions of *Lolita*. At the same time, my comment was really a response to soccerteesandplaydoh (excellent tag, btw!). I was attempting to contribute to the process of undoing such misreadings of the novel that s/he noted. I’m not really sure what to make of the idea that a novel shouldn’t need a close reading, other than as criticism of readers, not of the novel. Otherwise it doesn’t make any sense at all, since it would all but eliminate the possibility of any modern literature. I think that most readers, today at least, will readily identify Humbert as a moral monster. Any failure to do so would certainly be very worrying! Be that as it may, the novel is quite clear about this. Even Humbert is made to admit it from time to time. Nabokov’s trick to is to make the reader complicit in Humbert’s crimes through the latter’s seductive prose–the reader is sometimes made to forget Humbert’s awfulness. Close reading is what ultimately brings the reader *back* to heris senses, with a greater understanding of the dangers of narcissism, solipsism, and–especially–the confusion of art and reality. Without this painful dynamic, the novel could be replaced by a (sadly too frequent) headline. So, IMO, the novel works something like what you say in your second paragraph, but in a sort of inverse way, if that makes any sense.

          • Evilin Garnett

            Girls and boys try to act older than they are.
            Girls are taught “sexy” behavior = maturity.
            Boys are taught to drive fast cars.

            You want a seven year old boy driving?
            You don’t.
            You are the adult.
            Don’t listen to him if he says he can drive.
            Take away the keys. Give him milk, cookies, and an early bedtime.

            YOU are the adult.

        • soccerteesandplaydoh

          I agree completely; and my mom was no dummy. I think she had a great deal of internalized misogyny.

          • powelstock

            That breaks my heart. The internalization is the most insidious part! Sending good vibes.

        • AMinNC

          This is why I love the novel. I am a woman and a strong feminist, and it is amazing to me how masterful Nabokov is as manipulating the reader in to sympathizing with Humbert at different times. I know he is a predator; I know Lolita is a terribly victimized child, and yet, Humbert’s humanity is what is privileged here and I become implicated in that privilege. To me, the novel is a master class (pun intended) of how narratives are essential in creating and reinforcing power in the real world. Rape culture is so much about reinforcing narratives of male privilege that lead men to assert their will over women and then pretend that is not what happened. And it is interesting to me that, because of the overwhelming prevalence of patriarchal narratives, people can read Lolita and take Humbert’s account at face value. We are swimming in it.

          • powelstock

            So true. And it makes Lolita great novel to teach with!

          • Evilin Garnett

            To be disturbed by disturbing behavior is only normal. That was the greatness of the book. But it’s not a lack of understanding to be disturbed by it.

            And ask a non lit critter what an “unreliable narrator” is….It’s kind of a specific concept.

        • minuialear

          I got the same meaning out of the book; you are not supposed to be rooting for Humbert, any more than one is supposed to root for Patrick Bateman or Walter White. At some point you’re supposed to realize they’ve gone way too far, and if you don’t, it’s not because the author/director is trying to convince you to love the main character–it’s because the author/director is depicting the character with brutal honesty, and you personally are still choosing to make excuses for him.

      • amysterling

        Good lord – what a thing to say to an 11 year old! And at 11, reading that book!

        • soccerteesandplaydoh

          I could read Little House On the Prairie on my own by age three, and my reading only got more compulsive and voracious as I grew. My parents had a LOT of books and no inclination to supervise my reading, so I ended up reading “beyond my years,” as they say.

          • amysterling

            I hear you. It’s just such a nasty book (I mean that in the sense of “cruel” or “poor treatment of others”). What you said is the exact reason why it wouldn’t be good reading for a child and I’m still stunned what your mother said. My father said something to me once about my mother that bothered me for years. I now know he likely didn’t mean what he said the way I interpreted it. – so possible –

            • powelstock

              Foof, yeah. I would say 18 is the minimum age for this book, in general. Even then, when I teach it to college frosh, it takes a lot of careful guidance. It’s subtle and can easily confuse inexperienced readers. I’ve had some pretty weird reactions from incoming students, including young women, who read it in high school and were not really able to discern the irony that undercuts everything Humbert says. Then, occasionally, there is moral relativism run amok; these are the students who are somehow able to deny that the novel is about child rape.

            • magistralatina

              I read it as a 15 year old. As a 15 year old, of course I didn’t get the multiplicity of its layers, or even its irony. But I have read it many times since, and each reading is informed, even enriched by previous encounters – however immature. So I can’t agree that there’s a ‘minimum age for this book.’
              As a teacher, however, I got used to ‘some pretty weird reactions’ from students, ‘incoming’ and otherwise, quite early in my career. Comes with the territory. Most of the time they’re hair-tearing, but they can be epiphanic, too.

            • powelstock

              Fair enough. Just meant it as a rule of thumb. To be sure there are many younger readers who can handle it. I just worry about young people who might “naturalize” it, for lack of a better term. I certainly would not want my children reading this without a trusted adult (parent, teacher, whatever) discussing it with them. Perhaps that’s me being a bit of a helicopter!

          • haily27

            Same here re: voracious reader, but I couldn’t get through Lolita. Even as a teenager it was just too awful to derive any literary satisfaction from it much less analyze it properly. The screwed up thing is that I had no problems with Lord of the Flies.

            • soccerteesandplaydoh

              Ha. I couldn’t read Lord Of The Flies — just skimmed enough to be able to pass the test, though I did cry about Piggy. Perhaps LOTF and Lolita are some sort of matter/anti matter and they will combust if you put them in the same bookshelf without protective shielding.

    • Joshua Moody

      Reading Lolita as the story of a rapist’s ongoing relationship with his underage victim is like reading The Little Prince as the story of an orphan boy traveling through space. Or reading The Metamorphosis as the story of a man who wakes up as a giant insect. These are the literal plots that drive the stories, yes, but they’re really “about” something else. They’re clues that point us to the “real” story, right?

      That said, I use quotation marks because good books are like Reese’s, there’s no “wrong” way to read them as long as you can get something smart out of it. I like this article because it suggests that rape itself is a valid focal point whether the “point” of the story lies somewhere else or not. Maybe Lolita isn’t “about” rape, but it sure has a lot of rape in it and Nabokov is a great writer, so it would insult him not to talk about the rape, as it’s definitely there for a reason. Yes, there’s a line to be drawn between metaphor and message, and if reading Lolita makes you become angry at Nabokov, you probably made a wrong turn somewhere… but talking about rape in Lolita is totally valid.

      • lena mcfarland

        Please tell me you didn’t notice that the whole point of this article is that someones like you told Solnit that she was reading Lolita wrong. And she expressed no anger toward Nabokov. She simply showed that reading a book metaphorically never, historically speaking, excluded readers from identifying with one or more of the characters. Did you identify with the main character of The Metamorphosis? If not, that’s ok, but that means you read it in a pretty unusual way. Imagine someone telling you that you read wrong for identifying or not identifying with the main character(s) of great novels.

        Also: smart readers can read more than one way simultaneously. Literally, metaphorically, sympathetically, and more. If you can’t accept or acknowledge this, you might be reading other readers wrong. Yes I’m joking, but seriously. Your comment makes it sound like you failed to understand anything at all that Solnit wrote here. Including ‘and’ and ‘the.’ She’s writing this essay for you though. And for me reading you. You could try listening.

        • Joshua Moody

          Well, I’m not sure what you mean by “someones like you,” so I can’t really speak to that. As far as inferring anger toward Nabokov, not at all! Solnit seems to respect him as a writer, but this essay isn’t really about Nabokov (nor should it be). And I don’t take it that way. The “you” toward the end of my comment was generic, not directed at Solnit.

          I completely agree with her that both literary analysis and personal identification with a character are separate and compatible approaches to a text. Didn’t I say there’s no wrong way to read a good book? Post-Barthes, every reader has to be understood as an author in their own right anyway, yeah?

          On a side-note, I did identify with Gregor Samsa in a couple of ways. He was the son of a respectable family who had high hopes for him, but he changed into someone who couldn’t fulfil those hopes… and you’re correct, I have every right to identify with him in that way, even as I simultaneously seek out more central issues in the text (should I desire).

          Thanks for trying to help me understand Solnit, but as I’m not sure how exactly my comment suggests that I didn’t listen to her or that I misunderstood her, I can’t offer anything else in the way of explanation. If you can elucidate, let me know!

      • Jadakiss

        I think a good key to understanding the purpose of the article is in using the metaphor given to her by one of her commenters. Imagine that there was a story about a woman who went around castrating males. The story was told from the point of view of the woman, of course. And this wasn’t a single story, but a whole trend that spanned genres. And there was also the very real danger facing men, in the real world that they had to live with, that they would be castrated by woman. That was an experience that, though they never experienced it, in a sense they were made to experience again and again every time they had to take steps to avoid it, every time they came close to feeling like they were going to be castrated, etc.

        Now imagine that you read this story and that naturally, you identified with the man being castrated. This self identification might evoke certain feelings of anxiety in you, feelings that are all too familiar. You might also recognize that the takes makes the victims of said castration double victims because, by virtue of the fact that the story is told from the POV of the castrator, not only are their penises taken from them, but also their stories. Finally, you might make a connection with other stories of this kind that have been framed fantasies and written for the fulfillment of those fantasies for women who fantasize about the power and control they would feel from castrating men. All of this might produce uncomfortable feelings, and get you to think about how these stories, as a pervasive trend, might work to reinforce certain imagines in the public imagination about the place of men and women in society. And if you can imagine all that, then you might find the article a little more reasonable, and a little less off the mark.

        So yes, though that specific story might point to other things, it doesn’t negate the feelings it might produce, or some of the other meanings it might produce within its text that are also worth talking about and, maybe even joking about.

        • Joshua Moody

          I see nothing in here I disagree with. =) Moving on!

          At the end of the day, any criticism of Nabokov is insanely difficult to trust, simply because HE is so difficult to grasp as an author. There is no box or movement you can put him in, no other writers to which he is very indebted, not even any certainty that he wasn’t just playing elaborate jokes in the long run.

      • lilin

        What are they about? I’m seriously asking this. I keep running into this argument, and it seems to me that there is some kind of strange need to make a book “more” than just a story, as if a story, beautifully written, which resonates with us long after we read it, weren’t enough.

        I’ve become more and more suspicious of this argument. It seems a way to shift away from any argument or criticism.

        • Joshua Moody

          I’d say it’s a way to shift into more complex analysis, not away from it.

          As far as answering your question, I could offer a a few ideas. I could say that The Little Prince is really about the instability of a life lived in observation and clarity. I could say that The Metamorphosis is about the inevitability of drifting away from family. I could say that Lolita is about the futility of art. Any of these analyses could be supported or torn apart … and I’m sure there are much better analyses out there. But what’s important about them is they are complex enough to tie into broader social theories and let us examine the interplay of culture, text, and reader. If we just read these books on the surface, we wouldn’t get so much of that. If I took the rape in Lolita as the point of the book, then I could potentially miss a more powerful experience as a reader. That said, there’s no wrong way to read a book as long as you get something smart out of it, and I remain interested in what people have to say about the various themes that make up the whole.

          • lilin

            I would argue with some of your ideas, not with others, but I think that, whatever its broader points, Lolita is about the rape of a young girl by a manipulative older man. I don’t think that’s incidental or beside the point.

            I guess I take issue with your line, “These are the literal plots that drive the stories, yes, but they’re really “about” something else.”

            They’re not “really about” something else unless they’re one hundred percent allegorical. And even then, there’s room to criticize, or even focus, on the imagery and the narrative of the allegory. Books really are about the plot, and they use the plot to make broader points. Attacking the plot without acknowledging the fact that it helps serve up broader ideas is a problem, but so is claiming that someone who is attacking an aspect of the plot, or who thinks the plot is important or objectionable, is missing the wider point of the book.

            • Joshua Moody

              It’s about whatever you see in it, as long as you can argue for what you see. I mean, you’re definitely right on one level. You have correctly assessed the plot of the book. Good… work?

              Hey, if you think that the point of literature is only the plot, then you should stick to reading the jacket covers of books. It’d save you a lot of time! =) Except when it comes to books without plots of course… which do exist.

              Why can’t Lolita primarily be “about” an outrageously unreliable narrator and the plot simply be of secondary importance, just a vehicle to drive that interest?

              And who or what would be the target of any attack on Lolita?

            • lilin

              “Hey, if you think that the point of literature is only the plot, then you should stick to reading the jacket covers of books. It’d save you a lot of time! =)”

              Jesus, it didn’t take you long to devolve, did it? A chick doesn’t agree with you! Let’s ignore most of her comment and question why she reads at all! She should just read book jackets! Hrrr hrrr, good one, Josh!

              “Why can’t Lolita primarily be “about” an outrageously unreliable narrator and the plot simply be of secondary importance, just a vehicle to drive that interest?”

              So you honestly think that Nabokov was picking out a plot at random, like a rental car? Seriously?

              Edit: No, nevermind. I’m sorry I engaged with you at all. You took the very first opportunity to be a condescending asshole, which is kind of the point of this article.

            • Joshua Moody

              I have devolved because I championed a more nuanced approach to literature that does not place plot at the focal point of every worthwhile analysis? Or I have devolved because I didn’t agree with you?

              Or maybe you have devolved for trying to cast me as a sexist when there has been nothing in my language to suggest that I am?

              No, I don’t think that Nabokov picked out a plot at random. He was a very calculating writer and nothing was written randomly. That said, unreliable narrators are a very common theme of his, actually, and he has used many plots as vehicles to carry that theme, among other recurring themes (such as doppelgangers, memory, and reflections) to the point where any student of his work has to wonder if the plots themselves are not secondary to other things he was trying to do or say, which you will find if you do even a cursory survey of Nabokov criticism.

              My point was that he could have picked out a plot at random… if he’d wanted to. His prerogative. Any author’s, really. We’d never know for sure. In the end, we don’t know what any author wanted, do we? And it doesn’t truly matter. What matters is what WE find compelling and how we discuss it. Just because you find plot to be the most compelling element of a novel does not mean that everyone who reads a novel feels the same. Solnit seems more interested in character than plot, actually. And that is okay.

              By the way, I would not recommend choosing rental cars at random. You will undoubtedly get a better deal if you talk to the agent about cost and mileage before making your decision.

            • lilin

              “What matters is what we find compelling and how we discuss it.”

              And you discussed by telling a woman who disagreed with you that she should stick to reading book jackets, followed by a smiley. You sexist fuck.

            • Joshua Moody

              Again, how was I sexist when I didn’t even know your gender? That’s such a braintease.

              I told a PERSON whose gender I did not know (nor did I care) that their approach to literature was puerile and unlikely to lead to worthwhile conclusions because they were only interested in plot.

              That’s not sexist. It’s elitist. Get it right.

            • Joshua Moody

              Seriously, scroll back through our conversation. Your username offers no hints as to your gender. You have no photo. Prior to my suggestion that you stick to reading book jackets, you made zero mention of how you identify.

              So… care to explain how I’m a sexist?

              Come on. That’s not a word to bandy around. There are real sexists out there who actually need to be called out on their bullshit and I don’t appreciate the word losing its power by being used lightly.

            • lilin

              Oh, Joshua! Tell me more about how YOU don’t appreciate how a woman does feminism! *You’re* the one who knows about these things! Actually, tell me more about literature! Tell me how to rent a car! My mind, it is taxed from the reading of book jackets.

              I called you a sexist because I think you’re a sexist. You can say you didn’t think I’m a woman, but honestly after your nasty little condescending remark, I don’t believe you. And, I gotta say, after engaging you seriously and getting a smack for daring to disagree with you, it really pleases me that I can get under your skin by laughing at you and calling you names. The fact that you’re in a tizzy proves there’s still power in the word yet!

            • Joshua Moody

              Ehh, you got nothin’.

            • lilin

              Three replies to a single comment. Oh, sweetie. You are desperate now.

            • Joshua Moody

              No, I just take this conversation seriously more or less, whereas you have begun to troll.

            • MLChadwick

              Thank you so much, dear man, for explaining to lilin and by extension to all women reading your comment that your approach to literature is more nuanced than ours.

            • Joshua Moody

              Dear person, since you appreciate my explanations, let me explain something else to you: a person of one gender may disagree with someone from another gender … and that disagreement may have absolutely nothing to do with gender.

              This seems especially likely when the person doing the disagreeing was not informed about the other person’s gender.

              You might as well accuse a blind man of disagreeing with a stranger on the metro because of the color of their skin. It makes exactly as much sense.

    • Antonio Grub

      Finally, someone understands lolita. I’ve been telling everyone to read it for ever. I’d say go read lolita, it’s beautiful but exploitative. I mean, I agree in every possible way with Rebecca Solnit, except that I like the book and she doesn’t. So what? that’s just the nature of opinion, and i’m not going to take that right away from anyone. otherwise democracy breaks down. what i admire about Ms. Solnit is that she is not afraid to destroy and embarrass people, hammer others into the ground, with great aplomb! It feels entirely effortless, but also genuine. Her book on walking, Wanderlust, is v v good. She’s like f. nietzsche. She’s one of the great haters, an american polemicist

      • lena mcfarland

        No. She never once said she hated Lolita. She’s read it more than once. There’s no hate here toward Lolita.

        She said she identified with Lolita while reading it. Do you equate that with hating Lolita? I did the same thing. Try reading the book again and identifying with Lolita. It’s not hate reading. As Vera Nabokov says there is empathy for Lolita’s way of looking at her world built into the story.

        I don’t hate Lolita. But sometimes I fear readers who can’t see Lolita herself as a character worthy of identifying with.

        That, perhaps, is what Solnit hates and you misunderstand.

        • Antonio Grub

          I never said she hated lolita either, Lena. I meant that in general she’s a hater in the sense of being a polemicist, which is lovely! Why do you assume i don’t identify with lolita the character? Also why would Vladimir nabokov not do so? I’m sure he did. People tend to assume he didn’t.. even though Vera–who loved the book–did so herself. Vera, according to the lore, saved the book from incineration when Vlad tried to burn it in the yard. How quaint!

          • lena mcfarland

            I never said Nabokov didn’t identify with Lolita. I said he built empathy for her into the book.

            Funny that you read Solnit as a hater when I read her as a lover of women. Also, isn’t to love men to be willing to point out the flaws in patriarchy that creates losses for men too. I read Solnit as a lover of men and of women.

            The polemicists are those who insist, still here in these comments, that she’s not intelligent enough to read Lolita right. Whatever that is.

            Imagine someone telling a young boy he shouldn’t identify with Oliver in Oliver Twist.

            Solnit is trying to make the world better by pointing out some of its obvious blinders.

            • Antonio Grub

              Well, i was unclear. I know that Solnit didn’t say Nabokov didn’t identify with Lolita. I’ve read a lot of critical pieces, though, which argue as much. But since you mention it, the fact that Solnit–an intelligent reader, yes?–was made to feel crummy by it despite being able to interpret literature from every possible angle (she says: “You read enough books in which people like you are disposable, or are dirt, or are silent, absent, or worthless, and it makes an impact on you”) suggests that this is the overarching interpretation of the book. The truth is, I don’t even like Lolita, but for totally different reasons. And Solnit doesn’t care for it much either–though I never said she hated it. She totally seems to think it’s dangerous, and that’s a valid reason for not caring for a literary work. If a work of art makes you feel bad about yourself, or if you think it might be bad for others, then you don’t have to enjoy it disinterestedly, as many people seem to think you should (many of whom are white men)

              As to whether Solnit is a lover or hater, I don’t know what to tell you, Lena. I praised her highly for her gusto, and you found a way to make it seem that I said the very opposite. Honestly, i wanted to see if i’d get a woman mansplaining to me, and it looks like i did. And I love that, since I’m a masochist. Ciao

            • powelstock

              Great posts, lena m! They clear away so much defensive bs in the reactions to this fine essay. (I’m not nearly as subtle as you!)

          • Ms. Pris

            You said ” I agree in every possible way with Rebecca Solnit, except that I like the book and she doesn’t.” But Solnit never said she didn’t like the book.

            • Antonio Grub

              I said right above your comment why she mostly likely does not like it: “the fact that Solnit–an intelligent reader, yes?–was made to feel crummy by it despite being able to interpret literature from every possible angle (she says: ‘You read enough books in which people like you are disposable, or are dirt, or are silent, absent, or worthless, and it makes an impact on you’) suggests that this is the overarching interpretation of the book. The truth is, I don’t even like Lolita, but for totally different reasons. And Solnit doesn’t care for it much either–though I never said she hated it. She totally seems to think it’s dangerous, and that’s a valid reason for not caring for a literary work. If a work of art makes you feel bad about yourself, or if you think it might be bad for others, then you don’t have to enjoy it disinterestedly, as many people seem to think you should (many of whom are white men).

              Also, the fact that she read it twice in no way proves that she liked it. But I completely agree: she didn’t say explicitly that she doesn’t like it.

              Solnit: “I read many Nabokov novels back in the day, but a novel centered around the serial rape of a kidnapped child, back when I was near that child’s age was a little reminder how hostile the world, or rather the men in it, could be. Which is not a pleasure.”

              Solnit’s most telling phrase, about Lolita: “Not a pleasure”

    • breathlss79

      I identify with Lolita. This may be because Nabokov himself identified with her, or had empathy for the character. He, after all, created both characters. I agree that Tolstoy wrote great women characters. But I think Nabokov did, too. Lolita is an abused child, but she’s also an annoying teenage girl, a funny girl, a smart girl. The thing that I find difficult about these recent arguments about fiction, Solnit’s included, is that the capacity for empathy and for imagination is infinite, both with readers and writers. I once read an article about Native Americans who loved Westerns. The reason, they gave, is because they identified with the *cowboys.* I love Lolita. I identify with her. But I identify with Humbert, too.

    • Jen K.

      I do agree with and appreciate much of what you say, but there is an undertone in your writing which I feel contradicts your central thesis.

      By making the White Male the embodiment of all evil, you are committing the exact racist-sexism which you denounce. This is the inherent philosophical contradiction in contemporary Pluralistic political correctness: All ways of life are valid! …Except those with the power/privilege/money/confidence we want. Equality for all! …Except those we collectively despise.

      • Jadakiss

        I think you read that into the article. The article may have been critical of white males. But it did not make them the embodiment of all evil. And the pluralistic political correctness, whatever that means, if you are referring to the stance that all should be considered equal, well naturally that extends to white men. But white men are already at the status of equals. It makes no sense to advocate for equality for white men. It’s about raising everyone else up to that level, not lowering white males to everyone else’s level. But maybe if you can be clear on what in her article suggested that? Because to say it’s a contradiction in the tone of her writing to the sentiments she expresses is one thing, but to say it’s a philosophical contradiction, which implies a logical one, is something different. It’s hard to pinpoint tone in a text. But the logic of a text should be easy enough to deconstruct.

        • Jen K.

          The terms “white guys” and “white men” is used multiple times directly and indirectly. To conceptually define a myriad of people of different varieties and walks of life as one homogenous stereotype that all share certain qualities is insane. That is the very same thinking which leads to persecution of groups of people due to race, religion, gender, etc. Every individual is different. There is no such thing as “white guys” or “black people” or “the Jews,” those are conceptual constructs and very dangerous ones. There is only the beauty and infinitely variegated complexity of life, which deserves tenderness and affection.

          • Jadakiss

            But saying these categories are conceptually constructed is not the same thing as saying they are not real. They are real, and they do have their effects in the real world. They may not be natural, but they are nonetheless real. The article does make reference to this group of white men, but does not attempt to say that they are all homogenous. As a matter of fact, though this should be implicit as no one claims that all people we categorize as white or black are the same, and that indeed would be a kind of violence, she does make this explicit when she says that she knows a bunch of white men that don’t react this way. She is addressing white men, but saying that certain texts are written for or on behalf of white men and their perspective, is not the same thing as saying that all white men will react in the same ways to those texts. I think this is the fallacy that many of the criticisms to this kind of critique rest upon, the assumption that the critic is assuming all white men are the same, rather than addressing the white men within that group that do respond in this characteristic way.

            • Stephen Robinson

              This reminds me of a discussion I’ve had with a writer who believes that because gender is a “construct” that roles in screenplays should be written and cast without gender in mind and the less a character’s gender is an issue in the screenplay, the better. I think this is not ideal because it erases the experience of the sexes. We can debate whether my Y chromosome, testosterone and melanin count make me fundamentally different from someone without those traits, but I strongly believe that existing in a society where those traits do matter greatly influences who we are and how we experience the world.

            • Jadakiss

              Exactly. It’s like that one Eminem song, “I am, whatever you say I am.” Our lives are still in many ways structured by the categories we are placed in by society, and that influences our experience and identity. There are so many categories that create the world I live in and shape who I am as an individual. Maybe I wish it weren’t the case, and we were all free to invent ourselves independent of constraints, but that’s not the real world. And to deny that, is to deny reality.

              (Sorry if that reference was inappropriate for the discussion).

            • powelstock

              “But saying these categories are conceptually constructed is not the same thing as saying they are not real. They are real, and they do have their effects in the real world.” Well put!

          • disqusplaya

            But… but… but!!! Poor white men, rural white men, unemployed white men, white men in prison, white men with disabilities, white men lacking an education, though they may be low-status “untouchables” (if only we acknowledged castes in western society), they are after all, still white men, and so they benefit from institutional priviledge in a way a young African American woman whose parents were both lawyers and paid for six years at a women’s college simply never will. Right? Right??? Because identity politics demands the keeping of scores.

            • abby

              well, yes. and a young african-american woman with lawyer parents who paid for six years of college benefits from institutional privilege in a way those different types of white men never will. people can be privileged and disprivileged in various contexts: intersectionality.

          • disqusplaya

            But… but… but!!! Poor white men, rural white men, unemployed white men, white men in prison, white men with disabilities, white men lacking an education, though they may be low-status “untouchables” (if only we acknowledged castes in western society), they are after all, still white men, and so they benefit from institutional priviledge in a way a young African American woman whose parents were both lawyers and paid for six years at a women’s college simply never will. Right? Right??? Because identity politics demands the keeping of scores.

        • Raivi

          Let me help you understand the racism in Solnit’s text. I replaced just the phrase “white man” with “jew”. See the effect. The text becomes a dirty piece of evil raving madness.

          “But seriously, you know who can’t take a joke? Jews. Not if it implicates them and their universe, and when you see the rage, the pettiness, the meltdowns and fountains of jew tears of fury, you’re seeing people who really expected to get their own way and be told they’re wonderful all through the days. And here, just for the record, let me clarify that I’m not saying that all of them can’t take it. Many jews —among whom I count many friends (and, naturally, family members nearly as pale as I)—have a sense of humor, that talent for seeing the gap between what things are supposed to be and what they are and for seeing beyond the limits of their own position. Some have deep empathy and insight and write as well as the rest of us. Some are champions of human rights. But there are also those other ones, and they do pop up and demand coddling.”

          • Jadakiss

            And if that did indeed apply to jews I think it would be valid criticism.

            • Raivi

              I wonder if you could clarify in what kind of situation, even a hypothetical one, “that indeed would apply to jews”? Could that scenario be realized anywhere but within a nazi context?

              I have never heard nations tell anything – only people.

              Following your logic no-one should have critisized Hitler’s policies in the 30’s and 40’s without critisizing Mussolini, Stalin and every other monster on the planet at that time in the same sentence.

              I wonder if “balancing of the scales” means it is okay to respond to rubbish with rubbish, to violence with violence, to lies with lies, etc?

            • Jadakiss

              In a world where all the same conditions that applied to white people in this particular context applied to jews, then obviously, her criticisms would also apply.

              People, when they congregate into nations, tell people things. What do you think nations are made out of?

              My point is not that you should criticize them in the same sentence, but that you should be critical of one if you are going to be critical of the other. I’m sure that most people that criticized Hitler /also/ criticized Mussolini and Stalin. They didn’t criticize one but keep silent on the other. So if you aren’t on comment sections criticizing racism of all stripes, and just choosing to criticize racism when you perceive it to be against white people, recognize that you are being a hypocrite.

              To your last comment, no, it does not.

            • Raivi

              As a general rule, I don’t think it is appropriate to critizise participants of a discussion for something they did or did not do outside the discussion. We, anonymous participants, are talking here about Solnit’s text based on the arguments we are able to present in this discussion, and I think you have no right to stalk on my opinions or non-opinions elsewhere – not that there would be anything to “hide” for that matter. What do you know about my opinions on any other issues? What right do you have judge me as a hypocrite?

              Because I kind of understand and sympathize with your viewpoint, I will make an exception and do something I think should not be required of any participant of any discussion. I will clarify my motives.

              I think the Solnit’s text, which you defend, is intellectually comparable to racism, even if the text is of course “powerful read”, “catchy” and at times “witty”. So were Hitler’s texts.

              She generalises negatively over a group of people from singular observations neglecting any contradicting empirical evidence or logical considerations – of which there are plenty. This is de facto definition of racism – with the exception being of course that “men” are not a “race”. (But this is not a critical point as anyone familiar with the history of oppression and genocide understands. Tutsis and Hutus were not technically “races” either.)

              For me, personally, it hurts very deeply, both emotionally and intellectually, to observe people like Solnit defile a good cause and to see people cheering her. Fight for the freedom of people to be and become their full selves notwithstanding the specifics of their birth is only harmed by people like her. To me she is like Stalin is to a left-wing person with a conscience.

              PS try to take your argumentation about “conditions of applicability” to Anti-Defamation League. They might be able to teach you the basic logic of racist argumentation, a task in which I have clearly failed.

            • Jadakiss

              I wasn’t criticizing you. I don’t know you, or what you do or feel outside of this context. It could very well be that you are an active civil rights and social justice advocate, and that you are very vocal on the subject of race relations, regardless of what that race might be. Only you know the extent of your own hypocrisy, or lack thereof. That is why I said, IF you don’t, THEN you are a hypocrite. I don’t even try and judge people. All I’m saying is it would be hypocritical of you to take this position if you, like many others, condemn or stay silent when America tries to dismiss African Americans or other minority groups on these very same grounds. I’ll let you judge for yourself how well that applies to you, and hopefully, it does not.

              And I’m not singing anyone’s praises, but I do think you’re wrong to call the piece racist. That is the extent of my defense. As to the frequent references to Jews, just because Jews are and have been marginalized does not exempt them from criticism if and when they are deserving of it. Take for instance Israeli Jews and their treatment of Palestinians which is sometimes, or very often, oppressive. In that context, it is okay to criticize them as a community or as a society. Though I recognize this subject is a touchy one and many have divided opinions. So, let’s just leave it in terms of hypotheticals. My point as that IF the conditions under which Solnit applies her criticism of white men also applied to Jews, or blacks, or any other community, then they would be valid in that context as well.

              Having said all that, I think I understand where you are coming from and that the language in the article might have produced negative feelings which are valid and shouldn’t be dismissed. I’m in no position to speak for the author, to clarify her or anything but, I’ll try. I think the key problem here is the term white people and what that implies. The way you and many read it was, all white people. The way I read it was, some white people, maybe many. She even says in the article that a lot of white men she knows don’t act the way she’s describing. But in her direct experience, lots of white men have responded to her in the same way. So her argument is indeed empirical, as it pertains to her direct experience. And the criticism she levels is addressed to those people, and to people who behave in the same ways. To those white people specifically, which is why she uses this term. She’s not talking about people in general who act that way. She’s speaking specifically to and about white men who act the way she’s describing, because the conditions under which they behave in this way are different from those of others.

              It’s touchy, because this kind of language is something we tend to avoid for this reason. Like, Trump, who spoke about Mexicans being rapists. He wasn’t speaking about all Mexicans, but his language did, and I believe was intended, to characterize the entire racial group that way. And that’s kind of what is happening here. I do think this was more or less intentional on her part though. This is what I was talking about leveling the scales. She is reproducing something here, very intentionally, trying to make white people, specifically, the white people she is criticizing, uncomfortable. You know that pain you spoke about, that’s the pain that blacks speak about all the time in this country. It’s something we more or less have to deal with all the time. Same for women, and other minority groups. And when we do, we often get dismissed. So if we are going to be dismissive of them, if everyone just needs to grow a thicker skin, as many would claim, then it’s okay for us to speak about white people, specifically the white people who make these claims, this way, the same way they do about everyone else. That’s the point of her article.

              So now, read this again: “There has been a lot said this year about college students—meaning female college students, black students, trans students—and how they’re hypersensitive and demanding that others be censored. That’s why The Atlantic, a strange publication that veers from progressive to regressive and back again like a weighty pendulum recently did a piece on “The Coddling of the American Mind.” It tells us that, “Jerry Seinfeld and Bill Maher have publicly condemned the oversensitivity of college students, saying too many of them can’t take a joke,” with the invocation of these two white guys as definitive authorities.

              But seriously, you know who can’t take a joke? White guys. Not if it implicates them and their universe, and when you see the rage, the pettiness, the meltdowns and fountains of male tears of fury, you’re seeing people who really expected to get their own way and be told they’re wonderful all through the days. And here, just for the record, let me clarify that I’m not saying that all of them can’t take it. Many white men—among whom I count many friends (and, naturally, family members nearly as pale as I)—have a sense of humor, that talent for seeing the gap between what things are supposed to be and what they are and for seeing beyond the limits of their own position. Some have deep empathy and insight and write as well as the rest of us. Some are champions of human rights.

              But there are also those other ones, and they do pop up and demand coddling. A group of black college students doesn’t like something and they ask for something different in a fairly civil way and they’re accused of needing coddling as though it’s needing nuclear arms. A group of white male gamers doesn’t like what a woman cultural critic says about misogyny in gaming and they spend a year or so persecuting her with an unending torrent of rape threats, death threats, bomb threats, doxxing, and eventually a threat of a massacre that cites Marc LePine, the Montreal misogynist who murdered 14 women in 1989, as a role model. I’m speaking, of course, about the case of Anita Sarkeesian and Gamergate. You could call those guys coddled. We should. And seriously, did they feel they were owed a world in which everyone thought everything they did and liked and made was awesome or just remained silent? Maybe, because they had it for a long time.”

              I don’t know if my bolded text will appear, but I hope you can at least see the where she was coming from, the intent of her language, and that she might very well not have had you in mind when she made this criticism, unless it applies to you.

            • Raivi

              This is getting tiresome. If you wish criticize Israeli politics, you should criticize Israeli politics, not jews. But if you nevertheless do so, you are an anti-semite. The term “jew” denotes also that girl in Amsterdam, who has nothing to do with Israeli politics, and she is not valid target of your criticism.

              If she would write

              “I know many good jews, especially those who try to see beyond the limits of their own position. Some of them have deep empathy and insight and write as well as the rest of us. But there are also those other types of jews, and they do pop up and demand coddling.”

              she would be banished into eternal oblivion from civilised society – and for a good reason. Note, for example, the deeply devisive “as the rest of us”, which implies that the other-group is inherently inferior. And the same tone is present in the whole text. Of course there are several witty observations in the text, but I am not writing an essay here. I have no obligation to point out what she “gets right”.

              I just want to point out that, when it comes to the conclusions, she is a plain old-fashioned hate-monger, as there ever was one.

            • Jadakiss

              Please note the all/some distinction in my previous post. The Jewish people I was addressing were those jewish people in that society that supported oppression.

            • Raivi

              Re-reading the Solnit quote, I cannot avoid the feeling that the value of white man’s argument seems to rest on that man proving his good intentions and good character according to Solnit’s criteria; whether he is a champion of human rights, whether he sees his position clearly, etc. A white man can speak and will be heard only after he has proven his worth. This is an exact replica of the old “good jew, good negro” repression.

              For Jerry Seinfeld and Bill Maher, I can’t say if their point is valid or not, because I am not familiar with what goes on in American universities, but by judging this comment section I think they might be on to something. Look at the rage and condescence people are willing to express to each other over some curse words.

              I also think that many jokes are based on the emotional tensions connected with uncomfortable situations, and many uncomfortable situations are based on prejudices, and therefore many jokes pass their selling date when society changes and prejudices evaporate. In many cases what was perceived “innocently” funny at some date, will be perceived rude when looked at from distance. I have one episode from Seinfeld in mind, where Kramer was taken as a handicapped person for wearing weird shoes and for not being able to speak properly after a visit at a dentist.

              Having said that, I don’t think it is valid to null their arguments because they are pale males. Solnit wonders why they should be perceived as authorities on the issue, and I guess the subtext here is that they are perceived as authorities because they are white and men.

              But Solnit’s insinuation is stupid. When one has made a succesful career as a comedian, one is – by definition – an authority on jokes. Pretty much the same way a dentist is an authority on caries.

            • Jadakiss

              What you are failing to see is that this piece, also, is a joke. And so the argument that people should simply stop acting coddled and develop a tougher skin or just learn how to take a joke also applies to this piece. You exemplify exactly what she is saying about coddled white men. White men tell minorities they are coddled when they complain about the language used to address them. But in the same breath, you are complaining about racism and about the language used to address white men. How can you not see the blatant hypocrisy in that? How can you not see that by saying blacks on college campuses should stop complaining about racism, and then complaining about the racism in this piece, you are doing exactly what this piece accuses white men of doing? And now, I really see how prevalent this attitude is. Thank you for proving the point of the article so nicely. I actually gained appreciation for it after reading your comment.

              “But seriously, you know who can’t take a joke? White guys. Not if it implicates them and their universe, and when you see the rage, the pettiness, the meltdowns and fountains of male tears of fury, you’re seeing people who really expected to get their own way and be told they’re wonderful all through the days.”

              This piece is the joke, and you couldn’t take it.

              “And here, just for the record, let me clarify that I’m not saying that all of them can’t take it. Many white men—among whom I count many friends (and, naturally, family members nearly as pale as I)—have a sense of humor, that talent for seeing the gap between what things are supposed to be and what they are and for seeing beyond the limits of their own position.”

              She is not qualifying white men to speak on the basis of whether or not they are champions of human rights. I don’t even know how you jumped to that conclusion. She is simply saying that not all white men get sensitive and defensive when people address them, their race or gender, in a way that might implicate them and their universe. That some white men can accept the fact that the world might be constructed around them and their interests, sometimes to the exclusion of others, and be cool with that. Some are even champions of human rights.

              I could go into so much in your comment, and how you misunderstand so much, but I have a lot of reading to do this year, and I’m afraid I would be my wasting time.

            • Raivi

              “Buahhahhaa, it was a joke, you just can’t take a joke” is a standard response in a bigot repertoire when real arguments have run out. I have heard this oh so many times coming out of a nazi mouth in my own country but am a little surprised to find this move in Lithub context.

              For the rest of your response, you seem to rage against straw men, so I think better call this off. Have a nice day.

            • Jadakiss

              I am only applying what you just did, to the article. Do you realize you were siding with Seinfeld and Maher, whose argument amounted to the same thing, “Buhahahaha, it was a joke, you just can’t take a joke.” That is what they are saying about college students. And you said they right to say it, because they are comedians. But it isn’t right in this context? Please, understand your hypocrisy. This is as clear as it will ever get. It’s staring at you right in the face, and you will call it a straw man, and then call it a day, because you refuse to deal with this contradiction.

              No one will feel sorry for white men when they complain about being implicated in racism or sexism, as long as they continue to dismiss the complaints of other races and sexes. What is hard to understand about that? You say that people need coddling when they call out what they perceive to be racism or sexism, but you are here complain about this article and . what you perceive to be racism and sexism. You are the one that needs coddling, and that is the point of the article.

            • Raivi

              I am sorry that you misunderstand so gravely what I write.

              1) I did not side with JS or BH. As I said, I don’t know about the situation in American universities so I have no way of verifying their claims. I don’t quite understand what difference it would make anyway. Are they some kind of devils? I just said that it is reasonable to state that they are authorities on jokes because they have told jokes for living for most of their lives. Anyone who specializes in doing something becomes an authority of that something. That is the definition of being an authority – you know the trade. Furthermore, I did not say that everything they have said is correct or that all the jokes they have told were non-offending. On the contrary, I stated that at least some of JS’s jokes have been offending in my opinion.

              2) JS and BH have all the right in the world to say whatever they please, and any college student, black or white, or anyone else for that matter, has all the right in the world to challenge what they have said. As long as the discourse is reasonably civilised.

              3) You cannot make factual statements and then later retract them by claiming that they were, in fact, just jokes. (In my experience this is a tactic frequently used by nazis when they realize they have gone too far in their hate-mongering). To be sure, Solnit was not joking, she was stating something about white males, and being dead serious about the matter. I don’t understand why you would wish to claim otherwise.

              4) Would you be so kind as to point out where I have stated that anyone “needs coddling”? You keep bringing this up for some reason.

              5) If you think that you are within your rights to publicly protest when you perceive your ethnic / gender group unfavourably and unjustly generilised, would you be so kind as to explain why I would not have the same kind of right? How would you justify the double standard that favours you and discriminates me?

            • Jadakiss

              In response to your entire thing, I can sum it up with this. This is an either/or situation in which you have to take a side, doing otherwise is hypocrisy. To say that college students demand coddling when they complain about offenses, justified or not, and then to, in the same breath, complain about offenses you take to the speech of others, is to engage in a kind of hypocrisy, or invite others to say you too, are demanding to be coddled. In other words, you can’t say college students are demanding to be coddled when they address racism, and then yourself address racism in a text, without by definition implying you yourself need coddling. This is the point of the article, not mine, I am merely explaining it.

              I must direct your attention, once again, to the all/some distinction. When Solnit says white men, she means some white men. She says as much. When I say that Jewish people in Israel often participate in oppression, I mean those Jewish people that I am talking about. I don’t mean to imply all Jewish people do so, nor does she mean to imply that all men do what she’s saying they do, and she says as much.

              The point of the article is that [some/many] white people in America accuse minorities/women of complaining too much when they complain about racism/sexism. But in the process, they are also complaining, and when they are addressed as white men, that is, when their race or gender is addressed, they complain even more, even though they always address minorities in this way. They actively participate in this double standard you spoke of, only the other way around. They say minorities/women shouldn’t complain, but it’s okay for them to complain.

              It is possible for a fact to be presented as a joke. This article is factual, the events are supposed to be taken as having really happened, but they are presented to illicit a laugh in some, and make others uncomfortable. People who recognize this behavior, have been the recipients of the behavior, will find humor in it. People that are implicated in this behavior, who have behaved in the way the article describes, will be offended by it. All of this is intentional. It is intended, like many jokes (George Carlin, South Park, etc.) to entertain some and offend others.

              Outside of this though, this really has nothing to do with jokes. What Seinfeld and Maher were responding to was not jokes. College students aren’t protesting and going on hunger strikes over jokes. They are protesting what they perceive to be actual, blatant racism on their campuses. They are protesting language, language we all recognize as racist or offensive, that is used against them. Nigger, cunt, slut, etc. And they are told they need to grow a thicker skin. To not be offended. It is in this context that Maher and Seinfeld uttered their remarks. Their status as comedians means nothing here, since they are not commenting on comedy, but on the reaction of individuals to serious, or what they perceive to be serious, acts of discriminatory or offensive language or practices. Their response to that is, learn how to take a joke. But the subject matter is not a joke.

              So yeah, that double standard you address at the end exists. The question is, will you participate in it’s perpetuation.

            • Raivi

              You sum it up incorrectly.

              I have not said anything in the lines that college students should not have right to complain about offences, or that they would “need coddling”. Why do you keep putting words into my mouth? That is straw man argumentation.

              Anyone facing rascist speech is invited to raise concern, even though you keep insisting that I don’t have such right.

              In many cases the fact whether the speech fullfills the criteria of racist speech can be disputed – as you have done in regards to Solnit’s text. From such situations must follow an intellectual investigation into the facts of the matter. Sometimes the matter can be solved, sometimes the dispute lingers on into perpetuity.

              You have to understand that these are two separate questions: 1) Is Solnit’s text racist? 2) Does a white man have a right to raise the previous question?

              I respect you replying “no” to the question nr. 1, even though I think your argumentation does not hold water. My reply to you is my argumentation. Our arguments both operate in the same domain, the playing field is level.

              But when you reply “no” to the question nr. 2, you are excluding me from the discussion, you deny me my voice. After that, it is not a discussion anymore, but a monologue.

              You seem to justify such exclusion from some historical and contemporary events in USA. But I have not set my foot in USA. I have no part in anything that has happened in USA.

              What you do, is extend the responsibility of the persons oppressing ethnical minorities in USA collectively to all people on this planet, who have similar skin tones with the persons who were responsible for oppressing ethnical minorities in USA. In this you are promoting collective responsibility based on skin tones. I don’t think I need to remind you that this is basic stuff in racist’s toolkit.

              I understand that the concept of collective responsibility might be meaningful in clearly defined communities. For example, people living in a house, where a father abuses his daughter, everyone knows about it, but chooses to do nothing about it. Or, as an extreme case, the raise of Hitler in power in Germany in the 30’s. But in these cases, too, the “collective responsibility” can be sliced into “individual responsibilities”, due to the fact that it is a question for each individual whether she/he had a chance to do something and whether she/he chose to do anything or not.

              In my humble opinion, your (and Solnit’s) manner of extending collective responsibility solely based on the fact of possessing a certain skin tone (or genitalia), is a strecth too far. I can imagine that you (and her) could go on this route quite far, please feel free to do so. It would be interesting to hear, for example, if the collective responsibility is based on the fact that “he was there and had a chance to do something”, why all non-whites (or non-penis-holders) are nevertheless excluded from bearing such responsibility. Surely non-whites (non-penis-holders) possess moral agency, too?

              But you (and Solnit) take a step even further. Collective responsibility is not enough for you, but also a demand of collective punishment is brought forward. For the time being, in the form of exclusion from discussion. Who knows what next. Exclusion from career prospects?

              You keep insisting that I “choose sides”. Let me remind you that that kind of talk is divisive, and by insisting such, you might find yourself in a company you have not initially planned for yourself.

            • Jadakiss

              You keep interpreting me as if I’m attacking you. I’m not. You’re getting defensive and reading attacks where they don’t exist. All I’m doing is providing conditions, laid out by this text, and you can of course judge for yourself where you stand relative to those conditions.

              “What you do, is extend the responsibility of the persons oppressing ethnical minorities in USA collectively to all people on this planet, who have similar skin tones with the persons who were responsible for oppressing ethnical minorities in USA.”

              No… friend, brother…. how many times do I have to repeat myself… how many times must I explain this before you understand. NO ONE IS TALKING ABOUT ALL WHITE PEOPLE, JUST THOSE WHITE PEOPLE IN THE USA WHO DO THIS SPECIFIC THING, IF THAT DOESN’T APPLY TO YOU, NO ONE WAS TALKING ABOUT YOU. Jesus Christ!

              …..I’m going to explain it again, and start highlighting my words so that you can understand.

              IF you think it’s okay for people to shut down minorities or women when they complain, whether on college campuses or youtube videos or whatever, on the basis that they are being too sensitive, “that they need coddling,” as MANY white people have done here in America, AND you also complain about said students or said videos, as MANY white people have done, THEN it is you who needs coddling. IF you address minorities and women as such, BUT you complain when minorities and women address you in the same way, THEN you are a hypocrite. If you read this as criticism, it is because you are guilty of said behavior. If you are not guilty of said behavior, if it doesn’t apply to you, then you shouldn’t read it as criticism. Neither I, nor the article I am merely taking the time to explain to you, are even talking to you, or about you, and therefore there is really no reason to get offended since again, no one was talking about you.

              You have to understand that these are two separate questions: 1) Is Solnit’s text racist? 2) Does a white man have a right to raise the previous question?

              Where do these questions come from? Who is disputing whether a white man has the right to raise this question? You are reading into the article something that simply is not there. What I was saying, which is only what the article was saying, is that IF you want to call people coddled when they complain about offenses but then you find this text offensive you are being a hypocrite and you are also demanding to be coddled, by your own definition.

              Is that clear now?

              So do I reply no to question 2? No, I do not, and I never have, and neither has Solnit.

              In fact all we did was say, if you are going to raise the question of racism, don’t complain when others do the same, even when it implicates white people. If you’re going to say black people, or women, shouldn’t complain, and you don’t complain yourself, then that’s fine. That is the choice you need to make. It’s not being divisive, you just need to decide where you stand on the matter. Are you going to say no one should complain, or are you going to say it’s okay to complain. You can’t have your cake and eat it too. You have to choose one or the other. IF you think it’s okay for white men to complain when they are implicated in racism, but not okay for black people/women to complain when racist language is directed towards them, you are being a hypocrit. You are attempting to have it both ways.

              I keep saying the same thing over and over again, I’m trying to drive the point home. That’s the point of the article. It’s laughing at people who are hurt over comments she has made about Lolita, because it implicates them. They respond defensively. But many of these are the same people that say that that Anita Sarkeesian should just shut up about video games. Many of these are the same that say college students should just appreciate the opportunities they have and shut up. They demand to be heard, and demand others stay silent. It is to THESE white men that the text addresses its criticism. Are you one of these white men? You have to decide that. I’m not going to do it for you. As I said from the very beginning, I’m not judging you. But you are allowed to judge for yourself where you stand based on the conditions she has just laid out.

              Everything else you say about collective responsibility is irrelevant, because neither Solnit nor myself has said anything about collective responsibility. Remember, and I’m saying this for the last time brother, no one is talking about ALL white people. I really hope that is clear.

            • Raivi

              So you have used “you” as a generic pronoun all the time? Or how can I tell?

              It does not matter how much you shout, I still don’t get why Solnit’s discriminative text is acceptable only because it targets white males, while at the same time the whole context, the morale of her fight is supposed to be against discrimination. I think she is just as fake and self-pretentious as anyone can be.

              As other commentators here have pointed out, male-picking was vital to the literary effect and the facts did not matter to her so much. One of the persons she referred to as “men explaining Lolita to me” was a female and not explaining anything to her at all, but discussing with other people. She had to search those comments with a torchlight in order to be able to construct her fraudulent picture of angry white men. There weren’t an abundance of white males complaining to her about Lolita. There was just her alone in her room conspiring to provoke – and for that purpose she was desperately browsing internet for material.

              So your claim that she is targeting only those persons who deserve it is just bull***it. She intentionally targets white males becauses it sounds good, it looks good and it raises hell for her personal benefit – not because there would be a justified reason for it.

              She was deliberately offending white males using rhetoric straight out of racist’s toolkit and setting up a context where anyone complaing about such offenses is about to be ridiculed. And mind you: white males are the ONLY demographic group with which she can get away with it.

              I guess we can both see now that we have reached a point where there is not much more to say. What do you say if we call it off?

            • Jadakiss

              And I think your preconceived notions about her being fake will bar you from ever considering she might have something interesting, maybe even valid, to say. Did I agree with all of her piece? No. Not by any stretch. But I wasn’t offended by it. She clearly explained she wasn’t addressing all white men. She says that in the text dude. There’s no way around this. She never uses the pronoun you and neither did I. She wasn’t talking to you, unless you are one of the people she is talking about.

              You said you don’t live in America, so you might not understand the racial atmosphere here, the context under which this piece was written. There really are a lot of straight white male crybabies running around on the internet trying to shut people don’t whenever they bring up the subject of race, gender, or sexual orientation. You, who are right now feeling the, as you expressed it, pain of discrimination, should understand what that feels like. You are saying, in your very comment, that you are experiencing it right now. If nothing else, you should use this as a teaching tool to help you empathize with those that might feel the same, and consider their words. Hear them out. Don’t shut them down off hand or try to explain away their completely subjective opinions and experiences by saying that they just don’t get the facts.

              I’m prepared to even concede whatever you want, the piece was inflammatory, discriminatory, whatever you like, if we can walk away from this both understanding at least that. Because look, as a white man, as anyone, you have earned very little by convincing anyone you have the right to express your opinion if that right is not also accompanied by the right, or at least the courtesy, of being heard. You can express your opinion all you want, as you are doing. But if nobody pays attention, what good will it do you?

              And if you bring into that expression a confrontational and defensive stance that is aimed at shutting down the expression of others, they will do the same to you, and everyone will be talking but no one will be heard. I think Solnit has submitted herself to this fate. That is what I hear in her piece. She doesn’t think she will ever get through to the white men that dismiss her thoughts, and so she resorts to mocking them.

              If you are prepared to hear her out, you will have proven her wrong. If you aren’t, you will have proven her right.

              If you have felt discriminated against, and if you have felt your feelings were dismissed because you are a white man, you now understand how it feels to be a minority or a woman, like, all the time, in America. If you care about discrimination, gender equality and racial justice in general, not only when it applies to white men, you should care about this, or at the very least, be open to hearing about it and not defensively or reflexively dismissing it whenever it comes up. That’s the society we live in, and that’s the society Solnit has resigned herself to.

              Because there is the MLK way of handling this, where you say, “please hear us out.” And there is the Malcolm X way of handling it, where you say “I don’t care what you think, as long as you stay in your lane and I stay in mine.” I wouldn’t take it this far, but if you want to look at it this way you can say that she has chosen the Malcolm X way. She’s just sticking a middle finger to all those straight white men who try and shut her and people like her down and not attempting to engage with them in serious conversation. She’s tired of being dismissed. She’s doing the dismissing now.

              Maybe if we all learned to listen a little we could better live and get along with one another.

              Or the other alternative is, everyone can say whatever they want with no regard for how others feel about it and if you don’t like it you don’t have to read/watch it. You decide what kind of society you want to live in, but you can’t have it both ways, otherwise you’re being hypocritical.

              Also I don’t understand this “male-picking was vital to the literary effect.”

            • Raivi

              I have not, in my everyday life, been discriminated because of my ethnic background. So you are right, I don’t really know what it feels like. But I have dear people around me who have suffered from discrimination. It is not that difficult to see and imagine what it is to be in their position. And of course anyone who has the capacity and willingness to have empathy – potentially most of the human race – will be able to understand in somewhat similar manner when faced with stories of repression – for blacks in US, jews in Third Reich, etc. I have no doubt that the racism in US runs deep and wide, probably much worse than in my country, and I have no reason to belittle it in any way.

              The kind of hatred and discrimination that Solnit propagates for and directly targets at persons like me on the account of us being male and white, is indeed a new experience. Perhaps it is true, as you suggest, that only after having an experience of being a target of hateful propaganda can we, white men, start to understand what it is really like to be, for example, black in the US. No amount of empathy can substitute for the experience of the real thing. I kind of agree with you on that for the fact that it simply feels different to find oneself as the target when compared to hearing someone telling about the experience.

              But then again, does reading an inflammatory article and being hurt by it substitute for the real thing of being expelled from public transportation (as Rosa Parks was)? I don’t think so. So should we be denied a seat in a bus? And then again, does being denied a seat in a bus subsitute for being hunted down by bloodhounds for the crime of wanting to move to another state? So should you reinstate a kind of “Reverse South” where whites would be slaves and blacks would be masters, just to make us understand? And since it would not be the same to spend just a weekend in such an experiment, the arrangement would have to be permanent. And then again, being a slave does not really substitute for the experience of having many of your family members lynched, raped or whipped to death.

              If us white folks would really need to take the route of understanding the hard way, to go through everything that blacks and jews and other minorities have suffered at the hands of white folks all through the ages, there would have to be slaving and murdering of tens of millions of innocent white people.

              So I think “education” is a poor justification for Solnit’s ranting. It is not very effective education, since not much, in the end of the day, would be learned. For every me, who is already sympathetic to the voice of the oppressed and will only gain a pinch of extra understanding, there will be the one who is sitting on the fence to start with, but will fall to the other side from the insults, and there will also be the one who is already on the other side and will find the bigotry only as a proof and justification for his/her own bigotry to be hardened.

              I think the only way to a better world is to each person being judged by his/her deeds, not on the account of his/her genitalia or tone of skin, and each utterance, each column, law or social practice being judged solely by its contents, not by the persons behind it. I find it an odd idea that as a white man I could not criticize Solnit’s column for its worth, unless I have first cleansed myself publicly in some ritual of feminist political correctness. Would the same be required for non-whites or non-males? Can women criticize Solnit’s texts freely, without being called batshits? If the fact of the matter is that Solnit’s text is racist, that fact should not change according to the persona of the one who utters that fact. In the history one can find ample examples of societies where facts changed according to who said them.

              Out of interest I went to see what Solnit writes on her Facebook account. It seems she really gets it about men who respond to her in some awkward manner. She just goes on and on mocking these guys, and the raving lynch mob – her yapping loyal flock – just enjoys the smell of blood with hoorays. I found that really scary and disgusting. What a petty soul, what a thought police character.

              There was one part of her text which I found important and not artificially constructed like the rest of it. That of Lolita’s missing voice, and all the other missing voices in literature, and the difficulties thus related with empathizing with characters. But to fix this void I think what we need is writers who will tell her story and others like it, the voices still missing. Anyway that is what literature is about at its core, finding new voices for the humanity. We don’t need angry complaints about missing voices. Without Nabokov Lolita would not even exist and there would be nothing for Solnit to get so heated about.

              And to anyone who plans to start to whine about the bleak prospects of women or black people getting published in the white male-dominated publishing industry: hey, it was pretty, pretty difficult for the Russian writers under Soviet rule to get published, too. Bulgakov hid his masterpiece under the floorboards from the eyes of the secret police and it got published only after his death. Not getting paid as many millions as white male colleagues, which seems to be the prevalent problem for writers like Jennifer Weiner, is still a hindrance to a lesser degree than being deported to a gulag or being shot. Those were very popular destinies for Russian writers in Soviet times. And those destinies fell on those people not because of their races or their genders or bad makeup or unsuccesful marketing campaign, but because of their art, thoughts and opinions. And nevertheless, they kept writing. (Nabokov was of course exception, his parents escaped Russia during the Revolution). So don’t whine, but write.

            • Jadakiss

              I wasn’t even taking it as far as to say that you needed an educational experience to empathize with minorities. Though that may be true for some, I think many can empathize with others feelings. Maybe they won’t know how it feels themselves but they don’t need to go through it to acknowledge the feelings of others. So I actually wasn’t even going that far with it. All I was saying was that if you do feel it, then take that, if nothing else, as a moment to reflect on the feelings of others. It could help give you a point of reference. That’s all I was saying, that instead of retreating back into a defensive position, maybe you and I as well, can acknowledge the enduring need to listen to and empathize with others. That maybe, instead of not listening to one another, we could both agree to listen to what the other has to say and how the other feels.

              The tone of the article aside, the subject matter is I think, still important for that reason. I think it’s good to encourage minorities to write and break down those barriers in literature. But it’s still okay to talk about it too. Maybe the mocking tone, and the willingness for others to jump in on the joke at the expense of those she was addressing in her article, maybe you don’t agree with that. But you can react to it by getting defensive and shutting down conversation, or by trying to engage with people in conversation, of course offering your point of view but also hearing them out.

              As far as literature, I also think this point kind of goes gets missed because it is masked in that tone, right, but she actually is not complaining about the lack of voice of the character. She was just saying that her lack of voice makes her a double victim and kind of exemplifies some fantasies in our culture that she finds problematic. She’s not criticizing the text, she’s talking about her experience with it and how it points to problems in our society. She has said several times that she loves the book and has read it several times. But when she reads the book, she can’t help but identify with the main character and feel a sense of victimization as she reflects of some of the pervasive issues it connects with.

              Her larger point is that there aren’t enough women in that one list, or books about women, that this lack of perspective itself is a problem because, if literature is meant to help us empathize, it can only do so by allowing us to hear characters speak for themselves. If we read no novels like that, we can’t hear them speak, so it does nothing for society. And I get that most of those books are classics and that for many years, it’s just true that not a lot of women wrote fiction. I don’t think she find the list unreasonable. If anything she just feels they could have attempted to include a more diverse list of writers. But that it lacks that diversity is not some intentional thing.

              The whole humor or irony of this for me stems from how a lot of people are angry only because they perceive her to be attacking Lolita as a work of literature, and she is not. She was originally saying look, this is a book that made me feel some very strong emotions and points to a real, pervasive problem in our society of which we as women are always cognizant of and always made to be aware of since childhood. But people got really defensive and tried to shut down her subjective experience with the novel saying she didn’t “get it,” because they wanted to defend the book from what they perceived to be an attack. And that is the knee jerk reaction she is criticizing.

              In my comment, I pointed out that this has a lot to do with our innate desire to protect what we love, and defend it from attacks, because we identify with what we love and what we do and so we perceive attacks on those things as attacks on ourselves. It also extends from our desire to not want to think that the things we love might have caused people pain, or been complicit in the pain of others. But that’s something we kind of have to struggle against before we can see her point of view clearly, as I did. Because at first I was the same, trust me, but once I said you know what let me try to understand where she’s coming from, I was able to get it. And the only reason why I did that was because I had to sympathize with the feeling of being dismissed or shut down by others being a minority myself. So I was like the least I can do is try and understand where she might be coming from, as I would want others to do the same for me.

              And you know speaking as a man of color, I remember I had a similar experience reading Heart of Darkness. It was also beautifully written, and in fact the whole theme of the book was about the negative effects of colonization, how colonization destroys and consumes the colonizer as much as the colonized. But the book still didn’t give Africans a proper dignity. It did not treat them as human beings but as wild, primal savages. It reproduced in the text the very effects and colonizing perspective it was attempting to critique (whether this was intentional or not idk). I think this actually makes it a RICHER work of art in its own way, because it not only represents and expresses, but exemplifies the colonial project from the perspective of the colonizer. So while it does, in the language of Solnit, make the Africans victims by depriving them of a voice, this actually contributes to it’s cultural relevance in my own eyes. It is very much a work of its time.

              And all of this is just about my own subjective interpretation and experience reading Heart of Darkness, a work I’ve read many times and consider one of the greatest pieces of literature ever written and one of my personal favorites. Conrad is a writer I return to again and again. I can still acknowledge that the piece is not perfect or, no maybe not imperfect but simply that it was, at the very least not entirely progressive, and I can acknowledge that without taking anything away from the work itself. A work of art doesn’t have to be progressive in order for it to be a classic. Saying a work is not progressive, that it points to problematic issues in society or even exemplifies them in its text, is not saying it’s bad because of that. If anything, it’s saying the work is a part of it’s place and time, a part of its historical moment, and we usually consider this to be not just a good thing, but the highest virtue in literature. Literature is valorized, it’s considered important, in part exactly because it has the capacity to speak to the society within which it was produced. Literature speaks to the historical moment. So if the society has problems, how can we not expect those problems to be reproduced in the text? Even if they are simply reproduced as a part of an affect that reminds us of real life situations, as Solnit says of Lolita, not something in the text itself but in between the text and the experience of reading it, between text and reader and culture. That reproduction can still serve as a window into cultural conditions and experiences and point us to problems we can work on solving.

              The last claim here by the author, that authors should work to struggle against and transcend culture, is valuable, but it doesn’t take away from the works that came before and that are hailed as great. All she is saying, in the end is that this list lacks women writers and female perspectives. That’s just the list, and so she did write something of her own to rectify it, she wrote her own list. It was a somewhat satirically titled and worded list, but the intention was to offer an alternative, not to say the list itself was invalid. So there is much more nuance here, I think than you are giving credit, and it’s okay because I too didn’t give it that credit on first read either, but had to think about and come back to it.

      • Agni

        I appreciate your point, but you are completely mistaken. You are trying to point out a double standard, and instead you are committing a false equivalence.

        Racism and sexism depend upon a history of oppression and disempowerment; they are not simply beliefs in people’s heads. As this article points out, white men are not oppressed in the same way as women and racial minorities because white men can see flattering reflections of themselves everywhere.

        So this article is making a claim about white men’s historical situation, not their inherent moral character. But even if it were, a general claim about white men is not the “exact racism-sexism” as a general claim about women or minorities. That is impossible, because the power they’re endowed with by their social circumstances is radically greater. You’re mistaken about what racism and sexism are. Focus on institutions and power, not beliefs and feelings.

        • Stephen Robinson

          Great point. I’ve argued that the “benefit” of being a minority in America is that to survive you have to know the dominant culture (racial, sexual, gender) as well as your own. However, the reverse isn’t true. So, a woman is in a position to make claims about men (generally speaking) that are more likely to be reasonably founded than the reverse. Same with black people about whites and gays about straights. I live in Seattle and interact and know intimately hundreds of white men and women. However, I’m often the *only* black person these people interact with regularly.

        • Raivi

          “As this article points out, white men are not oppressed in the same way as women and racial minorities because white men can see flattering reflections of themselves everywhere.”

          This sentence is so incorrect in so many ways.

          First of all, what makes you think that if there is a “flattering image” of a white male somewhere in the arts/media, all white male individuals would identify with that image? There is a certain stereotypic way of portraying white males, we all know that. But why is not Barbie or Marilyn a “flattering image” to all white females? Why is not Rambo an “oppressive image” to all white males? Your thinking is not symmetric, and by the way Solnit makes the same error.

          And even if there would be an image somewhere with which white males would find “flattering”, white males could still be oppressed in oh so many ways. Unless, of course, there is no reality at all, just words and images.

          • Agni

            Again, what you call “symmetric” I am calling a false equivalence. Solnit and I are not offering a double standard; you are confusing differences, and your confusion preserves a harmful status quo. That you imagine there is some parallel between Rambo and Barbie beyond their both being stereotypes shows this.

            Rambo is primarily a subject: he is a man of action, a powerful agent. His value arises from what he does. Historically, Barbie is primarily an object: her value arises from being looked at by others, and what she does is conducive to being looked at by others. The problem is not that Rambo and Barbie exist, but that there are lots of Rambos and lots of Barbies, and they set the standard by embodying gender roles. If recent iterations of Barbie have been more proactive, that is because Mattel has gradually recognized that what I have said is true and that it is unacceptable.

            But you are right that Rambo oppresses men, and feminists are often keen to point this out. At the heart of masculinity is a contradiction: a real man is both independent and respected (high status), but to be respected is to be dependent on the recognition of others. Men suffer for this contradiction; we are obligated to be something impossible. But we are also entitled to act in ways to secure that respect, like by positioning ourselves as authorities and silencing others. It is important to see how white men are harmed by the very system that privileges them; it is more important to see that they are still privileged, and others are harmed more. Only then can we improve society for everyone.

            • Raivi

              I am not drawing parallels between the fictional characters of Barbie and Rambo, so there is no false equivalence as you claim. I am critizising your flawed logic of “flattering images”.

              Contrary to what you might imagine, the images of fictional white male characters are not flattering to “white males” if we take that this group comprises of all white male individuals in the real world. Perhaps some individuals take the images as flattering, most likely quite many do not.

              Furthermore, there is no such causal effect you claim there is between “flattering images” and someone being oppressed or not.

              Even if a male person would find the image of Rambo flattering and even if he would by identification with Rambo be able to develop his personality as a “man of action, a powerful agent”, as you imply, he can, and probably will, still be oppressed. As a matter of fact, if he takes his idolatry of Rambo seriously, he will probably end up in jail. Someone idolising Barbie would probably not face the same destiny?

              “It is important to see how white men are harmed by the very system that privileges them; it is more important to see that they are still privileged, and others are harmed more.” – This kind of generalization is nonsense. Men are not priviledged nor harmed as a group by a system as a total sum. Even if you would be able to estimate aggregate harms and priviledges for a group consisting of hundreds of millions of persons (such as males vs. females), such calculations would have no significance of what so ever to any individual case.

              Anyone unjustly disadvantaged cannot be compansated by saying: “statistically you are okay as a representative of your reference group”. Imagine responding that to a white US female crime victim with reference to female crime victims from developing countries. The first reference group is of course priviledged when compared to the latter.

              Individuals are priviledged or harmed in myriad of individual instances. If it is so that a totality such as a “patriarchal system” could harm or priviledge anyone, it would still priviledge and harm individuals in individual situations. It could priviledge man1 in situation s1 and harm him in situation s2, while priviledging a woman1 in situation s3 and harming her in situation s4.

            • Agni

              Your argument is all over the place. This will be my final comment on this article, so let me keep it simple. Gender roles exist. Men and women are held to different standards in our society. We internalize those standards because we know that our power and influence depend on them. You keep insisting that individuals can feel different ways about different images, and thus that generalizations about gender roles are impossible. If you want to understand where people like Solnit and I are coming from, stop thinking in terms of feelings; think in terms of power. What kind of men become powerful and influential in our society? What sort of behavior is rewarded, and what are the conditions that make it so? What images repeat, serving as guides? The answers to these questions have nothing to do with the feelings of individuals. These questions reveal patterns. They reveal aggregate harms. You say that it’s impossible to estimate an aggregate gendered harm, but the salary gap between men and women has been estimated just fine. What I am saying is not nonsense. It is only nonsense for someone who insists on principle that there are no systemic harms, only individuals. That, however, is not a principle at all; it is a comfortable excuse for someone who does not want to make the world a fairer place. I refuse to make such excuses. I hope you will too.

            • Raivi

              I was only pointing out that your stated something about the world which is unsubstantiated. You seem to continue on that path. Of course when you argue from the point of view of “power struggle”, at some point down that road facts of matter and causality cease to matter. Have a nice day in your war.

    • Jadakiss

      This is going to make people even more angry lol.

      I think, if there is any way to take a half glass full pov on this kind of reactionary behavior to this kind of article, people are motivated by a desire to A. preserve the greatness of and legitimacy of their favorite things, which they feel are under threat, and B. the more fundamental reason behind that one, that they don’t want to think that what they love is harmful and comes from a place of wrong. They want to hold it up as good, preserve its goodness and greatness in their minds.

      The half glass empty part comes when they react by dismissing the person’s criticisms without trying to understand them and their perspective or simply ignoring them. There is that option too, however you might take that, to simply ignore someone who is saying things you don’t like. But the threat has been presented, and rather than try to understand it as a perspective, like any other, they get into attack mode where the only thing on their minds is shutting down that threat at all costs.

      As a black male, it’s weird but I feel both tensions. The one, a desire to say this, this exactly, and the other a desire to say but wait, I don’t know if this is right! I can’t say I don’t instinctively reach for a way to explain away your criticisms when they concern things I love, but I also fight against it because I know that that instinctual reaction is the root cause of so much that is wrong and ugly in the world.

    • Marvin H

      Anyone who uses the term Mansplaining isn’t smart enough to have an opinion worth hearing.

      • Dustin Heron

        says the guy whose only contribution to a conversation is to blithely insult someone’s intelligence lol.

        • Marvin H

          Siding with stupidity isn’t going to finally get you laid, son. Sorry to break it to you.

          • Dustin Heron

            Super sharp thing to say to a guy whose picture is him and his child lol.

            • Marvin H

              Yikes! I’m sorry, man. I thought you knew… She didn’t tell you, I guess.

            • Dustin Heron

              You’re a peach. Enjoy puberty.

            • Marvin H

              Kiss your wife for me and tell her I said, “What’s up, girl?”

    • Andrew Struthers

      I feel the same way when women explain Fifty Shades of Grey to me.

      • Dustin Heron

        You feel like years of historical privilege for women has given rise to a viewpoint of assumed superiority, which leads to women dismissing your reading of Fifty Shades based on their own narrow interpretations? Weird.

        • powelstock

          SNAP!

      • Joshua Moody

        I’ve never heard anyone explain 50 Shades of Grey. Everyone knows it’s shit.

    • lisasolod

      Lolita is one of my favorite books. I am a woman. I adore this essay.

    • Dustin Heron

      Especially love the section about art and how defending it by minimizing its real-world impact is harmful to our understanding of its place in our lives. I think the reason we are all drawn to art (especially literary art) is because of our histories with how it moved us, expanded our knowledge of the world, reflected our experiences, taught us–and more, I’m sure. I always find it odd when we discuss the “meaning” of a work in terms of unlocking its secret lessons, its “moral message.” It’s meaning is found in where it challenged us, disappointed us, reflected, empowered or moved us.

    • Roder

      As a straight white male, allow me to say: This is just excellent.

    • sarahsarai

      You are brilliant and right on. I am so grateful you wrote this essay, this essay was written. It’s not over til it’s over and it’s a few thousand years from being over but it will be never over without essays like this.

    • Pingback: Men Explain Lolita to Me | Literary Hub | Sex B...()

    • Great essay. Except that Lolita was one of those books I always meant to read, and you’ve convinced me that I absolutely do not want to read it.

      • Stephen Robinson

        I strongly recommend it. It’s beautifully written and darkly humorous in places. I think it’s just important to understand that the main character is a *monster*, a human and relatable monster but a monster nonetheless.

      • fotini901

        I have actually never read it, because I’m so completely repulsed by the premise.

    • HighFashionAverageWoman

      Thank you! Thank you! Your experience reminds me so much of one I had in high school as we were reading “Catcher in the Rye” and asked to identify with Holden Caufield. I told the teacher that I didn’t want to identify with a spoiled rich kid who had sex with a young hooker, mostly because this was not and would never be my experience. As “Johnny Got his Gun” and every other book we read in advance placement English. I wanted to know about women, about *my* female experience as a disaffected rebellious youth because that’s what I was. What was I supposed to do? Throw money out the window and screw a hooker? So much of many of our lives has been colored by reading and listening to (in music) the male experience that, I have noted, women simply barricade themselves behind the shared experience of childbirth just to have a small something to hold on to and put out there that can be considered a “universal” experience just like all of those male experiences we are forced to read in our formative years.

      FWIW, I wrote an essay about On the Road which was published a couple of months ago, and I explained my identification with the male characters because, well, I had lived my own level of neurotic, somewhat depressive crazy like Keroac and had bipolar friends like Cassady. So, I guess some male experiences some women can identify with. But they do not take the place of so, so many others that we simply can’t because there is nothing for us to grasp and a whole lot to get bothered about. Should we women learn from these male novels how to objectify ourselves to fit into the male world (since this is a lot of what the novels teach us) or should we write our own versions of life as women living experiences that only men previously lived? Can we turn the paradigm of objectification on its head? Even if we did, could we even get anything like that published??

      • Stephen Robinson

        Where is the female CATCHER IN THE RYE or CONFEDERACY OF DUNCES. Austen’s EMMA is a rare, I think, coming of age story about a young woman, one who is allowed to be imperfect (that is normally the province of male characters).

        • HighFashionAverageWoman

          Exactly! Those things aren’t there. Judy Blume tried to, and succeeded in many ways, to give girls books that they would feel reflect their experience. “Hello God, It’s Me Margaret” remains an important book for girls in puberty and how they understand themselves and their changing world. But it’s not considered high literature as the books of Salinger and others. Even S.E. Hinton, who was a woman, wrote about the male experience of being an outsider (in both Rumble Fish and the Outsiders, most outstanding novels even for adults to read.) To me, the gap between what is literature and what is good young adult reading ends up being that the authors are male, their stories reach across generations of men, are aspirational in some way, and the women are objects. The women always facilitate the growth or downfall of the male protagonists. I am hopeful that, someday, someone or someones who anoint those books that become part of the canon of Literature will acknowledge more women. Then again, maybe that’s as unrealistic as my purchasing a Rolls Royce.

          • Stephen Robinson

            Yeah, I’m guilty of having written a similar story as you describe. The tropes mentioned (“women facilitating growth or downfall of male protagonist”) are so ingrained in our cultural experience: Daisy in THE GREAT GATSBY, Holly Golightly in BREAKFAST AT TIFFANY’S, even the titular LOLITA. (And it’s not limited to women — there’s Jim in HUCK FINN, among other examples.)

            I call it the ANNIE HALL syndrome. Woody Allen’s movie is *about* the male character Alvy Singer, but the title functions similarly to MOBY DICK (we don’t expect to understand or empathize with the whale, so much as appreciate the role he plays to the protagonists).

            It is interesting to re-read Austen with this in mind. I appreciate how she flips this on its head: Emma is the “clueless” lead whose growth allows her to “earn” the love of the more level-headed partner. Today, you’re more likely to find that formula in films with Ben Stiller or Vince Vaughn. Men are allowed to be imperfect. And returning to the subject at hand: LOLITA is the example of how men can be damaged, flawed. Similar female protagonists are *very* hard to find.

            • AL

              So true. And even when they exist, are the men reading too?

              Like many women, I’ve been thrilled to see the first tendrils of the imperfect-woman-who-is-still-relevant type begin to emerge at least in the medium of TV if little else. Thus, my fanatic devotion to Parks and Recreation, which I watch when the world gets me down, or last year’s season of Jane the Virgin.

              And yes, so, so sick of the “Annie Hall” syndrome as you put it. I remember feeling this come to a head around the time Garden State came out, with little gorgeous Natalie Portman just running around all manic pixie style and fixing that guy from Scrubs’ life, and spreading her magical “just be happy, life is beautiful” dust everywhere she went. I mean, positive thinking is great, but why can’t the man take a turn in the “just be happy, come live in the adventure that is life!” for awhile? Why can’t women be ugly and depressed and also interesting or at least relevant, just like so many men throughout the ages? What I learned growing up from movies and shows and many books is that my problems aren’t real/are stupid, I am inherently a silly person, and nothing is worth consideration unless a man thought of it. Cool, bro! (the Collective Bro.:)

            • powelstock

              Good one about ANNIE HALL and MOBY DICK! That really captures the point nicely. Compared to those two, however, I think LOLITA really expects (challenges?) its readers to pass through Humbert’s smokescreen in order to empathize with Dolores. (Telling detail: Humbert is the only character who ever refers to Dolores as Lolita. It is own little pet (or prisoner) name for her. Recall the novel’s famous first paragraph. This is why I no longer ever refer to Dolores as Lolita. It is not her name.) Good point about the lack of female protagonists who are allowed to be flawed. It seems like TV is somewhat ahead in this area. Somewhat.

      • AL

        So true. When I was in in high school, I was also yearning for an experience I could relate to as a woman, like you described. Our assignment was to pick one 20th century author and spend the better part of a year researching and reading as much from that author as we could before the final paper. So my teacher recommended Sylvia Freaking Plath. Needless to say, my junior year became depressing-as-f, as I learned that Sylvia was brilliant, and she was right, and then she then she was dead, finally succeeding at eliminating herself from a f-ed up world. She validated and elaborated on all of my female experiences and fledgling views and in the end, the answer was – there is no answer. There is no path. Submit and die a soul-death, or die a real one.

        It’s just high school, right? But’s it’s also formative, and it’s also life. I can’t even begin to express how happy I am that girls today are growing up in a world where they are beginning – just beginning – to see different representations of themselves on screen, in books, in life.

        And this is amazing, thank you:

        “So much of many of our lives has been colored by reading and listening to (in music) the male experience that, I have noted, women simply barricade themselves behind the shared experience of childbirth just to have a small something to hold on to and put out there that can be considered a “universal” experience just like all of those male experiences we are forced to read in our formative years.”

        Wow, yes. So well put. Been grappling with that one myself, lately. I’m glad you’re writing and publishing, whoever you are. Keep at it, and thank you for getting the word(s) out. Someday, I’d love to join you.

        • HighFashionAverageWoman

          Thank you AL! I was at a party last night and one of my friends said “I love movies, but why are most of them male stories with all male casts?” We were discussing The Big Short, among other films. I mentioned Mad Max: Fury Road and how the move was really Charlize Theron’s with Tom Hardy as a bit of crazy-eyed eye candy….We then listed the young adult oriented films with female protagonists and agreed that it’s great to see movies for younger audiences with strong female leads. And, as much as I had/sometimes have a distaste for the pop music of Taylor Swift and Katy Perry, they are out there, visible, making music–far more that what we had in the 1980s. Yet this doesn’t help the image of women past their 30s or beyond. Even if I’m very old and very gray by the time things change, it will be nice to see it happen. and it may.

          • AL

            Haha yes, I grapple with different feelings about Taylor and Katy, too, though glad to see these powerful women out there (somehow they seem infinitely more in control of their own destinies than did Debbie Gibson, Paula Abdul, or later stars like Britney, Christina, or The Spice Girls). And young adult literature is exploding with girls, too – when I taught reading workshop in 6th grade, the girls had several human, sometimes heroic-and-sometimes-awkward female protagonists to choose from. It was still rare for the boys to cross over and read the girl books….though if one was popular (or looked ‘cool’ enough), sometimes they’d be curious and try it, yay!

            I hear you about how lovely it would be to see more 30+ ladies redefining women’s roles, too – thus, my undying and possibly irrational love for Parks and Rec. Last season’s Jane the Virgin was a goofy but lovely favorite, too – 3 generations of awesome women, encountering the world in their own ways. Grace and Frankie was not perfect but Lily Tomlin is magic and I loved that Netflix would take a chance on a show featuring women of a certain age. Of course Amy Schumer’s rocking things up with her show, which is great. I haven’t seen Girls, The Mindy Project, or Broad City (but how great is it that there are so many options these days I don’t have time to see them all?). If you haven’t seen Master of None I’d recommend it…feels like just a matter of time until there’s a female version of that show. Not to mention, if you haven’t seen The Americans, Keri Russell plays a very equal partner to her fellow Russian spy husband (who’s also terrific).

            So clearly now this has turned into “TV shows I like starring sweet women” so I’ll leave it at that. 🙂 But it does feel like we’re right on the cusp…I don’t see women like Julia L-D, Amy Poehler, Tina Fey, and all the rest going away anytime soon (although they are almost all white which is another issue) but hopefully this all seeps into the culture in positive ways. Take care and best to you!

    • Paul Butler

      Amazingly one of prominent MRA arsepipes on Twitter has recently tweeted that “SJWs” are trying to take away White Men’s “Right” to sex. He literally wrote that. It’s amazing that people DO this.

      • Sean T Poindexter

        I read an MRA complaining that women refusing sex to her husband or partner is a form of sexual violence against men. He said that if she’s dependent on him for living expenses and things, and not having sex with him, then she’s manipulating him and, somehow, this is sexual violence. He quickly clarified, however, that he didn’t mean EVERY time a woman refused sex to her man it was sexual violence, only when it happens under certain circumstances. He said it was fine for a woman to refuse sex for things like being up and working for 72 hours, or because she’s already had sex with him several times that week and she’s tired, or because she just had a baby and her vagina is sore. I’m not making any of that up: that was his actual argument and his examples of viable stipulations for a woman saying no to sex. Not because she just wasn’t in the mood, or because she had something else she needed to do, or because she was tired after being awake for LESS than 72 hours. So, a woman owes her man sex under all but the most stringent of circumstances, otherwise she’s basically Ted Bundy.

      • Joshua Moody

        What is an SJW and what is the relation to this article?

        • MLChadwick

          According to the Urban Dictionary, it means “Social Justice Warrior.” That’s the sort of term that’s positive if you favor social justice and nastily pejorative if your aim is to preserve the status quo or regress. (A SJW “repeatedly and vehemently engages in arguments on social justice on the Internet, often in a shallow or not well-thought-out way, for the purpose of raising their own personal reputation [and] does not necessarily strongly believe all that they say, or even care about the groups they are fighting on behalf of. “)

          • Joshua Moody

            That’s what I thought, just wanted to make sure. Yeah, that MRA person sounds like the worst.

            Still missing how your comment relates to Solnit’s essay about Nabokov… almost seems like you’re being a SJW yourself.

            • AL

              Hey Joshua! How’s it going? So in case you missed it – I’m assuming you read the article? – there’s a piece of Solnit’s essay that specifically addresses how some men, apparently, see women as unfairly in charge of their right to sex:

              “Dilbert comic Scott Adams wrote last month that we live in a matriarchy because, “access to sex is strictly controlled by the woman.” Meaning that you don’t get to have sex with someone unless they want to have sex with you, which if we say it without any gender pronouns sounds completely reasonable. You don’t get to share someone’s sandwich unless they want to share their sandwich with you, and that’s not a form of oppression either. You probably learned that in kindergarten.

              But if you assume that sex with a female body is a right that heterosexual men have, then women are just these crazy illegitimate gatekeepers always trying to get in between you and your rights. Which means you have failed to recognize that women are people, and perhaps that comes from the books and movies you have—and haven’t—been exposed to, as well as the direct inculcation of the people and systems around you. Art matters, and there’s a fair bit of art in which rape is celebrated as a triumph of the will (see Kate Millet’s 1970 book Sexual Politics, which covers some of the same male writers as theEsquire list) . It’s always ideological, and it makes the world we live in.”

              Second, while I was glad to see that you asked what a SJW is, I admit I’m a bit dismayed by your quick usage of it as soon as someone takes the time to give you a quick internet definition. As far as I have seen, SJW is entirely used as an insult, to discredit and dismiss people on a certain side of the political spectrum without actually engaging with their arguments. I would be hesitant to use it, personally, unless you’re trying to send a flag up that you’re pretty much against everything done by progressive peoples everywhere and you’re not open to discussion, which tends to, at least in these kinds of forums, shut down discourse pretty fast, as hopefully you can imagine. Take care.

    • miranda_c

      Does nobody understand her title is an ironic reference to Nabokov himself? That’s the “Men.” She’s critiquing his own famous edict.

      “First, there is the comparatively lowly kind which turns for support to the simple emotions and is of a definitely personal nature. (There are various subvarieties here, in this first section of emotional reading.) A situation in a book is intensely felt because it reminds us of something that happened to us or to someone we know or knew. Or, again, a reader treasures a book mainly because it evokes a country, a landscape, a mode of living which he nostalgically recalls as part of his own past. Or, and this is the worst thing a reader can do, he identifies himself with a character in the book. This lowly variety is not the kind of imagination I would like readers to use.”

      • Agni

        I didn’t realize that. Thanks for pointing it out.

        • miranda_c

          de rien 🙂

      • Dustin Heron

        I think the title is a reference to her own famous essay, “Men Explain Things To Me.”

        • miranda_c

          I just meant that Nabokov would consider her take on the book “the worst thing a reader can do;” she’s using “this lowly variety” of imagination.

          Character identification, in other words, is even worse than a reader who likes a book that takes place in, say, Hamburg because the reader spent six months in Hamburg (“if they’ve just walked from the train station to the Thalia, they must have been speaking really slowly”).

          • Dustin Heron

            Ah, well, I would disagree with ol’ Vlad there. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with identifying with a character in a narrative. It’s an interesting idea but if you buy into that theory of reading you’re definitely in the minority, so it seems like an unrelated critique to this piece.

            • miranda_c

              It’s directly related to the essay. It’s the counterargument to the essay.

              What does “majority” have to do with any of this?

            • HessianDud

              If the essay is about how underrepresented people identify with different characters in major works and are then told that their reading of/identification with the text is wrong by the “patriarchy” or “establishment” and that in doing so the meaning of and value of art is diminished, then your argument is not a counter-argument, but a tangential argument.

              Yours, or Vlad’s or Eliot’s, or whomever, theory of reading that believes character identification is inferior is all well and good,but its not how most people read.That’s why I said its a minority opinion. It’s an academic opinion. Nothing wrong with it, but just because it was well articulated by a master writer doesn’t make it inherently correct.

            • miranda_c

              Who gives a fuck what’s popular? We’re discussing literature, we’re not producing the next Katy Perry album.

              The essay is about aestheticism, whether it knows it or not.

            • HessianDud

              Did I say “popular”? No.

              Congratulations on finishing your lit theory class for Fall 15, hope you passed.

            • miranda_c

              Yes, you did. And on that ground you disqualified my argument. And that’s bogus; that’s the only reason I brought it up.

            • HessianDud

              Weird, because I don’t see the word “popular” anywhere in my responses.

            • miranda_c

              Starting to think I did a little better in literary criticism. Anyway, hopefully you’re not my lawyer.

            • HessianDud

              You seem to be using “popular” in a derogatory, lowest common denominator way, and I’m using “majority” in to mean “commonly accepted practice.” Maybe that’s picking nits, but your argument is literally an “ivory tower” argument. Read things however you want, including this essay, but you should never presume that your reading is the only correct one because its yours. And its really presumptuous to assign (un)intention to an essay due to your preferences.

            • miranda_c

              Yeah, I’m not offering a reading. The author of the essay is. She’s arguing for affective fallacy, and Nabokov is an aesthete. He says he is. Everyone knows he is. Nobody can claim he isn’t. He’s like the most famous writer of the entire postwar era, and he defends aestheticism, and the one thing he mates more than anything is New Criticism’s affective fallacy. That’s not “my reading,” that’s what the arguments are.

              The writer doesn’t give any evidence in support of her argument or criticizing his. So it’s like writing nothing.

              “Literally an ivory tower” makes no sense; ivory tower is a metaphor. There’s no such thing as an ivory tower argument. What would that mean? That’s not a thing.

              It’d be as if I were writing an essay about the new Star Wars movie, and I said it was a complete failure as a comedy because Chinese people aren’t funny. I’m not even a lawyer, I’m just a writer.

            • HessianDud

              Maybe Solnit could write an essay called “miranda_c explains things to me” because you certainly think you have all the answers, don’t you?

              If you know what the “ivory tower” metaphor is than it shouldn’t be so hard for you to put together what I meant.

              And Nabokov’s intentions are all well and good, and academia is great, and theory is great, and aestheticism is great, but if you’re a writer you know that once a work is in the world it can’t be controlled by the writer anymore. Readers and audience continue to inform the work long after its written. You can disagree with an interpretation or a reading, but your fanaticism on the subject is making you read a different essay than the one that was written.

            • powelstock

              Don’t bother, HD. m_c is so up inside heris own head that s/he probably thinks you’re in there, too. Just like one of VN’s own narcissistic solipsists.

            • miranda_c

              So global warming doesn’t exist?

              Here’s the problem: Your utopian relativism winds up being the narrowest of ideologies. I’m not even aware I’m disagreeing with you, but I’m a “fanatic” – if I’m anything, it’s somebody who hates anti-intellectualism.

            • HessianDud

              um, what? Lol. Good god.

            • miranda_c

              I’m imagining how this conversation would have gone if I were a white male.

            • HessianDud

              well, if you were and said all the same things you said, it would have gone exactly the same. No imagination required!

            • miranda_c

              I’ll say.

            • HessianDud

              I really can’t stand pretentious people, regardless of their gender, race, or creed.

            • miranda_c

              I know, me too.

              Well, at least we’ll always have her superb earlier books. I guess everybody’s gotta pay the rent.

              This is depressing; she really was one of my favorite writers. 🙁

          • powelstock

            I think it’s pretty safe to ignore most of what VN said or wrote about his own works or about how to read his works–or at least to take them with a pillar of salt. As often happens, the art was more evolved than the personality of the artist.

            • miranda_c

              He’s not referring to his works. He’s talking about literature.

            • powelstock

              True enough. But it’s still safe to ignore it. Nabokov says a lot of dumb things about literature, some of which are meant either as pedagogical white lies or misdirection of the reader. (I think of it in terms of the stage magician’s technique, one of N’s favorite metaphors for the novelist’s relationship with the reader.)

            • miranda_c

              Uh… huh?

            • miranda_c

              You believe it’s “safe” to ignore a titan of world literature, the subject of this essay?

              Idunnowhatyouretalkingabout

            • powelstock

              Yes, I believe it is certainly safe to ignore the pronouncements of “a titan of world literature” about literature (or, as I originally said, take them with a pillar of salt). There is nothing particularly controversial about approaching writers’ statements skeptically. Their statements–like their works of art–are to be judged on their own merits. They are not the Word of God, automatically valid because of Who uttered them. And Nabokov is infamous for his opinionated, idiosyncratic and often downright idiotic statements about literature. I do highly recommend his novels, though–you know, the texts that *made* him a “titan”? His lectures *about* literature, not so much.

            • miranda_c

              Please stop stereotyping me with patronizing quotation marks and attributing to me things I haven’t said. Apparently you’re obtuse enough to miss Solnit’s point as well as mine.

              And no, it’s not safe to ignore aestheticism in literary company; you look like a moron.

            • powelstock

              Since the words are yours, I don’t see how I can avoid putting quotation marks around them or how doing so can be considered patronizing or stereotyping. I also don’t know what “ignoring aestheticism in literary company” is supposed to mean. In any case, since you apparently prefer name-calling to discussion, this conversation is apparently over.

            • miranda_c

              “Because” it’s “rude.”

              But “considering” you “literally” don’t “know” what “you’re” talking “about,” it’s “not” surprising “your” first “priority” is “to” get “the” last “word” in, “like” we’re “in” grade “school.”

    • Sean T Poindexter

      I don’t understand why these idiots had a problem with your opinion. Why would it be surprising to them if a woman reading Lolita identified with her? Literally every woman I know has experienced some form of sexual aggression or violence, most of them before they were even adults, and almost all of them from a male family member or close family friend. Some of them very extreme cases. It’s not hard for me at all to understand why a woman reading Lolita would identify with what she must have been going through while she was being sexually abused by a man she was supposed to be able to trust as a father. That’s probably the most tragic thing about it, that it’s so easy for women in our culture to identify with a child victim of extended sexual abuse.

    • Stephen Robinson

      A lot of “nice liberals” as you put it have trouble understanding that minorities (racial, gender, or sexual) might react to works of literature differently. The casual racism and anti-semitism of Nick in THE GREAT GATSBY means I relate to him differently than I presume Fitzgerald intended. GATSBY is still one of my favorite books, but it’s impossible for me to not relate to it as a black person. I also know women who see Gatsby as a creepy stalker and aren’t charmed by his single-minded obsession and identify with Daisy and Myrtle and their unique lack of options. The great thing about literature is that women and blacks are now free to actually *discuss* this in a class room setting rather than passively accept the interpretations limited to the dominant race and sex. Lolita the person is finally having her point of view, her life actually acknowledged when discussing LOLITA.

      • Nullifidian

        Perhaps that is what Fitzgerald intended. I don’t think Fitzgerald ever intended the romance angle or the character of Nick to be taken on their own terms, otherwise the book just becomes corny melodrama. It’s Daisy’s lack of options, given the divorce laws of the time and the fact that women were seen as domestic chattel, that give Gatsby’s overtures their force. If she were happily married with a kindly husband, then Gatsby’s intrusion would be mere crude manipulation. And as for Nick, his casual anti-semitism and racism indicate that he’s hardly the impartial outside observer he pretends to be, since he’s adopted the same prejudices as the rich WASPs he’s observing. In almost everything he does, Gatsby is steeped in self-loathing, and the idea that it would all turn around for him if he could just regain the lost love of his youth is part of his edifice of self-delusion.

    • Pingback: Daily Feminist Cheat Sheet()

    • Thank you for this essay. I appreciate it and am sharing it.

    • Stan Miller

      Personally I would have preferred it if he murdered Lol at the end, chopped her into pieces and buried her in the desert outside of Las Vegas, but that’s because I’m a Millennial and I live in a world where beheadings are used as political ads. Plus I like roman noir and serial killers.

    • Thraxian

      There’s a Camus quote I like:

      “A character is never the author who created him. It is quite likely, however, that an author may be all his characters simultaneously.”

      Men who write female characters tend to relegate these to represent one or two relatable aspects. Perhaps they represent a single side of the author or his view of women. Or used as a way to invoke a cheap emotional response. The variety and depth of characters or the process in which they are created always is a direct result from the authors limited field of view.

      How does male writers get this limited field of view? Well, because society tells them from early age that while women must relate to and adore male characters, white hetero cismen are always universal. They are the example. That is what society teaches us anyway. As someone who is a transgender woman I feel for the first time ever like I understand how force-fed I’ve been with the myth that men are just the starting point.

      Great essay.

    • Dana Darko

      THANK YOU. This is a fantastic essay. I wish I could have read it as my 17-year old self when reading all the classics listed by my high school english teacher. You put into eloquent words what I had been thinking and feeling without even knowing it. And I’m a hella feminist.

      • Joshua Moody

        Dana, can I ask you what feminism is all about… to you?

        • adrienne

          I am not Ms. Darko, but feminism is the project of liberating everyone of all genders from patriarchy and gender oppression.

    • babs

      I would like to confess that I loved Humbert when I read Lolita in high school… I found the book erotic. In reading Lolita, I was Lolita and identified her as a victim reluctantly – logically, yes, but emotionally, no.
      For context, my father was emotionally and physically abusive; in high school and as an adult I’ve had a number of abusive relationships. Despite that, I don’t hate Humbert as I should, but am attracted to him. I love the book as a strangely personal text about dependance on an abusive male, a kind of toxic attraction that leads to the erasure of the self, destruction, permanent victimization.

      • soccerteesandplaydoh

        I also read Lolita at a very young age, and yes, there are some very beautiful and erotic passages in the book and I imagined being Lo myself. My dad was also abusive (and alcoholic) and I’m no stranger to abusive relationships.

        The trouble with the eroticism comes when you think about an ACTUAL twelve year old who hasn’t yet hit puberty, and you realize that all the eroticism is completely within HH’s mind. He is the one in love with (his fantasy of) Lolita. She is just a kid.

        If I look at my own 12 year old, I see a kid who still likes Pokemon, who likes catching bugs in the back yard, plays handclap games with her friends at the bus stop, still secretly loves Ariel, makes up songs about pancakes, has a screaming fit if she can’t find her raincoat, and might still need a blankie when she is very sad.

        In no wise whatever, would this kid be an equal partner in a romantic relationship with a grown man, and Nabokov intentionally, beautifully, makes us forget this.

        Have you read Nabokov’s Ada?

    • Pingback: Rebecca Solnit’s “Men Explain Lolita to Me” | "There are some things that it is better to begin than to refuse, even though the end may be dark."()

    • Pingback: the whole stretch ahead of you (deliberate randomness) | love.life.eat()

    • Colleen Winters

      I believe that art is a reflection of our interior and our surroundings, often favoring one over the other. Often it’s trying to point out an aspect of our society (The Jungle) or a warning (1984). Others are hopeful reflections, like Monet’s works, trying to show beauty.
      I think I’m trying to sound more profound than I am or something. But art is meant to show us our flaws and our perfections, and as a subcategory, literature is no different. What art is meant to do is invoke contemplation and hopefully growth in the viewer/reader/consumer.

    • Jesse Lee

      Can one man take a crack here?

      Got to disagree with you here. In fact your piece is a total misinterpretation of the thrust and genius of Nabokov’s Lolita.

      Here you are making a typical and off-repeated mistake of literary interpretation — namely: how well did Nabokov capture a woman’s experience? And oh dear he is found wanting, and perhaps this is not so surprising given that the is hampered by being a man after all.

      I am completely on my own here, not a literary scholar, having executed no background research at all and and working in a different field entirely (software), so all disclaimers apply.

      That said, I believe that after one reading of Lolita that I connected with the author’s intent and purpose in writing this story. And you have not. You have gravitated to your own field of interest, that being feminism, humanism, the woman’s experience. I could be wrong and have devoted no time to learning about you and your own literary criticisms and accomplishments, so hey that could be way out in left field, but let me express what IMHO is Nabokov’s contribution through Loilita to Western literature.

      Nabokov has penned a masterpiece that does what the very, very best literature does: it conveys a first-person worldly experience, that is interpreted wrongly — and is penned so well that we the reader are aware of the error and are made the wiser. We read a first-person account and experience, and though the story’s protagonist internalizes it one way, the writing is so expert and wise that we the reader internalize it another way, and the reader learns something, perceives something ELSE and BEYOND, and is wiser for it.

      Looking elsewhere for a moment. Another example is a woman’s work, To Kill a Mockingbird. Recall Harper Lee’s scene where young, darling, innocent, lively, wiley Scout stumbles upon a lynch mob about to execute vigilante “justice” on the maligned black defendant and suspect of murder. She is blissfully unaware of the gravity, consequences, deadly action that is poised to take place. She asks in total unawareness of situation or self, a few innocent questions about what good men do in uncertain situations. In first person she observes the men with torches in hand and heads hung low, unaware of their inner turmoil — and yet WE imagine what they must feel, in their inadequacy, injustice, insensitivity, shame.

      How about one other example. One of the best works of recent Western literature, The Remains of the Day, by Kazuo Ishoguro. Written in first person from the perspective of a butler in a provincial England high society estate home. There are many examples that leap to mind, but consider “triumph.” Kazuo used that word twice in the book: once when the protagonist tended to professional duty (a guest’s pained feet) rather attend his father’s dying moment; this was a moment of warped English pride in a job well done. The second was again his attendance to duty to his employer, rather than cleaving to his actual true love who who held out her heart to his own and conveyed her desire and willingness to wed and build a life together. These were the great moments of the book, in which we the reader read in horror how the first person protagonist chose the wrong thing, rejected the right thing, and proffered some weak and lame reason for doing so, underpinned ultimately by his own vanity and his unprofessed but yet apparent self-perception as someone unworthy of love by another as his equal. Surely of this reason Salmon Rushdie called this book “both beautiful and cruel.”

      To return to Lolita. Consider the times when HH waxes philosophical and insightful, yet we are appalled and disgusted. His play-along as Lolita executes her clumsy seduction when he picks her up from a summer camp. His statutory rape scene when she is, on top of all the other regular horrors, overcome with the flu, yet he is so self-centered as to sodomize her and muse on what is different than usual. What a monster! Best of all, his philosophical reverie that is interrupted when he looks in a shop window and sees a drunken whino shambling past in shabby clothes, and that is, to his total shock and surprise, nothing other than his own reflection — and this jolts the reader into a recalibration that in fact this philosophical pedophile, as intellectual as he may be, is unhinged in every way.

      And so Nabokov belongs in the cadre of the greatest authors: those that challenge us, reveal our shortcomings, and impart wisdom — all through the voice of a protagonist who him or herself is unaware of the magnitude of what transpires in the here and now.

      THIS is the intent, thrust, and contribution of Nabokov. This is the essence of his genius — a protagonist interpreting his world, thinking he is on top of everything going on, but the writing is so great that we see through the lines to a more real world and are wiser for it. It is a purpose and intent that is not about women and men, feminism, or pedophilia.

      So that hopefully articulates what is missing in any critique that leaps to the woman’s experience as captured therein, without first aligning around what surely was the main goal of Nabokov in writing this book in the first place.

      Do you read this and think that a woman’s experience does not concern me? I certainly hope not. All I am saying is , let’s align on what Nabokov set out to do. It was to convey wisdom in the most challenging and electrifying way possible in literature: through the eyes of one not so wise as to perceive the true weight and import of events transpiring, yet written with such mastery that it embeds in the reader that weight and import, and ultimately that painfully-obtained wisdom, all the same.

      • Josh

        This is a great appreciation of Lolita, but I don’t see where it disagrees with anything Solnit has said.

      • Joshua Moody

        “I believe that after one reading of Lolita that I connected with the author’s intent and purpose in writing this story.”

        Jesse… let me stop right there, because Nabokov is laughing too hard for me to continue reading. It’s really distracting. I can’t even think, he is hooting so loudly.

        • Jesse Lee

          Right?? I mean how conceited can one guy GET

          • Joshua Moody

            Nabokov was extremely conceited, yeah. But to be fair, he also is one of the most difficult authors to “get” … so his lifelong amusement at academics claiming they understand his work is sorta justified.

      • lena mcfarland

        Ugh. Nabokov’s genius was to capture more than one subjective point of view in the same work of art. It amazes me that you miss this. First, Solnit never claimed Nabokov’s purpose or critiqued his portrayal of Lolita. Not once. She points out that Nabokov’s wife saw empathy for Lolita in the text and bemoaned the reader who missed this. (You?)

        Secondly, if literature is universal you can’t exclude the subjective view points of female readers or characters. Can you see how deeply you’re limiting yourself if you do? You want to segregate literature into books for men and books for women? Nabokov has female readers too. Rightfully so. Their way of reading Lolita should be interesting to you. Why are you trying to silence them instead by segregating them into some separate room for women?

        It’s like a literary apartheid. I hate to tell you but great books belong to absolutely anyone who reads them. Cheers.

        • Jesse Lee

          Well that’s well said and I agree with it all. Either gender can author, appreciate, and interpret such a masterpiece. Naturally! And yes more than one subjective POV was in play; HH was the main character, that’s all. The biggest others as I recall was the competitive therapist, and then there was Lolita’s mother. Nabokov’s wife was just
          one of a gazilion readers and interpreters, outside of the scope of my post.
          “Literary apartheid,” love it.

    • Jesse Lee

      Can one man take a crack here?

      Got to disagree with you here. In fact your piece is a total misinterpretation of the thrust and genius of Nabokov’s Lolita.

      Here you are making a typical and off-repeated mistake of literary interpretation — namely: how well did Nabokov capture a woman’s experience? And oh dear he is found wanting, and perhaps this is not so surprising given that the is hampered by being a man after all.

      I am completely on my own here, not a literary scholar, having executed no background research at all and and working in a different field entirely (software), so all disclaimers apply.

      That said, I believe that after one reading of Lolita that I connected with the author’s intent and purpose in writing this story. And you have not. You have gravitated to your own field of interest, that being feminism, humanism, the woman’s experience. I could be wrong and have devoted no time to learning about you and your own literary criticisms and accomplishments, so hey that could be way out in left field, but let me express what IMHO is Nabokov’s contribution through Loilita to Western literature.

      Nabokov has penned a masterpiece that does what the very, very best literature does: it conveys a first-person worldly experience, that is interpreted wrongly — and is penned so well that we the reader are aware of the error and are made the wiser. We read a first-person account and experience, and though the story’s protagonist internalizes it one way, the writing is so expert and wise that we the reader internalize it another way, and the reader learns something, perceives something ELSE and BEYOND, and is wiser for it.

      Looking elsewhere for a moment. Another example is a woman’s work, To Kill a Mockingbird. Recall Harper Lee’s scene where young, darling, innocent, lively, wiley Scout stumbles upon a lynch mob about to execute vigilante “justice” on the maligned black defendant and suspect of murder. She is blissfully unaware of the gravity, consequences, deadly action that is poised to take place. She asks in total unawareness of situation or self, a few innocent questions about what good men do in uncertain situations. In first person she observes the men with torches in hand and heads hung low, unaware of their inner turmoil — and yet WE imagine what they must feel, in their inadequacy, injustice, insensitivity, shame.

      How about one other example. One of the best works of recent Western literature, The Remains of the Day, by Kazuo Ishoguro. Written in first person from the perspective of a butler in a provincial England high society estate home. There are many examples that leap to mind, but consider “triumph.” Kazuo used that word twice in the book: once when the protagonist tended to professional duty (a guest’s pained feet) rather attend his father’s dying moment; this was a moment of warped English pride in a job well done. The second was again his attendance to duty to his employer, rather than cleaving to his actual true love who who held out her heart to his own and conveyed her desire and willingness to wed and build a life together. These were the great moments of the book, in which we the reader read in horror how the first person protagonist chose the wrong thing, rejected the right thing, and proffered some weak and lame reason for doing so, underpinned ultimately by his own vanity and his unprofessed but yet apparent self-perception as someone unworthy of love by another as his equal. Surely of this reason Salmon Rushdie called this book “both beautiful and cruel.”

      To return to Lolita. Consider the times when HH waxes philosophical and insightful, yet we are appalled and disgusted. His play-along as Lolita executes her clumsy seduction when he picks her up from a summer camp. His statutory rape scene when she is, on top of all the other regular horrors, overcome with the flu, yet he is so self-centered as to sodomize her and muse on what is different than usual. What a monster! Best of all, his philosophical reverie that is interrupted when he looks in a shop window and sees a drunken whino shambling past in shabby clothes, and that is, to his total shock and surprise, nothing other than his own reflection — and this jolts the reader into a recalibration that in fact this philosophical pedophile, as intellectual as he may be, is unhinged in every way.

      And so Nabokov belongs in the cadre of the greatest authors: those that challenge us, reveal our shortcomings, and impart wisdom — all through the voice of a protagonist who him or herself is unaware of the magnitude of what transpires in the here and now.

      THIS is the intent, thrust, and contribution of Nabokov. This is the essence of his genius — a protagonist interpreting his world, thinking he is on top of everything going on, but the writing is so great that we see through the lines to a more real world and are wiser for it. It is a purpose and intent that is not about women and men, feminism, or pedophilia.

      So that hopefully articulates what is missing in any critique that leaps to the woman’s experience as captured therein, without first aligning around what surely was the main goal of Nabokov in writing this book in the first place.

      Do you read this and think that a woman’s experience does not concern me? I certainly hope not. All I am saying is , let’s align on what Nabokov set out to do. It was to convey wisdom in the most challenging and electrifying way possible in literature: through the eyes of one not so wise as to perceive the true weight and import of events transpiring, yet written with such mastery that it embeds in the reader that weight and import, and ultimately that painfully-obtained wisdom, all the same.

    • EMoonTX

      Excellent essay that resonated with my experience in many venues. “…some of the men out there respond on the grounds that my opinion is
      wrong, while theirs is right because they are convinced that their
      opinion is a fact, while mine is a delusion.” This happens repeatedly, including from men who are, to put it bluntly, ignorant in a field where I have both training and experience. The weight of constant condescension and automatic doubt that anything a woman says is right/truthful/worth listening to is both exhausting and infuriating. So–thanks for this.

      • Joshua Moody

        Yes! Shouldn’t experts in fields be listened to, whether they are men or women? Thank you so much for saying this!

    • disqusplaya

      I find this modern feminist obsession with how men perceive the world, how they comprehend and internalize life’s experiences, what their psychology is, why they do what they do, what makes them “tick”, so to speak, is so very odd. It seems to go so much beyond an attempt to walk in the male’s shoes.

      I (as a man) would have as much success understanding the emotions and chemo-psychological changes of a woman going through pregnancy, as the author would in understanding how and why males (if indeed we are a homogenous cohort) consume art. Maybe we’re just, like, different. And maybe, thats ok. Is that such a preposterous proposal?

      I guess it says a lot about the patriarchy that even feminists must concern themselves with the ways of men. 🙂

      • Joshua Moody

        “the ways of men”? thanks for the shudder, bro.

      • zombiecarp

        Feminism has to be obsessed with masculinity because it is the single greatest influence on how women are perceived and treated in this world, both by men and by other women. And comparing the feelings associated with pregnancy to art appreciation is a false equivalency; one is fundamentally biological and the other is fundamentally cultural. Can a woman ever know what it feels like when I ejaculate? No. Can I every know what it feels like to have a baby? No. But I agree with everything this author says about Lolita and I am a man, so clearly there is nothing about my masculinity that causes me to inherently interpret art different from a woman.

        • disqusplaya

          one is fundamentally biological and the other is fundamentally cultural

          Oh really now, is it? How sure are you about that?

      • Jen

        It’s not really a modern obsession, and it’s not just for recreation’s sake. We (men, women, everyone) have been obsessed with and/or inundated by how men perceive the world for centuries because it’s overwhelmingly been men who have held political and social power and shape the world we live in. Trying to understand how (white) men shape and navigate western culture is not just a thought exercise for a modern feminist–it’s been a necessity for minorities who live in cultures that do not place equal value on their experiences or lives.

        Art is an important tool used to express and shape the world we live in. And so here we are.

    • disqusplaya

      I find this modern feminist obsession with how men perceive the world, how they comprehend and internalize life’s experiences, what their psychology is, why they do what they do, what makes them “tick”, so to speak, is so very odd. It seems to go so much beyond an attempt to walk in the male’s shoes.

      I (as a man) would have as much success understanding the emotions and chemo-psychological changes of a woman going through pregnancy, as the author would in understanding how and why males (if indeed we are a homogenous cohort) consume art. Maybe we’re just, like, different. And maybe, thats ok. Is that such a preposterous proposal?

      I guess it says a lot about the patriarchy that even feminists must concern themselves with the ways of men. 🙂

    • Liz Offield Holmes

      I loved this essay in just about every direction. I kept reading parts of it out loud to the husband, the daughters, the son . . . Fabulous. One tiny pushback: “That none of them are blemishless human beings we can discuss another time, possibly after hell freezes over.” I know no “blemishless” person. None. I wish we could get away from the search/desire/demand for “the speaker without fault.” That person does not exist.

      • abby

        i believe that’s exactly the point the author was making by saying she’d discuss it after hell freezes over — i.e., never.

    • Liz Offield Holmes

      I loved this essay in just about every direction. I kept reading parts of it out loud to the husband, the daughters, the son . . . Fabulous. One tiny pushback: “That none of them are blemishless human beings we can discuss another time, possibly after hell freezes over.” I know no “blemishless” person. None. I wish we could get away from the search/desire/demand for “the speaker without fault.” That person does not exist.

    • Pingback: A canonical body of literature in which women's stories are taken ... - SecuritySlagsSecuritySlags()

    • Jordan Grey (Jack)

      It took me a little while to engage with this article, but it was very insightful.

    • Pingback: Artikeln: Men Explain Lolita to Me |()

    • Janey

      This is brilliant. You’re inspiring me to get my degree and learn to put my anger into big words and be a writer one day. Thanks for writing this and thanks feministing for posting the link.

    • Jennifer Riggins

      “a person who mistakes his opinions for facts may also mistake himself for God. This can happen if he’s been insufficiently exposed to the fact that there are also other people who have other experiences, and that they too were created equal, with certain inalienable rights, and that consciousness thing that is so interesting and troubling is also going on inside their heads.” I believe this eloquently summarized what’s happening in the world today–whether ISIS or school shootings or “Let’s bomb the Middle East because it doesn’t share our Judeo-Christian values”–from culture and art to media to politics to our homes, we are raising our boys wrong, raising them with the right to believe that they are God-like and that when things don’t go their way or simply make them uncomfortable, they have the right and privilege to take another life.

      • Kailibigot Bonin

        It sounds like we are raising our girls wrong. If and I try to avoid this assumption, you were raised a girl. I think what you are seeing is men are not offering their opinion as fact, but the author and her supporters are. to them there is only one interpretation and people who don’t appreciate or understand her view implicitly are monsters. that is a paradigm for god. I allow her the choice she is making but I do assert that it is a choice and as such is insufficient as it points itself towards being definitive. I think beyond that you have people who are slightly convinced of things that go against their dogma and they are reacting with scorn and furry. life often surpasses the novel an goes right for the movie.

        • DeeWriteful

          Scorn and furry

          • Kailibigot Bonin

            yes indeed that is all that is left of the grand tautology. pre-claiming the weakness in your argument doesn’t make it disappear unless you have a benevolent daddy complex. while you demand people you are attacking fight fair while you demonstrate you lack the capacity to fight fair yourself.

    • Thankfully I see all humans as equals, which I feel should be common sense. How many centuries does it take for people to get it? Well, obviously more than 60…

      “…there are also other people who have other experiences, and that they too were created equal, with certain inalienable rights, and that consciousness thing that is so interesting and troubling is also going on inside their heads.”

      Thank you for that. Something I myself have tried to put into words before. Not regarding egotistical males with western cultural conditioning, but with all humans because that is just something that people don’t ever consider.

      Now here’s a random picture for you.

    • Thank you Rebecca Solnit. I’m a huge fan and admirer of yours. Please keep writing your excellent pieces. Thanks also to LitHub for publishing these essays.

    • M.Brandes

      Hi Rebecca, thank you for writing this. I believe one thing to consider in “Lolita” is that Nabokov intended, in his form and content, for Lolita’s story not to be told, as part of a larger context of form and content, of which he is aware, and which inevitably points to some of the arguments you made. He is aware of the many nuances and paradoxes of his narrative. A few examples: the fictional author of the Foreword argues that “Lolita should make us all — parents, social workers, educators — apply ourselves with still greater vigilance and visions to the task of bringing up a better generation in a safer world,” while Nabokov, as himself, asserts that his literature is not one of morals or ideas, but a literature of aesthetics and form. He also demonstrates this clashing of commitment and avoidance of “lessons” through H.H.: “the hopelessly poignant thing was not Lolita’s absence from my side, but the absence of her voice from that concord (the melody of children at play).” Nabokov was a puzzle-maker, a methodical artist, and if we look at the title of the book in the Foreword (“Lolita, or the Confession of a White Widowed Male”), his acknowledgement of who “owns” the point of view in the story becomes clear — which I believe that this is not merely (or at all, in this case) a matter of being nasty to a gender. (Needless to say — though I’ll say it nonetheless –, I write this, of course, as opinion. Thank you again for the read!).

      • M.Brandes

        (I am also aware my comment might seem like an attempt to ‘explain’ Lolita — which I wouldn’t dream of attempting. My intention was to add to the discussion regarding the place Nabokov might have in the ‘canonical body of literature in which women’s stories are taken away from them’.)

        • powelstock

          It is an awesome post! You raise a lot of good points about the novel.

    • Jarek Kowalczyk

      So author tries to criticise stereotypical thinking about women. creating a stereotype about men. Touchee.
      I do not agree with your thesis, and, for the record, only because it is false – not because you are woman. You talk about a WHITE MEN disagreeing with you, whereas you have met only a small percentage of all white men living in the world. Yet, you have made a claim about all of them.
      If you apply the same kind of reasoning for all your arguments, do not be surprised that people will disagree with you.
      This is one of the most riddiculous thing I have read today, to be honest.

      • ThemisTheBlue

        No. She talks about particular works of literature, written by particular men, which perpetuate in persons reading them a stereotype of a male that’s destructive and excluding of Others and their experiences. Her thesis was never supposed to apply to all white men or all works about white men, and she comments on behaviors that happened in real life, not some hypothetical reactions. And it was more about treating women as objects, not stereotypical thinking about them, so I suggest you read the original piece, this article, and then think about both of them and the problems they pinpoint once again.

        • Jarek Kowalczyk

          So you are trying to prove that I am completely wrong approaching piece from my own perspective and making my point based on my personal impression? That is so misoginist. I’ll write a piece on that.

          • loberry

            You might try learning to spell before you do that. Sorry. I realize I’m being a feminist overqueen here by criticizing your right to spell words as you see fit, but you know. Women. We are awful.

            • Jarek Kowalczyk

              Good for you if you have never misspelled a word, especially making a point in foreign language. But the question is: how does it relate to the topic? Or you just wanted to be rude?

            • loberry

              No. Actually. I apologize for not realizing that you were not fluent in Greek. Neither am I. So, sorry about that.
              But, on another note, by proclaiming that your whole understanding of being a misogynist is insisting that your right to read something differently from others makes you one was a deliberate act of internet trollery. I responded to it in the same spirit.

              Reap what you sow.

            • Jarek Kowalczyk

              You should not apologize if you do not mean it. I do not really care, it is internet.
              Thank you for appreciating my ways – that is what I wanted to show: women (do not know if they are white, though) reacted exactly the same way as white men described by author above – disagreeing, making comments not about the main topic, but also about other irrelevant things. For the record, to me it is a proof of the theory (proposed by author as well) that gender influences how we respond to other peoples’ arguments (your activity, not only under my comment, but also whole comment section is another proof of that).
              To make peace – you cannot imagine how much I stand on women side in this case (‘Second sex’ is one of the most influential books in my life, also have mother, sister and many women in my life to defend and respect). The reason I have commented above is that I do not really aprove the way of argumentation and reasoning standing behind it. If you will read my comments again, you may find out how easily you can trap yourself fighting for your case.

            • Dustin Heron

              I think he’s saying English isn’t his first language.

            • Dustin Heron

              Ah, the old “you misspelled something so your thoughts are unimportant” argument. Classy.

          • ThemisTheBlue

            Misandrist. The word you are looking for is misandrist. And I am proving that you are completely wrong in saying her thesis is false, since instead of referring to her actual arguments and experiences, you’ve decided to interpret it in a way that has nothing to do with what she actually wrote.

      • DeeWriteful

        You’ve just completely fudged the reading of this article. I mean, even the most fundamental and rather obvious meaning appears to have been utterly lost on you.

        It’s no wonder you read so many riddiculous thing.

        • Jarek Kowalczyk

          Well, I am not surprised since the only reason I have done so, was to disagree with a woman 😉

          • annprof1

            How simplistic of you. How blissful your world must be.

    • jlenoconel

      “Straight white men” are the only men who can be sexist apparently.

      • Jarek Kowalczyk

        Do not say that aloud. I have tried to, but “white women” are just waiting for that!

      • loberry

        I am trying to have empathy for your position. It must be hard to have been brought up in a world in which nearly every work of literature that gets heralded as “great” or “genius,” (and not denigrated in the same breath as something that is only lauded by the P.C. police) is about white men and the people who love them or loathe them, but essentially recognize their right to be top of the pile. I would imagine that it might have left SOME men with a feeling that this is the world that they are supposed to inherit. And now people are telling them that they have to think twice about that sense of entitlement, which you swear you don’t have, but you haven’t really thought about it, so why are people making such a fuss?
        Just as it must be difficult to have skin of a darker colour, and to walk into a store, and to have someone follow you around, convinced you are going to shoplift, and who challenges your right to look at stuff. Or to be a black teenager and be shot for wearing a hoodie. Although white guys who own pharmaceutical companies wearing hoodies are escorted out of buildings by polite FBI agents.
        Just as it might be difficult to be a woman, and to be told that you can’t go out at night alone because she might get raped, and then, if she is raped, to be told that it was her fault because she had a drink, or she was out alone, or she was dressed incorrectly, or she was simply female being somewhere she wasn’t supposed to be. And if she ever had sex before? Well, she couldn’t be raped because nice girls don’t have sex before marriage.
        Just as it might be difficult to be a gay teenager, like the one who just wrote a paper for me, in which her father told her that “no daughter of mine is going to be gay,” and “if you like girls, you can move out right now and forget about going to college. I won’t pay for that.” And then to be her girlfriend, who gets beaten up in a bar for being a “lesbo.”
        Just as it might be difficult to be a white straight male and to have people saying mean things about you.
        Yeah. I can see how that would be hard.

        • Dustin Heron

          Your overall point is true, and snark is fine, but I’m not sure how this relates to what was said.

        • jlenoconel

          A. I’m gay myself and B. Thanks for the essay.

      • That’s not true at all. I’m not sure who told you that, but they were very very wrong. I’d suggest reading/listening to stuff by more intelligent commentators on gender and culture than whoever it was that told you that.

        If you scroll up, there’s a very good essay by Rebecca Solnit. You could start there.

    • sieteocho

      I think that at some point we have to come to grips with what it really means to live in a multicultural world, and once we do that, we’re going to abandon FOREVER the idea that any one constituency – white male, black female, asian transgender – whatever – has any monopoly on literature.

      So, suppose you were reading “Lolita” and you were sick and tired of child rape taking place over and over again. I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but “Lolita” is one book in a shelf that’s full of them. It’s very simple, put that book down and take your head out of your ass. Go and read some Toni Morrison instead or something. We shouldn’t be shocked at all that books that are written by white males tend to tell stories about white males. There is ABSOLUTELY nothing wrong with that. Do not complain about that. Instead, learn to celebrate the art of the other. What about the Bhagavad Gita? What about Genji (one of the greatest Japanese novels, written by a chick, no less.) If you’re tired of reading about human beings, there’s also “Journey to the West”, and you can read about a monkey, a pig and a horse on some kind of a road trip. There is a great canon of books outside of the dead white male category and read all that instead.

      Also, there isn’t much wrong with “Lolita”. Like Vera Nabokov said, “Lolita” is also about Lolita’s courage. It’s not a secret that one of the best things about that novel is the unreliable narrator. Lolita’s heroism is hidden in plain sight. The antihero is Humbert Humbert, the hero is Lolita. Lolita is not a story told from Lolita’s perspective, because it’s not meant to be. The subject of the story and the narrator are not the same person, and that tension is central to the book. Maybe one day, in the unlikely event that this hasn’t already been done, somebody will produce a fan fiction, whereby the story of Lolita is being told from Lolita’s perspective. And, you know, if it hasn’t already been done, you have to ask why the fuck not, because it would certainly be infinitely preferable to listening to people complain that life is unfair.

      Secondly, it’s pretty churlish to presume that male oppression does not exist. You could read “Macbeth” and not fail to notice that most of the people getting murdered are guys. We always hear about “women and children first” – ergo, men are last. “Wings of the Dove” is about a young woman dying, and that is treated as a travesty against nature in a way that a young man dying would never be treated likewise. “Titanic” – Jack dies and Rose survives, but of course. Could it ever be the other way around? Obviously not.

      It is not that the world is not sexist, and it is not that this notion of male patriachy is completely wrong. But we’re also not going to ignore that it’s also extremely common for guys to be subjected to violence. Oliver Twist – lest we forget, he’s a white male – gets royally screwed.

      In Pulp Fiction, for instance, the funniest scene is a guy getting fucked in the ass. Male rape is a reality, and it’s celebrated in a way that it would not be acceptable to celebrate female rape. Perhaps there is something racist in the way that the victim is a black male, albeit he’s also a crime boss and is probably the character who – before he gets raped – is the guy with the highest social stature. Prison rape is spoken of with a casualness that it would be completely unacceptable to speak of if the victims were female.

      Also, there is a fallacy when Solnit talks about male castration as the analog of female rape. Male castration is not the analog of female rape. Male rape is the analog of female rape. Male castration is the analog of female genital mutilation which, unfortunately is a reality in certain parts of the world that perhaps Solnit ought to be more concerned about.

      The biggest paradox of feminism is how phallocentric it is. There seems to be an unhealthy obsession with the white male. Perhaps I’m not so sensitive because I grew up in an environment that does not revolve around white males. Perhaps my primary interest – jazz – is an art form dominated by black instead of white males. But I would personally lay off from launching attacks on their so called cultural dominance and sympathise with a few of their anxieties. The central issue of their existence in the early 21th century is that this is a world where their prominence is slowly being eroded away, as Asia and Latin America rise to prominence, as women make up the larger portion of pop music superstars, as issues in the Middle East dominate world affairs. Furthermore, where identity politics assumed a prominence the disappeared world of great economic moderation, now we have to deal with climate change, rising income inequality, the obsolescence of human labour, and these are issues that put gender inequality onto the back burner for now.

      I don’t believe any constituency really has the ability to speak for any other constituency. Suppose we were to wake up one morning and find the world dominated by white females, we would be complaining about them the way that we do about white males. In all possible worlds, somebody is at the top of the totem pole. If you think that a world run by white males is undesirable, why not go join ISIS or something like that and see if a world of beheadings and honor killings suits you better.

      The solution to the problem is not getting white male authors to write about “the other” with more sensitivity. It’s not going to happen, it’s not what great literature is all about. The solution is for people who constitute “the other” to step up and produce a greater part of the canon. Then maybe we’ll have guys complaining that chick lit doesn’t really speak for them to the depth of their souls. You could spend one whole year reading stuff that’s not written by a white guy. It’s possible and maybe once you do that, the world wouldn’t seem so oppressive anymore.

      I’m not going to reveal which constituency I’m from and hopefully my comment is neutral enough that it’s a little difficult to figure it out.

      • adrienne

        Not even a little bit, dude. No idea what your race is but you’re OBVIOUSLY a guy.

        • Jen K.

          Sad

      • Amber Pawula-Marcin

        Wow. Here is the post that proves the point of this article.

        • Jen K.

          All dissent to the article is crushed with this logic. It is like when Freud ‘discovered’ the Oedipus and Electra complexes, and anyone who said “No Freud I don’t feel that way about my mother/father” is simply lying to themselves via repression!

      • sieteocho

        I will generally respond to people who engage with my content but so far that hasn’t happened yet.

    • neatly turned ankle

      Liberal men say women can’t identify with Dolores Haze (which is especially ridiculous when the female reader is a survivor of child molestation herself), yet they strain themselves to talk about how Humbert Humbert is relatable and how ~deep~ that is. I also heard that Lolita was a moral tale because both “monsters” are destroyed, aka this literary critic put forth the idea that a child victim is just as monstrous as the child molester. The disgusting things people say about Lolita are perhaps the worst I’ve ever seen of any book.

      Though I think this paragraph could use more mentioning of women and girls who HAVE been raped, and who are most affected by this sort of literary canon and its worship:

      “The omnipresence of men raping female children as a literary subject, from Tess of the d’Urbervilles to Less Than Zero, along with real-life accounts like that of Jaycee Dugard (kidnapped at 11 in 1991 and used as a sex slave for 18 years by a Bay Area man), can have the cumulative effect of reminding women that we spend a lot of our lives quietly, strategically trying not to get raped, which takes a huge toll on our lives and affects our sense of self. Sometimes art reminds us of life.”

    • Drew Sheldon

      I loved this so much I had to bookmark. I need to read it several more times.

      But in the meantime, I need to point out the one thing I hated about it. Before I tell you what it is, I also want to say that I don’t hate that you wrote it. I hate that you feel the need to write it. I believe it’s part of the problem.

      It’s something you did multiple times, and here is the first example I noticed, “And here, just for the record, let me clarify that I’m not saying that all of them can’t take it.” It makes me think of #notallmen. I hate #notallmen. I’m a man. I am not #notallmen, but I don’t need to be reminded that I’m #notallmen. Thank you for being so caring to remind me that I’m #notallmen, but the fact that so damn many of us are so damn fragile is exactly why we have to continue with this #notallmen b.s.

      I screw up all the time and unintentionally contribute to patriarchy, rape culture, etc. I need women to point that out to me. I don’t need to be reminded that I’m #notallmen, and the more you remind me that I’m #notallmen the more I forget that I do still contribute to partriarchy, rape culture, etc.

      So let me say what you wrote here is incredible. I will be reading it, sharing it, and celebrating it. I’ll just be including a reminder that #notallmen are aware of how much they do exactly the stuff you describe here. Thank you so much.

    • JamesWynn

      It’s not mansplaining tor a man to disagree with a woman. Rebecca seems to think that no one on the Internet would have disagreed with her if her name was “Rob”. And the racist misandrist categorical attack? (“You know who can’t take a joke? White guys.”) Nice job on that, Rebecca.

      • Kailibigot Bonin

        she is claiming the weakness of her argument up front. it doesn’t erase that her argument is weak. the book is about the male character.

      • Dustin Heron

        I agree with your first sentence. I think that “mansplaining” as it was originally coined by Solnit is kind of being used as a catch-all for any straight-white-male disagreeing with a woman, when it originally seemed to mean when a man lectures and explains facts and theories to a woman who works in that field. The best example in the original essay is when a man explains to Rebecca all about this important new book, not realizing that she had written it.

    • Erin Glam

      “It isn’t a fact universally acknowledged that a person who mistakes his opinions for facts may also mistake himself for God.”

      Sorry, but the use of the word ‘may’ turns this sentence into a truism, devoid of meaning. Without the word ‘may’ it’s entirely a contradiction, as you’re expressing an opinion yourself and then complaining that it isn’t recognized as a fact.

      ‘This is a problem straight white men suffer from especially, because the western world has held up a mirror to them for so long’

      Instead try, ‘this is a problem many straight white suffer from’ or ‘of all the people who suffer from this problem, the majority are straight white men’ As you’ve written, it implies that every straight white man, even those who are illiterate or in a coma, are condescending in regards to your opinions on literature.

      Now onto the third paragraph…

    • zombiecarp

      Fantastic piece. Should be required reading for humanities students.

      I would beg to differ on one point – although a significant portion of those criticizing the sensitivities of ‘today’s college students’ are white males talking down to non-white male groups, there have also been compelling and troubling reports is area from educators who are neither white nor male. I think it’s possible to parse out and separate the very serious issues raised by certain college students (e.g., black and trans students being threatened and harassed on campus) from what are (at least in my opinion) some of the more ludicrous examples of students over-reacting for what appears to be the sake of over-reacting. Two notable examples from articles I’ve read over the past couple years that, from my discussions with those working in academia, seem to be somewhat representative of a greater trend:

      – a white female student complaining to her black female prof that it was inappropriate and racist to screen Blaxploitation films in her class, even as an educational tool

      – a student lodging a formal complaint of anti-semitism against a (Jewish) Professor who used the sentence “we should kill all Jews” as an example of how not all opinions are valid in his Philosophy class

      In other words, a trend of hyper self righteous and often ignorant outrage among a certain subsection of college going millennials that only serves to undermine all of the very real issues you articulate in your piece.

      But, I suppose the counter argument to this is that students have always been a volatile bunch, and it is better that we are increasingly living in a world where every student, regardless of identity, can voice their opinion (even if what they’re saying is occasionally misguided).

    • JamesWynn

      Denouncing a book on the basis of what the author said about another writer is bone-headed, ignorant criticism. This is true regardless of the critic’s sex.

    • Erin Glam

      you know who can’t take a joke? White guys. Not if it implicates them and their universe, and when you see the rage, the pettiness, the meltdowns and fountains of male tears of fury,

      The men in your life sound absolutely hilarious, I only wish I could witness ‘male tears of fury’, it would really break up the boring day I’m having

    • Erin Glam

      When I read Lolita, I got the impression that Humbert Humbert was a monster BECAUSE he didn’t understand the female perspective, and in fact understood very little outside of himself at all.

      His lack of empathy, and his isolation, turned him into a monster. The protagonist is sometimes a villain, villains suffer sometimes too, but whatevs….I’m a strange character because I actually identify with the extremely well drawn men in “The Price of Salt”

    • Tad Dicks

      Rebecca as a man let me explain something to you. The internet lets every raving lunatic respond to you. Typically the raving ones will respond. The reasonable thoughtful people will silently nod and agree (or even disagree but do it silently) to varying degrees. There’s several billion people on the internet when will you stop being amazed at the the batshiat crazy things being said? When that happens please don’t stop pointing it out. Thanks.

    • sparkman

      This is just a fantastic essay. Sharing this everywhere! (especially with my 12 year old daughter) I’m going to add “Guys: censorship is when the authorities repress a work of art, not when someone dislikes it.” to the long list of things I wish I’d written.

      • powelstock

        Indeed, the pithiest statement of that important point that I’ve ever seen! Goes into my basic quotes toolbox.

    • JamesWynn

      “Booker Prize winner Marlon James said, “Liberal men. I’m not about to
      stop your inevitable progress to neo-liberal and eventually, neocon, so
      let’s make this one quick. It seems some of you have a problem with
      Rebecca Solnit’s new piece. There is censorship, and there is
      challenging somebody’s access to making money. This is not the same
      thing.””

      I’m not sure what the context of this is, but it sounds like Marlon James is saying there is a difference between censorship and the right to publish or market your words. If so, Marlon James is an idiot.

      • Dustin Heron

        I believe he is saying that censorship and challenging someone’s access to making money are not the same thing as Rebecca Solnit’s piece on books women should not read. Maybe a little awkwardly phrased, but it was in a speech I believe so maybe when spoken the distinction was clearer.

      • AL

        He wasn’t referring to the *right* to publish or market. He was acknowledging that when someone criticizes your work, if that criticism becomes popular and other people agree, then you might, over time, lose money, because people won’t be as excited, perhaps, to buy your book. (But even that is in question. When people criticize Trump, his numbers go up. If Solnit criticizes a book, some people might flock to it.)

        Whole different thing. Not an idiot.

    • Pingback: Weekend Reading: Lit Links | Puerto del Sol()

    • thank you Rebecca.. read Lolita as a teenager, found it profoundly disturbing, and have never been able to re-read it. I figured there was some kind of Nabokovian tricksiness going on that I didn’t understand. The quote from Vera N. is clarifying, though – maybe I have been understanding it correctly all along. That novel has been bothering me ever since I read it, which is some decades now. I’m glad I lived long enough to read your take on it.

    • Jocelyn S Mackie

      Great piece. My latest considerations surround how those in privilege often discount the stories of those who experience the world differently. This is true with men who wish to “mansplain” to us, but also in issues of race–how the police are not really that scary or “I don’t cross the street when I see you.” I even saw a commenter tell my friend, who is a transgender woman, that the rate at which her protected class is killed really isn’t that serious.

      It’s like you said–a God complex where beliefs become facts. That is a natural result of patriarchy.

    • inotowok

      Disagree with the interpretation of Scott Adams’ remarks. He makes a real point that is getting dismissed and not taken seriously.

      • Dustin Heron

        which is….?

        • Laura Truxillo

          I, too, am interested in knowing what that point would be. If I recall correctly, it was that it was unfair that men have to put sooooooo much effort into having sex by fulfilling traditional gender roles, which…seems self-defeating.

        • JamesWynn

          Adam’s was dissing the foundation of Men’s Rights Advocacy. But because he didn’t do it by praising the superiority of women and by asserting their constant abjection in all circumstances, many people have reacted emotionally rather than taking his arguments on their merit.

          • Dustin Heron

            Guess I would have to see the full quote in context.

    • SarahBJones

      Here comes Rebecca Solnit, just laying down little truth nuggets like it was her job.

    • SarahBJones

      “women actually have a great time these days (in the West at least) expressing and asserting themselves, with generally little risk of contradiction from opponents scared of being branded misogynistic”

      This is an interesting assertion you are making. Anything you can back it up with, as it seems to be the spine of your argument?

      • Christopher Fisher (Dairo512)

        I can. There was a Nobel Prize laureate who lost his job over a minor comment he made about sharing a laboratory with women. There’s also the man who landed a rocket on an asteroid, who received endless flak because he chose to wear a shirt covered in depictions of scantily-clad women. There are also stories of young men facing social shitstorms at colleges because they refuse to take mandatory rape training, because god forbid, they felt that they didn’t need to be taught that rape was wrong, as it was something they already knew.

        • Evilin Garnett

          lets stack that up against the death threats, appearance shaming, 4channing and vicious insults that are a vocal woman’s woman’s daily diet. Also those pesky wage gaps and healthcare disparities.
          I don’t think sexuality =sexual harrasment but the double standard is what makes it possible to use sex to harass people. In academia’s farthest reaches, the sex is rape culture goes to far, but it is the sex is a win for a man and a loss for a woman that both bros and feminists agree on that made this particular teacup’s tempest possible.For every nutjob running around carrying a matress there’s at least ten dudes speaking “truth to power” by bravely making fun of overweight women –even if they themselves are sporting some serious beer bellies–and anyone else who dares to poke their head outside the shame cellar. Are there doctrinaire feminists? Yes, but this article is not that, in either tone or content. There’s an abundance of false equivalencies in your post. The “endless flak” you speak of was two days of media nonsense. No one posted his address and threatened to sodomize him over and over again until he begged for mercy. I don’t deny their is insanity on the farther end of feminism, but it way overmatched by the reflexive misogyny of the mainstream. Look at the reaction to Lena Dunham versus a host of mediocre fat comedians who also had big time sucess, deserved or not. No one wanted to fat shame Jackie Gleason or Louis CK to death, now did they? Mandatory rape training is stupid. It happens on some college campuses. The way women are portrayed and talked to everywhere in mainstream discourse is equally stupid,but much more visible.

          • Christopher Fisher (Dairo512)

            “lets stack that up against the death threats, appearance shaming, 4channing and vicious insults that are a vocal woman’s woman’s daily diet.”

            Right, because none of those things EVER happen to a man with an opinion.

            “Also those pesky wage gaps and healthcare disparities.”

            Wage gaps are a myth and the healthcare disparity is a result of the fact that it COSTS more to support a woman’s health. Try again.

            “I don’t think sexuality =sexual harrasment but the double standard is what makes it possible to use sex to harass people.”

            Uh, no. The fact that people can be made to feel sexually vulnerable is what makes it possible to use sex to harass people. That’s not a gender-specific problem.

            “In academia’s farthest reaches, the sex is rape culture goes to far, but it is the sex is a win for a man and a loss for a woman that both bros and feminists agree on that made this particular teacup’s tempest possible.”

            “Academia’s farthest reaches”? What exactly does that entail? Do you think this is a really uncommon thing in colleges? Also, insert ‘master key, shitty lock’ joke here.

            “For every nutjob running around carrying a matress there’s at least ten dudes speaking “truth to power” by bravely making fun of overweight women –even if they themselves are sporting some serious beer bellies–and anyone else who dares to poke their head outside the shame cellar.”

            You know, if you’re fat, you deserve to be called out on it. The vast majority of overweight people got that way by living indulgently. There’s medical science backing this up. Also, the only reason that fat men are the ones calling out fat women is because too many of the latter subscribe to the doctrine that ‘only fat people are allowed to call others fat’. Also, a ‘beer belly’ is a distended liver, which is not the same as being obese, although it is similarly caused by self-destructive behavior.

            “Are there doctrinaire feminists? Yes, but this article is not that, in either tone or content.”

            Yes it is. If you can’t see that, try reading it from the perspective of someone who does not already subscribe to the feminist ideology.

            “The “endless flak” you speak of was two days of media nonsense.”

            It was *thousands* of posts in two days.

            “No one posted his address and threatened to sodomize him over and over again until he begged for mercy.”

            Do you know that for a fact?

            “I don’t deny their is insanity on the farther end of feminism, but it way overmatched by the reflexive misogyny of the mainstream.”

            LMAO! Oh, you’re precious. You really believe that, don’t you?

            “Look at the reaction to Lena Dunham versus a host of mediocre fat comedians who also had big time sucess, deserved or not. ”

            Who are you to say who deserves success or not?

            “No one wanted to fat shame Jackie Gleason or Louis CK to death, now did they?”

            Fat shame to death? Now you’re just being melodramatic. Also, no one ‘fat shames’ Louis CK because he knows he’s fat and doesn’t care. Also because his comedy is aggressive and nobody with half a brain wants to risk finding themselves at its business end. I don’t know who those other people are.

            “The way women are portrayed and talked to everywhere in mainstream discourse is equally stupid,but much more visible.”

            Quote some examples, please.

            • Evilin Garnett

              I don’t need to quote examples. Just turn on your tv and/or internet for six seconds. heaven.

              I Don’t say whether anyone deserves success or not. That’s the point.

              If you say “LMAO” you really believe that and call my opinion precious you prove the point about male condescension. I did not mock your opinion or dismiss it, I engaged with it and disagreed as one adult to another. If you are taking refuge in insults like that you are not engaging in discussion, you are engaging in shout down.

              The wage gap is not a myth. I don’t need to go get a bunch of links to prove it. Look at what we pay professions that are considered women’s work versus professions that are considered men’s work when they take the same amount of training. I am especially concerned with the same amount of training.

              If I used the phrase “fat shamed to death” I would consider it more of a bad joke than melodrama, but I’ll give it to you.

              I am not going to go into the response to women comedians and men comedians who both don’t give a shit about being fat, but I don’t think it’s a far reach to say that the level of rage against the former far outstrips that toward the latter. It’s a supporting example of bias, and it holds, but this is really about a response to a book, and the bias that makes any response but the usual one deemed unworthy.

              Have you read the book? It’s a good book, a brilliant book, but there are huge, huge problems with it that make it less good than it could be.

              But to say so is to invite a whole lot of condescending correction.

              Instead of saying “I disagree with your opinion” I’ve heard “LOL you’re precious, you really believe that don’t you”. What on earth does that even mean in a discussion, except that your life experience is invalid, while mine is correct. That is not a premise from which anything productive can emerge.

            • Christopher Fisher (Dairo512)

              “I don’t need to quote examples. Just turn on your tv and/or internet for six seconds. heaven.”

              You DO need to quote examples, or else your argument has no support.

              “I Don’t say whether anyone deserves success or not. That’s the point.”

              That is exactly what you said. The fact that you said ‘deserved or not’ when referring to entertainers’ success was the whole reason I raised the question.

              “If you say “LMAO” you really believe that and call my opinion precious you prove the point about male condescension.”

              That I am male and being condescending are CORRELATED in the fact that both apply to me, not CAUSATIVE. The same applies to the facts that you are a woman and that you are wrong. Do you understand the difference between the two? I don’t think you do, because you’ve been spending a lot of this argument doing nothing but parroting feminist propaganda and giving this stupid “essay” praise it does not deserve.

              “Look at what we pay professions that are considered women’s work versus professions that are considered men’s work when they take the same amount of training. I am especially concerned with the same amount of training.”

              Are you also taking into consideration the HAZARDS that come with the professions considered ‘mens’ work’ and the NECESSITY of the types? Calculating the value of various jobs is a matter of complex algorithms and can’t be sorted out into just ‘mens’ work’ and ‘womens’ work’. The fact that you think otherwise reveals your sexism.

              “I am not going to go into the response to women comedians and men comedians who both don’t give a shit about being fat,”

              Of course you’re not, because if you admitted that all a lot of people like you would have to do to stop being hurt is stop letting commentary hurt you, a lot of your argument would fall apart entirely.

              “but I don’t think it’s a far reach to say that the level of rage against the former far outstrips that toward the latter.”

              But you don’t have any PROOF that this is the case. You’re just ASSERTING it because your BELIEF that it is supports your position.

              “It’s a supporting example of bias, and it holds, but this is really about a response to a book, and the bias that makes any response but the usual one deemed unworthy.”

              Do you know what ‘projecting’ is? Because you’ve been doing a lot of it lately.

              “Have you read the book? It’s a good book, a brilliant book, but there are huge, huge problems with it that make it less good than it could be.”

              A) What book?

              B) Your statements here are oxymoronic. Is it a good, brilliant book; or does it have huge, huge problems that make it less good than it could be?

              “Instead of saying “I disagree with your opinion” I’ve heard “LOL you’re precious, you really believe that don’t you”. What on earth does that even mean in a discussion, except that your life experience is invalid, while mine is correct. That is not a premise from which anything productive can emerge.”

              I can’t take you seriously because you refuse to take me seriously. Also, nobody’s life experiences determine the validity of anything. Only the FACTS do.

            • Evilin Garnett

              A) What book? book on which the article this discussion thread is about,that book.

              Look up to the top of the screen. You’ll see the article and the sectional heading “Literary Hub”. If you didn’t read the article are you just looking for the name of the author and trying to start arguments with the commentors? I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you are not trolling,but it’s kind of strange to comment on a thread wherein you haven’t read the article first.

              B) Your statements here are oxymoronic. Is it a good, brilliant book; or does it have huge, huge problems that make it less good than it could be?
              Both. A book can be more than one thing, and draw more than one thought or response, even from the same reader. That’s not so odd.

              nobody’s life experiences determine the validity of anything. Only the FACTS do.

              The life experience of a person does certainly affect the response they will have to a work of art, and just because your life experience is in the majority, or the one that gets the most description in mainstream literature, as this writer posits, it doesn’t make it more valid than mine.
              When I said “deserved or not” notice I did not go on to say who deserved success. It’s clear I was referring to the response to the success, not the success itself.

              HAZARDOUS

              And I fully agree that what are considered men’s job’s can be more hazardous. Not always, but sometimes. In civilized countries you get hazard pay. Which is why in upstate Minnesota some women wanted to work in the coal mines without getting hazed. They wanted that better pay to take care of their families, like any parent would. I don’t see what’s wrong with that. Now if you are talking about a sanitation engineer and a nursery school teacher or daycare provider it’s a different issue. But I was wrong to bring that up. This is about opinions and the things that inform our responses to them…I should have stayed with that.

              But you don’t have any PROOF that this is the case. You’re just ASSERTING it because your BELIEF

              Do I really have to go get links about gamergate, national fat shaming week, the dozens of sites devoted to bashing and misrepresenting feminism?
              Here’s a small example from popular culture: Jackie Gleeson started the trope 60 years ago of the fat dude in a sitcom with an improbably thin, conventionally attractive wife. (If you want to hear it from someone else there’s always “TV Tropes” site )

              No one blinked an eye.

              Lena Dunham nearly broke the internet with all the rage and vitriol sent her way for daring to appear as an overweight girl with a boyfriend who wasn’t ugly.

              I am certainly not saying that this is the crime of the century nor in any way equivalent to honor killings, pay disparity, or female genital mutilation. It’s just and example of how there are two different standards, one for those with the “default identity” who have written and produced much of our current culture, and one for those outside of it. To pipe up about that is to invite condescension at times, and at times, threats to come to your house, rape you and put your head on a stick or whatever, as in Gamergate….And the article on which this thread comments is about someones response to a creative work ie book, movie sitcom

              I disagree with you as one respectful adult to another. I believe this is possible, but I can’t prove it. That’s up to you now.

            • Christopher Fisher (Dairo512)

              Oh that book. I haven’t actually read it (not being fluent in German and not trusting translators), but I’ve heard that it illustrates two terrible kinds of people pretty well. There are no protagonists in that book, near as I can tell, only two primary characters who are antagonistic to one another.

              To be honest, I also haven’t read the article this commentary about. I was linked to it from another forum, tried to read it, got to the part that said ‘white men argue as though their opinions are facts’ as though that somehow doesn’t apply to everybody and skipped the rest. I hate deliberate selective blindness. EVERYBODY argues as though their opinions are facts, and the only people who can maintain their arguments are those who either a) have the facts supporting them, or b) are stubborn and obnoxious enough to simply shut out the facts that don’t support their arguments. Oh, and before you get on me about ‘privilege’, I work two jobs and I’m technically homeless for the next few weeks (I’m living in a former manager’s spare room) so you can fuck right off with that.

              “Both. A book can be more than one thing, and draw more than one thought or response, even from the same reader. That’s not so odd.”

              It is odd if those things are inherently self-contradictory. I agree that a book can be multiple things, but typically the contradictions only come up in terrible works (such as the Bible) or in works where the reader has had a drastic change in perspective between readings.

              “and just because your life experience is in the majority, or the one that gets the most description in mainstream literature, as this writer posits, it doesn’t make it more valid than mine.”

              But my life experience is neither of those things. NOBODY’s is. That’s the point I’m trying to make. PEOPLE ARE NOT COLLECTIVES. Even if the experiences and perspectives of say, heterosexual white males were the only ones that made it to publication, network, or film (as was the case before Civil Rights finally broke through to them) does not mean that everybody, or even the majority of people who fit all three of those demographics are being even remotely accurately represented. The accusation to the contrary is misinformed at best, and an outright lie at worst, and in the interest of protecting the basic liberty of freedom of expression, such accusations need to be shot down at every opportunity.

              “Which is why in upstate Minnesota some women wanted to work in the coal mines without getting hazed. They wanted that better pay to take care of their families, like any parent would. I don’t see what’s wrong with that.”

              That’s because there IS nothing wrong with it, so long as those women don’t demand or expect special protections from the expected hazards of the job, special allowances, special restrictions on the men already at the job, or pay disproportionate to the work they are willing and able to do, or their experience.

              “Do I really have to go get links about gamergate,”

              The fact that you think gamergate is a product of misogyny speaks volumes of your abysmal understanding of the situation.

              “national fat shaming week,”

              Obesity is referred to as an epidemic with good reason. In any case, that is clearly not a problem that females suffer from exclusively. You’re grasping at straws, and they’re crumbling in your hands.

              “the dozens of sites devoted to bashing and misrepresenting feminism?”

              Feminism does not need to be misrepresented to warrant shame. The latest iteration of it only exists where it is not needed, because only in countries where women already have power do they have the voice to demand more of it.

              “Here’s a small example from popular culture: Jackie Gleeson started the trope 60 years ago of the fat dude in a sitcom with an improbably thin, conventionally attractive wife. (If you want to hear it from someone else there’s always “TV Tropes” site )

              No one blinked an eye.”

              You have an awfully skewed perspective of the situation. Fat men with conventionally attractive wives are (among men) always viewed as being obscenely rich, or manipulative, or otherwise clearly appealing in a way that has nothing to do with actual physical attractiveness.

              “Lena Dunham nearly broke the internet with all the rage and vitriol sent her way for daring to appear as an overweight girl with a boyfriend who wasn’t ugly.”

              I’m fairly certain you are exaggerating again here. You should stop doing that. It makes you appear dishonest.

              “It’s just and example of how there are two different standards, one for those with the “default identity” who have written and produced much of our current culture, and one for those outside of it.”

              Each individual person’s identity is their ‘default identity’. If your ‘default identity’ is not the one you see when you look in the mirror, then it is YOU who has an identity problem, not EVERYONE ELSE who has a culture problem. And that’s really not healthy. I strongly recommend seeking psychiatric help.

              “To pipe up about that is to invite condescension at times, and at times, threats to come to your house, rape you and put your head on a stick or whatever, as in Gamergate….”

              Again, you are taking obscene and hyperbolic internet comments as literal threats, and again you are lying about an event that had nothing to do with feminism other than that the journalists whose works were being objected to used feminism as a shield to deflect the objections. Really, you should try looking at that travesty from the perspective of an outsider, if not from someone on ‘the other side’.

              “And the article on which this thread comments is about someones response to a creative work ie book, movie sitcom”

              From what I’ve read about this article, it seemed to me that the author felt that the people who disagreed with her should not have been allowed a voice on the matter, because they somehow held some kind of ‘position of privilege’ based on their gender and skin color rather than the lives they actually lived. I think you really need to think about what that says about the author.

            • Evilin Garnett

              A “default identity” is the identity shared by the majority. It doesn’t have to be talked about. In this case it’s straight white male, but in other cases it’s other things.
              Here’s a good example from a book by an African writer, talking about tribalism…not a white man in sight:

              His uncle is talking about other tribes, saying ” all societies problems would be solved if we just matched up the right tribe with the right endeavors. The x would be good at farming, the y at mechanical things, the z, because they are great forgers and fraudsters, could negotiate deals for us”

              The writer asks his uncle, “and us, what is our tribe good at?”

              The uncle is flabbergasted. Such a thought had never occurred to him. His tribe was in the majority and he never thought of himself as belonging to a tribe. He was just a person.

              That is what “default identity” means. That is what ” a position of privilege” is. And when that position is, perhaps, all you have, or too much of what you have, then the idea of losing it can enrage a person.
              I read the *whole *article and the author in no way says that anyone should not say or think what they think. She is very careful to make that point.
              But since you haven’t read the article in whole, nor the book, I could easily dismiss your opinion as not having enough “facts”. To read one sentence containing the phrase “straight white men, *especially”* (emphasis mine) and then denounce all the surrounding content is not very “fact based.” I won’t do that, but I will say that I’m going to keep my comments on the article from now on. This exchange has taught me not to veer off topic and get into global generalities, so I thank you for that

              respect to you and yours, have a good holiday.

            • Evilin Garnett

              Oh and speaking of “grasping at straws” that kind of aggressive phrasing can’t cover the fact that you did not read either the book or the article under discussion and you are trying to tell me I might want to reconsider my opinion about it. “It” being both the the book I read and the article about, that I also read and you did not. That’s kind of nuts.

            • Christopher Fisher (Dairo512)

              Your opinion is self-contradictory. I see nothing wrong with recommending another go at it. That has nothing to do with the book.

              Regarding the article, I’ll make you a deal:

              YOU reread it (the article), this time WITHOUT the intent of re-affirming your pre-existing biases, and tell me what differences you notice; and in exchange, I’LL subject myself to its vitriol and break it down as I’ve done nearly every post on this conversation so far so I can THOROUGHLY explain what’s wrong with it, if you at that point still feel it’s necessary.

              Also, none of the conversation up to this point had anything to do with the book, so trying to use it as a shield for your ignorance is kind of low.

            • Elenita

              Fuck off, prick.

        • GroovyKitty

          None of those examples are of things that happened to someone “because they are a white male.” They are things that happened in response to a thing they chose to say or do.

          I don’t think it’s out of line to question someone’s ability to do their job when they express that they’re not able to work with a woman. That’s not the women’s problem, it’s theirs. In the year 2015, employers reasonably expect men to be able to do their work around women and vice versa. If someone can’t, then they’re not able to do their job competently and should be let go.

          Similarly, yes, when you wear something that depicts women as sexual objects on national TV, some women might have an opinion about that. They expressed it, he apologized. The world moved on. It’s actually kind of hilarious how offended men get by this. Any woman who is in the public eye gets her appearance nitpicked from head to toe, and whole industries are devoted to criticizing female celebrities’ fashion choices. But when women finally have something to say about what a man is wearing, it’s Armageddon.

          And yes, people tend to get in trouble when they don’t attend a training that’s deemed mandatory by their work or school.

          None of this is connected specifically to these people’s race or gender, it’s a reaction to words and actions that they chose to take.

          • Christopher Fisher (Dairo512)

            “None of those examples are of things that happened to someone “because they are a white male.” They are things that happened in response to a thing they chose to say or do.”

            The same could be said of any woman or minority who faces internet harassment, so your point is invalid.

            “I don’t think it’s out of line to question someone’s ability to do their job when they express that they’re not able to work with a woman.”

            It was a FUCKING JOKE. Do you know what that is? Granted, it was a bad one, but so what? He’s not a comedian. It did NOT merit the backlash he received.

            “Similarly, yes, when you wear something that depicts women as sexual objects on national TV, some women might have an opinion about that. They expressed it, he apologized. The world moved on. It’s actually kind of hilarious how offended men get by this.”

            You DO realize that that shirt was MADE FOR HIM BY A WOMAN, right? It was HER art he was showcasing during the most important moment of his life, and he was harassed for it. Also, I think it’s strange you find this case funny because it happened to a man, but I wonder if you’d be up in arms if something similar happened to a woman?

            “Any woman who is in the public eye gets her appearance nitpicked from head to toe, and whole industries are devoted to criticizing female celebrities’ fashion choices.”

            That’s because WHOLE INDUSTRIES ARE DEVOTED TO PROFITING FROM WOMEN’S FASHION.

            “But when women finally have something to say about what a man is wearing, it’s Armageddon.”

            It wasn’t simply because they ‘had something to say’. It was because they ganged up on him en masse even though they had literally nothing to gain from doing so.

            “And yes, people tend to get in trouble when they don’t attend a training that’s deemed mandatory by their work or school.”

            But it wasn’t deemed mandatory by their school. It was ‘deemed mandatory’ by feminists attending the school who want to spread the notion that all men who don’t believe they’re rapists are rapists, because feminists feed off of fear.

            “None of this is connected specifically to these people’s race or gender, it’s a reaction to words and actions that they chose to take.”

            This is a reiteration of your initial point, which deserves a reference to my response to it.

            • GroovyKitty

              “The same could be said of any woman or minority who faces internet harassment, so your point is invalid”

              That’s not actually true, and doesn’t invalidate my point at all. For one thing, there is a huge difference between criticism and harassment.

              Criticism addresses your words and actions and is a disagreement with a particular action you took or thing you said. A criticism is a direct refutation of the words or actions and addresses those words or actions directly and not any other aspect of the person acting or speaking.

              Harassment is not directly connected to any particular thing you said or did but to who you are. You could have said anything and received the same response from the harasser. Women and minorities who face harassment, internet or otherwise are not fielding specific responses to their words or actions, they are being bombarded with slurs and threats of violence for no other reason than being a woman/minority and daring to comment on a thing that men/non-minorities feel is “theirs.”

              For another thing, these incidents were outliers in these men’s lives, not things they experience every day because they are men. If the “joke” made was not sexist, no one would have commented on what the guy said at all. The same scientist has said many other things in his career without much of a reaction because no one cares, generally, if a male scientist expresses opinions on science. Contrast this with women who write about traditionally male pursuits like sports, for example, who face endless harassment no matter what they say, because there are a vocal minority of men who think that women should not be expressing opinions about these topics period, regardless of what those opinions are. What these women face is constant, an every day occurrence, and it’s not dependent on what they say. They could say ANYTHING and still get bombarded with insults, slurs and threats. The same happens to minorities who express opinions on things, particularly when those opinions make white people feel uncomfortable. It’s not something that stops after one bad joke or unpopular opinion. It’s ALL the time.

              Do I necessarily think those people deserved the extent of what happened to them? No, probably not. But these are not examples of people being oppressed because they’re white males, they’re examples of individuals being punished, perhaps disproportionately, for one thing they said or did and it’s not actually related to their race or gender. This is something that also happens to people who aren’t white or male, by the way. Jon Ronson recently wrote a book about it, called “So You’ve Been Publicly Shamed.” It has more to do with the technology we have available to us and to human psychology (public shaming is something we have always loved) than to some sort of new oppression of white males.

            • Christopher Fisher (Dairo512)

              “That’s not actually true, and doesn’t invalidate my point at all.”

              Yes it is, and yes it does.

              “For one thing, there is a huge difference between criticism and harassment.”

              I’m glad you know this. Unfortunately, you don’t seem to be aware that people who are well-known for anything have tendencies to draw large amounts of both for their race, gender, or what have you, regardless of what those are.

              “Women and minorities who face harassment, internet or otherwise are not fielding specific responses to their words or actions, they are being bombarded with slurs and threats of violence for no other reason than being a woman/minority and daring to comment on a thing that men/non-minorities feel is “theirs.””

              And you think that the same does not also apply to men and “non-minorities” who receive the same? Do you really think that? Or are you just asserting it because the claim supports your narrative?

              “Contrast this with women who write about traditionally male pursuits like sports, for example, who face endless harassment no matter what they say,”

              Name one.

              “because there are a vocal minority of men who think that women should not be expressing opinions about these topics period, regardless of what those opinions are.”

              This applies to EVERY demographic about EVERY topic on the internet. I doubt there are any exceptions. It just means that people are assholes, not that women and minorities are special victims that need to be treated with extra care.

              “What these women face is constant, an every day occurrence, and it’s not dependent on what they say. They could say ANYTHING and still get bombarded with insults, slurs and threats. The same happens to minorities who express opinions on things, particularly when those opinions make white people feel uncomfortable. It’s not something that stops after one bad joke or unpopular opinion. It’s ALL the time.”

              Really? Do you have specific examples of these things happening?

              “But these are not examples of people being oppressed because they’re white males, they’re examples of individuals being punished, perhaps disproportionately, for one thing they said or did and it’s not actually related to their race or gender. This is something that also happens to people who aren’t white or male, by the way.”

              That was ENTIRELY my point. NOBODY is special when it comes to being victimized by jackasses on the internet. It happens to members of EVERY demographic, for ANY or NO reason. That is EQUALITY at its worst, but equality nonetheless. You cannot argue for the protection of any group without explaining why you feel that any others should be exempted from such protection.

            • marvel22

              All you guys are getting pretty ridiculous. You’re arguing just for the sake of argument. What do you actually hope to accomplish? Nobody is saying anything new or interesting, or looking at something from a new point of view, or even thinking before they type out arguments out of anger. Are you actually gonna do something? People should be helpful and caring, giving help and care to those who need it most, not fighting over pity and attention.

        • Catherine Reed

          Dr. Tim Hunt lost his emeritus status with his research institution, not his job, as he was already retired. That you characterize his remarks as minor, tells me you have missed the entire point of the essay by Solnit above(see esp. the bit about mistaking opinions for facts). Had he offered a proper apology, I think this would have blown over, but unfortunately for him, he didn’t do that. And research institutions in need of funding are risk-averse. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think he should have been let go, but that’s
          more down to my experience in research and the knowledge that if every male
          scientist who says things like that about their female colleagues were
          fired, we’d be facing a serious technology gap. (I have a feeling that his upbringing in an English all-boys boarding school probably saddled him with a certain terror of the female half of the species, as well as the inability to recognize that fear as a handicap.)

          As for Dr Matt Taylor of the Philae project, I agree he was treated harshly. But he did apologize. He did what Dr. Hunt didn’t do: he thought about how someone outside his circle, his workplace, would perceive him; how they would be inspired or discouraged by seeing him in that shirt, in that momentous history-making moment, knowing nothing else about him. He broke through his ‘privelobliviousness’, if you will. I have nothing but respect for Dr. Taylor.

          • Christopher Fisher (Dairo512)

            “Dr. Tim Hunt lost his emeritus status with his research institution, not his job, as he was already retired.”

            My mistake. That’s clearly a much lesser loss.

            “That you characterize his remarks as minor, tells me you have missed the entire point of the essay by Solnit above(see esp. the bit about mistaking opinions for facts).”

            His remark WAS minor. Nobody suffered as a result of it other than him. YOUR choice to disagree is YOUR opinion. It is no more a fact than mine is.

            “Had he offered a proper apology, I think this would have blown over, but unfortunately for him, he didn’t do that.”

            He had no obligation to apologize. He made an off-hand comment, and a bunch of self-important bitches got butthurt about it. Nobody has a right to have their feelings protected, and for good reason.

            “Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think he should have been let go, but that’s more down to my experience in research and the knowledge that if every male scientist who says things like that about their female colleagues were fired, we’d be facing a serious technology gap.”

            And why is that, do you suppose? Are there not enough women of merit willing and able to step up to the plate and replace them?

            “He did what Dr. Hunt didn’t do: he thought about how someone outside his circle, his workplace, would perceive him; how they would be inspired or discouraged by seeing him in that shirt, in that momentous history-making moment, knowing nothing else about him.”

            He also thought about that before he put that shirt on. It was the entire point of him wearing it in the first place, rather than some generic suit or labcoat. It was made for him by a lady friend of his and he wanted to show that he appreciated her work and wanted it to receive as much attention as his own. Any rational person can see that.

            “He broke through his ‘privelobliviousness’, if you will. I have nothing but respect for Dr. Taylor.”

            Stop treating that like it’s a real word. It is not and should never be. If you want to know why, try saying it out loud a few times. Also, you do not respect Dr. Taylor. Your bloodlust was sated because he actually shed tears as a result of the backlash he received. And let’s face it, that’s all any feminist really wants:

            A man’s tears.

            • Catherine Reed

              Oh my, so much misplaced aggression. I wasn’t offended by Taylor’s shirt, I recognized the ironic humour with which it was donned. But others were, and I can understand where they were coming from. It’s interesting that you believe women just want to make men cry; first, you must believe there is some sort of shame in a man crying, second, that women would derive some sort of pleasure in that. You are wrong on both counts my friend.

              As for Dr Hunt: you may characterize what he said as offhand, but then, you weren’t one of the people he was talking about, now were you? If he had said that black scientists broke down crying every time he criticized them, would you be defending him then? You will have to direct your queries to University College London for the details of whether he resigned voluntarily or was forced out. (And yes it does make a difference if he was emeritus, because it’s a voluntary position, he’s not being paid a salary, he’s got a full pension. He has not been hurt financially by any of this.)

              You will of course be ranting once again that my opinion is invalid. Because I’m a girl, or because you don’t agree with it, or some amalgam of the two, I don’t know? I don’t really care, keep on ranting, keep on telling me to shut up. All you’re doing is proving Solnit’s thesis.

            • Christopher Fisher (Dairo512)

              “But others were, and I can understand where they were coming from.”

              Can you? Because to me it seemed like they CHOSE to be offended so they could have something to complain about.

              “It’s interesting that you believe women just want to make men cry;”

              “second, that women would derive some sort of pleasure in that.”

              I didn’t say ‘women’. I said FEMINISTS. There is a difference. Real women don’t need feminism because they already KNOW they’re the equals of men.

              “first, you must believe there is some sort of shame in a man crying,”

              Oh wow. You are not wrong here. At least, not an ordinary, every day kind of wrong. You are so fantastically wrong that I have to ignore the rest of your post just to acknowledge this. I think I’m going to wax poetic about it.

              Oh, dear girl, just how wrong are thee? Let me count the ways:

              1. First, let’s get one thing straight: You are wrong and you are female. Neither of these facts is related to the other aside from the fact that both apply to you.

              2. As has been delightfully illustrated in the movie ‘Inside Out’, the very ACT of crying has been developed as a way of announcing that the person doing so NEEDS HELP. Why does this matter? Because the natural reaction of any sympathetic person within sight and sound of someone crying is TO TRY TO MAKE THEM STOP.

              3. The reduced tendency of men to cry is a BIOLOGICAL product, not a SOCIAL one. Testosterone inhibits a wide array of emotional expression, such as laughing, crying, screaming, or exhibiting anything that isn’t anger.

              4. In what social medium is the act of seeking the tears of a person or group of people seen as anything other than vile moral depravity?

              5. Speaking from personal experience (since that’s all any of us lacking actual degrees in psychological studies can rely on), I can say that as a man, the act of crying is not CATHARTIC which is the one aspect of it that is beneficial outside of the whole ‘summoning sympathetic aid’ thing which boys typically don’t benefit from anyway. It has always been a painful, difficult process that is often as bad as, if not worse than the sensation or emotion that inspired it in the first place. (This is, of course, prior to my receiving a minor injury that has rendered the activity virtually impossible)

              “As for Dr Hunt: you may characterize what he said as offhand, but then, you weren’t one of the people he was talking about, now were you?”

              That is not relevant.

              ‘If he had said that black scientists broke down crying every time he criticized them, would you be defending him then?”

              YES. Because believe it or not, as a person who supports the idea of individual liberty, I BELIEVE IN THE BASIC HUMAN RIGHT OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH! Do you NOT? Are you one of those people who believes that a person’s speech should be restricted in order to avoid offending anybody? Because if so, I have some bad news for you: religions still exist where women talking AT ALL offends their members.

            • Romantic Placebo

              “He made an off-hand comment, and a bunch of self-important bitches got
              butthurt about it. Nobody has a right to have their feelings protected,
              and for good reason.”

              Your comment does not sound professional. It sounds whiny and uninterested in actually examining the issue at hand.

            • Christopher Fisher (Dairo512)

              Well 2/3 isn’t bad, there, friend. I am not a professional debater, so I have no motivation to attempt to sound like one. I also believe that the ‘issue’ is fabricated and does not merit examination.

              I am not, however, whining. I am pointing out that too much power has been given to exactly that activity, and that’s where the real problem lies.

        • lakegirl2

          He did not lose his ‘job’. He resigned from an honourary position with a university. The university didn’t even ask for his resignation.

          A man wore a shirt that was offensive on national television when discussing something related to science and publicly-funded. He was made aware of the fact and he, of his own free will, apologized for his lack of judgment.

          Given that many young men at college, when asked, agreed both that rape was wrong but coercing someone to have sex with you was ok, maybe they’re not the best judges of what they need to learn?

          • Christopher Fisher (Dairo512)

            “Given that many young men at college, when asked, agreed both that rape was wrong but coercing someone to have sex with you was ok, maybe they’re not the best judges of what they need to learn?”

            By what means do you think sex should be instigated, if not some form of coercion? Wanting to have sex with a given person is not the default position for a lot of people. Most DO have to be convinced that it’s worth the inherent risks (potential STDs, accidental pregnancies, rape accusations, etc).

            Also, the whole POINT of going to college is CHOOSING what you are going to learn. Forcing people to take courses that YOU want them to take is TOTALITARIANISM.

            • lakegirl2

              “Coercion”? No. You don’t coerce someone into having sex with you. Perhaps you need a course on how to avoid raping people. I think sex should be “instigated” (your word, not the one I’d pick) by people agreeing that they want to have sex. If you have to wear someone down to get your willy in them, maybe you should try working on your personality.

              Love the recourse to ALL CAPS and accusations of totalitarianism. What are you? 12 yrs old? There are a lot of compulsory studies at university and even the electives are only offered with limitations.

            • lakegirl2

              You coerce people into having sex with you? Perhaps you should try having a personality instead.
              Every college has requirements that are compulsory. But hey, an all caps “TOTALITARIANISM” certainly makes the point that you’re a typical, emotional man who cries when he doesn’t get his way.

            • Christopher Fisher (Dairo512)

              “Charm” is a form of coercion, honey. If you think otherwise, you’re either a virgin or a phenomenal sucker. Or both.

              “Every college has requirements that are compulsory.”
              But only core classes and those required for given majors, and those actually make sense because the American education system is shit and needs as much accessory support as possible.

              “But hey, an all caps “TOTALITARIANISM” certainly makes the point that you’re a typical, emotional man who cries when he doesn’t get his way.”

              You…. have never met a man in real life, have you? The reason I capped the word ‘totalitarianism’ is because I don’t know how bold font works on this forum and I wanted to draw your attention to the word. If you don’t know what it means, either ask or look it up. Insulting me over it only makes you look like a stupid child.

            • lakegirl2

              “Charm” is not coercion. You need a dictionary.

              Also, you need to stop replying to me. Or do. Whatever. I’m bored with you. You are stupid and your conversation is poor. Good bye.

        • trxr

          I really wonder when people bring up Tim Hunt in this context. Can you find one woman – the ones making fun of him on Twitter, for example, or the ones expressing variations on PUHLEASE – who actually called for him to resign or be fired? I can answer this one quickly – not one did. They collectively rolled their eyes and ranted and pointed and laughed. That was sufficient.

          UCL – not known for its rabid feminism – fired him because they couldn’t cope with the negative publicity. Yes, he got made fun of publicly. The actual fallout on his career was due to the knee-jerk action (yes, it was knee-jerk, because it helped reinforce the “men are oppressed by ebil PC feminists” meme) of his employer. If they’d simply asked him to take some leave for a month or so (or just keep his mouth shut), the whole thing would have blown over rapidly.

          • Christopher Fisher (Dairo512)

            Do you really expect me to believe you searched the doubtless THOUSANDS of tweets on the subject and didn’t find any calls for him to resign or be fired? Also, even if that were the case, it’d be good that they didn’t. Random assholes on the internet shouldn’t have authority over other people’s careers, no matter how many of them there are or how obnoxious they are about it. I mean, just think about how things would be if this were established as some kind of precedent: everybody would be afraid of saying ANYTHING that could potentially offend some people with internet access out of fear of losing their jobs.

            “UCL – not known for its rabid feminism – fired him because they couldn’t cope with the negative publicity.”

            That is just as bad, if not worse. I wouldn’t be surprised if the actual rabid feminists (the ones raving over his comments) stirred up this shitstorm precisely because they strongly suspected that would be the reaction of the increasingly ‘progressive’ British academia’s leadership to it. But I want you to try looking at it this way:

            Look at all these women who got so insanely hurt over this old man’s words (that weren’t even directed at them) that they chose to react like this. All of them are detrimental to the idea of gender equality, because they paint the image that this should be the expected response of a man hurting a woman’s feelings or saying something she does not like. They paint the image that women are so delicate that absolute care must be taken in every form of a man’s self-expression lest he ACCIDENTALLY offend thousands of them.

            I don’t know about you, but that strikes me as being pretty misogynistic. But that’s the problem with ideologies like feminism. It’s a godless religion, but a religion nonetheless, and the first and most important requirement of any religion is convincing people that they need it, even if they have to exaggerate or outright fabricate the reasons.

            • trxr

              Read the tweets for yourself. Let me qualify – I read many, and none of the ones *I read* called for his head. And so now you’re saying a secret cabal of feminists were trying to get UCL to fire him without coming out and saying so? Give me a frigging break.

              Nearly all of the tweets I saw were making fun of his stupid remarks. I didn’t see any “hurt” tweets either. Most of it was on the lines of “for chrissakes” if it wasn’t a joke.

              You can make up whatever narrative you like, but look at the facts first.

            • Christopher Fisher (Dairo512)

              “Read the tweets for yourself.”

              No. They’re stupid. I scanned them and found one, so I’ll concede that those who actually did call for him to be canned were in a small minority.

              “And so now you’re saying a secret cabal of feminists were trying to get UCL to fire him without coming out and saying so? Give me a frigging break.”

              ‘Secret cabal’? Ha. You should be so glorious. No, what I’m saying is that thousands of women with nothing better to do than sit on the internet all day and look for or fabricate something to complain about have finally managed to affect someone’s career with this. Major organizations are VERY image-oriented and take the personal opinions of people seriously if they’re loud or numerous enough, which SJWs such as feminists happen to be both of. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure that out, which is just as well, because the vast majority of them aren’t.

              “Nearly all of the tweets I saw were making fun of his stupid remarks.”

              No, ‘fun’ is pretty much the opposite of what they were making. It takes a certain kind of person to wear a shirt or tattoo that refers to them as a ‘killjoy’ with pride, and that is the kind of person who seeks the death of any semblance of happiness in others. Which I imagine most internet feminists are.

              “I didn’t see any “hurt” tweets either. Most of it was on the lines of “for chrissakes” if it wasn’t a joke. I didn’t see any “hurt” tweets either. Most of it was on the lines of “for chrissakes” if it wasn’t a joke.”

              That is a hurt response. They were hurt, so they retaliated, en masse, over something as pointless and stupid as an old man’s bad joke, and then they have the gall to turn around and lash out at anyone who dares to call them out on their irrational bullshit as being ‘part of the problem’.

              “You can make up whatever narrative you like, but look at the facts first.”

              I am not making up a narrative. I am explaining the facts to you because you seem to be failing to grasp them.

    • I agree that art is dangerous and there is no clear division between art and life. I also believe women are and historically have been treated badly in both realms. I also believe Lolita is a literary masterpiece. Although it does not tell the story from Lolita’s POV, it also does not shy away from the horror that Humbert the monster inflicts on her. Rather, for most of the novel, it plays that horror it as unspoken subtext – a literary device that has a great deal of power. When, near the end of the story, there is finally a hint that Humbert has indeed inflicted an unspeakable horror on this young person, it is all the more powerful and poignant for not having been spelled out from her point of view. A master writer like Nabokov knows what he’s doing, and to me that is in fact the key to what makes the book great. It lets the reader come to the awful realization that this charming narrator has ruined a girl’s life even as the reader is charmed to identify with the perpetrator of that hideous crime. It makes the consequence of his action all the more devastating for having been largely unspoken. I cry each time I see that scene in Kubrick’s movie where a pathetic, blubbering Humbert ends up on Lolita’s doorstep in Arizona, where she has pieced together a “normal” life for herself, trying to put her horrific past behind her, and he just sobs because she has no need for him anymore. The thing that makes Lolita so much more powerful to me than more straight down the middle stories about victims is precisely because it tells the story from the villain’s POV – and we understand that he really is completely obsessed with and believes he is deeply in love with his victim. Of course she does not return that love, but as a child she is dependent on this man who essentially murdered her mother and kidnapped her. And so the swirling vortex of human love, obsession, dependence, and cruelty are explored deeply and not in the usual banal way: a neat little morality play with simple and clear cut villains and victims. That’s my two cents anyway.

      • powelstock

        Great post. At the same time, one of Nabokov’s observations is about the awful consequences of failing to acknowledge the boundary between art and life. “Lolita” is almost entirely a creation of Humbert’s mind–only loosely based on the “real” Dolores Haze (“real” in quotes because it is, after all, a work of fiction.) A textbook case of the madonna-whore complex. In many of his novels, Nabokov shows what happens when narcissistic solipsism becomes the basis for action in the world of real human beings.

        • Excellent point. When I said there is no clear division between art and life I did not mean to imply that literally we can’t define art as being distinct from life. I probably could’ve written it more clearly but what I meant was art definitely impacts life and vice versa. Essentially I was just agreeing with one of the primary assertions of the author of this essay.

          • powelstock

            Agreed. Art (imagination, fantasy) and life *tend* to get confused–and that’s a problem! For Nabokov, I think, it makes for bad life–and bad art!

    • Stanley

      “These guys were apparently so upset and so convinced that the existence of my opinions and voice menaced others’ rights.” But isn’t that your position on the existence of their opinions? Unless I’m missing something, the comments these guys wrote on your piece (at least the ones you quoted) seem to me to fit very comfortably within the realm of spirited debate over a work of literature. I mean, were they threatening or insulting? I’m willing to concede that I may not know the rest of the story if there’s more you’re leaving out. It sounds like you are also very upset that someone who is white and male dared to have an opinion about a work of art that’s different from yours. Perhaps a “No boys allowed” rule on your comment section would make you more comfortable? I’m glad to hear that their thoughts on a book didn’t “injure” you. I think the point of The Coddling of the American Mind is that this idea that another person’s opinion can literally injure you is a relatively common one in authoritarian societies and it’s disconcerting to see so many young people buy into it.

      • Dustin Heron

        There’s certainly a fine line, and its impossible to really extrapolate anything substantive about discourse from internet comments
        🙂

    • Pingback: Vol. 1 Brooklyn | Afternoon Bites: Rebecca Solnit, Adapting “The Magicians,” Laina Dawes on 2015, Sleater-Kinney, and More()

    • Jason Olson

      I found this extremely powerful and moving. Thank you for writing it. I’ll be back to read it several more times.

    • Pingback: Men Explain Lolita to Me | 25Years2LifeByBMD()

    • Pingback: Friday Link Encyclopedia | Clarissa's Blog()

    • Pingback: Τι διαβάσαμε την εβδομάδα που πέρασε (12-18/12) | Καμένα Σουτιέν()

    • Amy Luna Manderino

      I just love intelligent, witty, brave, strong people. Just think, if this writer didn’t have so many unconsciously arrogant and entitled bullies challenging her, we’d never have had the immense pleasure of reading her triumphant rebuttal. Well done. Myself, I’ve coined a phrase for these mansplainers…”You’re so dumb, you think I’m dumb.”

      • Jen K.

        The term ‘mansplaining’ is a derogatory reference aimed at disarming the authenticity and subjectivity of the male speaker, and you are therefore stooping to the same level as men who deride women who that are ‘bitching.’

        • The term “mansplaining” is used when either 1) men explain uniquely female experiences within the kyriarchy to women as though women have no knowledge or frame of reference for that experience, or 2) men explain to women who are *experts in a particular topic* how that topic works, whether or not that particular man has any particular topic. The difference between “mansplaining” and “bitching” is that a mansplainer is using his privilege and power to further oppress a woman, and that the word “bitching” is used by a person with power and privilege to continue to oppress someone with less.

          There. Fixed it for you.

          • AL

            I would add that “mansplaining” has a pretty narrow definition, as you explained above, and was created, on purpose, to ask for reflection of this specific phenomenon. Sure, it may be used in slightly different ways, but generally comes down to: “men who are not in full understanding of what a woman is actually saying, and are not taking the time to learn, and yet persist in telling the woman how she is clearly wrong and/or unintelligent.”

            Whereas “bitching” is used by men, often in a quick, reflexive way, to describe any concern a woman has, or anything a woman says they don’t like. Often used specifically to belittle a woman’s emotions or perceptions of her own life.

    • Pingback: On Gender and Sexuality | Pearltrees()

    • Austin Mabry

      Fancy that, a coddled and ignorantly upset woman complaining, insisting that men who disagree with her are coddled and ignorantly upset and wrong.

      Sweet, sweet, delicious irony… 😉

    • Amy Luna Manderino

      Thank you, Austin Mabry, for so brilliantly demonstrating the “You’re so dumb, you think I’m dumb,” axiom, lol. I love when the manosphere so unintentionally confirms the need for the article they are vilifying with circular logic.

      • Jen K.

        Thank you, Amy Luna Manderino, for so brilliantly demonstrating the smug arrogance and misogynistic narrow minded broken-victim-become-aggressor mindset that has inspired this young lady to speak out against outdated first and second wave feminism to try and give birth to something new and more effective.

    • Susan-Jane Harrison

      So enjoyed this entire article. I posted the Scott Adams quote on my FB page and received this from a male friend (who is mixed race, which is relevant in terms of your article, but thank God for these allies as it would be an even harder world without them):

      “Put him in a male only environment and then ask him if he thinks that access to sex should not be controlled by both parties to be engaged in the proposed sex act.

      I learned an important lesson when I was a 15 year old boy. I inadvertently was dropped off in Greenwich Village (this is 1981 or 82 and was therefore pre-HIV) early in the day of the Pride Parade. There were all manner of grown men looking at me like I was a piece of meat and were offended when I didn’t want to talk to them. After 30 minutes of this, it hit me that that was how women face the world every day of their lives after they hit puberty. Damn that is depressing. We need to do better.”

      I would also add that unfortunately, it can also happen before they hit puberty…

    • Nathan Roser

      As a white man, I think you’re right for the most part, but I disagree with one operative premise throughout. T.S. Eliot says somewhere that the point of a good book is not to project yourself into the main character, and not to imagine what it is like to be a character whose story is happening to you, instead of to, say, Huck Finn. Rather, the point of a really good, really classic novel is that its author teaches you that this is the perspective from another person’s point of view, whether it is a character like Raskolnikov, or Elizabeth Bennet, or Stephen Dedalus. And if we can make the shift to see that Raskolnikov, or Elizabeth Bennet, or Stephen Dedalus has interesting views on his own that make them who they are, we then learn the temerity and humility to do things like grant Doesteyevsky or Jane Austen or James Joyce or Rebecca Solnit the ability to speak and represent their own points of view for themselves, because they all have very nice points of view on their own, as if our stupidity meant that we weren’t inclined to grant them their own personhood in the first place. So when we read, what we learn is what Eliot called “the other side of view,” and it is the process of reading widely about anything and everything that ensures that we come to learn not to be dominated by any particular author’s personality. I want to make sure that I don’t list books like “Moby-Dick” or certain lesser works of Shakespeare in this list, because there is a lot to be said about the romanticist thesis that revolves around gasping in awe at the author’s personality. If a book is really and only a point of view, artfully expressed by someone else, then we need to know as many someone else’s as we can. Which, I think, if expressed humanely, undercuts the problem of patriarchy and men foisting their readings on another, whether it is a woman, or merely someone who disagrees with them, as clearly and cleanly as possible.

      • AL

        I agree that the ability to see other points of view is incredibly, fundamentally important. I think the author does too.

        However, I’m not sure you’re paying enough attention to what she was getting at in terms of the personal context for reading, when you’re a woman, say, and you’ve been raised in the world of the men, with men’s voices and opinions and faces and stories and belief systems and buildings and businesses everywhere you turn. For more on how the context of being a woman feels and affects this conversation, check out my comment to slartybartfastiq above.

        But I’ll just pick out one portion of the above comment, specifically about what I think she was saying about Lolita.

        “All she said was that she identified with the girl. And she implied – but didn’t even say – that perhaps there are some books, that even if you “get” them on 5 different levels, the level of the personal is just, well, too personal. Given, as she said, the context in which these books are written and read.

        That shows she isn’t looking deeply enough? Because she dares to put forth a voice that questions the dominant narrative that “all books in the canon are worth reading, for everyone, and they will do you no harm”?”

        I guess my point is: I largely agree with you. We all need to read far and wide. Other viewpoints are great and necessary. But, and I feel I can personally attest to this – if you only take in others viewpoints, if you’re a curious person who searches far and wide for “what the other thinks” – you may lose a sense of yourself and your own power. Especially if you are a women. Especially if you have already read 100s of books, and seen 100s of movies, and so on, that offer you a wide diversity of “mens point of view.” Especially if these books and images and movies more often than not cast people like you in a very negative light. I don’t think she’s telling anyone NOT to read Lolita. I think she’s telling them, you know what? If you read it, or other damaging depictions of women, just be aware that these things do affect us. Put on your “I’m awesome” armor today, or at least counter-act the “lolita effect” by reading something by a powerful woman next. And if you don’t feel like your daily dose of “Lolita” today (in whatever form that comes today)? That’s ok too.

    • slartybartfastiq

      If opinions are not censorship, then when “liberal men” walk up to you and tell you things you don’t want to hear, why do you feel censored? You have been allowed to speak, they have been allowed to rebut. You disagree and consensus cannot be found. Nod politely and walk away like the rest of academia does when this situation arises, or argue long into the night and make a friend.

      I agree with you that identifying with Nabokov’s characters is part of the experience, but if you look at Lolita and see nothing but a girl getting raped by an older man, then you haven’t looked very deeply at all.

      And if you identify only with the girl, and never with the man, then you haven’t looked very deeply into yourself, either.

      If Nabokov “had a point” I suspect it had something to do with the monsters that ride in all of our hearts. The man and the girl are both characterized by lust, by fear, and by a mask they have to wear, all the time, to give society (and each other) the impression they are something they are not.

      These are things everyone can relate to. Everywhere.

      Nabokov simply puts those things in a framework that makes us grapple with their extremes.

      I think that Lolita is one of those novels that puts a person within reach of their demons.

      What they do when they get in range is entirely up to them.

      • AL

        I am not going to fully address the part of your comment that begins with “I agree with you that identifying with Nabokov’s characters…” because, plainly, you appear to be misunderstanding her article. She never said she didn’t appreciate the book. She never said she only identified with the girl. Further, I would be willing to bet she’s looked more deeply into this book than probably most people commenting on this site, given that this is what she does for a living, and she had the nerve to go on a limb and write about it.

        All she said was that she identified with the girl. And she implied – but didn’t even say – that perhaps there are some books, that even if you “get” them on 5 different levels, the level of the personal is just, well, too personal. Given, as she said, the context in which these books are written and read.

        That shows she isn’t looking deeply enough? Because she dares to put forth a voice that questions the dominant narrative that “all books in the canon are worth reading, for everyone, and they will do you no harm”?

        But your first point, about “why can’t you just walk away?” seems to be particularly interesting to me. My guess is the author has made many friends in the way you describe, through talking and coming to a better understanding. Why do you assume that she does not know how to handle personal disagreement?

        Apparently you are not understanding much of what she tried to explore in her essay, and which other writers of color and of the female persuasion are constantly shouting into the wind. It’s not a friendly disagreement when one member controls the airwaves, the voting booth, the boardrooms, the “air we breathe” so to speak…and still, still! persists in insisting to the generally-not-in-charge member that they are wrong, that they don’t understand, that they are hysterical or too sensitive. How can it possibly be?

        It starts to feel like a funhouse of crazy mirrors. Watch this movie where the only speaking female has jugs the size of her head and purely exists for the male lead’s pleasure! Read this book that depicts rape! Vote for this politician that wants to outlaw your ability to find and afford birth control or who will prohibit discussions of how to have non-rapey sex in schools! Take a break with this tv show where there are 3 white male leads and only 1 female lead (who’s actually just the romantic interest), because you can’t have too many women or people of color, because then it would be “womens” or “minority” show! Now read this book about a male serial killer who kills his dates (and then go see the movie about it)!

        You grow up swimming in the water of the male perspective, and being told from every corner what you are and what you aren’t, and you pick up a few things:
        You aren’t smart.
        You aren’t materially successful.
        You aren’t funny.
        You aren’t going to make it in business, or politics, or much of “the real world.”
        You do not have a right to question or fight back.
        You should be happy and feel lucky a man, any man, no matter how boring or unintelligent or unattractive or different than you, wants your sex.

        And so on.

        And then, when fighting through and giving a shot anyway, because f-that, f-victimhood, you get blowback, almost entirely from males, almost entirely from white males, who may not be aware of the water because it is THEIR WATER. This water lifts them up. When they knock us and our views down It’s not censorship but in a way it’s worse because censored things at least have a dirty sort of exciting appeal. No, this is the man swimming along, happy in his position at the surface, closer to the sun, unaware that with his arguments and his language he is pushing the woman further down. It’s hard to breathe already. Why do you have to push us further down. The world’s a big place. There’s room at the surface for us both.

        Maybe it would be wiser to just walk away. Ignore the ignorance. Ignore the rape or death threats, as she mentioned briefly, that do happen and not infrequently.

        Maybe women are too hopeful in believing communication can happen. Too hopeful in believing men can see it if they try. Personally, I don’t think so. I’m still pretty hopeful myself, but that’s because I’ve seen it in men I know, as they change and grow. I’ve seen it in myself, as I’ve taken the time to learn about people from different backgrounds than myself.

      • soccerteesandplaydoh

        1. Opinions draw much closer to censorship when there is institutional and societal power behind them. That’s the difference between censorship and critique.

        2. No one is saying there is nothing in the book except rape. The complaint is that the rape is overlooked or minimized and that Lolita is not the character with whom you are “supposed to” identify.

        3. Jesus, you really think Lolita feels lust? That’s appalling.

        • slartybartfastiq

          Yes, sixteen year old girls feel lust. Or… Wait… did you not finish the book?

        • slartybartfastiq

          Actually upon reflection, you may actually not be trolling and legitimately not have read to the end of the book, or even past the first half. Perhaps you read the cliff’s notes. Who knows. But regardless, it means I shouldn’t just leave a flippant reply.

          In the second half of the novel, Lolita becomes interested in boys. Nabokov’s “protagonist” is aware of this and perceives it as a threat. So yes, Lolita experiences lust, and the protagonist’s perception that that lust is an impurity (actually this is a very interesting moment to point out that in a perfect world, women would be allowed to feel this way, but in our current world, a woman feeling lustful is “a whore” even though we feel the same in a man is “only natural” or an indication of “virility”) – and an inconvenient and/or dangerous impurity at that, drives the climax and denoument of the novel.

          So to say that Lolita does not experience lust during the novel is to admit you have not finished reading it.

          • soccerteesandplaydoh

            Ignoring your snotty tone, I’ll just remind you of the following.

            We never know WHAT Lolita feels. Every moment of the novel is filtered through HH’s own (obviously twisted and false) perceptions and wishful thinking. His assertion that she feels lust for other boys is as suspect as any of the other things he says about her.

            The fact that you would even accept his declarations about any of her feelings at face value indicates only that Nabokov (as HH) has successfully seduced and fooled another reader into his magnetic perversion.

            • slartybartfastiq

              It’s true that we receive information only through HH.

              However, it’s also true that it would be unreasonable to expect any human being older than the age of adolescence to never have experienced lust. Nabokov has the unenviable job of conveying information to the reader through the unreliable narrator.

              But yes, yes, we must take the author’s word on what his character feels.

              And the author’s word appears to be that when Lolita comes through adolescence, she (*gasp*) gets interested in boys her own age.

            • soccerteesandplaydoh

              “But yes, yes, we must take the author’s word on what his characters feel”

              No, no, we mustn’t take the narrator’s (NOT the author’s) word. That’s the ENTIRE POINT OF THE WHOLE NOVEL that just appears to have whizzed over your head.

            • slartybartfastiq

              Finally. That took forever.

              “Nabokov (as HH)”

              ^you must choose, here. Your undercurrent is that you think Nabokov is a perverted old man, and that HH is merely Nabokov spouting shit.

              Either Nabokov is separate from HH or he is not. If he is, then according to you, the narrator and the protagonist are the same, so we have no choice but to accept information from HH because he is, in fact, the author and thus, the god of (and according to you, in) the machine.

              If he is not, then you must assent that Nabokov can convey information through his unreliable protagonist, relying on what we know to be true about the world, trusting in the reader to filter the information they are receiving.

              At which point, it becomes reasonable for a reader to assume that a post-adolescent girl is capable of experiencing lust, and that the mad ravings of the protagonist relate to a real “problem” he’s having where Lolita is becoming interested in boys.

              The separation the reader makes here is not “but post-adolescent girls are pure and never have impure thoughts! How dare HH imply otherwise!” because that would… well, that would be unbelievably stupid and naive. Also sick and twisted.

              Actually, that would be, ironically, you falling into HH’s view of the world. What turns HH on is (according to him) innocence. Purity. HH does not *want* lust to be in Lolita. Lust in Lolita is nails on the chalkboard of his worldview.

              The separation the reader makes here is, instead “HH is ranting about Lolita going around behind his back. She’s an adolescent. The teachers are, according to him, telling him things like ‘we understand your concern, but it’s natural for girls to be interested in boys.’ She must be seeing other boys, and keeping it from HH to the extent possible, because she is afraid of what he might do to them, or to her.”

              It is wholly reasonable for the reader to assume that Lolita has become interested in boys her own age at this point.

            • soccerteesandplaydoh

              Jesus. You began your argument by saying Lo is “characterized” by lust, (along with fear (yeah, of HH!) and some kind of mask) and now you’ve backed off to saying “well, Lo is eventually an adolescent girl, after all, and so theoretically she must feel lust at some time for some person.” No kidding. But that’s a far far cry from being “characterized” by lust, or even for the reader to be able say she definitely experiences it. The fact is we know NOTHING about Lo’s interior world. And we also know for certain that HH is an expert and prolific liar.

              You can’t even say with and certainty that Lo shares ANY of HH’s feelings — fear, and the need to wear a mask — (why wouldn’t she want them to be discovered, if not out of guilt and fear? She keeps their secret because, as HH says, “You see, she had absolutely nowhere else to go.” WE SIMPLY DONT KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT HER. In fact, Lo isn’t really a character in the sense of having her own psychology at all. Every moment we spend with her is run through HH’s corroded “filter,” as you say, and it is only through our own experience of the real world (I.e. 12 year olds are not equal romantic partners to adults) that we know that this is not a “love story”as HH would have it, but a story of exploitation.

              And you are wrong about HH’s feelings about lust in Lolita. He makes several references to the pleasure he imagines they share, and he is clearly turned on by the erotic stories of her with other campers, but we have only HIS WORD that those stories are even true, and remember also, HH is on trial for his life and so he has EVERY reason to lie.

              I was never making the argument that Lo is some sort of weird asexual being, or even that she is a perfect, sinless victim of HH. You seem weirdly determined to prove she experiences lust. You simply can’t.

            • slartybartfastiq

              I would also like to remind you, at this point, that this chain is a response to:

              “3. Jesus, you really think Lolita feels lust? That’s appalling.”

              ^this is the point you are trying to maintain, not whether HH is a reliable narrator.

            • soccerteesandplaydoh

              She probably does eventually feel lust sure, because she is a human person, but it is a plane so far removed both in time and distance from HH that it’s immaterial to the story. She certainly does not feel it for HH.

            • slartybartfastiq

              No. Certainly not for HH.

              The fact that it is not for HH, in fact, is precisely why it is relevant to the story.

              You yourself said that we cannot get all our information through HH, but even HH is aware of this awakening. He acts according to that awareness, tightening his control of her life to a degree that, ultimately, helps “give him away” (though of course, ultimately, it is Lolita’s own initiative, we can infer, that leads to the denoument).

              I would not say that her encroaching adulthood, which was explicitly added to the novel in broad sweeps wherever Nabokov could find an opportunity to leak it through HH, is irrelevant to the story, no.

              *edit*
              certain postings do not appear here, for some reason, I can only conclude that we are limited to one reply at a time. Fair enough.

              This means though that the question of whether you believe this:

              “that Nabokov (as HH) has successfully seduced and fooled another reader into his magnetic perversion.”

              or this:

              “No, no, we mustn’t take the narrator’s (NOT the author’s) word. That’s the ENTIRE POINT OF THE WHOLE NOVEL”

              (as they appear to contradict) has not yet been asked.

            • soccerteesandplaydoh

              HH THINKS he is aware of her sexual awakening. He might also be lying about that.

              “This means though that the question of whether you believe this:
              “that Nabokov (as HH) has successfully seduced and fooled another reader into his magnetic perversion.”

              In this case “another reader” = Slartibartfast.

              “No, no, we mustn’t take the narrator’s (NOT the author’s) word. That’s the ENTIRE POINT OF THEWHOLE NOVEL”

              Me reminding you Slartybartyfast, that you that HH and Nabokov are not the same person.

              Nabokov is doing a double fooling here, if it needs further explanation. A) As the narrator, he is lying or distorting the story of L. and himself to the reader and the courtroom.
              B) As the author, he is also using his beautiful language to seduce the reader into being swept along into the feelings of romantic “love” without pausing either to consider reality or whether the narrator is a reliable one.

            • slartybartfastiq

              You set up a fragment of my argument as a straw man, knocked it over furiously (ad hominem, no less, with implications that to believe such a thing I must be a sick and twisted person), and then took offense when I defended it with examples.

              That is what happened here.

              So in the name of giving up on this mess, I shall take my leave of you, allowing whatever you say next to be the last word.

            • soccerteesandplaydoh

              Bye Felicia.

      • “If opinions are not censorship, then when “liberal men” walk up to you and tell you things you don’t want to hear, why do you feel censored?”

        Not once did she say she felt ‘censored’ by the comments she received. I can’t wait to read Solnit’s essay about men responding to arguments she never, ever made, except in their heads.

        • AL

          abso-f-ing-lutely. me too.

          to me, this is what this article already was trying to be. yet clearly, so many more misunderstandings.

          RS: “I am using my experience reading Lolita and Esquire’s list of books to share some thoughts about the personal nature and impact of art, and to put forth the not-very-controversial stance that women, and people in general, are allowed to feel things and make conscious decisions about the art they consume.”

          Angry commenters: “You clearly don’t understand Lolita. Here, I’ll explain it to you!” “You’re being bigoted towards men.”

    • AL

      Wow. Just, wow.

      “Wonder if this is perhaps indicative of the problem with this article…”

      What problem? You’re assuming there’s a problem and we all agree with you. I thought this article was freaking brilliant. Besides, Solnit was talking about her experiences being challenged and advised, time and time again, by, generally, men of the white persuasion. She notices a pattern. She tries to make sense of this pattern. Surely she has a right to describe her experiences and make meaning out of them?

      “It is also true, though, that women tend to see themselves as victims more commonly and tend to expect special treatment more than men do, for related reasons to do with biology and cultural conditioning.”

      You are clearly just trolling, right?

      I have no more time for you, sir. Just…try. To listen. Please.

    • city zen

      I’m a liberal man and I agree with you 100000%. Sometimes I just cannot take the stupid out there. Like, do these dudes even THINK for ONE second about what they are about to say? How have they not had the women in their lives call them out and tell them what’s up?

      Keep up the great work. Peace,

    • Ceddy Bear

      I’m lost. Is Rebecca saying that any and all men who show up to disagree with her opinion are wrong because they’re men? If so, isn’t that in and of itself an abuse of the very valid idea of mansplaining: lolita may well be problematically patriarchal but we’re surely not going to read it as lionising male sexuality, simply because it’s written by a man? I always saw it as a book about certain hideous deluding factors of the patriarchy narrative, but am I wrong because my opinion differs from Rebecca, and in attempting to express that to her I am apparently convinced she is deluded?

      By that standard we’re not giving men much room to change or develop new ideas outside of their patriarchal conditioning, they must simply conform unwittingly or be mocked. Sure, it’s not exactly discrimination in any meaningful sense, and any man who does more than raise an eyebrow is almost certainly overreacting as a result of his privilege. But it seems unhelpfully broad to declare all opposition from straight white cis het men as wrong because it thinks it’s objectively right, and then use that as a platform to declare your own opinions to be correct, which this article does in fact (which can coincide with opinion as we all know) seem to state.

      If I’ve misread anything by all means correct me, I promise I shan’t dismiss you.

      • “I’m lost. Is Rebecca saying that any and all men who show up to disagree with her opinion are wrong because they’re men?”

        No, she is not, and only the most deliberate of misreadings would think so.

        • Ceddy Bear

          The most deliberate? On what grounds would that be your conclusion? You wouldn’t be assuming that people who disagree with you must be deluded or deliberately misinterpreting you, by any chance? Cause that would be a pretty objective contradiction.

          For the record, and for what it’s worth to you, I’m well on board with mansplaining as a concept, and I try to be wary of it in myself. But in this article Rebecca seems to be presenting people simply disagreeing with her as uniquely convinced that they are objectively correct and she objectively wrong, and her quoted examples, as far as I can see, fail to represent this very real issue.

          At one point she’s actively condescending of someone’s ideas, seemingly because she interprets that persons attempt to communicate with her as condescending, and as far as I can tell her only grounds for this is that the person suggested an idea that she herself had already considered. Was that person simply to assume that she’d already considered every feasible idea and perspective before they posted? If so, why is rebecca herself not obliged to do the same, and attempt to triple guess the responses to her articles in long form detail? Surely she should be equally obliged to know what people are going to say, if she is so beyond reproach as to be impervious to all responses in disagreement?

          Of course you don’t have to address these concerns if you don’t want to, but I’d appreciate if you didn’t try and paint an untrue assessment of me on the basis that I’m deliberately pretending to misunderstand to discredit the article. I’m of the opinion that we should be wary of not subjecting feminist discourse to semantic abuse, lest our terminology become uselessly broad, and I worry that this article strays into that territory. If you recognise some flaw in my assessment, please point it out, as I said I want to think better of it because Rebecca is ace.

          • it’s the “any and all” part I’m referring to, and no, I’m not interested in having a discussion with you, because you are not arguing in good faith.

            • King

              You wrote: “I’m not interested in having a discussion with you, because you are not arguing in good faith.”

              Respectfully, that seems awfully convenient on your part.

              Oppressed groups often wear a mantle of righteousness, and while that mantle is hard-earned, it is not a bulletproof cloak. I too got a smug sense of rhetorical superiority from the author. Certainly, a skilled writer such as she must recognize that the only reason to do that is to not-so-subtly preemptively dismiss objections. That is not how educated discourse takes place.

              [You may choose to read my post of 2 or so hours ago for my expanded thoughts on the matter. It’s on here somewhere…]

            • Ceddy Bear

              I’m not? I’m sorry you feel that way.

              But I guess that’s a useful thing for you to stand by because it’s like declaring you’ve won without having to come up with a response of any substance, a dismissive pejorative like any other, used to condense and simplify and therefore ignore. To accuse somebody of lacking good faith without providing the slightest evidence is itself not acting in good faith it seems to me, another term made meaningless by broad use for personal defence.

              I’m of course aware that Rebecca is not actively against dialogue with “any and all” straight white men, nor under the concsious belief that they are wrong by dint of their gender. My point was concerning this article, where she cites multiple examples of comments she deems to be mansplaining, and these run a fairly broad gamut, broad enough to throw into question the usefulness of her perception of what mansplaining is. If all of this is mansplaining then at what point does a man responding with his views cease to be mansplaining? When he agrees, or at some other nebulous point that we are not to know?

              So the term becomes too broad in the context of the article to seem useful, at which point, why write the article? Irrespective of her intentions she has conveyed a problematic message here, and one that we should be critiquing. The fact that you perceive my doing so as disingenuous and attempt to use that dismiss me (for what purpose I cannot guess and even as you continue to reply to remind me I am wrong) speaks unfortunate volumes about an unwillingness to question.

              Rebeccas’ argument is sound on its own, and her experiences are I know common for women and people of colour and the lgbtq communities; and that should of course be the focus. But the examples she uses suggest otherwise, and to pretend there’s no problem in that seems to me to stray into a weird anti-intellectual place of the kind that anti-feminists believe all of feminism occupies. Where we believe blindly and where criticism is always perceived as an attack.

            • Nullifidian

              Anyone who disagrees with Maureen O’Danu is someone she believes isn’t “arguing in good faith”, because there’s no possibility of taking any side on a subject other than that which she has adopted. Good faith disagreement implies that there’s a possibility that she can be wrong on some point, and that simply cannot be. So don’t let it bother you.

    • Lucia Lola

      ” You look a 100% better when I can’t see you.”

      I love this article and I love the article that preceded and inspired it. So glad to have been sent in your direction.

    • Pingback: Rebecca Solnit Explains Lolita to Men | Jane Eaton Hamilton()

    • AL

      Again, Alex? “women take this much more personally than other groups” Where do you come up with this stuff?
      What do you think men are doing when they decide they don’t like/hate feminism based on the versions of feminism they are seeing, and taking personally? Or white people when they feel attacked by a person of color asserting they are wrong?
      Try again. And next time, see if you can leave this whole “it is a truth that women do x” narrative out of it. Just, try.

    • Thank you for this wonderful illustration of everything that is wrong in English departments in the current year. You have nothing substantive to say about this work, so you channel the conversation into a chance for you to deliver a condescending lecture focused on your trendy political beliefs, and ultimately (but oh, so predictably) it devolves further into a disquisition on your personal feelings. All of which is as pretentious as it is shallow and self-indulgent.

      You don’t understand Nabokov, and I doubt that you’re even capable of it.

      • HessianDud

        Exhibit A

    • Miles Morse

      Hi, I’m a man, and I just want to say that I loved this article. It was shared on social media between two women I know and I found it incredibly well written, insightful; and I learned something.

    • Pingback: Learning to Love Women | The Span of My Hips()

    • Dwayne J. Stephenson

      I’d be totally willing to accept that I am not in the best position to understand women’s experiences, if women were totally willing to accept that they are not in the best position to understand men’s experiences. But it’s clear that no such deal is on the table here. This article goes at some length to explain what’s wrong with how men think, feel, and talk about the world. Look, I don’t really care. But there’s no intellectual honesty is these BS arguments that essentially deny certain kinds of people the right to their own intellectual agency under the guise of defending the intellectual agency of other kinds of people. Of course men do it too. But this is a crystal clear example of the exact same crime you’re accusing “men” of. The difference is that you actually think that you’re performing some kind of important service to humanity by explaining why dudes are spoiled idiots who aren’t entitled to their own literary opinions, whereas they are being obstacles to progress when they explain why you aren’t entitled to yours. And if there’s a thing that is of absolutely no value to society whatsoever, it’s who wins the argument about what Lolita means.

      • AL

        Part 2: (the program was being weird, probably cause this comment is so long, sorry.)

        But even without knowing exactly what irked you, I can say this:

        This essay is not about the right way to interpret Lolita. I think she pretty much said there is no one way to read Lolita.

        It is, however, a personal essay, about her personal experience with the following:

        1) growing up as a women in a man’s world (may sound like a cliche, but it’s very real)
        2) reading many books, like Lolita, that are written by men, considered classics/part of the canon, and also include brutal or one-dimensional treatment of women
        3) finding herself having deep emotional, sometimes painful reactions while reading some of this literature, particular the parts about the treatment of women
        4) recognizing that art does impact her, and others, for good and for ill
        5) recognizing that most women grow up, out of necessity, reading many books and engaging with other media/situations that force them to empathize with the male character’s experience, but most men are not asked to do the same, or to the same extent
        6) being exasperated that still, after some amount of progress towards equality we’ve been trying for, a prominent list of must-read books for men only includes 1 written by a women – which again reminds her of #5;
        7) writing a humorous piece that explores the idea that while men could do with more books that expand their horizons and force them to empathize with the other, perhaps women could be allowed to choose fewer, from time to time. a) because, as mentioned, women already have read and seen and listened to 100s, maybe 1000s of books, movies, music, etc, that share the male perspective. and b) because, as mentioned, art matters, and she is concerned that if you consume enough negative messages about yourself, as a woman, you can begin to see the world through this filter or view yourself this way.
        8) believing women should have the right to their feelings and their interpretations of books, and to identify with female characters.

        9) suggesting, again, that given this right to self-determination with literature, maybe not everything in the canon must be read – by anyone, but especially by women, as so many of these books do feature male-written, negative female representation. not suggesting that women avoid these books, or that they censor these books, or that women tell men how to interpret these books. merely making the serious, but also tongue in cheek, suggestion that we be allowed to feel what we feel. that even if you “get” a book like Lolita on several different intellectual levels you might still be personally affected by it in a way that overall does not help you in your life, and that it should be ok to have that reaction and make that choice. as another commenter said, be able to put the book down and pick up something else.

        10) learning along the way, through interactions with men, that some men do not appear to realize that we are living in, largely, what is still man’s world, that they get to see diverse representations of themselves reflected back at them from every corner unlike the narrow stereotypes women and minorities get, that they are still overwhelmingly the gatekeepers and power brokers in almost every sector of society, that their voices still talk the loudest and the longest, that they do not have to suffer consequences like rape or death threats when they speak up, as just one example of their freedom that women, still, do not have.

        11) receiving comments and criticism from male readers again and again that circle back to #10, combined with an often unintentionally but still frustratingly condescending tone that implies that she, Rebecca, “doesn’t get it” when in reality, they are the ones who are misinterpreting, or not listening to, her perspective.

        I don’t, in any of this, see Rebecca telling men how they should think or feel, or how they should interpret Lolita or any other book.

        I do guess she wishes men who choose to read her work would read it with curiosity and humility, to see what they can gain and learn and experience, rather than tear down or correct. I think she’s not alone in this. I think probably most nonfiction writers who write about deeply personal matters feel this way. Heck, I think most writers, even most people feel this way. We all want to be understood. And it’s easier to then turn around and take criticism, or express interest in understanding the other, when someone, in this case a reader, has extended the olive branch of humility and willingness-to-understand to you.

    • Cathy Creswell

      Try actually living with someone who sees you as cannon fodder for his success. What he is doing is so important and holy that you should die to make him a martyr. If it didn’t happen to me I’d laugh. But it’s no joke. One can either shrink into oneself and let it happen or get mad as hell and revolt. Lets just say there was a civil war.

      • adrienne

        Good for you, sister. My thoughts are with you.

    • Pingback: 1 – Men Explain Lolita to Me()

    • adrienne

      This is a study that’s been repeated in several populations: When you ask men if they’ve ever committed rape, 3-5% of them will answer “yes” without even considering it, as long as – this is crucial – you don’t use the WORD “rape”. If you ask men, “Have you had sex with a woman after she told you No or pushed you off?” “Have you had sex with a woman who was too drunk to speak coherently?” etc. – THREE TO FIVE PERCENT OF MEN will say yes. Statistically speaking, that means if you’re in a room with 35 dudes, AT LEAST one of them is probably a rapist.

    • Pingback: Link love eat it up yum | Grumpy Rumblings (of the formerly untenured)()

    • soccerteesandplaydoh

      I think that sound you just heard was the sarcasm of Tad’s point flying way over your head.

    • Pingback: Weekend Reading | {t w o n i n e t h r e e}()

    • soccerteesandplaydoh

      Wanted to add this.

      Lolita is a very erotic, romantic novel. The trouble with the eroticism comes when you think about an ACTUAL twelve year old who hasn’t yet hit puberty, and you realize that all the eroticism is completely within HH’s mind. He is the one in love with (his fantasy of) Lolita. She is just a kid.

      If I look at my own 12 year old, I see a kid who still likes Pokemon, who likes catching bugs in the back yard, plays handclap games with her friends at the bus stop, still secretly loves Ariel, makes up songs about pancakes, has a screaming fit if she can’t find her raincoat, and might still need a blankie when she is very sad.

      In no wise whatever, would this kid be an equal partner in a romantic relationship with a grown man, and the genius of the novel is that Nabokov intentionally, beautifully, makes us forget this.

      • Nullifidian

        That’s why I find Lolita to be such a great black comedy (which is not to say that I find it funny when it happens in the real world, any more than Delicatessen makes real-life cannibalism funny). It’s so obvious that he has nothing in common with her and that he’s chasing a delusion stemming from that vanished childhood girlfriend. Dolores isn’t sexy, isn’t beguiling, isn’t trying to be the object of HH’s passion in any way, but he’s still besotted with her because he’s living in a delusion.

        Too much criticism on both sides—praise and condemnation—seems to forget that HH is a textbook example of an unreliable narrator.

        • soccerteesandplaydoh

          Bingo bingo bingo!!!

    • superbad2011

      Until morale improves, the thrashings will continue.

    • King

      Hmmm, for me the most telling passage is “[women] spend a lot of our lives quietly, strategically trying not to get raped, which takes a huge toll on our lives and affects our sense of
      self.” I can see where going into any interaction, social setting, or indeed, piece of literature, with this kind of highly defensive stance would impact one’s perception. I’m not saying that said perception doesn’t have some legitimacy, but if I go into a largely Black neighborhood, fearing for my safety and “strategically trying not to be [accosted],” it is highly likely that I will see threats on every stoop, in every window, and in the eyes of every passerby, whether such threats are there or not.

      It is devastating to all of society that (racial, gender, whatever) relations in society have gotten to the point that the historically oppressed group feels a lingering sense of threat, even if the threat’s “acute phase” has passed. This is not unlike the dog that has gotten beaten, adopted by a new family,but cowering and afraid of their touch, even if that family is a loving and nurturing one. Or the abused child. Or a formerly battered spouse in a new relationship but still gripped by memories that have left an indelible mark.

      Ms. Solnit is gripped by a collective historical memory that has left its indelible mark. And she is an elegant voice for its expression. But I fear that she commits some of the same sins of which she would accuse others.

      In the end, it is expected that literature ill portray a statistically skewed percentage of power-unequal male-female relationships, up to and including the worst-of-the-worst (rape, savage exploitation, grotesque objectification), inasmuch as literature generally reflects a slice of reality. (Junot Diaz’s ‘Oscar Wao’ reflects the reality of a crazed and rape-addicted Latin American dictator, for example.) By way of analogy, Twain’s ‘Huck Finn’ reflected the reality of the the time in the language that was used. We all know the controversy. Those who seek to quash the book make the error of asserting implicitly that reporting/portraying the evils of another time somehow find purchase in the present, as if the racial slurs of a teen boy in the 1850s-ish equate to the author somehow miraculously traveling forward in time to the 21st century and calling all Black people the N-word.

      I think people need to be careful about that particular fallacy. The way to combat the slights of a generation (or, in this case, an era) is not short-term – myopically denigrating the canon by fallaciously using modern mores to evaluate its merits. Rather it is LONG-term, by populating the canon with works that will, in their aggregate, when that time comes, illustrate the newer, evolved reality, works that one day will become the next generation’s classics, so future students of the American zeitgeist can see how far we CAME.

      Not by complaining about how far we have to go.

      Sadly, invariably, some people will say, “Oh, well of course a MALE would say something like that. And a white male at that.” The saying of which sort of speaks to my point. When perception of categorization automatically precedes engagement on issues, there can be no discussion. This works in all directions, by the way. We all feel that defensiveness of which I spoke, in one way or another. Maybe THAT’S what we need to acknowledge as a society?

      • JuneBelle

        You do realize that, as a female, if you get raped, your actions for preventing that rape will be under scrutiny, even if you get murdered. Whereas, when men get murdered at higher rates than women, no one seems to question all of our male friends around us who waltz off downtown alone. They just waltz off alone, and when I look at them shocked, they shrug and say that they aren’t afraid of their city (Yeah, that’s why you are murdered more, buddy, but no one else notices this. A male is not as responsible for what happens to him as a female is).

    • Ceddy Bear

      And I agree with the majority of this, but the examples she cites do not, I feel, represent the mansplaining phenomena all that well. They strike me simply as people disagreeing with her -some of whom are convinced she’s objectively wrong because people don’t hold opinions unless they believe them to be true.

      Now, I’m certain she’s received any number of responses that more accurately represent mansplaining over the years, but if these are the most pertinent replies she got this time, i find it difficult not to conclude that she’s applied the signifier of mansplaining as a buffer between her and the criticism. This of course is always the risk with such a concept: if white men are likely to talk down to you on a social scale, then using the fact to dismiss the opinions of men (which she does at least once, quite condescendingly in the article) who probably aren’t talking down to you but can be swept up into your theory-making is almost guaranteed to happen even with the best of intentions.

      But that does not absolve this article of these shortcomings, surely? Let’s call out poor criticism as we see it, rather than double down in defence of the critic simply because she represents our views and is a rather excellent mouthpiece for them, or out of some fear that to not might put us in the mansplaining camp.

      • AL

        HI Ceddy Bear. Thanks very much for reading and your comment.

        When it comes to the comments given, did you notice this?

        1) She gives a personal reaction about what it’s like for some women to read Lolita.
        She suggests that people, in this case women, have the right to have personal reactions to media, and also to make choices about what media to consume.

        Seems a reasonable thesis to me.

        2) Commenters tell her that her personal reaction is incorrect.

        Further, they tell her that her personal reaction shows that she must have misunderstood the true intent of Lolita.

        This is not a difference of opinion, or a fair one, as far as I can tell.
        It appears to be either:

        A) a misreading/misunderstanding of her words: they assume she is criticizing and misunderstanding a wonderful book when in reality she is using her experience of reading that book to make a larger point about art.

        B) They are criticizing her for reading Lolita using the lens of the female experience. Saying the lens of the female experience is incorrect. Which is kinda funny, given that she is a female, and her lens is always going to be at least in some way touched by “the female experience,” just like their lenses are always going to be at least in some way touched by “the male experience.”

        How would it be if women told men “you are not allowed to feel your feelings or see this book, that stars a man in an uncomfortable role, through the lens of your experiences as a man?” Would this be a defensible position? (I’m sure you could say that this does happen to men all the time, just as it happens to women. But when writing and discussing cultural issues where we’re trying to be cognizant of that, is it actually fair criticism to say those things?)

        Personally, I think it’s pretty audacious of any one of us to tell another human that their personal reaction to a work of art is incorrect, and further that having a personal reaction shows a lack of understanding or intelligence, as if one can’t hold both a personal reaction and an intellectual understanding at the same time.

        To me, it seems as though these commenters were not trying, for the most part, to be rude or judgmental – they sincerely believed, as you wrote, that the author hadn’t viewed Lolita in the same way they had, and if she were to just see it in another way, then her personal reaction (incorrect) could be fixed.

        And it’s fine to share one’s different view about a book, of course.

        But the author is not saying everyone must view Lolita in terms of a personal response. Or that no women should read it. She is merely putting forth her own experience and feelings and suggesting those feelings are valid. She is not trying to tell men how to read Lolita; she is giving herself, and other women should they also feel this way, permission to feel their feelings while they read Lolita, or when they choose to put Lolita down.

        And the commenters say, “No, that is incorrect.” Which, though they probably didn’t mean it this way, does, in this instance, mean: “No, you do not have the right to put Lolita down or to feel uncomfortable feelings while you read it.”

        That, to me, does strike me as, if not “mansplaining,” then something worth writing about, at least, which is no doubt what prompted her to explore it in this essay.

    • Pingback: Solnit sings()

    • CitizenE

      As with the bourgeois bowlderization of the Cailleich Bheur & Gawain stories, Beauty and the Beast, a story about how somehow a woman would fall for a fellow who blackmails her father, forcing her to become his prisoner, which also hankers for the good old days of feudal rule, I really never understood the attraction to the story of Lolita, its core serial transgression preceding it by reputation everywhere.

      It was impossible to avoid the fairy tale, familiar in word and film from Disney to Cocteau, from childhood, but an avid literary reader, I have avoided Nabokov’s novel all my adult life. It’s not that I have eschewed reading other transgressive writing, protagonists and antagonists, some of which having provided rich and moving, if uncomfortable, reading experiences, but for some reason the basic concept of Lolita has always left me as utterly uninviting and unnecessary.

    • John Pettimore

      This is one of the most astonishingly stupid articles I’ve read in some time, written by someone who has no idea what literature actually is. Here’s a hint, dear — “Lolita” isn’t an entire novel about rape. Which you, by the way, have a pathological obsession with. Oh, and “Moby Dick” isn’t about a whale, either.

      • antisvada

        You have obviuously not read Moby Dick. The book is definitely about whales. Whole chapters are dedicated to minute descriptions of the physiology of the whales, the different species etc. It is very clear that Melville has the intention of teaching the readers about natural history.

        • John Pettimore

          Well, gee, sure, but are you seriously (and soberly) arguing that the book is not about more than whales?

          This essay, if you can call it that, is just mind-bendingly stupid. It’s a classic example of jamming a round peg into a square hole, then blaming the peg for not fitting. It is written, first of all, for an audience of people like her. This isn’t serious scholarship, or thought, or anything remotely like it. This is the Tina Fey/”Smart Girls” school of writing, where half of it is spend checking off tribal signal boxes so your audience can nod knowingly. The let’s-jam-together-breathless-sentences-to-indicate-our-irreverence writing style is also simultaneously mannered and irritating.

          She assumes what she needs to prove. She’s casually bigoted. She trades in stereotypes, but since they’re the “right” stereotypes, apparently it’s just fine. She says almost nothing about the actual content of the actual novel, and instead uses it as a basis for attacking men, white men in particular, patriarchy, the entire incredibly dreary lineup of nonexistent straw men.

          And worst of all, she fails to treat the novel seriously, or the readers of it seriously. The entire point of the book is ambiguity, unclear identities, shifting roles and fluid responsibilities. It’s also a classic exercise in irony, all of which she either deliberately ignores or misses because she’s a moron. Lolita herself may be an unreliable narrator. She may be a child using a damaged, vulnerable adult. And no, by saying all this, I am not “mansplaining”. Apparently that bullshit term was invented to smear anyone who dares disagree and owns a penis. What it really means is that you prefer name-calling to having a point of view.

          However, rather than writing about the book itself, she takes the issue of rape, and turns it into a black-and-white exercise in certainty. Which is isn’t. People like this are frightening, because they are stupid and destructive, but sincerely believe what they have to say matters. Dear God, this is why serious discussions of literature have pretty much vanished — because ninnies like this weigh in.

          • antisvada

            I dont believe that You have read Moby Dick.

          • Nullifidian

            Lolita herself may be an unreliable narrator.

            Which edition do you have where Lolita narrates the story?

          • DeeWriteful

            1. Lolita is not, nor was she ever, a narrator. It’s hilarious that you said this in the same comment that you lament a lack of serious literary discussion.

            2. You think a victim of kidnapping and repeated child rape might actually have been a wily little minx taking advantage of her rapist? Take a long, hard look at your life, and seek the help you clearly need.

    • Pingback: What Amy Does: : post()

    • marcedward

      Hints to the writer:
      * Brevity is the Soul of Wit. See if you can puzzle that one out.
      * Your understanding of men is not nearly as great as you think. In fact your understanding of men is right up there with a Klansman’s understanding of Africans.
      * You should read more so you understand how men and women communicate differently. I recommend the work of Deborah Tannen. When anybody expresses an opinion, it’s inevitable a male will offer up his own, and he’s not being sexist, disrespectful, correcting you or raping you.
      * Bringing race into it just makes you a racist.

    • Jen K.

      Thanks for that perspective, although no one here said to you “lighten up b****.”

      It is a noble longing to want “a society […] of not always having to be aware and on guard.” But really? We are animals, and for all our noble intentions our cities and towns are just as governed by laws of the jungle as the Amazon. It’s almost like saying we are entitled to not have to bear the unpleasant realities and struggles of life and inequality of resources…

    • Wow. You open by paraphrasing a 19th century woman talking about men (and their fortunes) as the rightful possessions of women, then just go on ranting with the same treadworn counterfactual feminist myths and Dolchstoss narratives that have been socially constructed out of paranoia and hate over the past century.

      Maybe non-feminists (both men and women) wouldn’t have to explain so many things to feminists if you weren’t so obstinately dedicated to your creepy ideological cult that you can’t see the evidence against it right in front of your eyes.

    • Jen K.

      To say “don’t mind what he says, he’s just mansplaining!” is the equivalent of saying “don’t mind what she says, she’s just bitching!”

      • King

        Nothing like a trendy neologism to embolden the group that coined it.

      • Sally Strange

        With the minor difference that “bitches” are routinely beaten, raped, and murdered just for existing as a bitch, while the worst “mansplainers” have to endure as a result of being identified as a mansplainer is some sharp words.

    • MisterButterworth

      The author paints in broad strokes.

      • says the person who doesn’t paint.

        • MisterButterworth

          Another broad stroke.

    • howlermonk

      “I coined a term a while ago, privelobliviousness”
      This isn’t something you should go around bragging about.

    • lao tzu

      Dear Rebecca,

      Pardon me for what can be, at best, only a tangential comment. I cannot attempt to explain Lolita to you, or anyone, even if was my intent. Many years ago, my one, orphaned attempt to read Lolita was a dismal failure. The Lolita I had gone to meet, the captivating and seductive, precocious ingenue suggested by her references in popular culture, was nowhere to be found. Neither was Nabokov’s protagonist sufficiently engaging to capture my flagging interest. I could not identify with either of these characters.

      But I can still thank you for bringing Jaycee’s and, especially, Marie’s stories to my attention. Nearly as many years ago as my attempt with Nabokov, I wrote an investigative piece on date rape for the campus newspaper. This would have been the mid-80s, and before the tide as it were.

      My interview with the campus police, intended to solicit advice for potential victims, was difficult, as the hulking officer assigned alternated between dismissal of the accusations and the suggestion that potential victims should simply beat off the attackers, as she would herself. I’d imagine she found it difficult to identify with the more typical, and far more diminutive co-ed, exemplified perhaps by my publisher and editor-in-chief, a former cover model, who summarily spiked the story.

      About a year later, as date rape on campus emerged as a national issue worth covering, the story was revived, reassigned, and published under the byline of another writer. As the newly promoted managing editor, I’d chosen a woman to rewrite the piece, who did a fine job eliciting anecdotes I had not been able to assemble myself. It made for a much better story, if I do say so myself. It was a better story because of her more natural identification with the victims and potential victims.

      There is another story, however, that is still waiting to be written, not for the victims or potential victims, but for the perpetrators, and potential perpetrators. It is not a story which should most naturally be written by a woman, and it is not, other than allegorically, about date rape.

      With regards, Jesse

    • Pingback: Weekend reading | Of Means and Ends()

    • Scout Dedalus

      Easily one of the worst articles I’ve ever read. Good job trolling Esquire of all publications and Lolita of all novels. Your understanding of Tess and Hardy are painful and self-centered. I’m generally a supporter of gender equality, but I urge you to play to your strengths with writers like Anais Nin and Beryl Markham (along with hundreds of others), rather than jumping on a dead horse and attempting to turn it into a soapbox.

      The world IS moving forward. So should you.

      • AL

        Genuine questions for you:

        Do you not find it worthy of question, or at least a slightly-prodding joke, when an influential publication like Esquire recommends only 1 novel written by a woman as “the books men must read”?

        Do you not find it acceptable for people, in this case women, to have personal reactions to literature, while also understanding their intellectual greatness?

        When you say the world is moving forward, I’m not sure what you mean, but I’m guessing I agree with you, if you mean that women are becoming more heard and more valued in public life, at least in some sectors in the US. But I’m not sure what that has to do with this piece. We are moving forward, and still, this author receives comments that show a lack of respect for a women’s perspective, and condemning criticism from people who have actually misunderstood her words.

        Is she not allowed to address those things? Or the other ways in which, though we are moving forward, we are still occasionally blind?
        ——————————————-
        Out of curiosity, but feel free to ignore if not relevant to this discussion: what do you mean by “generally a supporter of gender equality”? Why “generally”?

        • Scout Dedalus

          Because she speaks from a perspective of weakness and not strength. You want equality? You got it. No pattycake. No softball. No easy targets like Esquire. I don’t even bother with Cosmopolitan, nor should you with Esquire. Will there be gender specific niches? Yes, until the end of time. Do you know why? There’s a market for it. Let the plebeians chase Nikes and watch MMA. Fly above the storm and focus your attention where the real change occurs. Perhaps write a fantastic novel rather than rant about past fantastic novels that were written under completely different circumstances and are too easy to lob misguided hate at. Don’t just be the change, but SEE the change. Equality, after all, is having the strength and courage to withstand criticism. It’s why these novels have lasted as long as they have and will outlast this puny diatribe.

          • AL

            Ok, I hear you. Two of my favorite, Amy Poehler and Tina Fey, say much of the same thing, but without the meanness and criticism. Their approach is to just fight to get past the obstacle or find a different way around, rather than spend too much time calling out the obstacle.

            But that’s their way. And lucky them, that’s worked.

            Why must that be the way for all people fighting for change? To make change, some would argue that it’s necessary for all parts to exist. The rabble rousers and the critics. The actors and the philosophers. Some would say Ms Fey and Ms Poehler were able to find ways past the obstacles because of generations of rabble rousers and critics and philosophers and activists had begun to shift old thinking and patterns and clear new paths before them.

            Still, you didn’t address some of my points. For instance, if you look more closely at RS’s essay, you’ll see that she is not lobbing misguided hate at anything. She is not actually writing this essay to critique the novel. She is using her experience of reading the novel as a jumping point for a larger discussion about art, and how art affects us and changes us. Nowhere in the article does she claim it is a bad book, or that people should not read it. Many of the commenters who loved her essay also love the book. It is possible to hold personal feelings about a book and an intellectual appreciation for its greatness at the same time.

            • Scout Dedalus

              You see, I can see solipsistic circles coming from miles away and avoid them. I can already see the pointless course this discussion will take. A hundred of the same fruitless discussions are happening in multiple places. It’s mind numbing and exhausting.

              The author of this article will be forgotten. Hardy, Nabakov, Nin, and Markham will not. I do not believe this to be an accident or cruel injustice. It might be called survival of the fittest on an intellectual level.

              I’m going to go DO things now. I’m bored.

            • AL

              Funny, I said something similar (though I phrased it as “I’m tired” rather than “I’m bored” so as to not be insulting), to someone I was chatting with the other day, because people on the comment board were making all sorts of “oh, aren’t we intellectual” self-righteous but pretty clueless points about students and black people and it was just getting exhausting.

              Historically, I haven’t done this online commenting thing much, although I’ve been drawn to it the last few weeks. I’m particularly intrigued and moved by this article, as well as the responses to it, which is why I’ve been so active the last day and a half or so.

              I think, with all due respect, that you are showing a pretty clear misunderstanding of the article, based on what you’ve said and also how strongly you feel about it. You’re not alone – lots of people seem to be missing the forest for the trees here. But you seem pretty sure of yourself. So I wanted to see if what you had to say could enhance my own understanding in some way. And/or, if mine could enhance yours in some way, or we meet in the middle with some new awesome way to look at the world. I don’t think it’s necessarily solipsistic to have rational discussion about different perspectives. I think it’s, in some ways, required for intellectual growth. Some of the discussions I’ve had with people online lately have been helpful in clarifying my own views; others have been helpful in actually learning something new, or at least having a better understanding of others’ values and perspectives. Many of us, in real life, surround ourselves with people who tend to share our worldviews; it can be annoying but also instructive to find others who don’t.

              I hope you had a good day doing stuff, wherever you are. Personally, I had a great brunch, hike in a forest, walk along the beach, and lovely dinner with people I love. Yes, doing things = good.

              Anyway, if you change your mind and want to reply to my last comment about this piece, you know where to find me.

            • Scout Dedalus

              It’s called hijacking. I have no interest in your points, because you’ve taken my comment and turned it into your discussion that is completely removed from the original comment and content.
              It’s solipsistic and draining–and there are millions of you, and you’re all the most pampered oppressed people I’ve ever seen.

            • AL

              Yikes. So you see me as hijacking, when I’m merely trying to find out what you believe while also sharing some of what I believe? I guess I assumed that you would, if willing, use your arguments and thoughts to push back and make it “your discussion” too. Didn’t mean to hijack anything – it’s hard to have a conversation on the internet, especially when we don’t have a lot to go on. So I addressed a part of what you said, and asked you what you thought of what I think. It’s a way of starting a conversation. I’m a human with thoughts and feelings – of course I’m going to assert what I think, but that doesn’t mean I’m not open to learning and changing my mind.

              It’s cool, though. No need to talk, especially since you’ve already made up your mind about me and my points based on some picture you have of me. Some call this ad hominem, but that’s fine. Best to you. Sorry whatever’s happened in the discourse about women and men has been so frustrating for you. I’m personally interested in learning more about what I/we can do to make life and discourse better, which is why I wrote to you in the first place, but I respect your decision to not be interested in what I have to say. I’m off to go “do things,” as you say, because I agree with you that this does get a bit draining and repetitive and 3d life is often much more interesting. Take care.

            • DeeWriteful

              I find your ire amusing, considering you’ve grossly misunderstood her writing. Posturing intellectualism embarrasses you. It embarrasses me FOR you.

            • Scout Dedalus

              Based on your comment history, you have just scolded every man on this thread that you disagree with. Thank you for reaffirming my prognosis of solipsistic circles. But maybe I’m just “mansplaining” things. Be careful I might just start using the words “hysteria” and “over-compensating” next. Well, if the shoe fits . . .

              Such a vulgar tone feminism has taken, one might even call it purple. What a shame. I’ll quietly watch it self-destruct from the sidelines.

              Damn the white patriarchy with their vocabulary, internet, and modern medicine!

            • DeeWriteful

              I love that ‘purple’ is where your mind went. It’s always projection with you bozos haha, and you lack the self-awareness to recognise it. Thanks for providing endless entertainment, and being another specimen for Solnit’s lab!

            • Scout Dedalus

              Yes, because purple prose is littered throughout my comments. You’re so clever. I feel so exposed. Now I’m off to the shrink to go find a glimmer of self-awareness.

    • Reticula

      What a brilliant piece of writing. I’m stunned by the depth and the truth of your words, as well as your ability to entertain while wielding the heavy hammer of “wake the fuck up.” Thank you for putting so much into words that I simply go through my day feeling and reacting to. I did see dissension of your pieces by terribly enlightened white male feminists come across my various social media sites. Of course they know better. Of course they do. “Privelobliviousness” has now entered my vocabulary, and I intend make it a good friend by taking it with me wherever I go.

    • miranda_c

      I’d like to start a thread about the use of the word “blemishless.”

    • Hermann Steinpilz

      It looks as if the only men you really like are straw men.

      • That River Gal

        After all that, this is what you feel compelled to add?

        • Hermann Steinpilz

          Oh, I could add a lot more. For example, I could point out that Nabokov himself made fun of readers who “identified” with the characters in a novel. But why bother? You can’t have a reasonable debate with a person who can only think in terms of group membership. Identity politics is intellectually on a par with creationism.

    • miranda_c

      Did I misread the article? From the comments, now I can’t tell if the writer understands the whole point of Lolita – its meaning, to put it crudely – is precisely its status as an aesthetic object that cannot be reduced to character identification, which is the one thing Nabokov explicitly fought, in the name of artistic freedom. This is why he chose such a lurid subject in the first place.

      In other words, Lolita is a jeweled spider’s web, and Nabokov has already written Solnit’s words and those of most of the comments, whether congratulatory or defamatory.

      • miranda_c

        But, who cares. 🙂

      • Nullifidian

        No, I don’t think Solnit does understand that, as evidenced by her words “The popular argument that novels are good because they inculcate empathy
        assumes that we identify with characters, and no one gets told they’re
        wrong for identifying with Gilgamesh or even Elizabeth Bennett.” Frankly, I’d be more than happy to tell her that she is wrong for identifying with Gilgamesh (or at least letting that color how she reads the epic) because the name for what she’s doing is Affective Criticism, and it rightly went out with the daguerreotype and corsets. The idea that books aren’t necessarily written to be related to seems to catch her completely by surprise, and yet the fact that we can read something that transcends our narrow zone of personal experience is the only rational reason that can justify her earlier critique of Esquire‘s stupid list of books for men. After all, if the purpose of the novel is to be relateable, then what’s wrong with white men preferring novels by white men that have few to no non-male, non-white characters? She’s being inconsistent and doesn’t see it because she’s adopted the Affective Criticism mindset uncritically.

        • miranda_c

          Well, egg’s on my face. I really admire her as a writer, but maybe she’s not the most sophisticated critic. Although, really, if it’s unclear whether you’re specifically arguing that Nabokov should be read as Dreiser or laying out broad terms of subjectivity, have you written a term paper? I mean come on.

    • I agree with the article’s statement that audiences have a right to dislike or criticize artwork, or even declare it reprehensible. As an artist, I can vouch it’s all too easy to get defensive when audiences criticize your work on moral grounds. On the other hand—and this is where the issue grows real muddy—it’s also been my experience that critics may and often perceive harm in work where none is intended, or read attitudes into it that weren’t meant to be conveyed. And they’re often obnoxiously self-righteous about it, though other times they may be just trolling to win social-justice brownie points.

      In the end, while artists should not think themselves entitled to protection from criticism, neither are they obligated to agree with every objection they receive. Listening to criticism that makes sense to us can enrich our work, but whether criticism is worth heeding is up for us to decide.

    • Lamestllama

      Currently in the Western world men get killed in the workplace at 20 times the rate that women get killed in the workplace. Can you explain why that is a privledge and why more women don’t avail themselves of the opportunity to take advantage?

      • Evilin Garnett

        Men are more likely to kill other men than women are to kill anyone, statistically. The whole men are more likely to get killed in the workplace thing is a non sequitor. They are also more likely to do the killing. No one should get killed, in the workplace or anywhere else. Heaven’s you’re really reaching there.

      • Catherine Reed

        I’ve worked with hazardous materials, there’s no shortage of women in laboratories; you protect yourself by learning how to handle stuff properly and safely. In the days before government required all lab workers to be trained in hazardous materials safety, a scientist I knew later on, had been exposed to acrylamide, now known to be a neurotoxin, because no one informed her that she should wear gloves to protect herself. By the time I knew her, she had serious problems with walking unassisted most days, due to nerve damage in her legs. But you also protect yourself by setting up systems that make accidents as rare as possible. Fatalities are rare, but they do happen. Several years ago in California, a young woman working alone in the lab on the weekend, had an accidental spill of tri-butyl ether, died from the burn injuries in hospital a week later. Had that lab set down rules that no one should be working with the more hazardous chemicals without a co-worker present, and had the equipment and protocols for handling tri-butyl ether in that specific lab been a little less lackadaisical, ie not just using a glass syringe to extract a few mL’s from the bottle, she would be alive today.

        Information, access to safety training and protective equipment, systems and protocols in place to minimize risk, and above all, a strong safety culture, where the newest recruit can question the top boss about safety procedures, where everyone is looking out for one another, and not only not taking undue risks themselves, but not letting others take risks as well—these are the things needed to reduce workplace injuries and fatalities. Any questions?

        • Lamestllama

          BTW Laboratories are not unsafe workplaces, hardly anybody dies in a laboratory. Just like nobody dies at a nuclear power plant. The proximity of hazardous materials does not make for a dangerous workplace.

          • iceweasels

            People die in labs all the time.

            • Lamestllama

              There was not been a single death in a lab last year in Australia. There where 195 workplace deaths 7 of them were women. Nobody was prosecuted for any of these deaths.

            • iceweasels

              Do you live in Australia? Because I don’t.

            • Lamestllama

              I do live in Australia. While our population is small around 25M the proportions of people killed in things like DV, workplace accidents, suicide roughly mirrors that of the US.

            • Deepdish

              This is incorrect as laboratory deaths are exceedingly rare. Please clarify what you mean by “all the time”.

    • Stephen Secomb

      Thank you to Rebecca for this excellent article.

      I read Lolita some thirty years ago and it disturbed me so much that while it remains on my bookshelf, I haven’t re-read it. I guess I’ve never been able to reconcile my own distaste with the fact that the book continues to appear on must-read lists year after year. I have hung on to my copy because I’ve never been able to articulate the haunting aftertaste it left me with.

      Rebecca has articulated that which I missed back then – the child is all-but invisible, and that in itself is the essence of the tragedy (whether or not VN intended). In my reading, I had followed the narrative lead utterly uncritically. This places her as a chattel, a pretty object whose sole purpose is to furnish the narrative with a focus for HH’s self-obsessed fantasies.

      But this is the crux of my distaste. It is only half a novel. Lolita, the title character, has been sacrificed by the author more comprehensively than any of George RR Martin’s characters in GOT, which left me so angry I ranted for weeks at the author’s treachery. Moreover, Lolita’s was a qualitatively different sort of sacrifice in that she never even got to express a feeling. In this, she is no more than the phantasm of a late-night alcohol fuelled masturbatory fantasy. This makes the novel, literally, a literary wank.

    • Toba Leah Singer

      This has the makings of a good brick and mortar group discussion. If it were to take place on fb or as a live chat, I think people might be tempted to overstate positions because what she writes is so fraught with contradictions that one can easily bind to one or another of them, and then it ends up a free-for-all.

      By contradictions, I actually mean that she makes a categorical statement, then realizes that she has overstated her opinion (so that even though it’s a woman’s, it comes off as a fact), and retracts it a few sentences down the graf. Examples are when she says only gay white men (along with women, people of color, etc.) are exempt from being know-it-alls who trivialize women’s opinions. Then, a few sentences later, she confesses to knowing a few empathic hetero “white” men. She says “Lolita” is potentially damaging if read by a young girl (as well as all women and men), but a few sentences later, assures us that she’s not advocating not reading it–she’s read it several times. So how damaged is she from all those Lolita readings? I read “Lolita” as a young girl of 14 (who never hesitated to express her opinion to grown men). I found the Professor Humbert Humbert to be an (intended) jerk, a caricature of the male ego gone bonkers, captured in his ridiculous name, as well as his fantasy-fueled behavior. Even at that age, I knew girls, who, for whatever sick and twisted reasons, *did* compete with their mothers to seduce men, and so Lolita seemed both a victim of an idiot, and a a scheming narcissist. These qualities are often found in one and the same person simultaneously, so I wasn’t “shocked,” let alone damaged by the discovery.

      By no means am I saying it was a healthy situation that men took advantage of those girls, but while Solnit points out all the obvious indicators of sexist oppression in literature, I think that some of her comparisons are unwarranted. For example, no matter how offensive free speech may be, the real test of our First Amendment commitment is when that speech is roundly offensive. So, activists who seize the moral high ground to drive professors off campus, or prevent contrary points of view from being aired, are in my opinion, taking actions that are reactionary, indefensible and unworthy of the causes they espouse This is true whether or not men have been coddled and others have (perhaps) not been. Shouldn’t those fighting oppression should hold themselves to a higher standard than those who oppress them? Nelson Mandela seemed to think so when he launched the Truth and Reconciliation Commission in order to win those previous supporters of apartheid over to the post-apartheid policies in the new South Africa. He chose to raise their consciousness instead of shame its absenteeism.

      I get the uncomfortable feeling that Solnit’s Complaint is at bottom all about finding “Mr. Right,” repurposed as “Mr. Left.” My experience is that men are not shamed or “debated”out of their sexist behavior. Women and others who support a woman’s right to her full humanity, at this stage in history, have to stand and fight for their rights–be it in picket lines defending Planned Parenthood, or winning the $15 minimum wage plus a union, or fighting ISIS, as the Kurdish women are doing so heroically. Defending women in action goes a lot further in educating men than a few clever ripostes at a cocktail party. By educating them inclusively, and not diminishing, baiting, or humiliating them for their gaffs, we can effectively win them over to the idea that respect for the equality of women is good for all concerned, even the coddled among them. Clever debaters’ points remain just that. Actions speak louder than words when it comes to fighting sexist institutions and the sexist behaviors that are sanctioned by them. (Proven fact, as well as well as my humble opinion;)

      • AL

        Hm, except that there are several comments from men on this site that say, effectively, “I saw this on a friend’s wall and this makes me think. Appreciate your piece, thanks.”

        Actions are awesome. So are words. Surely we can do both.

        It also could be that maybe her audience wasn’t necessarily men here. Maybe her purpose wasn’t to convert. Maybe she wanted to speak to, and validate the experiences of, women who feel similarly (many, many women (and men) have commented something along the lines of THANK YOU!).

        Or, maybe she just wanted, as a writer, to write.

    • Rale

      “Of course there is no such body of literature, and if the nice liberal
      man who made that statement had been assigned book after book full of
      castration scenes …”

      Not castration exactly, but there is actually quite a large body of similar literature … starting with some of the oldest Western classics in existence: The Bachae & Medea. Just because you are not aware of these works does not mean they don’t exist.

    • Pingback: Star Wars and Streaming: The Week in Pop-Culture Writing | Dont worry , be horny!()

    • Evilin Garnett

      Nope.
      In fact, the way you responded to her statement indicates you did not pay attention to what she , and if you did you misrepresent her with several “straw person” fallacies.

      See, I’m not man-shaming you with my language.

      To saw ‘women tend to see themselves as victims” is as sloppy or sloppier than any “white men” are this or that.

      The truth of the matter is white men have been in power, making the images, telling the stories.

      That doesn’t mean “caucasian males are intrinsically evil”, it JUSTmeans that other groups of people deserve a turn telling stories and interpreting the stories told about them, especially if those stories make the individual reading/watching them feel ignored or insulted due to their belonging to a particular group; a race, a gender, a religion, a tribe.

      To read and watch these images and notice that people of your gender are often one dimensional props or useful archetypes is not to scream victimhood, it is to notice something that you don’t like.
      .
      there is a “narrative that women are oppressed and disrespect prevails”
      because
      many–not all—women are oppressed and disrespected.
      and if women have such a great time expressing themselves explain the death threats, rape threats, insults and appearance based harassment so prevalent on the internet.

      In the more extreme versions of “womyn’s studies” there is a grasping for victimhood, but this article and these comments are not that.

      You have deliberately misunderstood her statement.

      I won’t say this is because you are a white man.

      Maybe it’s because you are an oversensitive person.

    • miranda_c

      I thought the essay was confronting Nabokov’s literary philosophy. I didn’t notice the first paragraph frames the essay: the writer’s upset that men on social media have dismissed her opinions (her own individual emotional state) and suggests it’s because white men benefit from social inequality (a universal). Then she briefly mentions rape before stating that she approves of the psychological relationship between the reader of a novel and fictional characters only if there’s a disparity between them, which disturbs white men because her theory makes them examine their own position in society. But she that doesn’t examine her own position in society. She doesn’t explore which white men benefit from social inequality, and how, and she doesn’t explain if the reader’s identification with a fictional character is conscious or unconscious. Most importantly, she doesn’t make clear, or maybe she herself doesn’t understand, the degree of the acceptable difference between the (pretty radically different) identities of a reader and a fictional character, or even the basis of comparison.

      Then she makes the extraordinary claim that “men raping female children as a literary subject” is omnipresent, without even the briefest account of what she means: she names Thomas Hardy and Bret Easton Ellis (? wtf) and then refers to the horrific, real-life case of the abduction of Jaycee Dugard, subsequently popularized by Diane Sawyer and tabloid television. On the other hand, Wordsworth, Hardy, Tolstoy, Trollope, Dickens, and critic Arthur Danto are to be admired. So that’s two white men pro-rape, six white men against. She mentions that Robert Mapplethorpe’s S&M photos were controversial but doesn’t explain if he’s to be admired, deplored, or just sort of accepted. Danto writes that “art can inflict moral harm” but, she notes, “other books do good.” Without any further disclosure of her own position, let alone that of others, the reader’s left with the truism that art is a social activity. No wonder she angers white men. She angers even me.

      She then mentions Nafisi (a conservative), “Dilbert” cartoonist (apparently a vile misogynist, judging from the quote), and Millet (the feminist), as well as two journalists new to me; I googled them; they wrote an article about an atrocious serial rapist, as sensationalist as the Diane Sawyer piece, except that the criminal was inspired by “Star Wars” – a detail that shows “the impact of popular culture and of women’s stories being discounted and discredited.” How? Who knows. It just kinda does.

      Finally, she gets to Nabokov’s strident aestheticism and counters it with the controversial affective fallacy of New Criticism which its own authors couldn’t even defend; and in no way does it contradict the philosophy of an aesthete – but I guess that doesn’t matter, either, because some guy (who looks suspiciously like a white male) just told me so in the comments section. He agrees with the essay, although he hasn’t the faintest idea what it says.

      How could he? I don’t want to spoil the party, but how on earth is anybody supposed to figure out what she’s saying? If her feelings were hurt by a few douchebags on social media, fine; just say that, I guess. If she thinks Esquire, a men’s magazine, shouldn’t have written the list of books by men for men, then say that. (I also question Nabokov’s thesis, so I was doubly interested in the article.) But if you just spout out a bunch of random stuff in the name of girl power, that’s fine – you can do whatever you want in the States and Europe – but you do wind up with a bunch of random stuff in the name of girl power, which fuels the fire of the douchebags I personally detest. She’s to feminists what Donald Trump is to the victims of ISIS. Not helping.

      But has the author of this essay actually read the texts she mentions? Because if so, she can say what she thinks about them. That’s the stuff I want to know. Maybe I’ve been somehow duped by Nabokov. (And I’m always afraid my concern with political identity, anyone’s, is in fact nothing more than that: I don’t want to be duped: I’m afraid of being punk’d: what’s at stake is nothing but my own private self esteem.) Maybe Nabokov has somehow subconsciously made me complicit with violence against women. But how? Why? Actual criticism tells the reader. It takes a stand, maybe a controversial or difficult one, but an honest one. And don’t say she already did that in the other essay. Good writers do that in every essay. Frankly, what I’ll recall from this is a claim – it’ll sound hysteric on the first telling – that Princess Leia’s bikini forces white men to become serial rapists because “privilege.” I don’t want to recall that, I don’t want the readers of Esquire to think that’s what female writers think and write in all those books that aren’t on their list, that that’s why they’re not on their list.

      • AL

        While I share some of your concern about fueling the “fire of the douchebags” due to misunderstandings, I personally found the essay pretty understandable (and great). Curious if any of this resonates with you.

        If I may, it seems as though you’re looking for a certain academic instructiveness to her essay. A particular type of criticism espoused.

        But I don’t think that’s what this essay is. Or, I think it can be easier to understand if you take it out of the world of critical theory and just read it for what (I believe) it is: a personal essay about her experiences interacting with life and literature and yes, commenters.

        First thing: This is not actually an essay about Lolita, and certainly not about the “right” way to read Lolita. Or, I suppose in a very tiny way it is, but only insofar as she defends the idea that having a personal reaction to a work of art is acceptable and even sometimes inescapable, as one response among many responses. She is not saying that personal response is the only way to read literature, or even the best way. She does appreciate there are many levels on which to appreciate Lolita. She is not actually saying “Lolita is this” or “should be read this way” or “should not be read.” I don’t read “shoulds” in her essay at all.

        Rather, I read it as an essay that uses her experiences reading Lolita and the Esquire list as jumping off points to discuss how and why different people engage with literature; to explore the ideas of empathizing with characters as well as being affected and changed, for good and ill, by art; and to suggest that it’s not that controversial of an idea that people, in this case women, be entitled to their feelings and their choices in their consumption of art.
        (I would clarify those first two points, but this is already long so I’ll move on to the 3rd point.)

        To me, that last thing is not a crazy statement but actually quite reasonable – that we are allowed to feel something in response to books and movies and art in general. That we are allowed to decide what art to consume, knowing that art does indeed affect us. And perhaps women in particular ought to be allowed the freedom to have reactions to and make choices about what art we consume, given the world we live in and how much of what we consume is about us but not authored by us, and often portrays us negatively/one-dimensionally. Even if the author of a book intended something else, even if the author gave us instructions on how to view his/her work – we still are entitled to personal emotional reactions to it and our personal choices about whether to consume it.

        To this, I say: of course. We are human. We have emotions. Who can deny another the right to an emotional reaction to art?

        If Nabokov wants to write a book where he plays with form and/or makes a point and asks the reader not to get personally involved, fine. Great. A good challenge. He shouldn’t be censored. Doesn’t mean that everyone who reads this book will emotionally separate as much as they or he would like. Doesn’t mean that everybody HAS to read Lolita, either, just because it’s a brilliant book or a neat trick or it’s part of the canon. They’re allowed the freedom to skip it, if they are just more interested in reading something else, or if they, as much as they appreciate Nabokov’s inventiveness, just don’t have the capacity or desire to put on more emotional armor that day and read a(nother) book where a girl/woman is (at least on the level of plot), being treated like crap or misrepresented as a narrow being.

        We read with the lenses of our experiences on, as much as we may try to take them off, and sometimes, a work of art is going to hit someone a different way than someone else.

        Again, this seems to me to be a pretty uncontroversial stance. Yep, we see the world filtered through our experiences. Yes, we all have biases and blinders. Yes, we all have different emotional reactions to things, often based on memories and values and families and culture and so on. She gives some examples about “what it’s like to be woman” – but her point is: “This is the context in which I (and many women) read and experience all things in life, art and otherwise. This is the air I breathe, all the time, as a woman. This context is relevant in how I react to and consume art, including male-authored art that portrays women, even on the surface, in a sh*tty way. It doesn’t mean that that art is bad, or that men or other women can’t like it. It doesn’t mean that other women will all feel the same way. But I do, and if some women feel like I do too, then they should be allowed to feel these feelings, talk about them, and make choices about our consumption.”

        And then yes, she’s humored/perhaps annoyed by the commenters who tell her – no, you’re wrong. Your lens is wrong. Your feelings = incorrect. You clearly don’t “get” the book. Which then makes her laugh/shake her head more, because not only are they misunderstanding what she was saying in the first place (She’s not saying there’s only one way to experience Lolita, or that Lolita is a bad book!) – but they’re telling her that her lens and her feelings are incorrect or inappropriate, which is a pretty baseless claim.

        And further: They are assuming that just because she has feelings, she must not also be able to understand the book on an intellectual level, like they do. This, to me, seems like a clear misunderstanding that comes with it a bit of a put-down, and I can see why it would be frustrating to her to receive this criticism, constantly. She, like many readers/writers/critics, can hold multiple interpretations in their minds of books at the same time. She can’t feel a feeling and hold an intellectual understanding of Nabokov’s intent/genius at the same time? Just because she mentions a feeling, this suggests she hasn’t even thought about other, non-feeling-y ways to think about the book? Feelings = lack of thought?

        • miranda_c

          What’s the difference between feeling and thought? What’s the difference between men and women? Why would you say Nabokov asks the reader not to get personally involved? What’s a non-feeling-y way to think about a book?

          Look, I’m not white, and I’m not a man; I am a survivor of sexual assault, and I’m a writer and a big fan of Solnit’s writing to which I’ve been compared. I thought this website was a literature site. I do not mean to be derogatory in any way, but if it’s basically “Nabokov is a big scary authority figure, and I don’t have to put aside my emotions like he wants, I have the right to my own reaction and feelings” – well that’s fine, but surely you can see why it surprises me. Nabokov’s a great poet, and Rebecca’s a great poet. I know that they’re against stereotyping people. In fact, I’ll bet if I published a mashup of “Moths Drink the Tears of Sleeping Birds” and “Ada” nobody would be able to figure out who wrote which sentences.

          All websites have a sort of vibe and community, and there’s a huge argument in the comments section about if “dick” is worse than “cunt” and “pussy,” etc – maybe I stumbled into the wrong site.

          • AL

            Thanks for writing.

            I’m new to commenting on this site. This article’s gained almost 600 comments – seems it’s attracted the attention of many outside the normal community, whatever that may be. I too avoided the dick v pussy conversation, but I figure in today’s internet discourse there’s bound to be some of that, sometimes.

            If you are done with this conversation, I respect that, of course. If you feel like it, I would be interested to hear what kind of conversation you were hoping for on a more literature-focused site (and does that exist anymore, with everyone sharing articles and commenting on each other’s sites so freely?). I’m sure you have more of a background in literature/literary criticism than I do. I love literature but have studied and worked more in the world of social science, education, and politics, so perhaps that’s why this article, which seems more of a cultural than literary critique, feels natural to me. RS is a writer but also an activist and social/cultural critic, so I didn’t find this essay to be odd for her, personally.

            I did spend awhile talking about this point: “Nabokov is a big scary authority figure” [although I don’t think that’s the most fair way to say what she/I was getting at]…”and I don’t have to put aside my emotions like he wants, I have the right to my own reaction and feelings,” but that’s not entirely what the essay is about, and apologies if my lengthy post made it seem that way.

            The point referenced above was not entirely but in part what she was getting at in her last article (the “books no women should read”). This article was about that, yes, but also about how many commenters to that essay don’t seem to understand/respect the stance that allows women to say these things or make these choices with the consumption of art, nor do they seem to display the interest or curiosity in actually learning what she means when she says such a thing, but rather in expressing a rather overconfident, kneejerk response of condemning it/correcting it.

            Which she links to the larger pushback happening in our society around many other issues today. Where people seem to think they have a monopoly on the objective truth of the matter, even when they’re talking about other people’s lives and feelings and thoughts. Personally, as someone interested in politics (and the intersection of art with politics), I think her point is pretty basic and fair and yet needs to be said, because as a society we’re struggling with basic listening, empathy, and discourse.

            So maybe the title could have been “Assumptions Men Make When I Write Humorous-Serious Blog Posts” or “Before Commenting, Consider Whether You Understand What I Was Saying” or “Sometimes Things In The World Look Differently To You Than To Me.”

            • miranda_c

              Anybody’s going to “react” to an essay that links Star Wars causally to serial rape, I don’t care if they’re black, white, female, male, orange, blue. They’re either going to say that’s absurd, or, if the essay is targeting white men, as it is, then white men are going to get defensive, and if they’re not intelligent, they’re going to lash back violently. How can this even be a question? She’s linking the most popular film ever made in human history to the most horrifically violent crime imaginable. How is one supposed to empathize?

              Again, anything is permissible in poetic mode – I mean anything is permissible at any point, but there are reactions to an action. For instance, if I suddenly spewed forth a pile of obscenities at you, for instance, you’d be offended, or think I was crazy. If I did that in the poetic mode of writing, like Plath or Bataille or Sade or Declos or somebody, then, as we all know, it’s Plath or Bataille or Sade or Declos.

              Why is this new? If she wants to compare Star Wars to serial rape, then she either does it in conventional communicative mode (this essay) and everybody will think it’s embarrassing, insulting, or stupid; or she contextualizes it as poetic, and I need not go into how a writer does that, and she does that in her books, where she talks about rape, cannibalism, eye-gouging, blood-drinking, and eye-fucking – and that’s totally fine. I’ve done some social work, and I know neither I nor you nor she is naive enough to talk to – I don’t know, a young black male, say, who’s just been released from prison, ask him if he’s into rape, cannibalism, eye-gouging, blood-drinking, and eye-fucking.

              I mean am I missing something? This just is not the RS I’ve seen read. I take it, I guess, that she had such success with the “Things Men Say To Me” (which I found incredibly stupid) that she’s going with this dimwitted third wave feminism that actually winds up anti-intellectual, divisive, and patronizing. I think she’s a gifted artist whose good stuff isn’t sustained by the market, so she does this stuff. I say that as a fellow writer, and a feminist and survivor of sexual assault. I don’t know, maybe I know too much about writers. Can you see the difference between Bellow’s

              She was short but had a full, substantial figure, a good round seat, firm breasts (all these things mattered to Herzog; he might think himself a moralist but the shape of a woman’s breasts mattered greatly).

              and Steinem’s

              A woman reading Playboy feels a little like a Jew reading a Nazi manual.

              and

              The omnipresence of men raping female children as a literary subject, from Tess of the d’Urbervilles to Less Than Zero

              The first two are startling, shocking, insightful, funny, and above all ironic – as good a description of the poetic mode as you’re gonna get. The third is stupid. Anyone who knows anything about writing knows this. There are a million ways to say what I think she means more accurately. Anybody knows that Hardy and Ellis are totally different, that Ellis is roundly despised for his misogynism (ad nauseam), that a lot of feminists hate Hardy, and that her statement is false: the subject of men raping female children is not omnipresent in English literature. If it were, then Nabokov’s book wouldn’t have been the sensationalist success de scandale that it was.

              Clearly you’re intelligent enough to understand this. And sure, I “get” it. She doesn’t like Esquire. Well, neither do I. Hardy wouldn’t either. Plath or Bataille or Sade or Declos wouldn’t either. Solnit writes extreme literature. She identifies with the marginal, the super-intelligent, the well-read – San Fransisco gays, for instance. Her favorite movie is Hitchcock’s Vertigo. Every smart person’s favorite movie is Hitchcock’s Vertigo. It literally is: it just won the Sight and Sound list, finally beating Citizen Kane for the first time after 50 years. The cultural elite knows Vertigo’s about fetishism. Okay, great. She talks about that. (She doesn’t talk about the other reasons it’s great, but fair enough.) Scottie controls Judy and shapes her into his vision of Madeleine. Fine. Scorsese knows this, I know this, Hitchcock knew this, Kent Jones knows this, Schrader knows this, Mulvey knows this, Sontag knows this – feminists have been hating on Hitchcock for so long that he’s already been resurrected as a closet feminist. But, it’s great to read about Vertigo, especially in the context of San Francisco, where RS really does have beautiful new things to say; and in the context of Muybridge.

              OK. Now, Esquire. Sure, I hate the fact that Esquire’s list of books has no women. It has no Plath, no Wharton, no Eliot (George), no Austen, no Bronte, no Bronte, no Woolf, no – I mean we can go on and on. Sure, that sucks. But it’s a men’s pop magazine. So what do you expect? No female friend of mine, and no male friend, that’s as well educated as all of us, will find this surprising in the least. In fact, the whole point Esquire excludes such super-famous obviously superb female writers is BECAUSE it’s a lad’s mag. So it’s being cheeky. Again, EVERYONE KNOWS THIS.

              If you want to change that, then, write about it. Which she did. But then Esquire fans will be offended. As they were. So the next move is to compare Star Wars to serial rapists?

              Meanwhile none of this has to do with anything, except that she gets a lot of attention. So there, I guess she “wins.” But I at least have lost a lot of respect for her, and it doesn’t exactly help feminism, which is a real thing, in the world – women really ARE repressed. But not because Esquire excludes House of Mirth.

              Men Explaining Things to Me is the same combo of pseudo-sophistication and totally juvenile, provincial, (honestly) self-centered crap that never happened in her earlier better writing. It’s basically a rich white guy who’s condescending. From that, she goes on a series of anecdotes about rich white guys who were condescending to her. Well, this is not exactly news to anybody who’s ever worked anywhere. I guess it’s kinda funny. Like, if I were Maureen Dowd, instead of a writer/intellectual/rape survivor/activist (which I am) – if I had a plush job, or for that matter RS’s readership, I’d think it’s funny, I guess. But actually, I’d think it’s transparent and pandering and dumb. It’s like during her readings where everything’s “delicious” in that purring voice – it’s mannered, and it’s a little bogus. We get it – she’s female, she’s extremely beautiful, she’s sensitive, everything has a taste, take time to taste everything, not just food but a man is delicious, poetry is delicious, an idea is delicious, a map is delicious, her super-expensive maps are delicious, her limited pressings of her books are delicious, her stuff a poor person can’t get on the kindle are delicious, we get it.

              Sorry to go on so long, but this is what’s up with this. Yes, readers talking about the difference between “cunt” and “dick” probably won’t pick up on it, and Esquire readers might not, but believe me, actual writers do – every one of them – and it’s dumb.

              So I was surprised to see it on here, b/c I thought this was more of a literary website.

    • Isa Kocher

      sometimes the most loveable thing about straight men is their cluelessness, but it’s also sometimes why they are so hateful. no waman has ever broken my heart like a man can, mostly i think because they have no idea how utterly heartbreaking they can be. which is just what makes it so heartbreaking.

      women are capable of much more profound cruelty. but it hurts less.

    • Isa Kocher

      wow read through these forum remarks and enjoy all those men being men.

      • HessianDud

        we ain’t all bad

        • Isa Kocher

          not bad.that was not the point. but i can’t explain it. but it’s like not having peripheral vision. or like as humans we can’t hear elephants talk because elephants communication is at a frequency too low for us to hear. not a criticism.

          • HessianDud

            thanks?

        • Sally Strange

          Eh, I used to think so. Then I met more men.

          • HessianDud

            I’m sorry to hear that you have had bad experiences with what are likely terrible individuals

    • Pingback: Weekend Links: December 19, 2015 | SF Bluestocking()

    • Pingback: Castrill | Pearltrees()

    • Catherine Reed

      If you’re going to try the biology defense of shitty behaviour, you’re going to have to A. cite your sources, and B. make a cogent argument for how biology explains male forcefulness, but not female weakness. Go on, Pubmed awaits you.

      • Christopher Fisher (Dairo512)

        Testosterone makes men have a tendency to be forceful, because dominance has for millennia been considered an attractive trait in men. Estrogen makes women have a tendency to be docile because submission has for millennia been considered an attractive trait in women. This isn’t rocket science.

        • Ann Newton

          No, it’s not rocket science, it’s simplistic BS. First of all, both men and women have varying degrees of both hormones. Secondly, for most of human history, might meant right because what could anyone do about it? It’s not like women had a whole lot of choices about anything so to assume what they really thought was attractive is a stretch. Choosing the obvious way to survive in a world that offers no alternatives has nothing to do with attraction.

    • Lamestllama

      I wonder why 80% of the Syrian refugees are young men and why was it that they did not care enough about the women in their lives that they would desert them? I am unsure these men have the kind of attitudes towards women that are compatible with the countries they are heading to.

      • iceweasels

        Because they aren’t. Stop watching Fox.

        • Lamestllama

          According to Time

          “In Europe, over 800,000 migrants have traveled to Europe by sea in 2015, according to the United Nations refugee agency, and a little over half have come from Syria. About 62%
          of all migrants that have traveled to Europe this year, however, are
          men. A little under a quarter, 22%, are children and only 16% are women”

          Which is reporting numbers from the United Nations refugee agency.

          Why are women so disproportionaly represented?

          • iceweasels

            And that has what to do with you stating 80 percent are men?

            • Lamestllama

              it confirms that around 80% of the adult migrants are male. Arguing about the culpability of children is ridiculous.

      • Hobo Tron

        What proof do you have that they’re leaving behind hundreds of thousands of women?

        • Lamestllama

          The fact is that 4 times as many men as women are benefitting from being granted asylum in Europe (UN data demonstrates this). Should women from those war torn countries be equally able to claim such asylum? If they are equally able to then why has the UN recorded such bias? If they are not equally able to, then what is that the cause of this inequity?

    • Pingback: This week I've been reading #59 - Cornflakegirl's Musings()

    • Jeremy Fine

      You know who hold a monopoly on gendered dialog? Feminists. You know which group is most likely to have heard of Marc LePine, an obscure insane criminal with fringe motivations? Feminists, not gamers.

      You know who has a history of histrionics, of making up fantastical stories for attention, of doubling down when caught, of being believed uncritically by a media that parrots their slogans? Feminists. Mattress Girl. The UVA case. The Duke Lacrosse Team case. The lynching of Tim Hunt. The list goes on, and feminists keep denying it. Find me an MRA who struts around his campus with impunity while repeating endless lies. Because all I see is men’s centres being dismissed as unnecessary by the same people who buy Male Tears mugs and insist feminism is about equality. What I see is lectures by Warren Farrell being protested, what I see is Jessica Valenti being so embarassed by her debate of Wendy McElroy, she had the resulting footage censored.

      So now ask yourself: why would Anita Sarkeesian be receiving threats that mention Marc LePine, and who is most likely to have sent them, who would benefit from them the most?

      Take an honest look, and see who refuses to examine facts honestly, see whose opinions are actually automatically dismissed, and who’s doing the actual dismissing, to great personal profit, and you will understand why men, as a group, have no obligation to explain anything to you. Because men do not have the same in-group bias that women do, and which women constantly project onto the other gender.

      Keep denying it as much as you want, you won’t change it.

      • AL

        Maybe take a breather and step back from this for a minute. You sound, frankly, pretty paranoid, which is to be expected. Any time there’s a movement for social change, there are people on the other side who see it as frightening and sinister.

        Or who cherry-pick examples, like you did, to show that the movement is logically inconsistent.

        But a few examples of people being human – that is, making mistakes, elaborating or even outright lying, being as**oles – if that is indeed what actually happened in the examples you mentioned – does not invalidate the lived experiences of millions of women around this planet.

        I am one of those women. Your words and your definition of feminism do not suddenly make me wake up and say “Huh. You know, my whole life has been a lie! I’ve been deluded by the Evil Feminist Conspiracy this whole time!”

        Because there Is No Conspiracy. None. Seriously. Relax.

        There’s just millions of people, many of the female persuasion, who want to have our voices and our concerns and our humor and our talents and our ambitions and our lives heard and valued rather than constantly and unfairly put down, attacked, ignored.

        Not that crazy a thing.

        If MRA would lead with “Yes, let’s improve the world together, we want to work with feminists to celebrate both men’s and women’s accomplishments and learn how to communicate better, and pay special attention to men’s emotional and health needs” – we’d be having a very different conversation. I don’t know anyone – and I know a lot of feminists, both male and female – who are against men or men’s needs. Many feminists I know are teachers, therapists, nurses, doctors – who are extremely concerned with the health, well-being, and happiness of the boys and men in their care. As a former teacher myself, I was extremely concerned about the lack of support for boys’ emotional health, particularly in junior high. I argued with the school administrators to try to get more support systems in place to specifically help boys, because I feared at our school they were being seen as “tough” and “able to handle it” when in reality, many of them were falling further and further behind in school and having pretty tough emotional struggles without any positive support in learning how to express or navigate them.

        I’m not sure what you meant by “men, as a group, have no obligation to explain anything to you” – except that it conveys you didn’t actually read or understand this wonderful essay, where the author is pretty amused by men “explaining” things to her that she already knows, and that only show they misunderstood what she was trying to say in the first place.

        Misunderstanding – like it sounds like you’ve been doing, with the whole feminist movement. Which is, yes, about equality – not making women “better” than men. Really!

      • Sally Strange

        “The lynching of Tim Hunt”

        LOLOLOLOL

        Oh man, men are just sooooooo sensitive.

    • Charlotte

      BRAVO!

    • dcsloan

      Censorship and oppression are not about disagreement. They are about having the power to be the only voice in the room.

    • Anatlantik

      Reminds me of a discussion I had quite a while ago with some friends (French people in their mid-twenties in Paris by the way) over whether art may be or become a sort of propaganda. The answer was a big no for everyone because the main purpose of art was to raise reflection. But reading this makes me wonder whether what some of us make of art might not create propaganda. Hope I’m making sense here!

      • soccerteesandplaydoh

        I think that is an interesting topic because I’ve never met anyone who could give a satisfactory, consistent definition of the word propaganda.

    • Pingback: Rebecca Solnit – Men Explain Lolita to Me | Dead Wild Roses()

    • Todd Kinsey

      I can’t think of anyone I know who has read Eaquire. They stopped being a “man’s” magazine long ago.

      I’d wager to say at least half of my favorite books are by women. In fact, I’d say that in the modern era, women are putting out far better material than their male counterparts.

    • Evilin Garnett

      ok back to the book in question. The book. The classic that I had feelings about I did not think it was relevant at to adress, but which haunted me. Let’s be clear, it is not a love story. It is a tale of obsession. Humbert Humbert is not obsessed with Lolita. He is obsessed with her child’s body. In fact, the Lolita that Nabokov creates is shallow, unintelligent, pop-culture obsessed and unkind. Nabokov’s and many adults perception of typical American teenager. At no time in the book are we given her point of view, even though one horrible thing after another happens to her. Her mother hates her, (liked her brother SO much better) then is killed after which she’s kidnapped by a pedophile on whom she has a misplaced crush. As for HH, he has a hard time. In order to get to the holy grail of Lolita’s barely pubescent body, he has to go through…:Lolita. She must be flattered, bribed, and badgered in order to get access to her 12, 13,14, year old genitalia. At a certain point he imagines a sort of Lolita farm. She’s gonna get older, and gross, of course-adult bodies disgust him. That;s ok he thinks, he’ll get her pregnant and have sex with their (his)) daughter. And when the daughter goes through puberty and gets gross,he can get HER pregnant and have sex with his grand daughter.
      Lolita’s body is youth to HH, innocence, etc. And it’s been a fertile source of academic papers.

      How could I, a female person not find this scenario, that passage, this tale……”problematic”. How can I not read the seduction scene where “she came on to me” and not think of all the little kids who try to act tougher and older than they are and the adults who exploit that?

      That said, I agree that Lolita is a work of literary genius. Like Merchant of Venice,with it’s vicious anti-semitism is also genius. i don’t like it, but I admire his expertise with language and have no problem with it’s being taught. It just means that it’s “problematic” and I should be able to mention the effect these problems have on me as a reader, and a person. This does not mean that I hate men, that I think one thing or another about anyone or anything. It does mean that there is some kind of contraption in place whose levers and pulleys are not operated by me, and that works against my expression of considered opinion.,

      Look, I was an enthusiastic and respectful student, and will always be, but that doesn’t mean that my taking exception to something in a text is evidence that I don’t understand it.

    • x.-

      “Men Explain Lolita to Me, or, I Fail to Explain Lolita to You All Whilst Making Some Generic, Vaguely-Feminist Point That Ultimately Leads Nowhere At All, Really”

    • Evilin Garnett

      Additionally, imho, Nabakov’s genius was isometimes in presenting us disturbing monsters from the inside, To be told you don;t get it because they disturb you is also to miss the point of the book.

    • Evilin Garnett

      So put your son in it and see what happens.

    • Pingback: Best journalism of 2015 | Brave new words()

    • There is a common attack on art that thinks it is a defense. It is the argument that art has no impact on our lives, that art is not dangerous, and therefore all art is beyond reproach, and we have no grounds to object to any of it, and any objection is censorship.

      Yep. I’m not even pro art like that. But I can see how unthoughtful that stance is. Clearly art can effect us that’s WHY it’s art and not tying your shoe laces. It’s why we used to have drummers in the military. It’s why Birth of a Nation is such a monumental film. (It’s also racist and I assume full of lies but it’s definitely monumental)

      Meaning that you don’t get to have sex with someone unless they want to have sex with you, which if we say it without any gender pronouns sounds completely reasonable.

      Oh SNAP!!!! That’s the greatest burn on that man I’ve read.

      But if you assume that sex with a female body is a right that heterosexual men have, then women are just these crazy illegitimate gatekeepers always trying to get in between you and your rights.

      If I can insert an alternatively disturbing thought process I don’t see many people talking out. I propose that these people do not recognize that man CAN say no to sex. Because either a) it’s never occurred to them that saying no to a woman is the same thing as a woman saying no to them (i.e. when you say no to these sidechick hoes it’s because you got man business to do, but when they say no back they’re doing it because of disrespect), or potentially worse? b) they never say no to sex even when they don’t want to (toxic masculinity anyone)

      Investigative journalists T. Christian Miller and Ken Armstrong just published a long piece about how police caught a serial rapist (and how one of his victims was not only disbelieved for years but was bullied into saying she lied and then prosecuted for lying). The rapist told them, “Deviant fantasies had gripped him since he was a kid, way back to when he had seen Jabba the Hutt enslave and chain Princess Leia.” Culture shapes us. Miller and Armstrong’s grim and gripping essay, “An Unbelievable Story of Rape,” bears witness to both the impact of popular culture and of women’s stories being discounted and discredited.

      Wow. that’s horrifying. I thought I knew about all the major stories but there’s just too many of them to know them all which gives me confused feelings.

      censorship is when the authorities repress a work of art, not when someone dislikes it

      Crikes it’s that simple. Even if Anita convinced a dev to change a game that’s not censorship. If the public pushes them to include black characters that’s not censorship. If the American Govt makes Bungie add an american flag to Master Chief.. that’s censorship

    • If you take an idea seriously, you ruthlessly criticize it, and if it holds up, then it’s worth something. If a guy – really anybody – is taking your ideas seriously, it means they are taking you seriously. It means they are treating you like an equal.

      How did you think that equals treated each other? Did you think that putting you on a pedestal and automatically deferring to your opinion was equality? Is it equality when men aren’t even allowed an opinion on something you’ve said and instead pat you on the head while apologizing for their existence the way Joshua Hardy Carroll did in the comment below mine?

    • Pingback: The REWM:The week in review - The REWM()

    • Anonymouuuus

      I started reading this article expecting to agree with it, but having read it to the end and then having read the article about the Esquire list, I feel I have to defend the people who are described as patronizingly trying to explain Lolita to Rebecca Solnit.

      While I respect that different people have different reactions to a work of literature and would never be as bigoted as to believe that there is a single, objectively true or right interpretation of anything, if someone expresses an opinion that strongly differs from my own (especially an opinion that denegrates a work that I love), I would naturally be inclined to voice my objections to that person’s analysis and to share my own views. This is natural, healthy and interesting debate. Despite literature being such a subjective topic to debate, it is pretty commonplace for people to frame their opinions as facts. When I (a straight white man, if you’re wondering) discuss literature (regardless of the gender, race, nationality or sexual orientation of the person I’m talking to), I might commonly use such phrases as “You’ve completely missed the point.” I make the assumption that whoever I’m talking to understands this to means something more along the lines of “I interpret the main point as being different to what you interpret it as being”. To take offense at people patronizing or trying to educate you is kind of erroneous, when they are engaging in debate. (Of course, if the people in question were using openly sexist and patronizing language, that is a different matter, but Solnit doesn’t suggest that.) I for one have learnt a lot about literature through such debates.

      The commentary that Solnit makes on authors like Nabokov, Hemingway, Burroughs and

    • Pingback: TV Tropes Monday: The Remnant | Neither Here nor There....()

    • Pingback: OUR SUNDAY LINKS | GUTS Canadian Feminist Magazine()

    • Ryan Clark

      As white man that thinks his opinion is right, not fact just the better opinion, and likes to argue it, I will be do it with anyone white black Hispanic man woman gay straight transgender. I also find white men to be stupid and scared a lot, stupid because we have all this privilege and they remain poor and undereducated, I mean at least middle class and try out post secondary school. Secondly these people along with the small number of Uber poweful/wealthy individuals think that giving a small amount of power to minorities will somehow make it a fair game, and white men can’t possibly win a fair game. Btw it won’t become a fair game, sorry, not really.

    • Percy Sledge

      “Which means you have failed to recognize that women are people” How about applying this logic to the “white straight males” you mention in your article? Feminism has thrown into the dustbin the noble liberal tradition of individualism. Treating a person as an individual first and their gender/class second seems to be limited only to the female adherents of feminism. For men they are generalised and spoken as a collective.

      The process of identifying negative behaviour of individual(s) then assigning these behaviours to all members of the individuals group is a precursor to bigotry. Treating men as individuals first instead of referring to the straight white male collective as “they” is ethically fair. Even if you continue to label white straight men as having “privelobliviousness” – this does not automatically discount the opinion of a person – to believe so is a poor attempt at rationalising these opinions never hold any merit and is just another form of censorship.

    • Tvrtko Zuljevic

      I’m very late, but I just want to say that I loved the text and also the fact that Kate Millett is mentioned – I think she’s an incredible writer. Her “Politics of Cruelty” helped me understand myself better. That sounds both corny and cryptic but it’s true nonetheless.

      As for Lolita: I wonder how you can read the book and NOT empathize with her. I never unserstood how the word “Lolita” could ever become synonymous with… you know, the whole “young seductress” thing.

    • CuriousGeorgeOrwell

      Yawn.

      The same old warmed over identity politics from the same middle aged bi-coastal elites.

      Smells like vegan California farts.

    • Eddie Creed

      I read “Houston, Houston, Do You Read?” when I was 13 or 14. Because of this story, as a young, impressionable boy, I firmly believed that men were simple, carnal-motivated beasts who were responsible for evil in the world, and that as a male, I was partly responsible. Because I was 13 or 14 and was completely aroused by the carnal depictions of sex in the story. Maybe I shouldn’t have read it so young, being driven by hormones and into immense conflict over my adolescent lustings.

      So I know how you feel, ladies. Reading made me feel bad about myself for all the rapes, wars, and oppressions I hadn’t done.

      • Sally Strange

        When I was 14 a strange man offered to take me to his hotel room.

        You’re right, we have so much in common.

        • Eddie Creed

          You probably dressed like you were 19.

          Re-read the article. Stay on point.

    • Seymour Butts

      This article seems to be at odds with itself.

      ‘“Jerry Seinfeld and Bill Maher have publicly condemned the oversensitivity of college students, saying too many of them can’t take a joke,” with the invocation of these two white guys as definitive authorities.’

      But seriously, you know who can’t take a joke? White guys’

      I don’t really see how you can conflate Maher and Seinfelds condemnation of over-sensitivity on campuses to them being unable to take a joke. In fact I know that both have made jokes about male privilege. But simply because they are white males their opinions are worth less than a woman or someone of a different ethnicity?

      To me this is an example of the pendulum having swung so far to one side that people are unable to see that they have become the side passing judgement and that it is their views which are blinded by prejudice.

      ‘Many among that curious gender are easy to upset, and when they are upset they don’t know it (see: privelobliviousness).’

      This sounds like the kind of generalization one would likely see in a anti-feminist article. I don’t really see what it is supposed to accomplish besides belittling the emotions and concern of a group of society.

      ‘His point is that art can inflict moral harm and often does, just as other books do good.’

      I would say this is true. In regards to your article which this is in response to (I have only read this one) maybe adding ‘in my opinion’ would have prevented concern of encouraging censorship.

      I felt very micro-agressed throughout the article.

      • I think perhaps you could stand to work on your reading comprehension. You are drawing false equivalencies.

        • Eddie Creed

          You are attacking the person, and not their writing. That’s a fallacy.

          • Joshua White

            Which fallacy?

            • Seymour Butts

              That would be ‘ad hominem’.

            • Joshua White

              No, lack of reading comprehension would be a rational reason to reject an argument. The ad hominem fallacy has to do with irrelavent characteristics.

              You can say that they only offered it as an opinion, but it’s not fallacious.

            • Seymour Butts

              The non-fallacy part of alteredstories statement is this:

              You are drawing false equivalencies.

              The part which was considered by several people to be an ad hominem is this:

              I think perhaps you could stand to work on your reading comprehension.

              Those two sentences in their entirety made up the ‘argument’.

              If someone wants to debate the points I made I would love it. Simply saying that I should read better, whether or not it is fallacious, does not qualify as a rebuttal by any means.

            • As I tried to point out in my longer comment, the apparent lack of reading comprehension seems to be the cause of the false equivalencies you drew.

            • Joshua White

              Wrong, alteredstories offered an opinion. An ad hominem fallacy is a specific means of rejecting an argument. A characteristic like lack of reading comprehension is a rational reason to reject another person’s argument. You are simply wrong and are now trying to redefine a fallacy.

              If alteredstories wants to expand their opinion into an argument by quoting and providing reason and logic that is their affair, but given the fact that you just confused the application of an negative characterization with a fallacy I don’t blame them for wanting to save the energy.

            • Seymour Butts

              I can relate on the saving energy part.

              I suppose you could see his original response as not in any way a rebuttal to my points.

              I would have preferred if he or she had actually given my an example of the misunderstanding I had, but the fact that they left it up in the air to me indicates that they likely just disagreed with my points as opposed to having anything really worthwhile to add.

              The difference between a negative characterization and a logical fallacy is pretty pedantic in my opinion and may just be a difference of perspective. I would just like to point out that I was not the person who originally alleged that he/she had committed a fallacy but did agree with that allegation.

            • Joshua White

              Oh I saw it as a rebuttal, but even a rebuttal has elements that are independent of the rest of it. In this case the fact that the rebuttal had a form, and that form was that of an opinion and not a fallacy.

              You might not like the fact that I only seized on your utterly wrong description of that comment and nothing else, but it changes nothing about the reality. It does not matter if you were not the one that originally alleged, you got sucked into the debate over “pedanticism”.
              (pedantic? pointing out a fallacy is “internet fighting words”, as well as what they said but I get to choose what I respond to)

            • Seymour Butts

              I agree.

              People can choose to argue the points or argue over some grammatical technicality.

              If people choose the grammatical route I assume that the over arching points would be too hard to counter.

              All the same to me, though arguments about who said what on something this subjective will always boil down to individual perceptions, as there are several people with different opinions on this.

            • Joshua White

              >”All the same to me, though arguments about who said what on something
              this subjective will always boil down to individual perceptions, as
              there are several people with different opinions on this.”
              No. This is about the actual meaning of ad homenem and fallacy. Personal perception only gets you so far with this. That is why there is a whole area of research devoted to motivated reasoning, which is what triggers fallacious reasoning.

          • No, sir. I am saying that I think the person is making a false equivalence between the statements made in this article, and the comments of Mahr and Seinfeld. I am saying that they did not fully comprehend what they read, and so they need to work on that. It’s not a “personal attack”, it’s saying, “you missed the point”.

          • soccerteesandplaydoh

            Nope. She’s attacking his argument.

        • Seymour Butts

          Feel free to point out any misunderstanding.

          Insulting my reading comprehension does not qualify as a rebuttal btw.

          • If it had just been that one little bit – the Mahr/Seinfeld comment, and her immediate response, then you might have had a point, but there’s a whole article here that discusses the power dynamics involved, the historical context, and that explicitly states that many white male authors ARE worth reading and listening to. At no point does she say their opinions are “worth less”. I didn’t even find any real implication of that.

            She does make a generalization, and then spends a good amount of time pointing out that it IS a generalization, and that there are a vast number of white men to whom it does not apply. And then she says that there are some to whom it DOES apply.

            You are selecting bits to be offended by, and ignoring their context, and the larger statements of which they are part.

            “Insulting your reading comprehension” was an appropriate response, given that your comment implies that you did not, in fact, comprehend what was written. You simply saw things that looked bad, to you, took them out of context, and claimed injury.

            • Seymour Butts

              Let me see if I can reduce your argument a bit.

              Would the same apply to someone saying:

              “But seriously, you know who can’t take a joke? White girls. Not if it implicates them and their universe, and when you see the rage, the pettiness, the meltdowns and fountains of female tears of fury, you’re seeing people who really expected to get their own way and be told they’re wonderful all through the days.
              Many white women—among whom I count many friends (and, naturally, family members nearly as pale as I)—have a sense of humor, … Some have deep empathy and insight and write as well as the rest of us.”

            • Once again, you are ignoring the context of disparate power dynamics. If this was about white women mocking black women, then in that situation, “white female tears of fury” over being challenged for racism would be something to talk about.

              As far as I can tell, your disapproval relies on the assumption that white males are on equal footing with the other groups discussed here, and the reality is that we are not. White males have held most or all of the power in this society since its inception, and that has barely changed.

              The power dynamic is what changes things.

            • Seymour Butts

              Well I disagree that power dynamic can change the generally accepted rules of public discourse.

              Of course people can write whatever they want.

              I think the author could get their points across to a larger audience in a less combative tone, but perhaps they prefer a niche group who all share general assumptions about people and society.

              In my opinion, what is not good for the goose is not good for the gander.

            • Then start by stating that disagreement.

              As to whether power dynamics change generally accepted rules of discourse, of course they can. Example – if a person in a position of power (say, a white male, since we’re talking about that) tells a joke about a less powerful person or group of people (say, Jews, black people, women), then it tends not to be as funny, because it basically comes across as bullying.

              Likewise, making sexual/romantic advances on someone is flirting in one situation, but if you add a significant power dynamic – like a boss flirting with a lower-level employee, or a customer flirting with a sales rep, or someone with a weapon flirting with someone without one, then it’s not really flirting anymore, because the person with less power has to calculate their response to avoid getting hurt. If you think your boss will fire you for not pretending to like their “flirting”, you might smile, or laugh, or encourage it, because you’re afraid of being fired. In that situation, the power dynamic has changed it from flirting to harassment.

              In the subject of this article, we’re talking about how people respond to being challenge by those who hold less power, in our society, than they do. Not all white men respond aggressively to a challenge from a woman (for example), but some definitely do, and that’s what the author is talking about. Specifically, some respond that way to women or minorities, but not to other white men.

              This is the first century in the history of this country in which there is an expectation that the interests and needs of people other than white men will be catered to, and that is a huge change. Not that long ago, men could legally rape their wives, and black people were officially, by U.S. law, second-class citizens.

              The people who wanted to keep things that way are still alive. Some of them still hold political, social, and economic power, and making jokes that continue the rhetorical arguments for maintaining that inequality does real harm, because it reinforces the beliefs of those who think that inequality is a good thing, and encourages them.

              Just as reinforcing ANYBODY’S beliefs is encouragement – whether for good or for ill.

              In dismissing power dynamics, you are dismissing a part of reality. Human behavior and thought patterns may not be “physical things”, but they are very real, and power dynamics are a very real part of that.

            • “You have no sense of humor because you’re not laughing at a ‘joke’ about a problem you have to deal with that I don’t have to deal with because I’m a while male and you’re not.”

            • Seymour Butts

              In regards to the reading comprehension, I don’t think I misinterpreted anything.

              Now that you have specified which parts you thought I had missed hopefully I can flesh out the rest of my points, as would happen in any constructive debate.

          • Addendum: A large part of the point of this article is about context – that thing that you ignored in your initial comment. It’s about the context of power dynamics, and how they are changing in a multitude of ways.

      • Joshua White

        It’s not a conflation as much as it is an example of a larger pattern. People, often white males (though it breaks down in interesting ways depending on the issues or people involved) who respond to an expression of offense with offense of their own that is directed at the feeling of offense of the first people. Rebecca was referring to an article that sourced them as an example, thus using them as an example as well.

        I have seen this pattern in responses to statements that get excused as “jokes” after the fact, and in statement that are legitimately intended as jokes. Most people don’t have a good understanding of what humor is and that there are no “just jokes” (I get people who seem offended at my looking more deeply into humor). Humor is about transforming emotion bad to good, less intense to more intense. Outside of your example humor meant to reduce a persons negative emotion about something related to race, sex or gender will have the opposite effect on the people that the joke is at the expense of. In your example the humor works because the person making the joke is disparaging themselves, often in response to doing something insensitive and as a means of acknowledging it.

        You I’m sure you feel the same emotions involved in feeling a micro-aggression, but the context is critical. A white male such as myself is in the dominant social group and that requires placing a distinction that lets us think about how they work in a group conflict context.

        • Seymour Butts

          The way I read it it was a conflation of Bill Maher and Jerry Seinfelds concern over campus sensitivity with white guys not being able to take jokes, which clearly have nothing to do with one another.

          In fact, the authors point about taking jokes seems to be counter to what you posted in your reply.

          In my opinion I do not believe that someone being a member of the dominant social group immediately qualifies them for prime candidates of micro-aggression.

          In fact I would assume that those who complain about micro-aggression would think it is something which no one should deal with, not a tactic which is appropriate to use against one group and not others.

          My basic point is that everyone is human and should be treated with dignity. I draw the line at saying that because someone happens to be a ‘white male’ that they are open game and should feel ashamed if they are not already burdened with white guilt.

          • Joshua White

            You need to be a bit more specific.

            When you say “the authors” do you mean Rebecca or the authors of the piece that quoted Maher and Seinfield? Because Lukianoff and Haidt support the general idea of students being oversensitive and quote Maher and Seinfield in support of that.

            >”… conflation of Bill Maher and Jerry Seinfelds concern over campus
            sensitivity with white guys not being able to take jokes, which clearly
            have nothing to do with one another.”
            As a white guy I see it as white people (mostly guys, we are used to getting to act dominant) generally being oversensitive about criticism of their jokes by people rationally sensitive to the jokes. Per my comments about the nature and purpose of humor (I can cite this if you wish)many jokes are criticism by their nature. They disparage and insult something in a way that makes others feel better about it, and when it is an example of oversensitive whtie priviliged BS I don’t feel sorry for those white guys at all. See the very next part that you neglected to post,
            >”White guys. Not if it implicates them and their universe, and when you
            see the rage, the pettiness, the meltdowns and fountains of male tears
            of fury, you’re seeing people who really expected to get their own way
            and be told they’re wonderful all through the days.”
            The social context involving decades of white people getting to say lots of insulting and insensitive things as a de facto social conflict environment with little to no push back is what makes it oversensitive on the part of the white people. That relevantly connects the concern over campus sensitivity to white people being unable to take a joke.

            >”In my opinion I do not believe that someone being a member of the
            dominant social group immediately qualifies them for prime candidates of
            micro-aggression.”
            You misunderstand me. I’m not arguing that people micro-agress against white people or white males. I am saying that it is not possible for you to be micro-agressed in this context, and that the what you are feeling is something that is often a micro-aggression in other contexts, criticism.
            Another way of looking at what a micro-aggression is would be to call it a “a maintenance dominance behavior based in bigotry and xenophobia that serves to remind a subordinate person or group of their place” . Here maintenance means that instead of fewer bigger dominance displays (such as the ones Anita Sarkeesian gets), lots of smaller ones are used. The irrational prejudice and discrimination of a bigot is what fuels micro-aggressions.
            1) Based on the context of your comments you seem to be a member of the dominant social group.
            2) While you are claiming that Rebecca’s comments are not rational, you have not demonstrated it.
            3) Rational criticism can not be a micro-aggression.

            • Seymour Butts

              A few thoughts, (by ‘authors’ I meant ‘author’s, I realize this is a literary website):

              ‘I am saying that it is not possible for you to be micro-agressed in this context, and that the what you are feeling is something that is often a micro-aggression in other contexts, criticism.’

              In my opinion when I see an article laden with generalities about ‘white males’ I probably feel what other minorities have felt in the past when they had negative stereotypes applied to their race or ethnicity which obviously are not present in all members of that community.

              ‘Many white men—among whom I count many friends (and, naturally, family members nearly as pale as I)—have a sense of humor, that talent for seeing the gap between what things are supposed to be and what they are and for seeing beyond the limits of their own position. Some have deep empathy and insight and write as well as the rest of us.’

              I think if the author had said anything similar to the above about anyone other than white men many people would have been frustrated.

              It is kind of like someone saying ‘Blacks are lazy’. Even if followed up with palliative statements like ‘obviously there are many, including my friends, of blacks who are not lazy’ the accusatory nature of the first does not disappear.

              You saying that it is impossible to be micro-aggressed is to me approaching level of macro-aggression Orwellian doublespeak.

              The way I see it broad generalities will never work to get a good conversation with the other side going, though I highly doubt that was the purpose of the article. It seems made to exist in a rather small echo chamber where many of the innuendo filled assertions stand unchallenged.
              ____________________
              ‘The social context involving decades of white people getting to say lots of insulting and insensitive things as a de facto social conflict environment with little to no push back is what makes it oversensitive on the part of the white people. That relevantly connects the concern over campus sensitivity to white people being unable to take a joke.’

              I am confused here. The author (of this article) apparently sees critisiscm of outrage culture at US universities as baseless.

              ‘There has been a lot said this year about college students—meaning female college students, black students, trans students—and how they’re hypersensitive and demanding that others be censored. ‘

              Somehow she turns that into white people being unable to take a joke?

              What joke is she referring to? Is her criticism not serious and actually just a prank of some kind?

              _______
              The author has some interesting views on literature and its treatment of women.

              I suppose that considering women have been treated quite terribly throughout all of recorded history it would make sense that literature might represent societies of the time and likewise the authors themselves may have been misogynists as well.

              But as the author says several great authors throughout time have given women as understanding a viewpoint as possible.

              I am tempted to end by saying that some women can even write as well as us men, but will resist, somewhat.

            • Joshua White

              >”In my opinion when I see an article laden with generalities about
              ‘white males’ I probably feel what other minorities have felt in the past when
              they had negative stereotypes applied to their race or ethnicity which
              obviously are not present in all members of that community.”

              Give me a specific example of such a generality. That is critical to moving forward.

              >”I think if the author had said anything similar to the above about
              anyone other than white men many people would have been frustrated.”

              No. The fact that white people are the dominant culture, and men are the
              dominant sex matters. Humor implicitly has to do with at least two things, an
              unexpected contrast and an element that transforms emotion. When bad emotion transforms to good emotion when it comes to race or sex that is very specific information. Do you have reason to question the part you quoted on that basis?
              Until you answer this I will not address your “blacks are lazy”
              example.

              >”You saying that it is impossible to be micro-aggressed is to me
              approaching level of macro-aggression Orwellian doublespeak.”

              I said you can’t be microaggressed for reasons. You did not mention
              them. They were not broad generalities, they were very
              specific reasons having to do with social dominance behavior in a cultural context.

              >”I am confused here. The author (of this article) apparently sees
              critisiscm of outrage culture at US universities as baseless.

              Somehow she turns that into white people being unable to take a joke?What joke
              is she referring to? Is her criticism not serious and actually just a prank of
              some kind”

              Did you even see the part where I talk about the nature of jokes? I even
              said that I can cite this if you want. In short jokes = offensive material, so a
              white person being criticized for jokes is relevantly connected to being the
              actual oversensitive party.

              Screw the rest of it until you can actually get at what Rebecca is talking
              about, and me for that matter.

            • Seymour Butts

              So her article is the joke that white people can’t take?

              You seem to be set on making whatever excuses are necessary to protect your current beliefs.

              One example of a generality about white males :

              “Non-white people get much the same rubbish about how there isn’t racism and they don’t get treated differently and race doesn’t affect any of us, because who knows better than white people who are trying to silence people of color?”

              Yes, any complaint about over-sensitivity is an attempt to ‘silence people of color’. Give me a break.

              You say it is impossible to micro-agress white males. I respectfully disagree and view micro-aggressions as being able to apply to anyone. For instance if I was at a liberal arts college in a women studies course would a white male still be the dominant culture? Doubtful, I have a feeling a mixed race women would be the cultural ideal in that setting and that micro-agressions could certainly take place against white males.

              If you can explain away all of this inherent racism and sexism I am happy for you but to most people this is not at all a balanced viewpoint.

            • Joshua White

              >”So her article is the joke that white people can’t
              take?”

              Really? She referenced times when jokes elicited a reaction.
              It was pretty clear. I’ll cite it if you want but I want to see how well your
              reading comprehension works. I’m not the first to wonder about your abilities
              in that respect.

              >”You seem to be set on making whatever excuses are necessary to
              protect your current beliefs.”

              Let’s see if you demonstrate those excuses.

              >”One example of a generality about white males :
              ‘”Non-white people get much the same rubbish about how there isn’t
              racism and they don’t get treated differently and race doesn’t affect any of
              us, because who knows better than white people who are trying to silence people
              of color?”
              Yes, any complaint about over-sensitivity is an attempt to ‘silence people
              of color’. Give me a break.'”

              This was a reference to a general pattern. If you want to challenge this we
              can talk about any specifics that you would like to bring up as general rules
              are references to an experienced set of examples. This white male is happy to
              agree with Rebecca on the existence of the phenomenon and I really don’t give a
              fuck without your examples to argue about.

              >”You say it is impossible to micro-agress white males. I
              respectfully disagree and view micro-aggressions as being able to apply to
              anyone. For instance if I was at a liberal arts college in a women studies
              course would a white male still be the dominant culture? Doubtful, I have a
              feeling a mixed race women would be the cultural ideal in that setting and that
              micro-agressions could certainly take place against white males.”

              Dominant culture refers to what it needs to refer to when it addresses issues
              having to do with one culture that has been historically dominant over another
              and has been able to develop sets of micro-aggressions over time. Your
              redefinition would take the usefulness away, which I suspect is the point. This
              is not about academic study to you, this is about cultural conflict which I am
              able to interact with as well.

              >”If you can explain away all of this inherent racism and sexism I
              am happy for you but to most people this is not at all a balanced viewpoint.”

              Racism and sexism face similar problems in that the useful academic
              definitions have to do with dominant and subordinate groups and the need to differentiate
              differences between the two to identify behaviors specific to both. You may
              wallow in the misery of ignorance if you wish, but I have gained a lot of value
              from accepting reality and I will not play pretend about where the serious
              attempts to understand reality actually lie.

            • Seymour Butts

              Ok points in order they are presented.

              A)

              no argument, concession accepted.

              B)
              ‘This was a reference to a general pattern. ‘, yes in other words a generality which you were asking for an example of. Clearly you did not actually want an example.

              “This white male is happy to agree with Rebecca on the existence of the phenomenon and I really don’t give a fuck without your examples to argue about.”

              … OK, well I don’t care that much about how happy you are to agree with Rebecca. Are you saying that because you are a white male your opinion is somehow more valuable? Why would that be?

              C)

              If you cannot acknowledge that the dominant culture varies from city to city, state to state, and country to country then you have been totally blinded.

              D)

              I would prefer for all groups to be treated equally.

              To me this entails treating everyone with respect and empathy.

              This articles one-sidedness was reminiscent of some of the unfavorable anti-feminist literature

        • CuriousGeorgeOrwell

          OK, so Bill Maher and Jerry Seinfeld’s concerns are less valid because they’re white guys.

          What about Chris Rock saying the same thing?

          Since a black guy said it, can we now act like it’s a legitimate concern?

          • Joshua White

            Where do you get “less valid” out of this?

            That Rebecca is using them as an example does not remove any validity that I can see. It focuses on aspects important to Rebecca’s point. What specifically is being deemphasized that you feel is relavent to Rebecca’s piece?

    • Pingback: Open Thread and Link Farm: Which White Man Was That One? Edition | Alas, a Blog()

    • Joshua White

      I really like this piece!

      I have noticed a similar group of people and I wonder how closely they map onto one another. The group I see can’t stand to see something they like criticized, and they are usually reacting to the theme of the criticism (often sex, race, gender…) by attacking not only the existence of the criticism, but the ability of the person holding the ideas to criticize.

      They seem utterly unable or unwilling to engage with the substance of the criticism and engage in many different strategies to avoid having to do so. Hyper-focusing on the intent of the author like Rebecca Solnit mentions is one that I often see. Another example I encountered was when Melissa Hariss Perry talked about feeling that Star Wars was racist for reasons centering around the character of Darth Vader. They could not stop hyper-focusing on the internal consistency of the scrip and were unwilling or unable to acknowledge that this was about a persons perspective of a movie based on the culture they came from. I’m unsure how much of this is conscious decision, or unconscious social conflict strategy.

      While it is never explicitly stated as a goal their very actions seem to be to simply make the person with the opinion shut up by any means at their disposal. They have no idea just how personally weak they are as people, how utterly fear soaked their defensive aggression looks to this white male who has found a lot of value and personal benefit in simply learning to understand the perspective of another independent of any agreement or disagreement.

    • MTA000

      I found this essay wonderfully edifying. I try to read a lot but the literary aspect of ~serious~ fiction always seems to escape me. One of my favorite sensations while reading is understanding how other people think, or at least experiencing a fairly faithful simulation. Like if an old person misses a telephone call because they can only get out of their chair a few times a day. That blows me away. I can get out of a chair essentially an unlimited number of times in a day, but other people in the world have lives that are not like mine. I love feeling that while reading. Now i feel like the simplicity of this example makes me sound sarcastic, but I’m totally sincere.

      I’ve never read Lolita but reading your explication of her character made me think of the antagonist in East of Eden. Her name escapes me. Early in life she charges boys a nickel to look up her dress, then cries rape when found out. The first time I read this I had the base reaction – I have received instructions from the author that this character is bad and dishonest and I will proceed through the narrative accordingly. But now I feel like I got suckered. Was I meant to see that she was desperate? Or was I just naive enough not to understand that Steinbeck was making himself feel better about the Dilbert style matriarchy he imagined he lived in? Who knows.

    • One woman I knew personally told me that her father had sexually abused her, and used Lolita as evidence that what he did was good and natural. She observed that he must not have read it as carefully as she did.

    • Pingback: 2015’s Transformative Literary Essays | The Sundress Blog()

    • ooohello

      When I started college, I realized that I had a lot of growing up to do and I was eager to learn how to be a more considerate and open-minded person. I saw it as part of my duty of becoming a sophisticated man, like learning how to cook fancy meals or stroking my chin to musicians that used high-scoring Scrabble words in their lyrics. But that was a long time ago.

      It’s now been a decade of being barraged with articles like this one. Articles that sling around portmanteaus like “privelobliviousness” and slot all white, heterosexual, cisgendered men into the starting position of “slightly-better-than-Stalin”. I have gradually come to learn that no matter what I do, I can never hope to rise above “probably-not-a-bad-guy-as-long-as-he-keeps-quiet” in the minds of people like Rebecca Solnit. I know that embracing writers of different genders and backgrounds is not enough – I need to renounce the writers I like as well (unless they happen to correspond to the correct political criteria). And even then, I will still be regarded as an enemy of the revolution by fault of my gender. This has induced learned helplessness and ennui in me with regards to feminism and I really wish it hadn’t.

      Now, I am not asking for anyone’s sympathy and I never held out for a medal for trying to be a decent person (it’s a work in progress I’ll admit). And I absolutely realize that I came to inherit a great deal of privilege by being born a man. As I’m sure Rebecca Solnit recognizes that in being born a white woman and, I’m guessing, into the upper income bracket, places her on a higher rung than the majority of the planet. We are all doing better than someone and it’s healthy to realize that and get out of people’s way or pull them up accordingly.

      But let me ask this: Did the word “antifeminism” exist a decade ago? If it did, I never came across it. In 2016, it’s a well-established term along with “MRA”, “Mens Rights”, “Gamergate” and a thousand others. Where did all this knee-jerk antifeminism come from?

      The way I see it there are two factors to look at. Either this is a case of latent misogyny bubbling to the surface very suddenly or that the tone of the discourse has been overly antagonistic. Probably it’s a combination of the two but we know that human beings all respond the same way when when we antagonize them and shout at them and remove any incentive from coming to terms. Articles like this one are great for perpetuating The Great Online Feminist War and the stereotype of the cackling, rape-apologizing strawmen, who twirl their mustaches with one hand and cradle their swollen testicles with the other, but are they constructive to the discourse?

      The author claims that women are better at empathizing with people different from themselves because they’ve had to do it for so long due to all the authors being white men. So, all I am asking is that Rebecca Solnit ask herself two questions:

      – How would I respond to an article addressing my social group in this tone?
      – What am I hoping to accomplish with this article?

    • CuriousGeorgeOrwell

      Chris Rock also complained about the oversensitivity of (primarily white upper middle class) college students.

      Are you going to ridicule his “black male tears”?

      I have popcorn and I’m waiting.

      • Joshua White

        Chris Rock can be wrong. You did not cite his reasoning, logic or experiences and that is what makes him right. Not the fact that he is black. If you actually cared about black people you should be willing and able to say why he is right, so It’s more likely that you are using black people to defend yourself from something, most likely your desire to say things that bother other people.

        Enjoy your popcorn.

        • CuriousGeorgeOrwell

          It’s quite simple, people from a broad range of ethnic and racial backgrounds don’t like the goosestepping of petty millennial autocrats.

          I was just pointing out what while this isn’t a “white guys sez” phenomenon, it seemed quite convenient for the author to frame it as such.

          Feminists have a long and storied history of not spending too much time worrying about the concerns of those outside their white bicoastal upper middle class bubbles, so maybe this is a sore point?

          I have no trouble saying what I think though:

          This tactic of serving warmed over identity politics tropes is, yawn, tired. The point of all this is to fake seizures to get attention and maybe get some power.

          The only thing that makes this good entertainment is the increasing bizarre contortions (“let’s ignore what black people say!”) required to keep the narrative going.

          But don’t let that stop you!

          🙂

          • Joshua White

            So instead of substance-less references to a minority that agrees with you, it’s hyperbolic references to police states? I love playing with this bit of irrationality!
            Also you have yet to say why Chris Rock is right. He is more than his race and his reasons are what matters, which is the core of my new criticism of you. And, you added in an appeal to numbers of people which changes nothing.

            The government controlling what people express is the opposite of minority groups critisizing a more dominant social group. So I’ll be needing to see what the for reals threats you are appealing to are. Given this emotionally inflated frame you really have no grounds to be critisizing Rebecca’s. Stick to reasons why her frame is wrong because your rhetoric and obfuscation suck.

            What you think of feminists is irrelavent, especially since this white, male and masculine feminist living in a cheap apartment finds your continued need to use groups instead of refer to parts of the article amusingly predictable. You do have trouble expressing yourself or you would have no need of irrational and/or stereotypical group references.

            Politics is inherently identity based since identity often informs our political choices, views and activities. Also getting attention and power is a human neutral, it’s specific reasons for it that make it a problem. So instead of trying, badly, to critisize normal human activity maybe you can stop being a coward and cite something from the piece and show some of that referenced ability to express yourself.

            • CuriousGeorgeOrwell

              You’re a terrible writer.

              Are you a social sciences grad student?

              That would explain quite a bit.

            • Joshua White

              Replying to myself,
              “You did not say why they disagreed, the fact that they are black is less important than their reasoning, logic and experiences.”
              That should say “…more important…”

            • Joshua White

              So my comment about a typo in my comment comes through and not the comment? Disqus needs to get it’s shit in gear.
              I’ll try to repeat what I just said.

            • Joshua White

              You know what? Fuck it. You gave a totally substance-less reply to what I said. You can either start quoting the parts of Rebecca’s piece that match with your statements or stand a coward that needs group references because they are incapable of actually making a reasoned argument.

            • CuriousGeorgeOrwell

              I actually like her piece. It’s hilarious – it’s a vacant and vapid mash up of every social media, social justice meme that’s popped up over the past 18 months:

              Gamergate, Mizzou, trans-fixion (hehe get it?), rape culture, BLM, etc. etc. etc.

              Here’s my favorite part:

              “Photographs and essays and novels and the rest can change your life; they are dangerous.”

              Certainly, we need safe spaces. And probably some censorship. Maybe Play-Doh and blankies and keep the men (with penises) out of the room.

              And clearly if you’re anything but a hetero privileged white male with a penis you understand this.

              Imagine the trans, the queer (not just gay anymore, cause gay white men are probably too privileged), men with vaginas, women with penises, the BLM, all walking in lockstep, goose stepping around the quad. A beautiful thought.

              It’s too bad they’re not walking in lockstep. It’s too bad that Chris Rock has the same opinion that Jerry Seinfeld has which is: “College students today are a bunch of whiney little bitches.”

              And they are bitches, and I’m not sure why you’re asking me for a dissertation as to why this is so.

              Let me help you out with something. I’m almost forty. I’m a well paid professional with a 1%-ish income. When I go to work I have peers and superiors who are women, and my department looks like the UN. The author of this is a strange bird, screaming oppression as someone with a master’s degree from Cal, cossetted in elite tiers of print media for the past 25 years, someone who thinks GamerGate is a SERIOUS THING. When you live in the real world, as opposed to fantasy-oppression land (“someone was rude to me at a party!!! oppression!!!”) you earn the right to call bullsh!t. So I’m calling bullsh!t.

              It’s important to understand that grad school does not in fact give you any intellectual tools to detect bullsh!t. It also does not teach you to write.

            • Joshua White

              Well if your new comment is going to be even less intelligent
              and relevant than normal, fuckit again, I find it fun anyway. It’s Disqus that
              I’m annoyed at. I can’t be mad at you, you are most likely a product of your surroundings.

              I’m going to recap the substance of your points. To be clear
              the only thing that is acceptable beyond the realm of mere opinion is for you
              to explain why you believe, and it’s amazing what one sees when you try.

              First reply.

              >”It’s quite simple, people from a broad range of ethnic and racial
              backgrounds don’t like the goosestepping of petty millennial autocrats.”

              Your original comment amounted to “you are wrong because Chris Rock is
              black”. Things are wrong for reasons and “cause my black poke’mon
              said so” is not one of them (shamelessly stolen from the “this week
              in blackness” podcast).

              >”I was just pointing out what while this isn’t a “white guys
              sez” phenomenon, it seemed quite convenient for the author to frame it as
              such.”

              What something is not, is not what it is. It’s not a toaster or goldfish
              either, try growing a spine and describing Rebecca’s frame and why it is wrong
              instead of what it is not.

              >”Feminists have a long and storied history of not spending too much
              time worrying about the concerns of those outside their white bicoastal upper
              middle class bubbles, so maybe this is a sore point?”

              This white, male living in a cheap apartment gives no fucks beyond the fact
              that your stereotype does not cover him.

              >”I have no trouble saying what I think though:”

              So far you do since you can’t make a single point without a reference to something
              other than Rebecca’s writing.

              >”This tactic of serving warmed over identity politics tropes is,
              yawn, tired. The point of all this is to fake seizures to get attention and
              maybe get some power.”

              Define “identity politics”, throwing jargon around without
              defining it is rude. Why should I give a damn about your terms? Unpack them
              into what they represent or stand a coward.

              >”The only thing that makes this good entertainment is the
              increasing bizarre contortions (“let’s ignore what black people
              say!”) required to keep the narrative going.”

              Fascinating, since my first reply was to point out that you were ignoring
              what a black person said in favor of the fact that it was a black person. I
              want why Chris Rock said what he said and nothing replaces that.

              Youre second comment.

              >”I actually like her piece. It’s hilarious – it’s a vacant and
              vapid mash up of every social media, social justice meme that’s popped up over
              the past 18 months:”

              Let’s see if you can actually defend that statement.

              >”Gamergate, Mizzou, trans-fixion (hehe get it?), rape culture, BLM,
              etc. etc. etc.”

              I see, so all you can do is plant terms and explain nothing. Eh, it’s a
              pattern and I guess all you can manage.

              >”Here’s my favorite part:”

              This ought to be informative.

              >'”Photographs and essays and novels and the rest can change your
              life; they are dangerous.”

              Certainly, we need safe spaces. And probably some censorship. Maybe Play-Doh
              and blankies and keep the men (with penises) out of the room.’

              This is about the empty minded garbage I expected. You snipped a single bit
              out of Rebecca’s piece and did not explain why she felt the way that she does.
              Quite cowardly, especially since the phrase “safe spaces” does not
              appear anywhere in this piece. Can your ego take an attempt to explain how you
              think they are connected? This ought to be fun.

              >”And clearly if you’re anything but a hetero privileged white male
              with a penis you understand this.”

              Now you are just desperately flailing about and using conservative trigger
              words.

              >”Imagine the trans, the queer (not just gay anymore, cause gay
              white men are probably too privileged), men with vaginas, women with penises,
              the BLM, all walking in lockstep, goose stepping around the quad. A beautiful
              thought.”

              Now I know you have absolutely no ability to respond to something someone
              says. I already mentioned the fact that your reference to Nazi police states is
              a non-literal reference that is the opposite of reality. Since you have nothing
              to say to that I can only assume that you are utterly unable to respond. Either
              that or you don’t know how to use a dictionary

              >”It’s too bad they’re not walking in lockstep. It’s too bad that Chris
              Rock has the same opinion that Jerry Seinfeld has which is: “College
              students today are a bunch of whiney little bitches.”‘

              How are they walking in lockstep? What is Chris Rock’s opinion? Why should I
              care what Seinfeld thinks? You said it is a particular thing, but you have not
              linked it. Why should I believe you?

              >”And they are bitches, and I’m not sure why you’re asking me for a
              dissertation as to why this is so.”

              I’m asking you for the simplest things required for demonstrating something.
              The added complexity is because I like playing with ignorant bigots to see what
              nature creates in terms of social conflict responses.

              >”Let me help you out with something. I’m almost forty. I’m a well
              paid professional with a 1%-ish income. When I go to work I have peers and
              superiors who are women, and my department looks like the UN. The author of
              this is a strange bird, screaming oppression as someone with a master’s degree
              from Cal, cossetted in elite tiers of print media for the past 25 years,
              someone who thinks GamerGate is a SERIOUS THING. When you live in the real
              world, as opposed to fantasy-oppression land (“someone was rude to me at a
              party!!! oppression!!!”) you earn the right to call bullsh!t. So I’m
              calling bullsh!t.”

              So what? Why does this make you right? An argument or an opinion (a summary
              of an argument without the substance) is right because of the reason and logic
              that leads to the conclusion. Nothing else. If you are so capable of arguing
              you should be able to actually cite what Rebecca said in her piece, why it is
              wrong, and you should be able to do so without pointless references to outside
              groups irrelevant to your argument.

              Anything else simply shows how weak you are and how dependent you are on
              others instead of yourself.

              >”It’s important to understand that grad school does not in fact
              give you any intellectual tools to detect bullsh!t. It also does not teach you
              to write.”:

              This is honestly funny to me. You have absolutely no evidence for anything
              about my educational career, yet you are obsessed with what my education was.

              Arguments depend on more than that coward. Want to know what I am and what
              my connection to this is? Actually give some reason and logic instead of
              cowardly group references and I’ll think about it.

            • CuriousGeorgeOrwell

              I think you’re fundamentally missing my point.

              The core concept of this essay is “white males think.”

              The hilarity, the sweet, sweet, fantastical irony, is based on the fact that (1) Ms. Cal master’s degree is quite privileged, and (2) there are a great many non-ableist, hetero, penised, heterosexual white males who disagree with her and live their lives quite contrary to her perverse fantasies.

              Chris Rock’s opinion is valid because he’s an expert in his field, as a working comedian. That, as a self-made very successful black guy, he can have primarily white, overprivileged 19 year olds weep and scream “trigger” is delicious.

              (Psst!! That’s what white privilege is: it’s you telling your lessers about their racism and insensitivity, including Chris Rock.)

              George Zimmerman is a “white Latino” says the New York Times, because it helps them fit a very specific racialist tableaux. It’s not so far off to maybe call Chris Rock a white black? And along these lines black white Rachel Dolezal isn’t such a preposterous stretch either, no?

              This:

              “The rest of us get used to the transgendering and cross-racializing of our identities as we invest in protagonists like Ishmael or Dirty Harry or Holden Caulfield.”

              This is lamentable self-pitying, victim ideology. It’s pathetic and it’s a poisoning of the well intellectually:

              “the cumulative effect of reminding women that we spend a lot of our lives quietly, strategically trying not to get raped, which takes a huge toll on our lives and affects our sense of self.”

              Uh, rape has gone down 50% the last 20 years, but I get that we’re talking about religion here and not epidemiology.

              No wonder Laura Kipnis inspired so much hate. She’s funny, smart, sexy, and has a grasp on what is enjoyable in life, and is not this. Kipnis is the type of very cool, very impressive, very charming liberal that I remember from college 20 years ago, the one who could beat you in by winning an argument, not by mortifying you with a victim seizure.

              So can you explain to me the appeal of this whole Victorian, fainting couch act? I don’t get it, fragile flower.

              Maybe, it’s because I’m not literary? I go for the George Orwells, Joan Didions, Renata Adlers. The essays not the fiction.

              But maybe this all about nothing.

              Maybe some women are meant to write a “Letter from Biafra” and some women are meant to weep over cultural appropriation of banh mi at Oberlin

              It’s funny that feminism is so infatuated with the latter.

            • AL

              So why did you read it, and why are you commenting? Surely you can use your immense intellectual powers to find something useful in this piece or try to learn something new from these discussions, or find something better to do with your time than to give snarky half-answers. If you’re so sure that everything you listed is silly nonsense, and you’re not willing to try to understand RS’s larger purpose or engage with people who don’t find it all to be silly nonsense, what’s the point? If you’re just here to laugh and make fun and be condescending, then that, sir, makes you a troll, and I’m not sure how that’s any more useful in the world than the things you’re so sick of. You have a lot of money, which you could be using in useful ways. Go build a school or invest in something instead of sh*tting on people here for no discernible reason.

              And speaking of money…good for you for making a ton of money. Really. That’s a lucky thing in this world. But man, bringing that up in this context makes you sound like a pretentious idiot. Not that you are one, but saying it makes you sound like one. I’m getting close to your age, and I know a lot of people who also make a great deal of money. Some are brilliant, most are average, and some are douchebags. I also know a lot of people who make very little money. Some are brilliant, most are average, some are douchebags. Unclear how the fact that you pull in a good salary is relevant to anything here. However, I am surprised that someone with your years on earth hasn’t yet learned that sometimes the world looks different to different people in totally valid ways, and maybe, just maybe, you don’t hold the magical keys to someone else’s reality.

            • CuriousGeorgeOrwell

              The appropriate reaction to smarm is snark.

        • Deepdish

          The questions isn’t wether or not Chris Rock is right or wrong, but rather why did the author seek to mislead readers by selectively choosing only the white comedians referenced in the Atlantic article.

          Solnit’s quote:”It tells us that, “Jerry Seinfeld and Bill Maher have publicly condemned the oversensitivity of college students, saying too many of them can’t take a joke,” with the invocation of these two white guys as definitive authorities.”

          Original article:
          A number of popular comedians, including Chris Rock, have stopped performing on college campuses (see Caitlin Flanagan’s article in this month’s issue). Jerry Seinfeld and Bill Maher have publicly condemned the oversensitivity of college students, saying too many of them can’t take a joke.

          • Joshua White

            Coward. You craven fear soaked coward.

            You brought up Chris Rock for no other reason than that he was a black person. You used him for his race like that was a tool for you. I heard a phrase on the TWIB podcast one, “black person pokemon”. I think that applies to you. You basically went “I summon you black guy!” and pretended that the fact of his race matters when the substance of your point had to do with a general over-sensitivity among college students. Grown a spine and defend your point, say why Chris Rock believes that college students are over-sensitive or remain a craven fool.

            I already know that Seinfield, Maher and Rock had that opinion. What matters is that you have it too and you are utterly incapable of defending it beyond pointing out that other people believe it too. That is a vulnerability you need to think about. I have not problem exploiting it.

    • CuriousGeorgeOrwell

      ” You read enough books in which people like you are disposable, or are
      dirt, or are silent, absent, or worthless, and it makes an impact on
      you.”

      Are you thinking what I’m thinking?!?!?! BOOK BURNING!!!!!

    • Pingback: Rebecca Solnit hits back after male commenters ‘explain Lolita’ to her | Hers.today | Different news for different mood()

    • Pingback: TGIF (Thank God For Internet) Volume: 1 - Meg Worden()

    • Ffffe Fjjj

      “Many among that curious gender”

      My goodness. The arrogance and condescension in this article is astounding.

    • Pingback: Watching Star Wars with My Son | consideringcommunication()

    • miranda_c

      The more I think about this, the sadder I get. It’s the same as saying “most black crime is committed by blacks.”

      This and “Men Explaining Things to Me” mark the degradation of a great and subversive poetic voice to the monologic of Fox News.

    • Pingback: Best Literary Criticism of 2015 | Flavorwire()

    • Pingback: Rebecca Solnit hits back after male commenters 'explain Lolita' to her - News-9.comNews-9.com()

    • Todd Mason Rooney

      Small quibble: you eloquently make the argument that art matters, but then undercut it by claiming that you were “just” making humorous comments. You said a thing that, while certainly funny, challenged a cherished stance; why dismiss it as a mere joke?

    • Alpine, RN

      I read Lolita when I was 10…because it was on the shelf, and i was precocious, and I’d heard of it…of COURSE I identified with her, she was MY AGE! I totally agree with Ms. Solnit…mansplaining of literature is constant and pervasive. I was lucky enough to grow up in a household where “you can read ANYTHING you want” was a rule. My father is an accomplished, frequently published author, and my mother is equally qualified in her field (which i’m not gonna tell you, so haters dont mess with her). This piece, and all of “Men Explain Things To Me” reads like my life :-p

    • Shelagh

      I am so sorry, but I gave up,on this about a paragraph in. Its written as though by a petulant teenager, and frankly she draws no conclusions, just stomps her adolescent feet a lot. And no. I dont care if she is actually fifty: if she is she would write like a mature adult. I did skim through looking for a point where there was an articulate commentary on how men explained Lolita to her. Silly me. I thought for an instant that the title might actually have some reference to the piece. To me the “victim” if there is one, in Lolita is actually Humbert, revoltng as he is. I know many, many people who have been abused and I can see that might be contentious, but this ia a novel, written I think to provoke discussion. It is certainly clear that Humbert sees himself as the victim, as do many men in this position. Yes I have met at least one of them too. That is the real nub of the matter. Its about getting to grips with why certain men act this way. I totally disagree with the writers assumption that it is a man´s nature to put women down, I have never been put down or mistreated by a man in my life, and its been a long one. I think that is down tp your own attitude. I see so many young women bleating. If you want to be treated a certain way girl, you make clear that is what you want. Men are not mindreaders. most of them, at least in my long experience, are lovely. What they want is simple. They want a strong woman, an intelligent woman, who can argue the toss, one that doesnt spend all their money on expensives useless shit, and bleat endlessly Or gabbit on and on about kids and shopping.. One that they can treat with respect and honour. A Partner. It works both ways, And on this kind of nonsense I am usually with the men! My late husbands mates used to say, “gods I wish I had a missus like yours!” Because I was Me. And I let him be HIM. This piece of screaming feminist teenage angst gets nowhere near any real issues and is very badly written. Is this the level of American education? Dear me.

      • Joshua White

        You lost me after “Its written as though by a petulant teenager, and frankly she draws no conclusions…”
        I see lots of conclusions and reason and logic that go into them. That you have to characterize things in such a manner renders your opinion terminally choked with hyperbole, at the very least. I’m not deciphering that.

        • Shelagh

          No need dear, some of us can write without resorting to a dictionary tp try and look impressive. Maybe. like the writer, you would actually like to address the subject? If you can clarify what that is? Even the title isnt clear “Men explain Lolita to me.” Is that saying that males sat down and explained it to her, or should it come with a question mark and a comma. “Men, explain Lolita to me?” With such a hazy introduction, it is no wonder that what followed also lacked coherence

          • iceweasels

            You should learn about paragraphs.

          • Joshua White

            The “subject” as I pointed out consists of your emotional impressions of Rebecca. If you can find the strength (I know that inner ‘demon’ that drives our impressions can be strong) to line some quotes up with your hyperbole I would be happy to check it out.

            To look at the title, “Men explain Lolita to me.” is a literal reference to what actually happened to Rebecca. Men tried to explain Lolita to her.

        • Shelagh

          No need dear, some of us can write without resort to a dictionary to try and look impressive. I was going to take you seriously, until I looked at some of your previous replies. Inebriated by the exuberance of your own verbosity methinks.

      • It’s quite possible that you would have found some conclusions if you’d read the piece properly, but you refused to and then wasted 500 words attacking it anyway. Truly an example of mature and thoughtful engagement.

        • Shelagh

          My dear i am a speed reader, it is not becessary to read every torturous word of a piece like this to fully comprehend it. My argument is that it doesnt actually explain Lolita at all, instead it is merely an overwrought feminist rant , attacking men.. Maybe I was looking for an overview of the novel and not an attack on men in general. I even wonder if the writer has read Lolita, as she seems to reduce it to “a book about a man raping a child” and then use that as a basis to condemn all men, instead of looking at it objectively. The book is not condoning what is happening, it is way more complex .than that and if she cared to take another look at it, she may find that Nabokov is actually exposing the very issues she is waffling on about. Which is perhaps what her tutor was trying to tell her about identifying with the characters. You need to stand back and look at the novel dispassionately to see the real depths and nuances.It would take another book to explain them all and I would rather spend my time reflecting on them than .an article that goes off at so many tangents it literally loses the plot

          • AL

            You’re right; this isn’t an essay about Lolita. It seems a great many commenters are upset that this isn’t what it’s about. At the same time though, the title did begin with “Men…” so surely it’s not that unfair that the article is actually about something other than the book?

            If you look closer, though, it’s also not just an essay attacking men.

            It’s an essay about how art affects us, how we all bring different lenses to how we experience art, and how we talk to each other.

            It’s an essay about our culture wars that are particularly dominant here in the US (but also online) – look at our presidential candidates, Black Lives Matter vs All Lives Matter, the student protest movements, the increasing retort of “that’s just pc nonsense” as a weapon on the right towards anything they don’t like on the left (including scientific facts), the MRA vs feminism, gun owners declaring they’ll stage armed revolt if anyone tries to pass rules regulating weapons, the fight to keep/defund Planned Parenthood (or bomb it) and so on.

            It’s an essay about how people respond to each other, the nature of discourse, of presuming one’s opinion to be ‘the ultimate objective truth,’ even when discussing someone else’s life and feelings.

            I’m intrigued by your experiences as a woman, and curious where you’re from. I’m guessing not the US, based on your language and comment about American education. I’m happy for you, truly, that you have never felt put down or mistreated in your long life. What a wonderful thing! If only we could all say that. I just want to ask that you consider your own statement: nothing is black and white, and remember that your experience might not be universal. If I am correct in my guess that you’re from somewhere that is not the US, (or even if I’m wrong – it’s a big country!), it could be that your context for being female and feminism itself is different than the author’s and several people’s on this site. (Anecdotally, I have noticed that some of the funniest, more self-assured women seem to hail from Australia. Maybe they’re doing something right there.)

            Here in the US, I was raised by a strong, intelligent woman to be a strong, intelligent woman and while I’ve always loved the boys and men in my life, it’s also true that the culture where I grew up in the US – and this is in a more educated part of the country – was such that boys and men clearly thought it their right to attack and belittle girls and women pretty mercilessly, especially if we showed signs of strength or intelligence. Our media furthers this pattern by almost entirely revolving around male stories, male voices, male heroes, with women only featured for sex or abuse. (It’s getting better though, recently.)

            Getting older has helped – but I’ve been a teacher for several years and my experiences growing up appear not to have changed much, and the data backs that up. The girls are engaged and confident until about middle school when most start to lose faith in their abilities, give up on math and science, begin developing eating disorders, anxiety, and depression, and attacking each other for a place on the pretty girl hierarchy. The boys aren’t “at fault” per se, and they struggle in their own ways, but they certainly participate in the culture of belittling and ignoring women’s intelligence and value. And school is only one place where you see disparities – look at our workforce/government, at the disparity of women and men in different jobs/leadership roles, at our country’s embarrassingly unfriendly-to-families work policies – heck, I just read the UN just published a report on how backwards and unfriendly the US is when it comes to women specifically.

            Things aren’t all bad – of course not! There are many wonderful things happening by and for women, and there are many ways in which men are struggling and we need to address those things, too. But the point is, to just dismiss this all as a bunch of whining? That doesn’t feel accurate to me personally, nor the experiences of pretty much every woman I know, nor the data itself.

      • Sally Strange

        I am so sorry, but I gave up,on this about a paragraph in.

        So I guess you won’t mind that this is where I stopped reading your comment.

      • DeeWriteful

        “I didn’t read this but here are all the things I definitely know are wrong with it”

        It’s interesting to see someone delight in their own pig-ignorance so publicly

    • Thomás Bartolini Levy

      I had a great pokerface on for the entirety of your article. Then that last paragraph came up and I remembered the first time “I was there” – in the book I was reading. It was then that I noticed that I had never been there, or was just never important enough. Culture is pervasive in how it excludes by omission or subjugation. Great piece.

    • gingercoconut

      I’m not the best at expressing my thoughts, or the best writer, but the author’s article (and her “80 Books No Woman Should Read”) really resonated with me. As way back as high school English class, which was in the early 2000s, we read “Of Mice and Men,” and while I liked it and am glad I read it, I remember thinking about Curley’s Wife, who was the only female character. She didn’t even have a name. And while she was not a likable character by any means, I kept thinking beyond her role in the plot, to the role of her in that world, in the book. What was Curley’s Wife’s story? And I brought it up in class, and got really knocked down by some of the other students for feeling sympathetic towards her. And then the next year’s English class curriculum had us reading only books by men with male perspectives. And I kept finding myself, over and over, identifying with the woman characters, no matter how briefly they appeared. I have read Lolita, and think it’s truly one of the greatest books I’ve ever read. Nabokov, I believe, meant for us to feel, understand and identify with Lolita and her mother, to see through HH’s narrative to beyond, to her. And the sadness of her life being stolen in both senses, as Solnit describes. I’ve never read any of his other books, but I believe he was trying for all readers to empathize with Lolita’s plight. But that is not the case in many of the other books that the author mentions here, and that is very much identifiable to me. Thank you to Solnit for expressing what I’ve felt since the day I brought up Curley’s Wife in class.

      • AL

        For what it’s worth, I think you expressed your thoughts very well. You made me remember my own days reading Of Mice and Men in class, long ago. Thank you.

        • gingercoconut

          I appreciate you taking the time to tell me that! Thank you 🙂

    • Craig Murray

      Is it not odd that when a white man has an opinion, he is, by virtue of his sex and skin, immediately guilty of a god complex and wrong to boot. Truly it is a remarkable thing to see, and to have the opportunity to know that anything you think is automatically just wrong. We are so fortunate to have a woman explain to us how the other sex is always wrong and always inferior. Being a sexist and a misandrist is as unflattering as being a sexist and a misogynist. Admittedly the misandrist tends to be a tad more hypocritical. She needs to attack the other sex to buttress her own.
      Here is a perfect example;
      Every time a woman talks about cars ((Alert! Probably a sexist statement belittling a woman’s ability to intelligently discuss cars.))
      –
      Every time a man talks ((Alert, you are free to be as insulting and belittling as you wish at this point. There is no accusation you can make that will not be met with empty headed nodding))
      –
      The perennial whinging and whining and blaming men for all the evils in the world is getting old. Why is it I am expected (although I do it anyway) to treat all people as equals, to look beyond age, sex, race, religion, and yet you are not. You are free to express your sexism and racism as often and as loudly as you wish?

      • Thank you sincerely for illustrating THE perfect example of NOT GETTING IT, coupled very nicely with proving the author’s point.

        ✩✩✩✩✩ 5/5

        • Craig Murray

          Take a moment and read a paragraph slightly changed
          –
          But seriously, you know who can’t take a joke? Blacks. Not if it
          implicates them and their universe, and when you see the rage, the
          pettiness, the meltdowns and fountains of Black tears of fury, you’re
          seeing people who really expected to get their own way and be told
          they’re wonderful all through the days
          –
          Is that now incredibly offensive? Is this now an undeniably racist statement that would demand immediate condemnation? Read it again if you need to.
          See, the easiest way to test if something would be unfair and offensive is to change the subject.
          If you say White Males and walk away feeling proud of your own sexism, but had you said “Blacks” suddenly makes it offensive, well, it was offensive.

          Now I will guess, like most, you will not see how insulting one group, even if it makes you feel better, is the right thing to do. You and the author both think that any time you blame all white males, and feel better for it, you are right and good.
          You are not. You are just a sexist
          Please try to keep this in mind. When you rant against men and feel justified, it is the same feeling racists get when justifiably ranting against whoever they hate.

          • iceweasels

            No, they got you the first time. The problem being that racism requires a power structure to oppress. Which is what makes your little inverted paragraph example nonsensical. See, racism is about both individual and structural oppression. You having your feelings hurt by a generalization about white men, isn’t actually oppression.

          • Sally Strange

            Yeah, see, if you change it to someone who isn’t white men, it becomes a false statement. Because only white men occupy that privileged position in our society.

            You could insert “unicorns” instead of “black people” and your point would remain equally coherent.

          • See, the easiest way to test if something would be unfair and offensive is to change the subject [to another group].

            No. That is something which all but guarantees you will get a very wrong — or at the very least a very warped — interpretation. I have seen this incredibly facile ‘test’ fail every time the white male employs it. (Sorry, but white, cis-het, male often Xtians are the only ones who use this failure as some form of “defense”. No one else is so utterly oblivious to how it always fails.)

            Look, you are clearly smack dab in the middle of a privilege cocoon, where it is pretty much makes it 99% impossible to see or acknowledge that the existences of non-whites, non-males, non-everything-you-are’s do not have access to your level in society. And I can’t hold that against you, because by definition of privilege, you must be ignorant of your own privilege, and I would be beating a horse I know is dead. I choose to skip that step.

            Instead, please look into educating yourself on unpacking a privilege knapsack. It would do nothing but improve you and your understanding, and you would not make these mistakes in judgment again, well, at least not publicly for so many to witness.

      • iceweasels

        In fact it is white men, whining and blaming black people, women, “illegals,” and frankly, any other group you can demonize for your problems. Everyone is being mean to you, while other people are getting killed. Everyone is taking your stuff, instead of glorifying your mediocrity like the good old days. Your comments, and those exactly like them on every thread about sexism ever, speak for themselves.

        • Craig Murray

          Sweeping generalizations and blanket accusations are the hallmark of the bigot. You accuse me of things and yet you know nothing about me. You feel justified in accusing all men because, like all bigots, you have a broad brush. Listening to you reminds me of Trump who calls all Mexicans rapists or all Muslims terrorists. You are no different, although, much like he, you believe only you are right and only you deserve an opinion.
          You are a sexist, a misandrist, a bigot. Here is your hood and burning cross

          • iceweasels

            I actually responded to your own words, which you apparently don’t want to claim. And like it or not, there is a difference between talking about “men” in general, or “white people” in general, than talking about black people, or women, or Muslims, or the disabled. That difference is called privilege, structural power, and I really don’t give a crap if you’re willing to admit you have it.

            • Craig Murray

              You are an inane internet coward hiding behind a fake name and image. Full of words but without the intellectual or moral strength to own up to them. I never argue with bigots, zealots or fools and most of all big-mouthed cowards because quite simply, they will never change. Enjoy your hatred, it is probably all you have. I await your pointless and hate filled spewings. I will ignore them, but I will laugh at them

            • iceweasels

              Blah blah blah, we’re on the internet. Oh no!!!! If only you knew where I was you’d beat some sense into me. It’s not my fault you people are so transparent. Maybe try an original argument next time?

            • Craig Murray

              I do laugh at how you spend most of your time accusing people of things they never said, and then justifying your own pathetic small minded and unpleasant character towards them.
              I guess that is the power of the cowards anonymity. Your facelssness allows you to say whatever you want without accountability. A child’s mind in a harridans frame. Your hate, your anger, your need to attack and argue, it does speak of a deeper and more troubled mind. The desperate need to be heard, even when wrong. To scream ever louder, to make ever greater accusations so you can always feel the victim. I am sorry no one likes you. I am sad you grew up without real friends and live such a lonely and desperate life. Not everyone is to blame for your unpleasant personality. At some point you are going to have to admit that you are unloved and unliked because of your own actions. Until then I hope you find some solace and I hope eventually you will be able to stop blaming everyone else. Good luck, seek help. Mental illness is no laughing matter, there are treatments available for you.

            • iceweasels

              You would certainly know how I spend most of my time. You can keep telling me all about my hate, and my small mind, and whatever else. I don’t care. Comfort yourself with my imaginary anger, or whatever. I don’t respect your opinion. And I don’t care if you find being on the internet a source of massive butthurt either.

            • Craig Murray

              Shh…it’s ok. We all understand now. It’s all right.

            • iceweasels

              Bored.

          • iceweasels

            Btw, misandrist is a bullshit word for MRA fools. Way to out yourself. You’re really no different from Trump, always kicking down, so you should probably tone down your self righteous rant.

          • Sally Strange

            Yesss!

            I didn’t used to believe in misandry, and then I met the men who did. They more than justified it.

            Well done, Craig Murray. MISANDRY 4 LIFE!

    • Duncan Jones

      Great article. We all need to be reminded that all cultural productions emerge within a given social order and are shaped by that.

    • Pingback: Rebecca Solnit hits back after male commenters ‘explain Lolita’ to her | WordHarbour()

    • I was reading your piece in latest New Yorker last night and remarked to my wife that I love your writing and was glad to see you had a new piece in the New Yorker. Love this essay. Thank you for sharing.

    • lena mcfarland

      Perhaps what Nabokov meant was that the worst imagination attaches itself only to one character while being unable to empathically grasp anything larger. This would apply to a man, referenced in this comment thread, who raped his daughter and said HH made him see how natural it is.

      The man showed evidence of the kind of imagination Nabokov least wanted a reader to use.

    • Shank

      “It isn’t a fact universally acknowledged that a person who mistakes his opinions for facts may also mistake himself for God. This can happen if he’s been insufficiently exposed to the fact that there are also other people who have other experiences, and that they too were created equal, with certain inalienable rights, and that consciousness thing that is so interesting and troubling is also going on inside their heads. This is a problem straight white men suffer from especially, because the western world has held up a mirror to them for so long”

      This would be easier to swallow if, in your previous article, you hadn’t dismissed Hemingway as “mannered and pretentious and sentimental.” who wrote sentences like “Tonka toys”. If you can state your opinion as fact, why the hell can’t anybody else?

    • Pingback: ‘I sort of kicked the hornets’ nest’: Rebecca Solnit responds to male commenters who ‘mansplained’ Lolita to her | National Post()

    • pkgsf96

      ” “Some of my favorite novels are disparaged in a fairly shallow way. To
      read Lolita and ‘identify’ with one of the characters is to entirely
      misunderstand Nabokov,” one commenter informed me, which made me wonder
      if there’s a book called Reading Lolita in Patriarchy.
      Should you read Lolita and strenuously avoid noticing that this
      is the plot and these are the characters? Should the narrative have no
      relationship to your own experience? This man thinks so, which is
      probably his way of saying that I made him uncomfortable.”

      No.

      The “this man” you’re talking about there is a woman. It’s just that her name is ambiguous, and you clearly didn’t click through to check your assumption.

      I’m not sure how that affects your argument that men are explaining Lolita to you.

      If you would care to see the whole of what Sidney was saying about Lolita, I would welcome you back to the original discussion on facebook.

      ETA: and she didn’t “inform you.” she commented on an alumni discussion of your work, on an alumni page, addressing other alumni.

      • Joshua White

        >”The “this man” you’re talking about there is a woman. It’s just that her
        name is ambiguous, and you clearly didn’t click through to check your
        assumption.”
        You seem to be missing the point entirely, which is that beyond the literal plot and nature of writers a creative work is experienced by people who come from cultures that shape how they experience books.

        “Click through” does not change this, neither does anything having to do with alumni.

        • pkgsf96

          You have missed entirely the point of my comment, which is that facts matter.

          When a writer opines that a man is explaining Lolita to her, and speculates it’s because he’s been made uncomfortable, perhaps the writer should make sure it’s a man who is explaining and/or uncomfortable.

          That is easily checked by clicking on the commenter to see who she is.

          And to say “one commenter informed me,” when the writer was not part of the discussion and the comment was directed at an entirely separate person, falsely implies that the writer and commenter were conversing.

          But by all means, Joshua, continue to explain my own comment to me.

          • Joshua White

            If you can show that the writer was wrong in her assessment of the identity of the person they are responding to by all means show that. I’m perfectly comfortable that different segments of society show certain behaviors more often than others and you have yet to demonstrate that the person that she was responding to was not a man. If all you are doing is waving around uncertainties for their own sake I’m fine not giving a damn since you have not made the effort that you claim Rebecca should have.

            But it’s a red herring as Rebecca was talking about women like her have others, usually men, tell them what their own experiences actually mean. I know what your comments mean, I’m talking about how they relate the piece Rebecca wrote, the context within which we are interacting.

            • Sidney Newton

              I am a woman and the person quoted in the article and described as a man. She left out most of what I said as well. That’s fine. What isn’t fine is claiming men are explaining things to you and supporting that by quoting a woman talking to someone else.

            • Hermann Steinpilz

              You have now been edited from a “man” to a “reader”, and the suggestion that you “informed” her has been edited to “asserted”. But it doesn’t matter; you could have been a man. So it doesn’t undermine Solnit’s thesis at all.

              Or think of it this way: You are proof that women can do mansplaining as well as the lads.

            • pkgsf96

              That was beautifully mansplained to us, sir.

              😉

            • Hermann Steinpilz

              I guess I just can’t help myself.

            • pkgsf96

              LOL you’re seriously defending “truthiness” as a virtue?

              Journalism 001, Mr. White. Verify, then report.

              For the record, I did *not* wave around uncertainties. I told the writer to go back to the thread where she copied-and-pasted Sidney’s comment from, and click though to see who Sidney is.

              You should perhaps reread both my comments above more carefully.

              The commenter is a personal friend. The conversation – of which Ms. Solnit was not part – took place on a link to this essay, posted in a St. John’s College alumni group on facebook.

              If that’s not good enough, Sidney has also commented here; see below.

              When you assume who someone is, you have to check. When you make a claim that an event happened, and the event did not happen, you cannot leave it in because it makes a better story. You correct it, take it out, rewrite. I’m sure there are lots of Lolita-mansplainers who are, in fact, men, whose quotes would serve there.

              You do not just leave an error of fact in there because it sounds better.

              Kids fresh off a college paper get that. Why don’t you?

              I guess you’re a fan of Stephen Glass, too?

            • pkgsf96

              LOL you’re seriously defending “truthiness” as a virtue?

              Journalism 001, Mr. White. Verify, then report.

              For the record, I did *not* wave around uncertainties. I told the writer to go back to the thread where she copied-and-pasted Sidney’s comment from, and click though to see who Sidney is.

              You should perhaps reread both my comments above more carefully.

              The commenter is a personal friend. The conversation – of which Ms. Solnit was not part – took place on a link to this essay, posted in a St. John’s College alumni group on facebook.

              If that’s not good enough, Sidney has also commented here; see below.

              When you assume who someone is, you have to check. When you make a claim that an event happened, and the event did not happen, you cannot leave it in because it makes a better story. You correct it, take it out, rewrite. I’m sure there are lots of Lolita-mansplainers who are, in fact, men, whose quotes would serve there.

              You do not just leave an error of fact in there because it sounds better.

              Kids fresh off a college paper get that. Why don’t you?

              I guess you’re a fan of Stephen Glass, too?

    • Pingback: Reading Lolita in Patriarchy: Rebecca Solnit on Being Mansplained About How She Must Have Misread Nabokov : Longreads Blog()

    • Pingback: Tipsday: Writerly Goodness found on the interwebz, December 13-19, 2015 | Writerly Goodness()

    • Pingback: Reading Lolita in Patriarchy: Rebecca Solnit on Being Mansplained About How She Must Have Misread Nabokov | Maybelle Chan()

    • avataria

      Thanks for this. I know that running into this garbage is more part of Solnit’s job than it would be mine, so it’s a hazard of her field. Generally speaking, when the dick-swinging begins, I most often just leave the room or turn and start another conservation. It’s not worth it. There’s a saying going around: “It’s not your job to put up with morons. You’re not the asshole whisperer.”

    • Pingback: ‘I sort of kicked the hornets’ nest’: Rebecca Solnit responds to male commenters who ‘mansplained’ Lolita to her | WorWire()

    • Pat Blake

      Fantastic article. Really.

    • Joshua White

      >”I think you’re fundamentally missing my point.”

      Your point was clear from your first comment, and that was that you thought
      that an appeal to a black person (basically a non-white person) disagreeing
      with Rebecca was enough to refute her.

      Bullshit. Things are right or wrong for reasons and until you cite what
      Chris Rock said and line it up with what REbecca said you are simply a lazy
      fool here for the purposes of social conflict. I don’t have to address anything
      else until you can deal with this.

      • CuriousGeorgeOrwell

        “White males sez!!”

        • Joshua White

          An accusation is not an argument. It’s mere name calling.

          • CuriousGeorgeOrwell

            Your name is “White males sez!!”

      • CuriousGeorgeOrwell

        🙂

        • Joshua White

          Smile all you want. It can mean many things and looks dumb until explained.

    • iceweasels

      Tell us more about how we should give a shit about generalizing you, sweetheart.

    • Daniel G

      I do not know why I expected the discussion to be about equality and not a completely slanderous generalization in regards to roughly half of the human race (including exclusively masculine pronouns throughout basically the entire article). The fact that such generalization lacks any real sophistication other than a very sophisticated list of grievances does not really surprise me either. You do realize that you have met and experienced a very, very small slice of the total number of men that exist in this world and thus any argument you make (if it has not already been thrown out on the grounds of gender stereotyping, or dare I say sexism) has no validity as it cannot address the fact that you have only anecdotal experience with men and therefore cannot categorically label us or generalize us any more than I can generalize every woman on planet Earth.

      You cannot disguise a bunch of sexist hot air with manipulative logic and subtle fallacies. The only way the feminist movement is going to gain traction in this world is when the discussion shifts from “all are equal but some are more equal than others” and attends to the real issue which is humanity’s propensity to pass negative judgement on things, ideas or people simply because we do not understand them. Thus is the root of sexism, racism, ageism, etc.

      I was told in school as early as second grade that women are smarter than men. That was reinforced heavily. I was told by my teachers that women always get to go first. In everything. I was told by the media that I was to sacrifice myself if necessary for the sake of any women or child in an emergency as they are more valuable than I am. I was told by my peers that I better be careful in marriage because if we get divorced she will take the money I have earned and my own children away from me. I was told by the court system that if a woman and I are convicted of the same crime, she will get a much smaller sentence. Always. Should I keep going?

      Blind hatred, fallacious logic and a revisionist memory fuel your movement and it is so, so achingly obvious to anyone that is willing to include all data in their analysis.

      Thank you.

      • Not Electronic Either

        Egos my friend. The social justice movements of late resemble nothing of the past, they are soaked with hateful rhetoric disguised as progressive thought. I’ll be moving forward with true change myself, not sitting around wasting anymore time with these faux social revolutionaries. THEY ARE BORING ME TO DEATH with the same old internet persona garbage and in-fighting. Im separating from this parasitic herd before they inevitably kill off their host.

        • iceweasels

          Feel free to let us know your plans for fixing all the things.

          • Daniel G

            Very constructive.

            • iceweasels

              Yeah, his comment was so very constructive. How could I respond so unconstructively.

            • Daniel G

              He was simply highlighting how social justice has moved from goal oriented to just a soap box to argue and further divide this country. I totally believe that we need to work on areas where women (and people in general) are oppressed. It would be great though if we could transition from a generalized man hate to a checklist of things we want to fix and then we get to celebrate the success of working together (men and women) to fight oppression each time a box gets checked and we accomplish another step in the movement. The dialogue erodes in value when it begins to generalize and categorize on both sides of the discussion. Men too are allowed to be offended when they are labelled (by people they have never met) due simply to the fact that they are men. It does not encourage healthy dialogue.

      • iceweasels

        The part that is confusing you is the difference between individual jackassery, and structural oppression. Since most people outright refuse to admit there is structural oppression, and many throw a complete tantrum the second anyone suggests there are benefited in any way by that structure, it’s pretty impossible to have a simple conversation.

    • Not Electronic Either

      So many quasi intellectuals in the comments regurgitating the same tired drivel. We need to worry less about buzzwords and flexing our progressive knowledge on others fighting the same fight as we are. Divide and conquer is one of the oldest tricks in the book and here we are always attacking each other, trying to prove just who is the more progressive thinker. We ALL need to pull our heads out of our collective asses and stop these ridiculous ego based circle jerks if we are ever going to affect the change we need.

      • iceweasels

        *shrug* If someone is reinforcing structural prejudice, it is irrelevant if they’re “on my side.” We already learned that in the 60s. Which is why we went backwards again and again. Either someone is willing to confront their privilege, and deal with it, and help break down the oppressive structure, or they’re not. If they are not, there’s no point in having them on my side.

      • Daniel G

        Agreed. We can all make a fine list of complaints directed towards a segment of society. for instance I had screwed up teeth as a kid and was made fun of incessantly until I attempted suicide. Should I create a movement that defends and safeguards people with screwed up teeth? I’d much rather unify all people under one banner: empathy, love, compassion and respect. Everyone has been faced with some level of adversity in life. Everyone has a different experience in life. Let’s start addressing this on an individual basis and not use filters of gender, race or age to determine who we are trying to help in this world.

        • iceweasels

          Soooo, you don’t think it would be a good idea to help kids who can’t get dental care?

          • Daniel G

            I definitely do think it would be a great idea. I just don’t think we need to create a movement specifically for it. If anything we need to create a movement that addresses bullying in schools and thereby covers any area of bullying including the bullying of children in need of dental care. It also seems more practical to approach it from this angle. However, that is just my opinion.

            • Daniel G

              You will find a movement gains more traction when it has wider and wider doors of acceptance. I think there would be nothing to stand in the feminist movement’s way if it was merged with the affirmative action movement and every other social justice movement to create a movement of equality. A movement that sees no color, age or sex and simply fights for everyone, all inclusively, to be treated equally. Would that not solve the problem of structural oppression and individual oppression at the same time? It is time for every underdog to find an ally with every other underdog in society. The less divided the movements are, the faster we can accomplish true, helpful, change that does not illicit malice or hate except from the ones that it is fighting against.

    • Evilin Garnett

      what’s your point? that men have it worse than women? if men are killed and do the killing in equal numbers what does that statistic prove in terms of gender?
      Men don’t have it worse than women much of the time
      Women don’t have it worse than men all the time

      We have it different.

      The only thing that is being asked here is to listen to another groups opinion without starting a sarcasm contest.

      I don’t think that should be so difficult.

    • Evilin Garnett

      what does that mean? that you’ve gone crazy and are laughing hysterically? That you disagree with what he said? That you feel threatened? What a silly noise to make. Grow up.

    • Brian Hough

      I’m just glad someone else said this, I read A LOT and I was excited last year to sit down with Lolita given all the hype and “Top ____ American/English” lists it was on and was kind of disappointed and put off. I’m not sure how much time I really want to spend with a rapist (especially an obnoxiously long-winded and fairly pretentious one)

    • Bellanova

      I did, and enjoyed it very much, AL, along with the rest of your thoughtful, personable, sensitive, and polite comments on this thread. It is a rare pleasure, and a breath of fresh air, to find responses like yours, especially on gender-related articles on the web.

      • AL

        What a kind thing to say, Bellanova. Thank you for taking the time to read my (often quite long – still working on that) comments and share your reactions. All the best to you!

    • Pingback: Keep it down now | AbsurdBeats()

    • jjf

      So if a man disagrees with your opinion, what should he do? Because your opening paragraphs make it sound as though a man expressing disagreement with the same certitude you use is trying to control you, and denying that is a bit like rape. Should white men just shut up because they’ve had their turn? Are they only allowed to disagree mildly and obliquely, the way women in the 50s were instructed? Must everything be prefaced with a disclaimer: “I’m only a white man, so I really don’t understand these things, but…”? (again recalling those 1950s “How to be a popular girl” books).

      The internet gives us a platform, yes for misogyny and hate and all the worst stuff about human nature that comes out when we think no one will ever know it’s me, but also for discussion, which will include disagreement, on a fairly level playing field. Not quite level, because the writer/blogger is the one with power in the situation, the one whose words fill the page in big letters, and blog commenters are just about the bottom of the Internet pecking order. Yet Ms. Solnit complains that one of her commenters (presumably male) tried to enforce the patriarchy by disagreeing with her reading of Lolita. Solnit disagrees with his reading (in the big letters, mind), but somehow perceives the power relationship as oppressive or at least presumptive on his part.

      • DeeWriteful

        The first and most important thing you need to do is get a grip.

        • Jen K.

          What a vague generalization to make in response someone’s carefully thought out opinion…

    • Pingback: Ideas and Conversation | Pearltrees()

    • Psycho Gecko

      Found my way over here from We Hunted The Mammoth. There’s just so much awesome that needed to be said here, including the bit about who is really getting coddled from differing opinions.

    • Pingback: Što smo voljele u 2015. godini!()

    • Mo Kane

      If Nabokov’s unpublished manuscript were to come in over the transom today, a prospective publisher would call 911.
      If Nabokov were to try to publish the book himself on Amazon, it might well be banned.

    • Pingback: The Reading List, 12/23/2015()

    • David Borger Germann

      thanks, great piece!

    • Pingback: Feminism 2 | Pearltrees()

    • At the risk of being just another man accused of wanting to explain things to Ms. Solnit (whose chief aim is, alas, explaining things to poor saps like me) I’d like to recommend an alternative approach to Lolita (a book which I confess I adore from various technical angles, but which troubles me to no end, particularly as the parent of a daughter): listen to Jeremy Irons’ audiobook reading of the text. He gets it just right, I think. The beauty of the language, the wickedness of the narrator. My wife and I listened to it together over the course of a few long car rides, and the result was always a sorrowful clenching of the stomach.

    • Ripley

      Great essay. Seems pretty spot-on to me, although who am I to judge? And yet judge we do! It’s just so tempting. Which leads to a thought.

      As a straight white man, with all that entails, it feels to me like our public sphere emphasizes cr*pping on people. Just read the comments section of any blog/site/publication, including this one.
      Personally I hate it; this is how we want to spend our precious hours on this earth? Ms. Solnit nails one form of this – a segment of white men cr*pping on the non-white, non-men who point out uncomfortable truths. But when they’re done, these guys probably just go cr*p on someone else. I’m
      sure it’s no comfort, but ‘mansplaining’ is something men do to other men all day every day. On this point I can speak with authority (as both victim and perpetrator.)

      Weirdly, this may be a reason some men feel unjustly accused when called out as sexist or racist. “Don’t you understand,” they’re thinking, “this is how I talk to everyone.” Part of the subconscious technique is of course to adjust the tone to your audience, so women get one flavor, non-white people another, etc. But so do men who are short, or nerdy, or uneducated, or liberal, or conservative, or hicks, or hipsters. It’s no longer sexist, it’s just being a d*ck.

      Men have had the wind at their backs since, well, the Pleistocene Era, and white people for a good thousand years, so it’s cool that privelobliviousness is being brought into the light. (Love that term BTW.) But I wonder if success will be helped along by a broader adjustment to behavioral norms.

      So hey guys, how about this? Instead of outsourcing the job of pointing out self-satisfied, condescending behavior to the non-men, maybe we all join in? And of course, I’m as guilty as next guy, so let the comments flow! If you think my post is privileged, or tone deaf, or obvious, or “thank-you-for-sharing-your-deep-wisdom-Mr.-White-Dude”, have at it. But here’s a challenge – can you call it as you see it, speak your truth, without being dismissive or superior yourself? Without succumbing to how good it feels to swell up with righteousness? Maybe it’s harder than we care to admit.

    • Jen K.

      Well put

    • tatiana.larina

      At the beginning of “Tess of the d’Urbervilles”, the title character is sixteen and a half. Nobody – neither the law in England at that time, nor any of the characters, nor Hardy himself – considers her a child. Applying the mores and laws of 21st-c. California to 19th-c. England is ahistorical. What happens to her is dreadful enough without using the term “child rape” indiscriminately.

      • DeeWriteful

        It is child rape though. And wasn’t the age of majority brought down to 18, having been older than that before?

        • Nullifidian

          The full age of majority was brought down to 18 from 21, but that isn’t the same thing as the age of consent. William Blackstone had the age of consent for marriage, and therefore implicitly sex, at 14 for boys and 12 for girls (Commentaries on the Laws of England, Book I, Chapter 15). There were many acts children 14 and older were allowed to do on their own, including bind themselves to apprenticeship without parental consent, choose their guardian or replace an existing guardian, witness deeds and contracts, bequeath personal (but not real) property, and testify in court. Boys 16 and older were obliged to serve in militias and could volunteer for the military without the consent of their parents.

          The things you needed to be 21 to do were serve on a jury, vote or hold public office, act as a guardian, be named as a defendant in a lawsuit, sign a bond or note, etc., none of which have any bearing on the plot of Tess of the D’Urbervilles nor anything to do with how Tess Durbeyfield was perceived either by the other characters or Hardy’s contemporary readers.

          • tatiana.larina

            Exactly. The Victorian era is the time when thanks to the work of social campaigners and popular press the age of consent was raised in a slow and laborious process. The Criminal Law Amendment Act, passed just 6 years before the publication of “Tess”, raised the age of consent from 13 to 16.

          • DeeWriteful

            It wasn’t rape because she was too young to consent. It was rape because she was raped (drugged/asleep). She was also a child. Her being legally of age to consent is irrelevant – her lack of consent was not due to her age.

            She just also happened to be a child.

            • Nullifidian

              Her being legally of age to consent is irrelevant – her lack of consent was not due to her age.

              It is relevant to the fact that you keep on calling her a “child”. Neither Hardy’s readers nor the characters—not even Tess—thought of her as such. That’s the issue at hand, not your characterization of their encounter. And that encounter isn’t actually described, so we have no idea what extent Tess was a willing participant. We only know what Hardy has told us, which is that Tess fell asleep and Alec bending over her, seeing she was asleep. Even the implication they had sex in the final chapter of part 1 is so obscure that Hardy had to name part 2 “Maiden No More” just to drive the point home. Yes, it’s shown that she rejects him earlier, but that need not have been her final word on the matter. It’s possible, given the context where Alec confesses to having “tricked” Tess, that his trick was getting her to sleep with him under the false promise that he would marry her. But for the sake of argument, let’s say that your characterization of it were correct. I’m not addressing whether Tess was raped, but whether she would have been perceived as a child by the readers of Hardy’s time, and she wouldn’t.

              And where do you get the idea that she was “drugged”? It’s not like Rohypnol was part of the street drug scene in the Victorian era. Practically the only thing he could have dosed her with that would have produced a soporific effect like that in the book would have been laudanum, and there’s no indication that was given.

    • ooohello

      I really appreciate the comment and the links you provided were very informative.

      I of course will not give up on feminism. You don’t have to look hard to see that this is not an even playing field and as contrarian as I am I can’t conceive that I will ever position myself against human rights.

    • ZucchiniBlossom

      Great article. You make a lot of important points. Thank you.

    • Pingback: The false construct of Victory and Defeat | Giving Up as Falling in Love()

    • p.s.w. gear

      Fantastically said. Thanks for writing and for putting up with the precious, soft-hearted liberal men.

    • Mrs.Hoagie

      A different note, yet more of the same: to be a children’s author today, it’s just fine to be a woman. But to be an adult author, one apparently must be a man. J.K.Rowling became Robert Gailbraith for her adult fiction. But have you EVER heard of a male author taking a female pen name??

      • racismisbaddude

        That’s a good point. The Galbraith book wouldn’t have sold very well at all if people knew from the beginning that it was written by J.K. Rowling.

      • Nullifidian

        But have you EVER heard of a male author taking a female pen name??

        Chris Ryan (a.k.a. Molly Jackson) did for his debut romance novel, The Fisherman’s Daughter. Before that, he was known for his books on military-themed books (both fiction and nonfiction). The male author with a female pseudonym dynamic happens quite often in the world of romance novels.

        And, of course, Jane Austen was a huge Yorkshireman with a beard like a rhododendron bush.

    • Michael

      It’s not entirely true that no one is >ever< told they're wrong for identifying with Gilgamesh or Elizabeth Bennett. At least, in his Lectures on Literature, Nabokov repeatedly told his students that reading for the purpose of identification with particular characters was an infantile pursuit. I'm not one of those people who think the author is the ideal (or even necessarily a good) reader of their own work but it may be that your unfortunate male interlocutor had read Nabokov on Nabokov and was somewhat proud of the fact or wanted to read him on what what was believed to be "his own terms." I liked your list of books no woman should read (though I would have called them books better than with which any sensitive person might do) but I think it's important to remember that in the 1980s and 1990s it wasn't just right-wing senators that wanted to censor art they considered pornographic or otherwise dangerous: it was also the feminist mainline — it may be that some of your commenters were, like myself, of an age to have been introduced to feminist theory in the age of Dworkin and Mackinnon…in which case it makes a certain amount of sense that they might hear an intent to censor the works you call dangerous where that intent was not actually present.

      • pkgsf96

        (It was a female interlocutor, FWIW, misidentified when the writer copied-and-pasted her comment from a third party’s discussion of this essay.)

        • Michael

          Wow: it worth quite a bit, actually. Not sure where to even begin there except to wish that one day, through the efforts of responsible journalism, I too might be promoted from “male” to “less friendly.”

    • GodLeros

      You missed his point

    • Pingback: Daily entry (daily consent diary entry) – a project to respect myself | consent()

    • Hermann Steinpilz

      I see that you have silently changed “informed me” to a “assertd” [sic], and “This man thinks so, which is probably his way of saying that I made him uncomfortable” has become “This reader thinks so.” Classy.

      Maybe you should change the title of this ‘essay’ to “Men, and at least one woman, explain Lolita to me.”

      • racismisbaddude

        So the author goes through centuries of entrenched institutional sexism and you’re going to criticize her for making a misspelled stealth edit to correct a mistake that undermines her point?

        You just don’t understand that publishing is an old boy’s club. Virtually all publishing professionals are male. This author has succeeded in spreading ideas that are kept out of the literary discussion and she’s managed to do so in spite of selfish men representing the overwhelming majority of editors and agents.

        • Hermann Steinpilz

          I love the smell of red herrings in the evening.

        • Hermann Steinpilz

          How old do you think the author is?

          • racismisbaddude

            Her age doesn’t matter; all that matters is that she has succeeded in the face of terrible adversity in her youth that was so bad she sought higher education in a country known for its sexism and racism and the institutional sexism that has only given her two NEA fellowships.

            • Hermann Steinpilz

              Her age doesn’t matter, but you suggested that she was centuries old, which struck me as unusual.

              And as a recipient of two NEA fellowships, Ms Solnit should be expected to know the difference between creative writing and being creative with the truth.

            • racismisbaddude

              Now, that’s a pretty offensive statement. Would you tell Cheryl Strayed the same thing? That there’s a difference “between creative writing and being creative with the truth”?

            • Hermann Steinpilz

              I would tell that especially to Cheryl Strayed.

            • racismisbaddude

              That’s what you don’t get. It doesn’t matter how little of the trail Cheryl hiked. It’s about the epiphany she had and the way that millions of women have related to her work.

              The important thing is that we start a conversation about female empowerment in the literary world, just as the story of Jackie’s sexual assault in Rolling Stone started a necessary discussion about rape on college campuses.

            • pkgsf96

              If you are presenting your writing as factual, you can’t fib and make things up.

              If you’re a fabulist or a memoirist, you make it explicit that you’re doing that instead.

              Don’t mix them up.

            • Hermann Steinpilz

              I’d say it is bad advice to start a discussion on the basis of lies (see also Connie St Louis and Deborah Blum, who lied about Sir Tim Hunt; that didn’t end well for them either). It is bad advice, because there are always annoying people who will focus on the lies, while ignoring the intended topic of discussion. They will even suggest that the problem at hand can’t be too serious if you have to make things up to get the discussion started.

              So maybe it’s better after all if we stay honest from the beginning.

            • racismisbaddude

              Did St. Louis and Blum suffer any consequences for their emotionally fair reporting on the Tim Hunt matter? Or do they remain powerful journalism professors who are making sure the next generation of journalists blogs what is really important?

            • Hermann Steinpilz

              Nice question-begging! I wouldn’t call their reporting fair — emotionally or otherwise. Nor are these two in fact “powerful journalism professors”. Blum is some kind of administrator, while St Louis is a proven liar who can’t string two sentences together without making grammatical mistakes; she’s hardly a powerful journalism professor. If I were a serious student I would feel cheated having this disgraceful hack as my professor.

              I think the main consequence they suffered for their dishonesty is that their reputation as credible journalists is essentially in tatters.

        • pkgsf96

          I daresay this writer would not be pleased to be held to a lower standard than a male writer, because poor wittle lady writer.

          Just a speculation.

          • racismisbaddude

            It’s not a “lower” standard. It’s an “appropriate” standard. Every time the author addresses a class of MFA students (99% male) or tries to publish an opinion piece in a mainstream or literary outlet, she must deal with the knowledge that no one in the mainstream media or literary community is expressing woman-friendly ideas.

            And besides, what is “truth”? What does it matter if a speaker is male or female so long as it reinforces the point that men are always telling the author what to think about Lolita?

            • pkgsf96

              “And besides, what is ‘truth’?”

              Ok, Stephen Glass.

              If you think it’s fine to hang essays about the state of real events that affect real people, to hang criticism of our society, on a thing that didn’t actually, you know, *happen how it’s being described,* then I can’t help you.

              Journalism 001. Writing 001. Not even 101.

            • racismisbaddude

              But that’s the problem. If the truth contradicts an important narrative, such as the one the author is advancing, it seems irresponsible to correct her.

            • pkgsf96

              Wow.

            • pkgsf96

              You don’t search out facts to support a narrative, and then make up things when the facts don’t fit. You don’t hang a thesis on an error of fact.

              You search out facts, and see what narrative the facts give you.

              There are plenty of actual men to explain Lolita to us.

              There is plenty of real and toxic mansplaining to point to.

              You don’t have to fib to show that people are thoughtless jerks. When you *do*, you undermine your integrity as a journalist. As well as everyone else’s.

              And when you’re wrong about a *fact*, you correct it.

            • Theo Anonis

              Good point.

    • haily27

      I’ve heard that author’s name before, and the book, but never knew what it was about. Sounds very interesting. Thanks!

    • Lamestllama

      I just think some books are instructions on why women are dirt or hardly
      exist at all except as accessories or are inherently evil and empty.

      The Bible and the Quran are clearly such instruction books and many people are actually paid to explain that you are reading them incorrectly if you draw such conclusion. Yet curiously you decided to select a far less influential book, with a comparatively small readership and circulation as the centre piece of your argument.

      As you leave such influential books unscathed a simple counter to your argument is that the authority of these books and those that godsplain them allows us to produce futher works which by virtue of their derivative nature are no more culpable than the originals. Lolita is one such book.

      In essence while the point you wish to make is valid. You have given a get out of card jail for the philosophies and the associated written propoganda that support the mores and attitudes which you now criticize. I see no reason why the original books that espouse hate based on race, gender, or sexuality should be given such lenient treatment unless the writer has some investment in them. In which case one has to wonder if the OP is a reliable witness.

    • pkgsf96

      Um.

      As a woman in journalism, it’s not at all hard for me to see. Been on the receiving end for nearly two decades.

      That doesn’t give me any sort of license to make things up to make a story hang together better. Or to allow an error to stand, after I find out it’s an error, because it makes the story hang together better.

      I realize it may be hard for you to understand that accuracy matters in journalism.

      It clearly matters to Ms. Solnit more than it matters to you, since she has edited this essay to stop calling Sidney a man.

      The fact is that the person Ms. Solnit referred to as a man *is a woman.*

      And that matters.

      One can stealth-edit to remove the gender reference.

      One *could* publicly correct oneself, find one of the myriad actual men’s mansplaining quotes to support the point. And then perhaps reflect on one’s own embedded sexism in assuming the commenter was male, and what conclusions we drew from it. I bet that would be a kickass essay.

      It’s Christmas, so I’m allowing myself a bit of wishful thinking here.

    • Pingback: Men Explain Lolita to Me | Cultural Commentary ...()

    • Pingback: big, deep belly breaths. | :life : love : story:()

    • Pingback: The Week’s End // All Sorts of Interesting Stuff | ZEN AND Π()

    • Whitfield McRory Palmer

      More proof that I don’t want to live in a world dominated by women any more than I want to live in a world dominated by men.

    • Wow. I mean–wow! Thanks so much for writing this, Rebecca. I especially love your analysis of Scott Adams’ remark. It was so true that it gave me chills.

    • Wow. I mean–wow! Thanks so much for writing this, Rebecca. I especially love your analysis of Scott Adams’ remark. It was so true that it gave me chills.

    • Midori

      You read enough books in which people like you are disposable, or are
      dirt, or are silent, absent, or worthless, and it makes an impact on
      you. Because art makes the world, because it matters, because it makes
      us. Or breaks us.

      A powerful and important article. Thank you!

    • Pingback: Terengos, terroristas y propaganda. | Qué Joder()

    • Hermann Steinpilz

      One has to admire the artful way in which the author links men* who criticize her interpretation of Lolita to the mass murderer Marc Lepine. I can’t begin to imagine how much androphobia it takes to accomplish that.

      *Although the “commenter” she quotes as evidence turned out to be a woman (see comments by Sidney Newton and others below). Oops. I can only suppose that if you become famous for popularizing the term ‘mansplaining’, you end up seeing ‘mansplaining’ in every act of communication. If all you have is a hammer, eveything looks like a nail.

    • MosesZD

      Then Blame Women.

      The publishing industry, from the very top to the very bottom is dominated by women. There is no level in the industry where women do not make the majority of the people working in it!

      And the reason for it is that women read 2x the books men read. And the publishing industry knows that and caters to it!

      Readership is very much on gendered lines with women overwhelmingly preferring books by women with 45 of the Top-50 books (favored by women) written by women as determined by Goodreads which surveyed 40,000 people (half men, half women).

      And it’s not like men are mean to women and crapping on their work, despite claims to the contrary. The average rating given to a female author (by men) was 3.9/5. Yet men gave the average male author a 3.8/5.

      So I don’t know what ‘scraps’ women are fighting over. They dominate the industry, despite the whining and lying by certain groups.

    • Just Me

      Interestingly, many of the commenters here are convinced of their “rightness”, and I can’t help but wonder how, rather ironically, that proves a point…..

      • Hermann Steinpilz

        Does the term “confirmation bias” mean anything to you? Or “kafka-trapping”, for that matter.

        • Just Me

          no, could you explain it to me in small words like I’m a little girl?

          • Hermann Steinpilz

            No, that would be mansplaining, wouldn’t it? We can’t have that.

            • Just Me

              too late, bucko

            • Hermann Steinpilz

              Interestingly, you appear to be convinced of your “rightness”, and I can’t help but wonder how, rather ironically, that proves a point…..

            • Just Me

              🙂

            • racismisbaddude

              I have tried to explain this to you several times. When a woman feels she is right, she is. It’s sexist to try and gaslight a woman out of her beliefs.

              Perhaps next time you want to respond to someone like “Just Me,” whose gender you should have known, you will remember that comment sections need to be a safe space if marginalized voices are to be heard.

            • Hermann Steinpilz

              Your femsplaining is triggering to me. It reminds me of an old (now dead) aunt who used to scold me like this. But she had a moustache, so maybe she was actually mansplaining. Who can tell, in retrospect?

    • Pingback: DoR (Decât o Revistă) » Cele mai bune povești din 2015()

    • Pingback: Apricot Eton Mess(ish) | highgate hill kitchen()

    • Pingback: What's Current: Japan finally apologizes to 'comfort women' - Feminist Current()

    • Leslie Murphy

      Love your article, Rebecca. Some very spot-on points, and put in a very funny, smart way. Thank you for it.

    • Fraga123

      Wow. Brave and empowered.

      The Phallocracy needs its comeuppance. Stay strong, Sister!!!

    • Pingback: 2015 Recap: Our favorite articles from elsewhere on the internet()

    • Pingback: Opinion: Girls Explain Star Wars To You –()

    • Pingback: 2015 Recap: Our favorite articles from elsewhere on the internet | Defending equality()

    • Fraga123

      Whoa, caucasoid penis-wielder! Let’s tap the brakes here.
      Toxic masculinity alert!

    • Pingback: Feminism isn't just a fad – and that's why so many anti-feminists are angry | Jessica Valenti – theguardian news()

    • Stamos

      this is just blather

      • DeeWriteful

        You’re a fuckin moron

    • Michael Fairney

      You know you are missing the point of course. You assume that “empathy” is the big point or value of literature. Nabokov was aghast at that idea. His view was that art is purely objective and that empathy- identifying with charactors- was irrelevant. Now that is only nabokov’s view. You are obviously really into empathy, so to each his own. I think though that your critics might have been taking N’s view.
      But of course as a woman, and self described perpetual victim, you of course identify with Lolita and that is the whole subject for you.
      I wonder though what you made of HH himself. He was clearly very much in love with L. Is it not possible that his love was genuine? Even though it was clearly illegal?
      As for allegory, I think the standard view is that the book is really a comedy about the Old World’s (Europe, represented by HH) infatuation with the New World (America, represented by L) and how the New world, though vulgar as possible, still holds this comical attraction for the old.
      What do you think of that?
      By the way, you know Esquire is a men’s magazine right? Do you really expect them to recommend Daniele Steele to the guys?
      What books do you think a women’s magazine would recommend for the ladies?
      We boy and girls all like different things in case you hadn’t noticed.

      • Heather T

        Pedophiles often justify their rape of cildren by claiming that they “love” their victims. I guess it works even better if they believe their own bulls$#it.

        And what you and others like you are fond of labelling “self identified perpetual victims”, might more accurately be described as people who have spent long and difficult years simply coming to terms with the reality of their abuse. And your judgement and scorn are often their reward for speaking out in any way. The rape culture thanks you for your assistance and contribution towards its maintenance.

    • thebigal

      Cute. A bit naive. Lolita is the story of a pedophile told by the pedophile, but told in Nabokov’s exquisite style. Not surprising he often elicits both some sympathy and a great deal of disgust – both at once. HH is a monster, but one with flair. Too bad he doesn’t just have a big M on his forehead. Solnit, like others, has made a career out of simplifying the world with reference to white men. Put a big WM on foreheads and forget about nuance. Good for her. It’s an easier way to write than actually to think. Such essays often write themselves. Put in boilerplate. Cute.

      • DeeWriteful

        What’s cute is when men who are staggeringly intellectually inferior to a certain woman use words like ‘cute’ is a transparent and laughably feeble attempt to condescend to her.

        You fail, mister. You make no actual rebuttal or argument in your comment. You just prove her excellently expressed point. Well done.

    • Heather T

      Inviting and encouraging white people to examine their privilege and the infinite hurt it has caused for so many non-white groups, is not the same thing as “racism”.

      White people constantly and consistently center their own feelings and comfort level as a convenient way of shutting down conversations they find deeply uncomfortable.

      And when you use the abuse and suffering of women in the Middle East and other nations merely as your convenient and disposable tool to silence others, you are engaging in more abuse towards those women.

    • Roger Young

      1: “book after book full of castration scenes, maybe even celebrations of castration” – Thank you for the premise of my next book.

      2: When I read this sentence -“These guys were apparently so upset and so convinced that the existence of my opinions and voice menaced others’ rights.” – I wondered where these men could have got this opinion from. Probably Bukowski.

    • Pingback: 2015: A Year of Reading and Writing (Part 2) | Indiatopia()

    • Pingback: Men Explain Lolita to Me | Literary Hub – Melissa Jo Hill()

    • OldPolarBear

      Very well said. The part about art being dangerous is great. I was an English Lit major and had one professor in particular who took that very seriously. His specialty was Modern Brit Lit, and he had a real affinity for Hardy and I read a lot of him. There were a lot of students, even the majors and grad students, who would try to get through classes by rushing to to the library and checking out all the criticism on whatever genre/author was being studied and basically vomit back established critical opinion. They barely read the actual texts, and were terrified of expressing any of their own thoughts about them.

      This prof wasn’t having any of it. He really pushed the personal, emotional engagement. It got intense. People would storm out of the room in tears, but they would eventually come back and it would be fine. I don’t suppose he would get away with that today. Even back then, a lot of students just thought he was so horrible and mean; they would avoid any classes with him. He was my best professor ever. About literature being dangerous: he told the story about one student who read the assigned Jude the Obscure. It affected this student profoundly. He ended up dropping out of college altogether. “What is the point of any of this?” he asked or something like that. Dangerous indeed!

    • Sordatos Cáceres

      “You don’t seem to understand the basic truth of art. I wouldn’t care if a novel was about a bunch of women running around castrating men. If it was great writing, I’d want to read it. Probably more than once.”

      In my opion if that is the difference between perceiving art and just being entertained; the first has an impact on your way of thinking and worldview even if small, the second one doesnt go too beyond amusing yourself (which there is nothing wrong with that)

    • Pingback: Sh*t Got Real in 2015 | StoryAnimal()

    • Pingback: The Inkwell: Volume 1, Issue 2 | The Parchment Girl()

    • Mleigh

      Some of this article felt a little bit man-hating, but I recognize your statement that not all men are mysogynistic pricks or hold onto the ego of a toddler.

      I can’t believe how clueless I was to sexism when I was younger, and honestly, it’s only been within the last few years that I’ve come to really see what this world truly is. You mentioned a couple of things in your article that really made me pay attention, because they are things that I had discussed with friends only recently.
      1. I used to have a male friend who told me that it wasn’t fair that women could say no… That there were all these gorgeous women walking around, and he wasn’t allowed to touch them. He and I are no longer friends.
      2. Carrie Fisher was told to lose weight for the new Stars Wars movie, and to virtually become the 27-year-old woman who could splendidly wear a tiny bikini. Harrison Ford and Mark Hamill… Well, they’re okay as is. Women are paid less in all types of careers, including acting, and are expected to be quiet about it. Women are expected to be attractive and demure.

      What kind of world do we live in that these are still the standards by which we live? Women should not have to think twice about walking around at night, but we do have to think about it, and to a degree, we have to fear it. I can’t walk anywhere in this lowly city that I live in without men whistling, cat-calling, or slowing down to chat with me. A sweeping feeling of dread seeps through my body every time these things happen, and I don’t dare respond to any of it in case those men should choose to stop and assault me.

      Lolita… It was a horrible book in context of the content. The prose was well-written; I don’t think anyone could fault the actual writing. As you said, Lolita is an allegory, but not a very nice one.

    • Pingback: The Boring Old Fortress of Magnificent Me | Malpertuis()

    • migwar

      Not too well written, to wit,

      “Sometimes they also seem to think that they are in charge, of me as well of facts.”

      Should read “… of me, as well as of facts.”

      And that’s just in the first paragraph.

      • DeeWriteful

        Writers write. Editors edit. Pedantic fuckwits suck.

    • Pingback: Lolita: A Rebuttal | FictionFeed()

    • Pingback: Penelope Fitzgerald: The Bookshop and Offshore | Reveries Under the Sign of Austen, Two()

    • Pingback: Penelope Fitzgerald: The Bookshop and Offshore; Charlotte Mew | Reveries Under the Sign of Austen, Two()

    • Pingback: Het jaar in feminisme, editie 2015 | De Zesde Clan()

    • Pingback: Author Construction and Literary Misfires: Theodor Fontane’s “Ellernklipp” | Literary Ecology()

    • Pingback: 123. READ.LOOK.THINK. – Jessica Stanley.()

    • Pingback: Links I Loved Last Week: A Round-Up of Online Reading 1/3/16 | the dirigible plum()

    • Pingback: Quote of the Day: What constitutes coddling?()

    • Pingback: Privelobliviousness | The Electric Agora()

    • Pingback: Sometimes A Light Sabre is Just a Light Sabre | The Press Gallery()

    • Pingback: Obras de ficción. | Qué Joder()

    • Theo Anonis

      I liked the tone of the article. It felt as though I was participating in a conversation with the author rather than someone standing on a podium tossing sentences at the audience.

      A lot of what is said, is agreeable. Though I’ve not read Lolita, I understand that literature, whether past or present is white male-centric. Is that the fault of the writers, who in the past were predominantly white males. No, I believe not. Remember, prior to modern times, females were not taught to read. They were not schooled. Neither were people of color, or other disadvantaged groups. With that foundation firmly in place, today, white male authors still right books for white male readers, and white male editors are still the dominant species in the literary world.

    • Theo Anonis

      Wow. That’s a lot of hate jemoi. I couldn’t get past the first third of your reply before feeling disgust. As well, I felt like I was re-reading the article with all the quotes you posted.

      Never the less, a bit of context. I am a middle aged white male and I took no offense by the content of this article. It was well written, and for the most part, quite accurate.

      Am I afraid of losing my privelage? No. Why should I breeze through life simply because of my gender, my race, or any other “advantage” bestowed upon my by an archaic, and rotten the core, system. But I have.

      You can’t distract us by pointing at other people, or other countries/regions/faiths. Deal with the environment you are in by trying to make it better. IF, you can look beyond your own closed mind.

    • MaxFiction

      “Identifying” with “characters”–that’s where the goofiness begins.

    • Pingback: Resolutions, Already Broken | /'kül/()

    • Pingback: The Limits of “Mansplaining” | The Pacific Bull Moose()

    • Pingback: Rebecca Solnit: Men explain Lolita to me. | Rhubarb Pyjamas()

    • Celia Caldas

      BRAVO! I got so excited at multiple points during this essay I had to get up from my chair and pace a little. Thank you.

    • Pingback: Men Who Are Hypersensitive To Perceived Threat When Driving | parallel - practical driving test()

    • Pingback: Links for readers… – Shannon Turlington()

    • Ernie Lederman

      My response to Lolita is that it was exceptionally well-written — especially considering English was very much not Nabokov’s first language — but it’s an ugly look into the mind of a pedophile. That line about “it was she who seduced me” gives it all away. H. H. would be pathetic if not for the damage he does. As to Lolita: she has to endure a mother who can’t stand her, a twisted man who rapes her for years, being thrown out by a man whom she was crazy about because she wouldn’t participate in sex acts he wanted her to, and finally settling into contentment — and dying before she’s 20. This shit actually happens, in this very world. Celebrating it as Art doesn’t work for me.

    • Pingback: Unclassified | Pearltrees()

    • Pingback: Women where you least expect them | tour de lindsay b()

    • Pingback: books: | Квіти для Елджернона та смажені зелені помідори – Етажерка()

    • Mark Carter

      The reader who told you that “to read Lolita and ‘identify’ with one of the characters is to entirely misunderstand Nabokov” was, in fact, just mimicking the same claim that Nabokov made in his own Lectures on Literature. Nabokov claimed that to read any literature in order to identify with a character is to read it for the wrong reason. Personally, I disagree, and I see that most of your criticism against this attitude can apply to (white, straight, male) Nabokov as well, but my point is that the person you’re quoting may just have been some idiot parroting something else he read in Nabokov’s other books to make himself feel like an expert. It’s a given that, if Nabokov feels that way about literature, then he would also like us to approach his books in the same way, leaving all sorts of psuedo-snobs open to preach to the rest of us about how Nabokov wanted us to read him.

    • Pingback: When women play, the world should pay attention: Women athletes from around the globe and why they matter | tour de lindsay b()

    • Pingback: 'The Family Law', Diversity On Aussie TV And #GiveAYellowAGo: A Chat With … – Junkee()

    • Pingback: Twitter Roundup: Holidaze Edition – Nicole Crucial()

    • Pingback: It matters. | Scintillating Speck()

    • Pingback: When offence transcends time – bin here done that()

    • Pingback: One Night Stanzas » Blog Archive » Procrastination Station #148()

    • Pingback: there is no distance()

    • Pingback: The real censorship in children’s books: smiling slaves is just the half of it – The Guardian | Book Supreme Depot()

    • Francis Zimmer

      Humans remain the most priveloblivious creatures, both sexes. Let’s head-out, chop down some trees and eat some burgers. It’s all ours, after all.

    • Pingback: Travel + Inspirational Link Round-Up, January | The Ramble()

    • I don’t want to read “Lolita”- some subject matter is just off the table for me.

    • Pingback: Frankenwords: they're alive! But for how long? | Flynews()

    • Koni Walden

      Love this article. Why women with a voice make some men uncomfortable- I wilI never understand. It is perhaps too much to ask to be treated like a person. And now it has come to a point where these men are like “Feminazis, we don’t need Feminism” and sadly there are women who think like that too. Just so enraging to try to have a conversation with the people who simply don’t get it. I couldn’t get through Lolita, I stopped reading after the motel to motel journey started and I could sense what the girl was trying to do and what she was feeling though her voice is conspicuously absent from the book. I didn’t understand it at the time, why I got so uncomfortable and kept putting the book away, I tried to finish it many times since as a reader of ‘classic literature’ I was determined to finish all the books on my list. But I just couldn’t.

    • Pingback: Unclassified | Pearltrees()

    • Pingback: Weekly W_nderings - 1 November, 2015 - Phil Betts (dot com)()

    • Jason Newstedt

      While it may be ‘wrong’ to point out that the younger and more attractive a female is, the less they mind a double standard – it doesn’t make it any less true.

      • Which is why predators target younger women who are more naive and less likely to understand that power given due to objectification is not personal power but reflected power.

        • Jason Newstedt

          They’re not “targeting” younger women, they’re attracted to them. Biologically, nature dictates men seek out younger females for a more stable reproduction partner. Your social implications have nothing to do with it.

          • and the facts that they’re naive and more manipulatable is *totally* irrelevant and not a bonus at all. I know a bridge I can sell ya.

            • Jason Newstedt

              No, it’s a bonus. No one is disputing that.

    • Pingback: Best Moving Pictures of 2015 | JeffreySeeds.com()

    • Pingback: Best Moving Pictures of 2015 | JeffreySeeds.com()

    • Pingback: MEN EXPLAIN LOLITA TO ME – Alina Corbett()

    • Pingback: Los beneficios sociales de leer y contar historias. – Psicoloquio()

    • Joseph Henpeffski

      This has to be the best article I’ve read; dealing with the male voice in literature; that impetuously gravitates toward subconscious stories of sexism, and has helped me to understand; finally; what is meant by ‘white male privilege.’ (Though obvious to woman and minorities, please forgive the ignorance of my mental state.) 30 years is a deep hole from which to climb out of.

      Now I understand why I had mixed feelings about ‘Less Than Zero’. Less Than Zero; The Rules of Attraction; American Psycho; and The Informers. With book after book written and explained primarily from the side of the man; woman hating, woman raping, woman killing; they are not so much artistic expressions of woman’s self worth in the 20th century, as they are silent cathartic articulations of Easton’s own idea’s about a woman’s worth. From birth, his parent’s, his house hold, his books and his movies, his own understanding (and my own) of the evolutionary path the definition of a woman takes through our lives, constantly reinforcing and guiding that paradigm toward the ‘white’ side, and the ‘male’ side of life.

      On the surface, his books seem to admonish the sins of domination, while secretly desiring to do just that. While being praised literarily, he is contributing to the same ‘education’ he received as a young man in America. Writing his own stories while taking away others’. But the acumen of the process is not lost to me. I am a man, my experience is that of a man, so in to write a story is to always have that prejudice within my characters. This fact is a given and should is the limitation to imagination; which empathy is a cousin. In other words, we can only do so much to put ourselves in other peoples shoes, but when we do this, we still are ourselves. The limitation of the fantasy is the issue, and the subject of sexist art, the stories themselves, should be the blue print, not the truth. Truth is found after deconstruction; which this author has done exquisitely.

      To an adult, watching two teens in an adolescent relationship gas-light each other through manipulation is easy to spot. So to might be the ability of a seasoned, empathetic, self aware listener to identify sexist bigoted art pieces that claim to admonish rape and violence against woman, (i.e. Last House on the Left, Black Snake Moan, I spit on Your Grave, Death Wish, Straw Dogs,) but within its subtext, in fact extol those very acts fortuitously.

    • Pingback: pinboard March 6, 2016 — arghh.net()

    • Arieh Benjamin Sochaczevski

      There are people (and I am one of them) whom speak especially assertively. It’s sometimes from training, and other times from their nature, and most often both. I was taught, for example, not to equivocate in my spoken or written word – never say “I think…” because that weakens the rest of the statement, and is redundant since I’m the one speaking.

      I’ve read – I don’t remember exactly where – and experienced that speaking so assertively is more common among men than women.

      Is it possible that some range of the men who are conveying to you that you are wrong, aren’t intending that? They are disagreeing assertively with you, without wanting say to or being cognizant of implying that you are fundamentally wrong?

      As others have said, a lot of sexist behaviour can be unwitting. Some people enjoy argument for it’s own sake, and other people can find that off-putting if not outright insulting and dismissive.

    • Pingback: A Response to “Beyond Bolaño and Beyond” | Full Stop()

    • Above comment demonstrates Poe’s law in action, for those who wanted easy examples for research papers.

      • jemoi

        you’re racist and misandristic. gtfo

        • please support your conclusion using at least three peer reviewed studies, with citations and footnotes.

    • Leon O Morton

      Biology shapes PatrIarchy it does not cause or explain patriarchy

    • Twinkie defense

      Literature is art. It’s not the role of art to be pretty – some of the most powerful art is in fact disturbing. If someone reads Lolita and the book has an affect on them – whether they are delighted, uplifted, disturbed, or afraid – it has served its purpose.

    • Just wanted to point out…that one book that promotes the rape of a child vs. another book that exposes the rapist…in literature listed in the The New York Public Library’s Books of the Century–and the category of where the “serious” literature is listed vs. the lit that has been categorized as “pop”..which is not…really.
      Rapist:
      Landmarks of Modern Literature
      Vladimir Nabokov. Lolita (1955)

      Rapist exposed:
      Popular Culture & Mass Entertainment
      Grace Metalious. Peyton Place (1956)

    • Heather T

      Female-on-male rape is not central to the original topic, but a seemingly-inevitable derailment nonetheless. Which is part of the problem.

      • Elysiadon

        Thanks for the reply!

        You’re right, it isn’t central to the topic being discussed (nor should it be, and nor did I intend to make it so), but I thought it would be worthwhile to correct your damaging misconception in a short aside. That’s all.

        I think it’s highly problematic that you’re willing to discount some suffering because other suffering exists. I’m not playing any game here, and I was not trying to suggest that female-on-male rape is a bigger issue than other forms of rape. Rather, I’m pointing out that you’ve articulated a damaging misconception concerning a real issue that is vastly misunderstood, largely unrecognized, and underestimated with respect to prevalence.

        Prison rape is an issue that I care deeply about as well. However, you were not making any false claims regarding its prevalence, so any discussion on the topic would be moot. (Moreover, male prison rape seems to be subject to more attention than female-on-male rape, but that’s entirely beside the point.)

        In response to your third paragraph, those are patently ridiculous grounds for assessing my thinking abilities. If you read any sort of academic or other persuasive work, you’ll see direct quotations all the time. Moreover, I copied and pasted those lines because I knew (from prior experience) that stating my claims without direct quotes from an authoritative source would lead to a request for more concrete evidence. I decided to provide it upfront.

        As a final note, although this may not have been your intended message, you seem to be suggesting that thoughts on these sorts of matters are more important than (or ought to be formed in the absence of) research evidence. That’s deeply troubling. Without evidence, thoughts are formed solely on the basis of instincts that, though often useful, are riddled with all manner of biases and are not particularly malleable.

        Be well, and I look forward to your reply!

        • Heather T

          Thank you for your backhanded “advice”, friendly person.

          • Elysiadon

            In what universe, real or imagined, could anything in my last message be construed as advice?

            • Heather T

              I’m sensing the ghost of Harry Lagman. In any case it’s my 101st birthday and I’ve got to scoot to dinner. Later, Harry.

            • Elysiadon

              Ugh. I hope you someday meet a rape victim in person who can sit you down and show you just how screwed up you are.
              (Oh, and just as long as I’m calling out your incorrect bullshit, there’s no remotely famous person by the name of Harry Lagman.)
              Later, creep.

            • Heather T

              1. That will not be necessary when I have you to concern troll for me.

              2. Oh, he’s famous around here somewhere.

              3. Ditto!

            • Elysiadon

              A concern troll poses as an ally. I won’t pretend to be your ally. Your ideation is too fucked.
              I’m not saying you need to give a shit about male victims. Just don’t say things that are factually inaccurate, because it perpetuates false and damaging stereotypes. Is that REALLY too much to ask?
              And you’re thinking of Larry Hagman.

    • Geofrey Crow

      You get the sneaking little feeling that none of those Nice White Liberal Men wanted to admit (even to themselves) that they had a pretty easy time identifying with Humbert Humbert? I mean really now, Nabokov was a certified genius and one of the most amazing stylists who’s ever touched pen to paper, but let’s be honest: the man was a prankster and a pervert who wrapped his smut up in beautiful language so people would call it “Art.”

    • Pingback: Laïcité, the one true faith of Le Hebdoistes – bin here, done that()

    • Kate

      Way to lie about facts dude. That study you posted says 1.7% of men were raped (predominantly by men) and 0.7% were forced to penetrate (predominately by women) in THEIR LIFETIMES. The numbers for the last 12 months for men were so small as to be statistically insignificant.

      At the same time it says 19.3% of women were raped in their lifetimes while your 1.6% was the number for the last 12 months.

      Pro Tip: If you are going to blatantly lie about something don’t provide a reference that directly refutes your lies.

      • Elysiadon

        “The numbers for the last 12 months for men were so small as to be statistically insignificant.”

        Yeah, that’s only true for rape. Did you check the 12-month incidence for men who were made to penetrate? Control-F for “1,921,000.” You’ll see the rate listed as 1.7%. Next, compare to the 12-month incidence for rape of women, which is listed as 1,929,000, or 1.6%.

        Pro Tip: learn to read tables.

      • Elysiadon

        I’d written a reply to your comment, but it seems to have disappeared.
        1.7% of men have been raped, yes, but this figure does NOT include “made to penetrate”, therefore most female perpetrators are ignored. In this study, “rape” only describes incidents where victims are penetrated.

        0.7% is the proportion of men that EXPERIENCED penetration, not those that were made to penetrate. Ctrl-F for “an estimated 1.7% of men were made to penetrate a perpetrator in the 12 months preceding the survey.”

        Again, in case I need to repeat it: all figures for men who were raped FAIL TO TAKE ACCOUNT of men who were violated by women, because under this study’s definition, rape requires that the victim be penetrated. In this study, women who force men to penetrate them ARE NOT RAPISTS.

        Pro-Tip: don’t tell me I’m lying if you haven’t bothered to read the study correctly.

    • Pingback: Lolita: A Rebuttal | Fiction Feed()

    • DonnaL

      I wish all these people saying you’re not supposed to identify with Lolita’s character understood that that’s exactly what Nabokov intended. I don’t think it should be necessary to point to expressed authorial intent to conclude that the reader’s sympathies are supposed to be with the victim, and not with the rapist pedophile. I think it’s clear from the book itself. However, in case there’s any doubt, Nabokov himself spoke to the issue a number of times (presumably in response to critics who accused him of pedophilic tendencies himself, or who — worse yet — saw the book, as one famous critic did, as the story of a “weak man seduced by a corrupt child”). These quotations are all from the Vintage paperback edition of “Strong Opinions,” a collection of Nabokov interviews and essays:

      p. 26, on choosing Humbert Humbert’s name: “The double rumble is, I think, very nasty, very suggestive. It is a hateful name for a hateful person.”

      p. 93, in response to an interviewer’s comment that in Hollywood and New York, “relationships are very common between men of forty and girls very little older than Lolita,” and that their marriages incur “no particular public outrage,” Nabokov says: “[C]ases of men in the their forties marrying girls in their teens or early twenties have no bearing on Lolita whatever. Humbert was fond of ‘little girls’ — not simply ‘young girls.’ Nymphets are girl-children, not starlets and ‘sex kittens.’ Lolita was twelve, not eighteen, when Humbert met her. You may remember that by the time she is fourteen, he refers to her as his ‘aging mistress.'”

      p. 94, in commenting on one critic’s statement that the character of Humbert “retains a touching and insistent quality,” Nabokov says: “I would put it differently — Humbert Humbert is a vain and cruel wretch who manages to appear ‘touching.’ That epithet, in its true, tear-iridized sense, can only apply to my poor little girl [i.e., to Lolita herself].”

      And so on. Perhaps I should also point out that Nabokov’s sympathies hardly lay with child molestors, given his own personal history of being sexually abused by an uncle on repeated occasions when he was 8 or 9 (as referred to in passing in his autobiography “Speak, Memory”).

    • Tanja Wetterstedt

      Oh, go suck a bag of boners.

    • Pingback: Interview with E. A. Aymar, author of the DEAD Trilogy - Late Last Night Books()

    • Alexander Stern

      I read your essay with great interest, especially as “Lolita” is one of my favorite English language novels. In addition, I have been accused in the past of “mansplaining” (although, in my defense, while I frequently begin sentences with the word “actually”, I correct and explain things to everyone, regardless of gender. I’d say that I’m more a pedantic jerk than anything else).

      I quickly clicked over to the article that prompted so much patriarchal outrage, only to find that your criticism of Humbert (and not, interestingly, Nabokov – how many of your wounded correspondents made the distinction, I wonder?) was not only justified, but actually (there it is again!) understated.

      Does Humbert lack empathy? Damn straight! So attached is he to the mortal wound of his unfulfilled childhood lust that he is incapable of seeing what is right in front of him. Certainly, he recognizes the legal and ethical ramifications of his actions; he just can’t understand that Charolette Haze and her daughter are capable of having desires, thoughts, or agency outside of his self-pitying myopia.

      This is, I’m quite convinced, a deliberate choice on Nabokov’s part. Humbert’s blindness is total. He fails to notice that he is a bit player in a larger story that started before he arrived on the scene.

      Humbert acts as a double to Quilty. He is a second rate monster compared to Lolita’s first abuser. But his brutal abduction, coercion, and abuse of Lo are so selfish that she actually escapes him and runs to Quilty (who she later leaves as well).

      There is some redemption in the end for both Lo and Hum: Lo escapes being a pawn in the chess game between two perverts. She dies in childbirth having chosen an utterly banal existence, but it’s her choice. And banality must’ve been a refreshing change after her former life.

      Humbert, at last, sheds his pedophilia. At the last, he still loves Lolita, even after she’s grown up. That’s as close as redemption as he’ll come.

      Or maybe not. Perhaps, by killing Quilty, Humbert rids the world of a threat worse than himself. After all, Lo doesn’t want him. If anything, he’s the closest she’s ever had to a father (sad as that is). He knows that killing Quilty won’t win her back. Perhaps, in the end, Humbert finally understands that he’s not the center of the universe.

      Perhaps not. Perhaps I can’t read beyond my biases (I’m certainly not alone). I hope you don’t think that I’m “explaining” this book to you. This is just my reading. Take it for what it’s worth.

    • Pingback: A review of The Diary of Norman K by DImitrios Ikonomou – Compulsive Reader()

    • Lara

      A friend just sent me a link to this article.

      Thank you.

      Thank you for expressing your opinions, thank you for being strong, thank you for exposing this truth that many people don’t want to see.
      There is misogyny. There is sexism.

      Some people don’t want to listen. They’re too comfortable in their own privilege. That privilege which hurts so many others.

      This article is an oasis in the desert that the Internet has become.

      I have so much respect and solidarity for your writings. And I’m very touched, to see that I, and other women who have suffered of degrading and demeaning behaviours due to our gender, are not alone.

    • Pingback: Gaming While Non-Binary, Serena Williams Interviewed by Melissa Harris-Perry, And More: Today’s Recommended Reading – Flavorwire()

    • Pingback: Holidaze Writer’s Links: Author Business Plan, Pseudonyms, Unrealistic YA Tropes, & Publisher Catfishing – Nicole Crucial()

    • Pingback: Write for us. – Homer()

    • Pingback: Feminism | Pearltrees()

    • Pingback: 12-year Primary Education Should Be Compulsory Essay – Allinthenewspapers()

    • Eric Pederson

      Lolita. I was hooked with Nabokov’s first paragraph. But I had to set it aside after a couple chapters, as I could not tolerate any more of the self loathing it blossomed in me. So I can’t comment on the work, but there is something in the self loathing it made a heterosexual man feel.

    • Eric Lawlor

      Er, minor question:

      A large basis for the article seems to be that men think their opinion is right and will defend it to the point of death. Which is often stupid and possibly sexist.

      But, and here is my question, who actually doesn’t think their own opinion is right? That’d be terrible self-confidence! “Well, I think this, but I’m probably wrong, so….think whatever you want, I’ve lost this argument already.”

      Damn, that’d be pretty pathetic, tbh.

      Anyway, other than that weird aspect of your central premise, not bad article. Just…really odd idea with the whole “why don’t people realize they’re wrong and I’m right” thing.

    • Pingback: Animal Spouses: Beastly Husbands and Monstrous Wives by Clara Lawryniuk – Transmundane Press()

    • Pingback: Pierre Boulez: An Elegy – Joshua Cody()

    • Tomsan

      Thank you.

    • Pingback: Links Roundup: February 1st-19th, 2017 | down the rabbit hole()

    • Pingback: ‘I sort of kicked the hornets’ nest’: Rebecca Solnit responds to male commenters who ‘mansplained’ Lolita to her | National Post()

    • Jeff Brien

      A fine essay on gender but the plot of Nabokov’s novel has been misstated and characterized in the most offensive terms. I would venture that either she didn’t fully understand the content of the book or it was intentional in order to lure the men into some sort of emotional reaction.

    • Pingback: The Mother of All Questions | Feminist Texican Reads()






    Read More

    H is for Hawk

     Keys in pocket, hawk on fist, and off we go. Leaving the house that evening is frightening. Somewhere in my mind ropes uncoil...