[cross-posted at Feminist Allies. If you would like to comment, please do it there.]
I was about to comment on a recent post by Jeff, but I realized I had a whole post in the works on this subject. Jeff was talking, in part, about some criticism Q Grrl had of a post by Hugo Schwyzer.
Q Grrl says: [...] Don’t kid yourself that a man challenging other men is brave or exceptionally impressive. It’s not even virtuous. More precisely, it’s a base-level human reaction to injustice — and no man should be given kudos for simply rising to the least common denominator.
Jeff says: [...] the common denominator is sexism, so to the degree that he’s not being sexist, he’s rising above the common denominator.
I’ve come across this issue before, the so-called “no cookie” issue. I think Jeff is basically on the right track, but I also think that he and Q Grrl are using “common denominator” to mean two different things.
If I understand Q Grrl correctly, she is saying that the base level of decency that anyone ought to display is to treat everyone justly and speak out against injustice, and so to do so means you’re only doing the bare minimum that you ought.
Jeff seems to be saying that since the default attitude of men is a sexist one, then to be better than that average is commendable. That is false. To be at that average is deplorable. An acceptable level of behaviour is well above the average male attitude. And to acheive a level of “acceptable” in your actions is not commendable.
The difference here is between what behaviours the average man exhibits and what behaviours he ought to exhibit.
(Read more …)