Rationalization generally means, “There is no way in hell I’m going to examine what I think and see if it needs upgrading. I’m right because I’m right.”

I tried to explain the power dynamics, he refused to get it, and then it came out that the boyfriend would sometimes hit inanimate objects when angry. “There!” I thought. “An obvious example!” When I brought that up as one of the possible reasons, it was immediately brushed off. I tried to point out the connection between hitting an object and hitting a person — in other words, even if it’s just an object you condition yourself to accept physical violence as an acceptable reaction to anger — and was shocked when the response was that the guys all wanted to be lauded for this behaviour because, after all, hitting an object means that they aren’t hitting a person.

And not one time in all of this did they try to think about or understand either the girlfriend’s feelings or the ones I, as a woman who understands those feelings, was trying to convey.

“This sexist behavior is okay because the target audience likes it. It’s okay that we offend a minority in the group because they’re a minority. It’s okay that maybe the only reason the minority IS a minority is because we treat it like shit - it couldn’t possibly be that we treat it like shit in order to keep it out, oh, goodness no. And finally, it’s just fine that we males in my group are perfectly comfortable with sexism, that it doesn’t make us look at the women we love and think ‘OMG this is wrong’. It’s fine that we don’t have enough empathy for that.”

I’m really not accusing Matt or any other individual of not giving a crap about women, but that IS what the argument boils down to. Is not caring what happens to us better than hating us? I’m not sure. Some misogynists overcompensate for the prejudice they’re aware they have. Men who give themselves a “nice guy” pass while putting up glass walls between themselves and women with no regard for the effect it has on the women - and then have the nerve to question when women say, “Fine, we’ll just play it OUR way inside our glass box” - have no idea the trouble they’re causing.

This is such angry, inflammatory, bigoted language. Rationality or even logic has nothing to do with race, gender, society, economics or history.

Matt, please keep in mind that this is a feminist blog and, though this particular post is aimed at a broader audience, it is generally a resource for feminists who are immersed in feminist theory. What this means is that the general readership here is working on the assumption that they don’t have to do a “feminism 101″ every time they post.

Lake Desire was addressing a power imbalance inherent in what feminists refer to as “the patriarchy” — in other words the system of hierarchies that we believe continue to be reinforced by culture, government, science, etc — not individual people or individual acts.

In fact, knowing Lake Desire I would say that she 100% agrees with your assessment of how logic and emotions are interconnected and not exclusive of each other, and furthermore I know that I am happy to see (and suspect she would be too) a man who is proud to acknowledge that he does, indeed, possess emotions.

What she was speaking to, however, was the widespread notion that those two are exclusive and furthermore that the male-logical is rational while the female-emotional is irrational. She was observing that, as society is structured right now, we have to play into this dichotomy and present ourselves as logical in order for society at large to take us seriously.

Both she and I believe that particular logical fallacy (that logic and emotions are mutually exclusive and are rational and irrational, respectively) is wrong and would love to see it changed.

Of course it was a personal attack. How much more unambiguous can “jerk” and “asshole” be? That’s water under the bridge however and I don’t bear grudges.

That would be the part that I would definitely rephrase. It was a last minute add-in and as such I didn’t look it over as carefully as I should have.

Here’s the part again, emphasizing what I had put in there to try to make it clear that I wasn’t calling you an asshole, but rather trying to say that the argument that you were making was, at it’s core, callous:

And, anyway, let’s be honest here: matt would look like a callous asshole if people thought he was telling a rational person that her want to be included in a game that she plays is stupid. So by inventing some statistics, making the argument that catering towards the majority by deliberately excluding the minority is a good business proposal, and painting mer as some stupid over-emotional chick makes him look like the authority to listen to, rather than a jerk telling a woman to basically shut up and realize that gaming is for the boys.

Again, it was poor phrasing on my part and I see exactly why the “look like”s that I put in didn’t convey my point and rather came across as an ad hom attack. But I just want you to know that it most certainly wasn’t my intent to do so, and that I apologize for my screw up.

I’m not paying lip services to gender equality here. My business partner and equal is a woman, full of her own strengths and insecurities. And damn, we argue. And we find common ground that isn’t based on the fact that I hold the “male” trump which beats her “female” card.

I believe that you are a sincere guy who does his best to like, respect, and treat the women in your life equally. And because of that, I really do urge you to check out the links in the On Privilege part of my sidebar. I’d recommend my Nice Guy list, but right now as it stands it’s more of an intermediate level resource than a privilege primer. I would stay away from the letters and the checklists (they’re more advanced material because they don’t pull their punches), but definitely browse through the Privilege 101 section.

One of the things that I see running through your dialogue with me is that you’re invested very much in looking at individuals and individual acts. These are, of course, very important and without having strong individual connections with non-privileged individuals then there can be no gain in equality.

That being said, the individual is not the end-all-be-all. The reason is, of course, because we are all different. What satisfies one woman is, as you’ve seen, something uncomfortable to the next, and blatant sexism to a third woman. If we place all of our emphasis on individuals, then we can cater to the easiest demographic: the woman who is satisfied with what leaves other women feeling hurt, excluded, and even angry.

What understanding privilege is about is seeing the underlying power structures that create inequality and doing our part, both as privileged and non-privileged people (and almost everyone is both), to be aware of and hopefully dismantle those systems in order to achieve equality for all, not just a select few who by either privilege or luck have come out on top.

This is such angry, inflammatory, bigoted language. Rationality or even logic has nothing to do with race, gender, society, economics or history.

Rational != emotionless!

Emotional decisions are not irrational decisions.

I’m an emotional white male (we do exist!). My “rational” decisions are based on my mood, ie emotions, as well as my logic and my experience. These are all factors. There are times when I am irrational and that when I let the mood of the moment ignore my own principles of fairness or good conduct or when something I want now would be expedited by the decision yet may not be good for me in the future. You likely have different terminology for it but I see irrational decisions as being those you regret after the fact.