Friday, October 15, 2010

"Fag bashing," woman-hating, and Men's Rights myopia

One of the many failings of the Men's Rights Movement -- and "failing" really isn't a strong enough word for it -- is the way in which it ignores or denies real problems faced by boys and men that don't fit into its grand conspiracy theory in which all the ills faced by men are caused by evil women or by men corrupted and seduced, personally and/or politically, by said evil women.

One of these problems, and it's a big one, is the "fag bashing" that's rampant among boys of high school and college age. The atmosphere of abuse has a tragic effect on gay teenagers, as the recent rash of suicides illustrates all too poignantly. And it also has an enormous effect on boys who aren't gay but who have their masculinity challenged constantly by other boys.

While the MRM is obsessed with the notion of the smug, castrating (Western) woman, the entitled "princess" who looks down on decent, ordinary "beta" males and Nice Guys in favor of jerky, aggressive alpha males, it pays virtually no attention to the daily nightmares inflicted on boys by other boys (and men by other men) by "fag bashing."

Again, take the recent gay teen suicides. While they have inspired magazine cover stories and ongoing discussion on feminist blogs, the only MRA blog of any prominence that even mentioned any of the suicides, to the best of my knowledge, was the False Rape Society, which essentially used the suicide of Tyler Clementi as an excuse to bash feminism, as I pointed out in a recent post, and (as cat pointed out in a comment here) to turn the story of "brutality against a gay kid" into one "about how hard it is to be hetero."

While MRAs hate it if anyone calls them "fags" or otherwise criticizes their masculinity, they routinely deride any men they don't like as a "manginas," and various other terms to suggest they are not "real men." A few MRAs, like the folks at the blog No Ma'am, bash gays and lesbians quite openly; they've also, you may recall, labeled me a "poof" (among other things)

One of the smartest takes I've seen on the phenomenon of anti-gay bullying comes from male feminist blogger Hugo Schwyzer. In a recent post on "homosociality and homophobia," he puts the recent suicides in a broader context. Drawing on the research of sociologist  C.J. Pascoe, Schwyzer describes the ways in which "fag discourse" permeates American high school:
The discourse manifests itself in the almost incorrigible way in which young men label each other “fags” while seeking to avoid having that label applied to them. According to this discourse, fear of being called out publicly as a “fag” is the primary driving force behind what Pascoe cleverly calls the display of “compulsive heterosexuality.” ... Pascoe notes that among young men desperate to establish their masculine bona fides with their peers, what we see in American high schools amounts to compulsive, almost frantic efforts by young men to prove their manhood.
Anyone who has worked with adolescent boys knows how much anxiety many of them feel about their own masculinity. It’s not news to say that our sons, like their fathers before them, often have to endure or participate in physical or at least verbal violence that we tragically and falsely believe is necessary to transition into manhood. ... The real stigma in being labeled a “fag” doesn’t lie in the association with homosexuality, but with being seen as feminine.
There's no easy solution for a problem that is so pervasive, but Schwyzer argues that "perhaps the best way to “inoculate against cruelty”is ... to encourage strong non-sexual relationships between boys and girls at every age." Going back to a review he wrote of Michael Kimmel's book Guyland, a study of teen boys and young men, Schwyzer notes that
boys who have close female friends are much less likely to exhibit the worst and most destructive tendencies of the Guy Code. After all, the “guy code” is wrapped up in the notion that approval from other men ... is the most precious commodity a young man can pursue. Even heterosexual conquest is, ultimately, a means of gaining approval from the guys. Young men who have friends of both sexes are less likely to be held hostage to solely masculine approval; they can receive non-sexual validation from their female friends — and that validation is less likely to be connected to the brutal “sturdy oak” ethos of the Guy Code.
And they are less likely to participate in the relentless onslaught of cruelty towards their gay and lesbian peers.
These are lessons that the Men's Rights Movement -- or whatever rises up to supplant it -- will have to learn if it wants to be a movement that really benefits boys and men, straight and gay alike, instead of indulging regressive, self-defeating and often dangerous fantasies of manhood that demonize "fags" and women alike.

68 comments:

  1. Ah yes, the male supremacist's use of "the inferior subhuman" as ammunition to maintain or increase their control over other men who might be led astray from the pack. And out the other side of their mouths, they accuse women in general, feminists in particular, of using language meant to control men through shaming tactics and of having a "herd mentality".

    "The real stigma in being labeled a “fag” doesn’t lie in the association with homosexuality, but with being seen as feminine."

    Yes, because it is VITALLY important to keep men and women believing that we are EXACT OPPOSITES of each other. That way we can lump all the GOOD characteristics of humanity under the Masculine category and all the BAD characteristics of humanity under the Feminine category. And being that we are exact opposites, men MUST be kept soley in the Masculine category and women MUST be kept solely in the Feminine category (and kept under the authority and control of those in the good, the Masculine, category). And we call this "natural".

    ReplyDelete
  2. David Futrelle wrote (quoting Hugo):

    "The real stigma in being labeled a 'fag' doesn't lie in the association with homosexuality, but with being seen as feminine.

    That is true. But there is a counter-stigma that says that masculinity itself must not have a clear definition, and this lack of clarity is what feeds the first stigma. Boys who oppress other boys with the "fag" epithet are probably themselves trying to carve out what qualities distinguish men from women. Deep down they know that the chief distinguishing quality of manhood is masculinity (compared to the chief distinguishing quality of womanhood, which is femininity). The biologically natural urge to be true to oneself is not in itself destructive. But the feminist belief that masculinity can mean whatever you want it to mean hinders the quest of boys to emulate masculine ideals as they approach manhood. Clarity can be your friend.

    ReplyDelete
  3. @David Futrelle:

    You are claiming that being "gay" is somehow more of a hardship than being "straight" in adolescent years.

    Can you back that up?




    I didn't think so.

    I wonder - how many straight boys commit suicide in teen years versus how many gay boys commit suicide in their teen years....

    I wonder what the percentages would reveal.

    I'd like to say nice article - but - you fail to back up your main claim with any statistics.

    Things like this, in my opinion - simply propagate ignorance - and will do nothing to solve such problems.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Now this is the kind of post I'd like to see more of. Nice job. However, in reference to Schwyzer's quote about guys who have lots of female friends being less likely to engage in homophobia, as a few MRAs will likely tell you, women can be as viciously homophobic as men, if not more so. I mean, look at the poor rutgers kid--one of the perpetrators in that tragedy was a girl, IIRC.

    Secondly, I'm not sure the 'fag-bashing' by MRAs is as virulent, comparatively, as you make it out to be. In the no ma'am post, for instance, the OP explicitly says that he has no problem with men doing what they do with other men so long as they don't shove it in his face. Most genuine homophobes would say that no matter how 'normal' a guy may act, if he's even slightly attracted to guys he's a "fag." This isn't necessarily to say I agree with the no-ma'am guy, but I think there is a difference between a homophobia that actively seeks to ferret out and make miserable the lives of anyone who isn't set on a single place on the sexuality continuum and a homophobia which, at the end of the day, really just wants to be left alone.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I agree with you, in part, John, the biologically natural urge to be true to oneself is not in itself destructive, but the societal (or worldly) urge to dichotomize people into hard and fast categories of masculine and feminine IS destructive, in my opinion. Males and females are not identical, I do not subscribe to that, but we are not polar opposites, either. Magnetism in human attraction (be it on a sexual or platonic level) does not work the same as magnetic poles in physics, and the push to ensure that men and women remain as "opposite sexes" might be what encourages hypermasculinity and hyperfemininity, both of which can be quite destructive.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Scarecrow, the percentages might...not be exactly what you'd expect. Like half a second of Googling gave me this:

    http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED334503.pdf

    On page 16 of this government report, it says "gay and lesbian youth are two to three times more likely to commit suicide than other young people." Now, in terms of raw numbers, straights still make up the majority of suicides, but that's because we are waaaaaaay more than two to three times the number of gay people. The fact that gays are *disproportionately* represented among suicides indicates it really isn't easy for them.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Lisa H. wrote:

    "but the societal (or worldly) urge to dichotomize people into hard and fast categories of masculine and feminine IS destructive, in my opinion."

    What is destructive is the social tendency to apply definitions of gender that are rooted in political ideology, rather than biology. When it comes to masculinity, our society spends little time defining it. Instead, we destructively take the feminist approach and fixate on what masculinity is not. But this has a counter intuitive effect. Just like the public thought that Richard Nixon was more of a crook because he said he was not a crook, boys without fatherly guidance think that being a man means to oppress other men because feminism spends so much time associating masculinity with oppression. Boys are then left to their own devices to grope for the true definition of masculinity. Notice that the most violent boys in our communities come from fatherless households, where manhood could not be taught by fathers to sons. Those boys spend their time trying to figure it out on their own, with only other directionless boys to compare themselves with. It would have been better if they could compare themselves with a clear masculine ideal (i.e. a concept), and that comes from fathers.

    Unfortunately, the lack of clarity about what constitutes "masculine" has now reached the maturity stage, and formerly directionless boys are becoming directionless men, still groping their way to a clear definition of manhood. What then can they pass on to their sons, except to tell them what not to be?

    ReplyDelete
  8. What possible benefit is there for men's rights advocates to take up the mantle for gay men when gay men are already aligned with feminists? We're supposed to help the friends of our enemies now? MRA's have enough on their plate without getting into the futile attempt to sensor negative "bullying" words that offend gay men.

    Random Brother

    ReplyDelete
  9. Random Brother, well, if the MRM isn't going to deal with the issues of gay men, it should probably rename itself the Straight Man's Rights Movement.

    Also, the fact that the MRM sees feminism as the enemy is (a big) part of the problem.

    ReplyDelete
  10. So the men's rights movement should change it's name to please feminists?

    Also, feminism IS the problem.

    Feminists pass laws that ruin men, that's the problem.

    BTW, how in the hell are Glenn Sacks and the False Rape Society in your enemies list? Glenn Sacks is about the most liberal leaning MRA possible and TFRS just tells the truth. WTF?

    Random Brother

    ReplyDelete
  11. Plus, heterosexual boys who aren't totally masculinity compliant - say they're of slight build, have artistic inclinations, don't hate girls - get gay-bashed too.

    "In the no ma'am post, for instance, the OP explicitly says that he has no problem with men doing what they do with other men so long as they don't shove it in his face."

    I have no problem with men doing what they want with women, as long as they don't shove it in my face. Look at this disgusting display:
    http://blg.murakamiphotography.co.uk/blog/2008/td_dorset_wedding_ceremony_processional.jpg
    What am I supposed to tell my children when they see something like that? Perverts.

    ReplyDelete
  12. ...gay men are already aligned with feminists...

    Ha! If only.

    ReplyDelete
  13. @Wanderer:

    Well, that PDF file did not open.

    I did however get to read the first page...

    It was published in 1989 - 21 years ago...

    Got anything more recent?

    ReplyDelete
  14. Funny David said this, because accused of being a fag is a common shaming tactic used by WOMEN when a man complains about anything wrong women do.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Also, the fact that the MRM sees feminism as the enemy is (a big) part of the problem.

    Another BIG part of the problem is that feminism see's the heterosexual male/white male as the enemy. Feminism did to begin with.

    That's why the feminism movement has been bashing us constantly for the past 40 odd years, 24/7 365 days.

    But of course, we should not retaliate. We should just turn the other check and let this destructive movement keep going on its cause.

    ReplyDelete
  16. hahah what a retarded faggot :)

    ReplyDelete
  17. Scarecrow: Which browser are you using? It opened fine for me in firefox. But okay, if you want more recent studies...

    http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/123/1/346

    This one, done in 2009, found:

    "LGB young adults who reported higher levels of family rejection during adolescence were 8.4 times more likely to report having attempted suicide"

    You might say it's just one study, fair enough. Okay, assuming this isn't good enough for you, I'll ask straight out, let you tell me. What, exactly, would convince you that gays really do have it "hard" during their teen years? Tell me what sort of stats you're looking for, what you consider to be "recent," and I'll try to find em.

    ReplyDelete
  18. But noooo a straight heterosexual male could never have it hard. Life is so perfect and easy for a heterosexual white male *rolls eyes*

    ReplyDelete
  19. Lol! What a Twit you are Fucktrelle.

    I bash "gays" by intellectually criticizing their political positition.... but you are defending them by calling them fags in the title of your post.

    Lol! What a fucking clown.

    Can't you challenge me with a better argument than that? This is kindergarten stuff. I thought you might be able to give me something to write against - guess not.

    ReplyDelete
  20. From the article I linked to on your blog: "Small subsets of gay men are legitimately gay, while the rest are just freaks."

    ReplyDelete
  21. I should sue you for libel, you dumb fuck.

    But bring it on. I like fighting with assholes like you. In fact, I built my activist career upon it.

    Btw. I didn't write that post, smart stuff - but it did write the post linked at the bottom.

    ReplyDelete
  22. I didn't say you wrote it. It was on your blog, though. How on earth is it libel to quote a post on your blog?

    ReplyDelete
  23. Aw, cummon now, does someone need a hug perhaps?

    ReplyDelete
  24. How on earth is it libel to quote a post on your blog?

    You have to prove I am a "fag basher" -- YOUR TERM -- before you can publicly declare, on the internet, that I am one.

    If I can prove you were being malicious - which you were - and it affects me in any way, which it might professionally - I can sue you to the poor-house, asshole.

    ReplyDelete
  25. David's whole stance against the MRM is based on straw man tactics, what else is new.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Rob -

    Uh, you did call me a "poof." And you let Bonecrker post his shit about gays being "freaks" on your blog.

    Also, speaking of proof: do you have documented proof that I, er, lick "smelly rectums" (your term).

    You really have no idea what you're talking about.

    ReplyDelete
  27. "poof" is a whole lot different than "fag basher", moron.

    Why, in some countries, being a fag basher is a HATE CRIME - but, being a poof mocker, as far as I know, is NOT!

    ReplyDelete
  28. I am forty, David, and I have NO desire to work until 65.

    I would absolutely RELISH suing a guy a like you, to give me an extra twenty years of "the good life."

    Keep it up, asshole.

    ReplyDelete
  29. While it has inspired magazine cover stories and ongoing discussion on feminist blogs,

    And how many of those feminist blogs discuss that most boys who commit suicide are not gay? Or that boys commit suicide at a far higher rate than girls? Or that one of the factors that leads to some boys committing suicide is their treatment by girls? Or that some of the boys commit suicide because of emotional, physical, or sexual abuse?

    It seems to me that the feminist concern is not for boys and not for really gay boys, but for political gains they can make by exploiting those boys' suicides. If these boys had been straight, no feminists would have written about it on their blog.

    What I find really interesting about all the feminist (and media) discussions is that they miss the most basic point: all of these boys probably sent out dozens of "help me!" signals that no one paid any attention to because they were boys. The same thing happens with straight boys who commit suicide. The problem is not just that they were hurt enough to want to commit suicide, but that as a society we are so ambivalent (and in feminist's case apathetic) towards male pain that we completely miss all the warning signs. We simply do not care. . . until they are dead.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Btw, fucktard, I live in Canada, and in THIS country, YOU have just accused me, publicly OF A CRIME. (We have hate speach laws here).

    Now, I don't know what the cross-border laws are, but I suspect there is something in place due to copyright laws and whatnot other such rulings which we share, that an American cannot PUBLICLY accuse me of a serious Crime in Canada, to my detriment, and I have no recourse for it.

    I suspect this has been addressed before in the history of our two countries.

    Keep pushing David... you ARE accusing me, publicly, of committing a CRIME, you fucker - and that is not just fucking tiddly winks.

    ReplyDelete
  31. bash /bæʃ/ Show Spelled[bash] Show IPA
    –verb (used with object)
    1. to strike with a crushing or smashing blow.
    2. Chiefly British, Canadian . to hurl harsh verbal abuse at.

    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bash


    bash·ing

     /ˈbæʃɪŋ/ Show Spelled[bash-ing] Show IPA
    –noun
    1.the act of beating, whipping, or thrashing: a series of unsolved bashings and robberies.
    2.a decisive defeat: We gave the visiting team a good bashing.
    3.(used in combination)
    a. unprovoked physical assaults against members of a specified group: gay-bashing.
    b. verbal abuse, as of a group or a nation: feminist-bashing; China-bashing.

    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bashing

    Also see:

    http://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/bash

    "[transitive] to publicly criticize someone

    It was just another excuse for them to bash social workers."

    ReplyDelete
  32. So how was I "bashing" gays then? Given your definition.

    Fuck are you stupid.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Uh, you write and publish a lot of stuff that is "harshly critical" of gays. Like the post I linked to.

    And this, which you wrote:

    Well, in Canada we legalized Gay Marriage back in 2005, and by 2006 (and using the justification of gay marriage now being normalized), Gay's shoved their agenda into our schools and by 2007 a court in Ontario had already declared two married lesbians and one sperm donating father to all three be equal legal parents of the same child. Obviously, the dialectical path towards polygamy is set wide open by this ruling... does anyone else see how they are able to purposefully "transform" society in this way?

    http://no-maam.blogspot.com/2010/10/civil-unions-and-shared-parenting.html

    Hell, your latest post has some weird gratuitous and I daresay not exactly positive references to lesbians.

    I'm sure if I looked back further than a few days I would find many more examples.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Criticizing the gay agenda - which they make PUBLIC knowledge, is not a hate crime, David Fucktrelle.

    What you did, however, WAS wrong, according to civil law, if I am not mistaken.

    You can look all you want, ding dong. Be sure to watch your back as you do though.

    ReplyDelete
  35. You can see the ASSHATTERY of dickwads like David Fucktrelle.

    He thinks CRITICIZING a publicly acknowledged political platform is a HATE CRIME!

    I mean, he does not show you BASH gays without prejudice... merely criticizing their POLITICAL AGENDA is a Hate Crime to this fucking Leftard.

    How long before criticizing the Democrats is also a Hate Crime, according to morons like David Futrelle?

    ReplyDelete
  36. Where did I say that anything you did was a hate crime?

    ReplyDelete
  37. I already told you MORON, I live in Canada, and what you accused me of IS a HATE CRIME here. Can't you read, or what is the problem?

    ReplyDelete
  38. If you don't get it yet, if I were to post a blog post that you were a serial rapist - a serious crime - when in fact, I was just being a malicious dumb fuck, like you are being on this blog, I could find myself in serious legal hotwater... which I suspect you could also find yourself in, if you libel people with serious hate crimes that carry quite severe punishments.

    Like I said, I know we live in different countries, but somehow, I suspect this issue has been dealt with before.

    Maybe we should find out, eh?

    Like I said, I have no fucking desire to work until 65.

    ReplyDelete
  39. I stopped reading at, "...male feminist blogger Hugo Schwyzer..."

    ReplyDelete
  40. Rob --

    WTF dude. I didn't accuse you of a hate crime. I don't think you committed a hate crime. I didn't suggest you had physically attacked anyone. I said you had "bashed," that is, "harshly criticized" or words to that effect, gays on your web site. I think that's a bad thing, but it's not a crime. I didn't say you (or anyone on your web site) were trying to incite violence, or calling for genocide, or any of the things that would classify it as a hate crime in Canada or anywhere else.

    Considering all the shit you've said about me, I have no fucking idea what you're going on about here.

    ReplyDelete
  41. @Rob - anger management therapy might help you out.

    ReplyDelete
  42. @Rob - anger management therapy might help you out.

    Where did I show out of control anger, or are you just strawmanning an argument out of nothing, as fembots usually do?

    ReplyDelete
  43. WTF dude. I didn't accuse you of a hate crime. I don't think you committed a hate crime.

    YOU CALLED ME A FAG BASHER IN YOUR TITLE, you fucking moron!

    ReplyDelete
  44. In case you didn't clue in yet, MR. 20IQ, bashing gays IS a hate crime!

    ReplyDelete
  45. I could just as easily call you a RAPIST in a title post on my blog... what do you think that would be if it was an unfounded accusation?

    Fuck are you leftards DUMB!

    ReplyDelete
  46. Considering all the shit you've said about me,

    I made ONE post about you, David, after you listed me as an enemy.

    You linked that post on your blog already.

    "all the shit you;ve said about me."

    Perhaps a little half man like you needs the Waamblulance to rescue you, just like the ladies do.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Men oppressing other men, or male on male violence, has a lot more to do with reproductive strategies that have been in existence long before feminism. Maybe you should put away the gospel according to Warren Farrell (even the most astute of the ancient Greek philosophers erred in some of their conclusions based on observations) for a little while and read something that might not cater to pop psychology. Here is one that I found quite informative in a "not putting the blame squarely on either sex" way, for anyone who might care to read it or the limited preview of it:
    Power in Eden: The Emergence of Gender Hierarchies in the Ancient World

    And saying that the the most violent boys in our communities are due to absence of a father ignores much. In "traditional" families of yesteryear, fathers were largely absent from the day to day lives of their sons AND daughters (child rearing and nurturing being the domain of women, not men), and yet we don't recall there being the amount of violent boys then as there are now. Perhaps there wasn't as much media coverage back then to shower us with those images every minute of every day. Also, street level violence is more visibly apparent and thus would attract more media coverage than, say, "white collar" crime.
    And what about the effect of poverty, classism, racism, etc., should we ignore these factors? Don't get me wrong, I am certainly not of the opinion that fatherless (or, by the same token, motherless) families are the ideal that we should strive for, but let's not ignore other factors that may contribute to the violence. I have seen single parent households headed by each of the sexes, and have seen children from these households grow up to be either relatively non-violent and tend not to engage in criminal behaviours or the inverse, and the common denominator was relative affluence of the parent. That myth that they call "The American Dream" probably seems more attainable to those who grow up in an affluent family, regardless of whether it is a single parent family or not. To those who don't grow up in a relatively affluent family, other means of surviving in the world seem more realistic.
    But hey, let's keep feeding the Empire-building war machine instead of taking care of those in our own backyard, INCLUDING the scores of homeless men.

    Our world is becoming increasingly messed up as we cling to our "power over" or "control over" hierarchies, and yes, we do build those into our gender definitions and pass them along to our progeny. David being called a fag or gay or Gayvid or whatever other shaming label or name is because he is betraying one of the basic tenets of masculinity, the dominance of men over the submissiveness of women.

    ReplyDelete
  48. "David being called a fag or gay or Gayvid or whatever other shaming label or name is because he is betraying one of the basic tenets of masculinity, the dominance of men over the submissiveness of women."

    Boys aren't thinking of girls while calling another boy a fag.

    And masculinity isn't as much the dominance of men over women, as femininity is the submissiveness of women towards men.

    ReplyDelete
  49. "David being called a fag or gay or Gayvid or whatever other shaming label or name is because he is betraying one of the basic tenets of masculinity, the dominance of men over the submissiveness of women."

    Please explain in logical detail and with scientific proof how masculinity has tenets to dominate women?

    These days more than anything, women hold dominance over men. Women have the upper hand in dating as they make men jump hoops. Women are the ones who claim to be the winning prize while men are expected to win the said prize.

    Men mostly have to do the ground work and be the ones who constantly have to prove their worth while women believing they are the said prize sit back and judge

    This is blatant domineering behaviour over a gender.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Nick, so you think that women choosing whom they date is a form of female dominance? Really?

    If the shoe was on the other foot, and some random woman you didn't like wanted to date you, wouldn't you have the right to say no?

    ReplyDelete
  51. David, I never said women don't have the right to choose whom they date. However, the problem lays within the fact that women have the princess entitlement attitude by thinking they are this winning prize. With this mentality, men are supposedly below them and this gives them the entitlement mentality to think they can make the rules or make men jump hoops to have the opportunity to date them. While they think themselves that they don't have to put in the same level of effort. If a man dares to expect this much work out of women, he would be deemed as a chauvinist

    That's undeniable domineering behaviour

    ReplyDelete
  52. The "princess" women you talk about exist, but they're a tiny minority of women. If you're running into them all the time, maybe you should think twice about the women you hang out with and/or pursue. If you pursue shallow women, don't be shocked then they're shallow.

    But the bigger problem is that you're making a gross generalization about women that's really pretty insulting. If you're having problems with women -- and I have no idea if you are or not, but your comments suggest you are -- maybe the problem is that you approach them with a giant chip on your shoulder.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Not every woman is like this in western culture but I think more than a tiny minority are. It seems to be a trend.

    About the "chip on your shoulder" comment, would you suggest that women have a chip on their shoulder when they deem most men as potential users/rapist/assholes until proven otherwise?

    Or the women who complain about how it’s hard to find a decent single man?

    It never ceases to amaze me how women are given the pussy pass for such attitudes. In other words, it’s not politically incorrect for a woman to feel negative and bitter towards the opposite sex. But it's politically incorrect for a man to feel negative or bitter towards the opposite sex.

    Many women jump up and down about wanting equality when it suits them but when it comes to the topic of equality in these areas, they don’t want to know about it.

    ReplyDelete
  54. It's still all the fault of women. Why? Because women chase after manly man men, and disdain sensitive guys.

    Supposing high school women or girls or whatever were to reject the guys calling other men names, and line up to have sex with the men being called homosexual epithets? Given the power that sex exerts over homosapiens, I'd think the name calling would cease in a hurry, and that being sensitive would be "in."

    So there.

    ReplyDelete
  55. And what about the effect of poverty, classism, racism, etc., should we ignore these factors?

    Well, what about the effects of liberalism, political correctness, and feminism in creating crime? What of the fact that they will excuse any amount of criminal behavior as long as they come from some self-declared "victim" group?

    ReplyDelete
  56. FWIW, Nick, I think women who complain all the time that there are no decent men out there are as shallow, and have the same-sized chip on their shoulder, as guys who complain all the time about "princess" women.

    As for the "potential rapist" thing, the issue there is personal safety and freedom from harassment. When a woman is walking home alone late at night and sees a guy (probably much larger then her) seemingly following her, she has every right to be concerned.

    Women are also often the target of street harassment, and, you know, if you're regularly harassed by dudes it sort of makes sense to be wary when a guy you don't know approaches you out of the blue. Hell, I'm wary when people I don't know approach me on the street, both men and women, because usually people who do that want something from you.

    ReplyDelete
  57. LOL!! Read the book for which I provided a link, or read the large amount that is available to read in the book preview, as it is loaded with logical explanations from a variety of disciplines. I'm not about to regurgitate it all here.
    Amazing how so many of us follow various religious tenets, yet there is no logical explanation nor scientific proof that God or Allah (or whatever name one wants to give to a higher power) exists.

    As for women having the upper hand in dating, men jumping through hoops, etc., that's basic reproductive strategies in action. Again, this is logically explained in the book for which I provided a link.

    Perhaps the women who chase after (and why would they need to chase, since, according to Nick, women just sit back and judge?) the manly man men and disdain the sensitive guys are ones that the sensitive guys desire as well as the manly man men. There just may be women lined up to have sex with the sensitive guys, but these women are all but invisible to the sensitive guys because they have their hopes set on the women who chase the manly man men. Neither sex is completely at fault and the other blameless.

    Crime existed long before liberalism, political correctness, and feminism, and so did povery, classism and racism.

    "What of the fact that they will excuse any amount of criminal behavior as long as they come from some self-declared "victim" group?"

    Self-declared "victim" group such as who, MRAs?

    ReplyDelete
  58. "that's basic reproductive strategies in action" Funny how basic reproductive strategies vary from culture to culture then, huh? The problem with this type of evopsych is that it takes a cultural phenomena and assumes it is universal biology while utterly ignoring all anthropological and historical evidence to the contrary. The very fact that you list 'manly' and 'sensitive' as opposites is a cultural clue. Being an artist was considered an intensely masculine virtue until recently in the west. What, women evolved to be better at poetry within a matter of a century or so whereas before it overheated their ladybrains? Not likely.

    On the other issue of the thread, that of "Nice Guys", there remains the fact that many of these boys who are low ranking in the male heirarchy hold the same nasty attitudes about girls and queer kids as those who are higher up. Just because they are squarely in the dork social category does not necessarily mean that they treat others well. Queer kids and girls have no more reason for supporting unpopular haters than they do for supporting popular ones.

    ReplyDelete
  59. "Being an artist was considered an intensely masculine virtue until recently in the west. What, women evolved to be better at poetry within a matter of a century or so whereas before it overheated their ladybrains? Not likely."

    Men open up a new field, the first men who go down that path are put down in history books, the next generations of men slowly make it more easily to the club.
    Once the bars are lowered or the process laid out for them, women follow in those fields and bring femininity along. Then generally men move along to other fields. The lag is apparent in most human endeavors.

    ReplyDelete
  60. "As for the "potential rapist" thing, the issue there is personal safety and freedom from harassment. When a woman is walking home alone late at night and sees a guy (probably much larger then her) seemingly following her, she has every right to be concerned."

    There is a difference between “safety” or logically keeping a guard up than there is with paranoid sexism.

    It's deemed as racism to think black people are potential criminals until proven otherwise. But magically, it's not hatred (sexism) to think men are evil until proven otherwise.

    The only time when it's not politically incorrect is when men as a gender are seen as someone who is potentially evil. If a man has the same level of negativity towards women, he will be a social outcast.

    I wonder who are the second class citizens, David?

    "Women are also often the target of street harassment, and, you know, if you're regularly harassed by dudes it sort of makes sense to be wary when a guy you don't know approaches you out of the blue. Hell, I'm wary when people I don't know approach me on the street, both men and women, because usually people who do that want something from you."

    This rarely happens. I am out in public a lot, David. I hardly see this. But people such as your self will exaggerate issues like this due to the euphoria of female victim status

    ReplyDelete
  61. "It's deemed as racism to think black people are potential criminals until proven otherwise. But magically, it's not hatred (sexism) to think men are evil until proven otherwise."

    Makes one wonder what happens when such people are confronted with a black man.

    prejudging men= ok

    prejudging blacks= not ok

    prejudging black men = ...?

    ReplyDelete
  62. LOL as if MRAs give a crap about black men. You're too cute.

    ReplyDelete
  63. LOL as if MRAs give a crap about black men. You're too cute.


    A sizable number of MRAs are in fact black. I've worked with a MRA group which spent a lot of time dealing with how black men are screwed over by the system.

    As for the "potential rapist" thing, the issue there is personal safety and freedom from harassment.

    Just as a man has every right to be concerned about being the victim of a false charge of rape or domestic abuse.

    When a woman is walking home alone late at night and sees a guy (probably much larger then her) seemingly following her, she has every right to be concerned.

    Wait a minute.

    I thought "gender is just a construct." Are you saying that there are differences between men and women other than some bodily orifices?

    How un-PC!

    ReplyDelete
  64. Crime existed long before liberalism, political correctness, and feminism, and so did povery, classism and racism.

    Crime has taken a great leap forward with liberalism, as liberals provide the ideological rationale for criminal activity, especially when it comes from a liberal favored group. Thus, violent crime by the urban underclass becomes the failure of society to deal with "poverty" or "racism" or whatever buzz words may be invented.

    One might note that criminal justice statistics do not bear out liberal assumptions. The 1960s, which saw an explosion of liberal civil rights legislation and war on poverty programs, also saw an explosion in crime and violence--such as rioting (and this from the inner cities to ivy league campuses).

    The 1980s, with all of the reactionary politics of Reagan, saw a downturn in crime. Like it or not, "three strikes" and "wars" on gangs beat down the crime stats, admittedly at the cost of civil liberties.

    Feminism has had its role in increasing crime by:
    (1) Hysteria over rape which has resulted in innocent men being railroaded into jail (e.g., the Duke U Three). False charges of rape are a crime, in case one has not noticed.
    (2) Advocating the release of female criminals.
    (3) Wasting criminal justice resource in witch hunts which discredit the criminal justice system chasing feminist fantasies (e.g., Super Bowl Sunday being the most "dangerous" day for women).
    (4) And destroying the family in general, thereby creating large numbers of ill-disciplined children.

    Elsewhere, note that since apartheid (a "racist" system) was dismantled in South Africa, there has been a massive upsurge in violent crime, including such pleasantries as the torture of victims. Much of the crime verges on terrorism, especially attacks on farmers (a sort of ethnic cleansing). Yet the new South Africa has affirmative action and a propaganda campaign against the evils of racism. It's also one of the rape capitals of the world.

    (It may be that apartheid had to go, but it is one more demonstration that replacing a conservative regime with a liberal regime also ups the ante when it comes to crime.)

    As for "classism," sounds like another Marxist critique, an excuse to overthrow capitalism and replace it with a communist state which, presumably, would be a paragon of civic order. Like the USSR.

    This gets to the real agenda. It's about liberal-left power. Liberal-leftists claim that if you put them in office, or give them permanent jobs in the bureaucracy or ivory tower, they will solve the problem of crime. Of course, liberal-left policies have proven to be failures when it comes to crime.

    This is why liberals have to repeat the same old formulas about "racism" and "classicism" (ill-defined terms at best). As is to be expected, when the reality disproves the ideology, they will turn up the noise machine.

    ReplyDelete
  65. @Burton - were there any actual black men involved in this group? Or was it just a bunch of white guys appropriating oppression of actual minorities for themselves, as per usual?

    ReplyDelete
  66. Crime has taken a great leap forward with liberalism, as liberals provide the ideological rationale for criminal activity, especially when it comes from a liberal favored group.

    One such crime is Libel!

    Eh, David?

    ReplyDelete
  67. booby wrote, Random Brother, well, if the MRM isn't going to deal with the issues of gay men, it should probably rename itself the Straight Man's Rights Movement.

    Yes, that would make sense since homos don't have to deal with females in a normal way as normal men do or do they suffer the adverse effects that normal men do from interactions with females.How many homos have been accused of sex harassment, rape or are having money extorted from them in child support?

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.

Sociable

ShareThis