To set it up: In a previous comment Eoghan had referred casually to the "aggressive flashing of fertility and mating symbols by females." DarkSideCat replied:
You mean their fucking bodies? Have you so objectified women that you can't think of their very BODIES as anything other than 'fertility and mating symbols'? You are thinking of women's skin as some sort of sexual object for you, rather than their own flesh. ... You are assuming that women's bodies are sex objects or sex acts, they aren't, they are people's fucking bodies.
Men show their skin all of the damned time. They even routinely go topless in public places. Because a man taking off his shirt in the heat, or putting on a nice pair of jeans to try and look nice is a person doing stuff, whereas a woman going topless in [the] heat or putting on a pair of jeans to look nice is a filthy slut who deserves to be raped?
Women's bodies and skin are no more public property than men's, and, if you can't manage to see someone in public and find them attractive without thinking they are evil and are asking for you to rape them, you are the problem, not them.
Shit like this is also pretty damned insulting to men. You know, I think more highly of men than this, perhaps that is the difference between me and CoAlpha. I think that men can (and some in fact do) behave like decent human beings, and see women as human beings as well. I do not see male sexuality as so innately out of control and violent that if they see someone sexy, they will feel a burning need to violently attack and rape them.
You want to know why rad fems see all men as rapists? Because they believe the same stereotypes about men as anti-feminists like CoAlpha. If you spend so much fucking time pushing the notion that men can't help being assholes or rapists, you are going to get some people to believe it, but disagree about the solution.
The quotes here contain direct threats of rape and murder and say that people dressed in certain types of clothes are asking to be raped. Yet, somehow you can't see how fucked up that is?
Amen.
I think you are confused David, men do not aggressively flash fertility symbols and the ones that do are considered sex criminals.
ReplyDeleteMale fertility symbol = phallus.
Men being topless doesn't involve flashing a fertility symbol.
.. and the rest is just you putting words in my mouth.
You've used feminist magical thinking to turn what I said into a pro rape statement.
ReplyDeleteI'd rather that you didnt insinuate that Im a rapist here on your blog, thats me in the picture.
She didn't insinuate that you were a rapist; she's talking about what Drealm, the CoAlpha guy, said in the comments I was quoting, and saying generally that if a particular guy can't look at women in public without thinking they're evil and wanting to rape them, that guy is the problem.
ReplyDeleteDarksiteCat: You want to know why rad fems see all men as rapists? ...
ReplyDeleteNo, I do not want to know.
To claim 'ALL men are rapists' is truly man-hating idiotism.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete"You want to know why rad fems see all men as rapists?"
ReplyDeleteNo more than I want to know why X group thinks "god hates fags".
Same bigoted shit, different package.
What a hostile, bitter-sounding rant that was.
ReplyDeleteIt is not unreasonable to acknowledge the reality that women commonly use their sexuality to obtain non-sexual benefits for themselves, and have done so throughout history. It's called beauty power or sexual power. Men (and unattractive women) do not usually reap non-sexual benefits because of their looks, and therefore they're at a disadvantage compared to women who have sexual power.
You feminists sure are adept at selling female power and privilege as female victimization. It's a sales tactic that doesn't work on MRAs, but you still have a substantial portion of the public that buy into the feminist myth that female beauty power is somehow identical with the sexual objectification of women. This myth actually perpetuates the advantage that attractive women have utilized for eons.
It's funny how feminists call it female liberation when women can freely think about sex how they want without being restricted with slut shaming. Yet these same idiotic feminists attempt to regiment male sexuality.
ReplyDeleteIt's basically the social norm to slam male sexuality.
ReplyDeleteOh how dare men be different compared to women. It's such a crime.
Yet if men constantly slammed women for being different in any shape or form, they would be deemed as misogynistic cave men
> Same bigoted shit, different package.
ReplyDeleteThat's a succinct summary of this particular strain in MRM rhetoric. Take the old, chauvanistic attitude of blaming women for being abused ("she was asking for it") and wrap it up in the language of victimization and human rights activism (men are victims of female "privilege").
In the wake of the success of movements like the civil rights movement, reactionary groups have been fighting back (for decades) by co-opting the rhetoric. But it's a cynical ploy, because the underlying prejudices are the same. You cannot fight injustice with prejudice, and to be a real right's movement, the MRM has to reject prejudice against women along with prejudice against men, as part of rejecting prejudice itself.
That is the point David makes over and over again, and which remains unanswered. Where are the MRA's who are speaking out against the bigotry in their own movement?
[crickets]
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteJoe
ReplyDeleteIm not sure that I would call that standard mra rhetoric, David seeks out a minority of the commentary. That said, I think that the mrm is in some ways becoming like feminism and in places is a vegetable drawer of damaged and abused people that project their pain on to all women instead of just the ones that hurt them, or the system.
The worst commentary is coming from america, which is also where the largest civil and human rights roll backs and extreme man hating is coming from, so I suspect one is a symptom of the other.
Eoghan, FWIW, I didn't actually say this was typical MRA rhetoric; I noted that the site was a small one.
ReplyDeleteBut it is interesting that in the comment cat was responding to you said of the CoAlpha site that: "I think that these guys have some points" and that "You know, reading through their site, there is a lot of good commentary in there."
In other words, you seemed to be explicitly aligning yourself with the rhetoric/ideas you now seem to be disavowing. So which is it?
Also, Joe didn't say this was standard MRA rhetoric either; he referred to it as a "strain in MRM rhetoric."
ReplyDeleteWhere are the MRA's who are speaking out against the bigotry in their own movement?
ReplyDeleteWhere are the feminists speaking out against the bigotry in their own movement?
The very definition of "rhetoric" are feminists claiming that men are wrong for simply having male sexuality.
ReplyDeleteFeminists these days feel this entitlement to claim that they are in charge of male sexuality and they are entitled to make the rules of male sexuality.
This type of rhetoric has made many women in society (even non feminists) convinced that it's acceptable to have this attitude.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteJoe
ReplyDeleteGoing by memory, that guy didnt blame women for being abused, he said that he didnt enjoy feeling a strong "primal" urge and would rather that there wasn't a deliberately hyper-sexual environment being created that he could not escape from.
I dont agree with his views but I suspect that he has as much right to object to women creating a sexual environment and deliberately flashing fertility and mating symbols as a woman would males doing the same, in fact we have feminist installed legislation against men doing that very thing.
He is also sexually frustrated... and is sexually oppressed in a number of ways, masturbation carries shame of you are male with no sexual value to women as does paying for sex as does being labelled a "looser who cant get a date" and a "creep" by the women that reject him, so IMO there, you have a recipe for misogyny and sexual dysfunction.
From what Eogan was expressing; it never ceases to amaze me how women mostly get a pussy pass and/or the sympathy card when they feel frustrated or bitter over men. It's very rare for a woman to be shifted to an social outcast when she feels resentment towards men in general. Such as having overly exaggerated paranoia that all men are potential users or rapists until proven otherwise.
ReplyDeleteYet no matter how crappy a man is treated by women; there is never ever a justified excuse for him to feel a strong sense of resentment or bitterness to the same level as what I mentioned about the attitudes of women above.
With political correctness these days, women are above criticism as the misogyny card gets thrown around so easily. On the other hand, women have an incentive to practically be misandrists with no ramifications.
"Where are the feminists speaking out against the bigotry in their own movement?"
ReplyDeleteThey are all over the place. To start:
http://articles.latimes.com/1997-03-16/books/bk-38664_1_andrea-dworkin
http://susiebright.blogs.com/Old_Static_Site_Files/Prime_Of_Kitty_MacKinnon.pdf
http://sitemaker.umich.edu/lesbian.history/the_sex_wars
http://kittywampus.wordpress.com/2010/01/07/frankenstein-necrophilia-and-the-final-solution-how-transphobic-was-mary-daly-really/
"Feminists these days feel this entitlement to claim that they are in charge of male sexuality and they are entitled to make the rules of male sexuality."
[Citation please]
Some radical feminists, true, are hostile to male sexuality. But most feminists today have rejected radical feminism.
David, the thing is the moderates speaking out against the extreme feminist bigotry are generally bigots themselves, they just dont know it. And they might speak out against Mckinnon, but they support the bigoted legislation she produced.
ReplyDeleteAlso, trans people speaking out against trans-phobia is not the same thing as feminists speaking out against hetorophobia, in fact moderate feminists reject the feminists that do, for example hoff sommers, patai and farrel are ostracized by the mainstream movement.
"the moderates speaking out against the extreme feminist bigotry are generally bigots themselves"
ReplyDeleteShow me an example of bigotry in any of those things I linked to. (You didn't read any of them, did you? You never do, do you?) I'm not a bigot, Susie Bright's not a bigot, the blogger at Kitty Wampus is not a bigot, the sex-positive feminists who critique the radical feminists aren't bigots.
I'll say it again: Show me one bigoted thing in any of the examples I cited. There aren't any, because the people writing them aren't bigots.
Oh, and Hoff Sommers, Patai and Farrell are ostracized by feminists because, regardless of what they call themselves, they've simply rehashed a bunch of antifeminist arguments and called them feminist. (Does Farrell even call himself a feminist? He makes giant deal out of the couple of years he spent on the board of one local chapter of NOW in the 1970s, but nothing he's done since has been feminist.)
ReplyDeleteDavid Futrelle said...
ReplyDeleteI'm not a bigot ...
Is this a joke? As what else do you consider your own activity with this blog?
As heretic or what?
For sure, I have not seen anything here, which I would call 'understanding' - even not in severe cases where males are treated really badly by women. Even young boys are not spared as target by feminists, even not old men, even not sick men or handicapped men.
I read here only some distorted comments copied from MRA-forums telling everybody the worst about all people who are talking about problems concerning men.
Nicko81: With political correctness these days, women are above criticism as the misogyny card gets thrown around so easily. On the other hand, women have an incentive to practically be misandrists with no ramifications.
ReplyDeleteSame in Continental Europe, but women are using their rights by far less hateful, and in a less aggressive form than in USA/UK, maybe you can call this behavior derisive, but not hateful.
There are limits what is still acceptable and what not. Also legal limits. Many women are still reasonable in their behavior and demands.
US/UK and a few other countries however do not have limits in their laws regarding feminism anymore, their government are entirely biased and women are free to do whatever they want, it's a legal system supportive to 'overdemanding' solely out of the female gender.
In those feminist countries like USA, men are used somehow like tools. Used and if broken, away with it and replaced with something else.
It's not everywhere like that worldwide, therefore MRAs encourage international dating, interracial dating, living abroad, studying about laws in feminist countries to be informed about risks and to avoid mistakes, how to say NO to some certain women etc. etc. ...
Of course feminists hate the Men's Rights Movement.
Yohan: Find a single bigoted thing I've said on this blog. Don't say "oh, everything." Find a single specific statement. Quote it. Give the URL. One single thing.
ReplyDeleteYohan asked in an earlier thread:
ReplyDelete"I ask myself, what is the purpose of this blog?"
I'll tell you. This blog is a vehicle for white-knighting by Mr. Futrelle so he can score that all-important whiff of Ketracel-Pink.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete@David Futrelle:
ReplyDelete"Yohan: Find a single bigoted thing I've said on this blog. Don't say "oh, everything." Find a single specific statement. Quote it. Give the URL. One single thing."
You really threw down the gauntlet in the above statement, didn't you? You must have had so much certainty that you could never be challenged on grounds of bigotry, so much that you put your credibility (and that of your detractors) on the line. Well, let's go there.
David, have you ever considered the possibility that hatred could be ensconced in a world view? That a bigoted ideology could be embraced by an ostensibly open-minded and tolerant person? When I ask that question, I realize that it could indict me too, as it could anyone on either side of the debate over the merits of feminism vs. non-feminism. But why throw down the gauntlet as you did, proclaiming yourself emphatically innocent, elevating the value of your political views as somehow beyond reproach? Are you better than any one of us? Isn't there one ounce of self-doubt in your mind, some meekness or humility that might cause you to question the foundational value of your feminist ideology? In order to maintain my own integrity, I must put my judgment and my conscience ahead of my political opinions every day. Can you honestly tell me that you do the same?
Well, that's all a tad melodramatic, isn't it? And like a lot of the other MRAs here, you're arguing against an imaginary enemy that has very little to do with me, very little to do with anything I've ever said here on this blog. Since when have I portrayed myself as Mr. Perfect? I question myself all the time. I change my mind about things. I get things wrong.
ReplyDeleteBut I also know that I haven't said anything bigoted on this blog, nothing reflecting some kind of deep-seated hatred against men. Why? Because I don't harbor a deep-seated hatred of men.
@David Futrelle:
ReplyDelete"...you're arguing against an imaginary enemy that has very little to do with me..."
How can you credibly say that you question yourself while making such a statement of certitude? Is the enemy that non-feminists criticize truly "imaginary?" Have you so much all-encompassing knowledge and omniscience that you can legitimately claim that your detractors are literally mentally deluded, merely imagining things? I concede that ideology can and does exist in the minds of non-feminists, and that it can stoke the imagination, but I flatly reject the notion that there is absolutely zero merit to the claims of MRAs that feminism has motivated policymakers, judges, juries, prosecutors, attorneys, elected officials, opinion leaders and any others in positions of influence to perpetrate -- or tolerate -- some form of injustice. Feminism has been the vehicle of injustice which remains in place this very day.
How can you say that you subject yourself to self-doubt, being human, but at the same time you remain confident of the goodness and infallibility of feminist (i.e. human-made) ideals? Is feminism beyond reproach? Are anti-feminists just imagining things when they associate injustice with feminist ideology?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteDavid
ReplyDeleteyou can see the segregation and bigotry in the advocacy research, legislation and services that most feminists support.
If you think abuse is gendered, you are the same as someone that thinks crime is black or that aids is gay. If you support beliefs and legislation that leads to one group having fewer civil and human rights than another, you are a bigot. Most feminists hold beliefs and support legislation that leads to reduced civil and human rights for men. Most are unaware that they support bigotry and feminists that criticize the widespread misandry in the movement or point to the situation males are finding themselves because of feminism are as you have shown dismissed as anti feminists and ostracized. Anti-feminist being the ism's equivalent of heretic, infidel, unbeliever etc.
Jesus, John, by "imaginary enemy" I basically meant "straw man." You and other MRA/MGTOWs who post here are constantly arguing against things I and the feminists who post here never said, things that feminists don't actually believe, etc etc.
ReplyDeleteAll this "proclaiming yourself emphatically innocent, elevating the value of your political views as somehow beyond reproach" shit you're spouting now -- you've made that shit up.
I've never claimed that I or feminism in general are beyond reproach. But feminism has done a lot more good in the world than bad, by a long shot. And it's a fuckload better than the basically reactionary ideologies of most MRAs. It's a fuckload better than the patriarchy you want to restore.
@David Futrelle:
ReplyDelete"Jesus, John, by "imaginary enemy" I basically meant "straw man." You and other MRA/MGTOWs who post here are constantly arguing against things I and the feminists who post here never said, things that feminists don't actually believe, etc etc."
Okay, then. If you think that feminists might be willing to be the allies of men's rights activists, then let's put that premise to the test. What laws have a significant quantity (i.e. a majority) of feminists attacked on behalf of males? When have a significant quantity of feminists demanded that males be portrayed with more richness and complexity (and less often as bumbling fools or violent threats)? And what about reaching out to male victims? Domestic violence shelters constantly lowball their estimates of male victimization from partner violence because only 5 percent of their clients are male victims. But if you visit the Web sites of these organizations, you'll see that the outreach efforts to male victims are either non-existent or sorely inadequate.
Maybe you'll justify your lack of action on the above items by saying that they're not the mission or agenda of this blog. Maybe you'll justify the lack of action by a substantial quantity of feminists on these items by saying that their mission is to focus on inequality as suffered by female victims, on the assumption that male privilege should be sufficient for male victims to rely upon. In either case, your inaction and feminists' reaction to male vulnerability and pain are sorely lacking. Under these conditions, we MRAs will never be able to look to feminists for assistance; in fact, whenever we try to correct injustices against males in law or in culture feminists fashion themselves into our opponents. I wish it were otherwise.
I can give you specific examples of lobbying battles in California where feminists blocked male victims of domestic violence from receiving public services unless the male victims were homosexuals. Or feminists denying the very existence of parental alienation and attempting to legally prohibit its acknowledgment as a factor in weighing child custody evaluations. Or their lobbying advocacy to block state legislatures from establishing of a Commission on the Status of Men yet maintaining the public funding and ongoing existence of such commissions for women. I could go on. You feminists are not helping men; you only help women and gay men. In order to build consensus on the need to ACT on behalf of men, there must first be a recognition by feminists of male suffering and vulnerability. Only MRAs are talking about that, and while we do so, feminist guys like you act like it's your job to tell us to "settle down now."
@David, I'm flattered that you thought so highly of my comment. Right now I am just sitting back and basking in the irony of Dias' "When have a significant quantity of feminists demanded that males be portrayed with more richness and complexity (and less often as bumbling fools or violent threats)? " in his derail of a thread regarding a comment where I criticized CoAlpha for assuming men were all consumed with uncontrollable, compulsive needs to rape women who weren't wearing burkas (and criticizing Eoghan's defense of said comments).
ReplyDelete'criticizing' in the last sentence should have been 'criticized'. I criticized CoAlpha and Eoghan's defense of CoAlpha, in case my wording was not clear.
ReplyDeleteDarksidecat
ReplyDeleteI was actually critical of that "Co Alpha" site, I just pointed out that there was more to it than the foolish comments that david picked out and misrepresented.
Later on I spoke about the sexual dysfunction of the comments that david picked out.
If you weren't in such a hurry to paint people as rapists you would have realised that I wasn't defending the comments relating to rape and misogyny.
Eoghan, I DON'T THINK YOU'RE A RAPIST.
ReplyDeleteYou did, however, say there was stuff on that site you liked. You didn't specify what that was.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteDavid
ReplyDeleteyou are a feminist, feminists, despite logic, are conditioned to believe that men collectively share responsibility for the actions of rapists, abusers, psychopaths and the oppressive systems that have been put in place by the ruling class.
A large portion of your movement is based on that fallacy.
"Jews collectively caused the depression" or "black men rape white women", in another package.
I AM a feminist. I do NOT believe that "that men collectively share responsibility for the actions of rapists, abusers, psychopaths and the oppressive systems that have been put in place by the ruling class."
ReplyDeleteBut if you want to continue making up shit about what you think I and/or feminists believe, I suppose that's your right. But it is getting rather tiresome to listen to you repeat the same bullshit over and over here.
I won't call you a troll, because I think you actually believe what you say, but your continued repetitive, off-topic, straw-man comments are pretty much spam at this point.
Seriously, start your own blog. If you want to keep posting comments here, stop derailing threads with off-topic bullshit.
David, feminism rabble rouses on the basis that men are collectively conspiring against women and that domestic abuse and rape are part of that conspiracy.
ReplyDeleteHave you seen the feminist campaign "only men can stop rape"?
Same thing as saying "only blacks can stop crime", "only women can stop child abuse" or "only gay men can stop aids" but thats aok with feminists and promoted on many feminist sites.
"Have you seen the feminist campaign "only men can stop rape"?
ReplyDeleteSame thing as saying "only blacks can stop crime", "only women can stop child abuse" or "only gay men can stop aids" but thats aok with feminists and promoted on many feminist sites."
Uh no. Unless you are being uber-literal and nitpicky...only men can stop rape... by ceasing to rape. Not rocket science, and I'm pretty sure the women in the Congo would appreciate it if the men got it...doncha think?
"They are all over the place. To start:"
ReplyDeleteDavid, you only gave a few minor examples that are not made by high profile feminists and I don't see any other feminist vocally agreeing with what is said in them links. Secondly, one of them links is an article made by you. This doesn't count.
For most feminists, they will defend what most other feminists say with the mentality "she is one of us"
"[Citation please]"
To save me from spending time looking at links; are you in denial that one of the biggest rants with contemporary feminism is objectification towards women?
Male sexuality can be very visual. Yet, these feminist twits are complaining about it and telling men they are wrong to simply have male sexuality.
Sexually harassing women is one thing, but men are entitled to think about sex however they want. If it was men telling women how to think about sex, they would be chauvinists.
For a movement that's supposed to be against sexism and is supposed to be about liberation for people; it's ironic that feminism thinks men are wrong for simply being men (sexism) and men should be regimented with their sexuality (anti- liberation)
nick, clearly you don't know shit about feminism, so it's pretty pointless to discuss feminism with you. Do you actually know the names of any feminists besides Andrea Dworkin, and whichever other radical feminists get included in those "evil quotes by evil feminists" things that MRAs post and repost?
ReplyDeleteAnyway:
Susie Bright is high-profile. Gayle Rubin is high profile. Ellen Willis is high profile. As are Pat Califia, Carole Vance, and assorted other names mentioned in that "Sex wars" article you obviously not only did not read but clearly did not even bother to skim.
See these links for more:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex-positive_feminism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminist_views_on_pornography#Sex-positive_and_anti-censorship_feminist_views
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samois
@Eoghan:
ReplyDelete"David, feminism rabble rouses on the basis that men are collectively conspiring against women and that domestic abuse and rape are part of that conspiracy.
I agree with this. You can see it in the logical errors that feminists make when they talk about the so-called pay gap, with women supposedly earning less per hour than men (the pay gap nearly disappears, however, when you control for other factors such as cumulative experience on the job). But think about it: even if women were paid substantially less than men after controlling for other factors, wouldn't this just make them more employable? If I was an employer, wouldn't I just hire all women in order to save the money that I otherwise would have paid to male employees? Feminists ignore this point and claim that the pay gap is not only unjust (a contention which I dispute), but they also explain the pay gap by calling it the result of misogyny. In the feminist mind, a capitalist is so misogynistic that he'll even waste money in order to hire male workers for a higher wage. There is no better example than that which illustrates the conspiratorial nature of common feminist ideology.
ahunt
ReplyDeleteonly problem with your logic that only men can stop rape, is that women are doing the bulk of the child abuse and so socializing most dysfunctional and abusive behavior into society as well as doing their share of rape.
Feminist logic is the same as that of any bigot claiming that "only blacks can stop crime" or "only gay man can stop aids" and you cant conceptualize there being anything wrong with it.
John
ReplyDeleteI think that the ideology exploits a range of human weakness and emotions - prejudice, paranoia, fear, blaming others, feelings of superiority.. Im sure there are more.
I view them as magical thinkers, thats why pointing out the logical flaws in their beliefs is for the most part pointless.
"only problem with your logic that only men can stop rape, is that women are doing the bulk of the child abuse and so socializing most dysfunctional and abusive behavior into society as well as doing their share of rape."
ReplyDeleteWell by all means...let us turn the socializing of children over to men...immediately! I'm a bit surprised you didn't think of this solution yourself. There can be no doubt that child abuse rates will plummet if men assume the work. No really.
Seriously, if you are going to pull the "all social ills are the fault of women because women raise the kids" nonsense, Eoghan...please produce the methodologically sound research that supports your contention. I look forward to reading it.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteahunt
ReplyDeleteIts pretty well accepted that abusive behavior is socialized in the home and the research shows that women are doing around 70% of the child abuse. Female child sex abuse is considered a still taboo and mainly underreported problem, thats the way it always has been. Dysfunctional behavior and even war in ape societies has been traced back to the effect of maternal neglect and abuse on a certain gene that has been dubbed "the orchid gene".
Whoever is the main care giver, regardless of their gender has a large influence in socializing good and bad traits into society.
As for asking men to become the main care givers, a quick glance into the family courts will tell you that women would never accept that. Also the distribution of empathic and systematizing brains across the genders suggests that it would be a bad idea, just as it is expecting women to do 100% of the caregiving regardless of their aptitude.
Here you go ahunt, plenty of references to it in this article.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2009/12/the-science-of-success/7761/1/
Ah. Catch-22.
ReplyDeleteWomen are responsible for creating abusers because they are responsible for the work that men cannot/will not/do not do.
Packaged that one up neatly.
And yet....the vast majority of rapists do NOT have a background of childhood abuse. This is not to say that links do not exist...merely pointing out the overreach of your argument.
Moreover, while women, as the primary caregivers, are indeed responsible for the majority of abuse/neglect cases, it is men who overwhelmingly commit sexual abuse.
"Ah. Catch-22.
ReplyDeleteWomen are responsible for creating abusers because they are responsible for the work that men cannot/will not/do not do.
Packaged that one up neatly."
Yep, like The Church Lady said, "How conVENient!"
A quick glance into the family courts tells you that women would never accept asking men to be the main caregivers because it seems that it's only when the marriage/relationship has broken apart that men make their bid for a larger share of the "caregiving". For the most part, men appear to be quite content for the lion's share of the caregiving to be the woman's responsibility when the marriage/relationship is intact.
Well of course you are both going to politicize and minimize female on child abuse,
ReplyDeleteahunt - the majority of violent rapists do report sexual abuse by females in their past. The vast majority of rapists don't because rape, baring 1 - 3 % of it is verbal coercion/non violent rape, which is not the result of child hood abuse or misogyny.
Pam
The conversation was about protected child abusers, its so typical of feminists to take abuse victims and use them to push some other political agenda, its second nature. You turned child abuse by women into female victim hood. Protect, apologize, minimize, deflect and politicize. You couldn't give two hoots about these victims of child abuse, they are just units of political ammunition.
"ahunt - the majority of violent rapists do report sexual abuse by females in their past."
ReplyDeleteI'll need a credible cite for this.
Well of course you're going to accuse of politicizing and minimizing female on child abuse when the notion of men taking on more childcare responsibility is mentioned. But men like yourself seem to come up with every excuse in the book for why men cannot/will not/do not take on the responsibility of primary caregiver, or even a larger share of the caregiving, quite content with women taking on the lion's share of that responsibility even though they are the primary abusers of children.
ReplyDeleteDid you ever stop to think that it's not a political statement, that I might actually believe that a more equitable sharing of childcare responsibility (with BOTH parents being both nurturing AND authoritarian) might help to minimize child abuse in addition to creating a stronger bond between fathers and their children? That that is why I vehemently disagree with gender roles of primary caregiver and head of the household authority? Of course not, everything has to have a political angle.
@Eoghan,
ReplyDeleteThere is an international organization called Men Can Stop Rape that campaigns. I can't find an organization or campaign with the name Only Men Can Stop Rape although I see a few individuals using the term. Please provide a link to the actual Only Men Can Stop Rape campaign.
@Pam, who was addressing Eoghan:
ReplyDelete"But men like yourself seem to come up with every excuse in the book for why men cannot/will not/do not take on the responsibility of primary caregiver, or even a larger share of the caregiving, quite content with women taking on the lion's share of that responsibility even though they are the primary abusers of children."
This is the most absurd comment that I have ever read on this blog. And that's saying something.
Within an intact family, the caregiver role is a role of privilege. Caregivers have the OPTION of being supported financially as caregivers, or supporting others financially.
Most wives who are mothers absolutely refuse to be the sole breadwinner for the father of their children. The best that such women have to offer is essentially for both partners to go Dutch. Typically it is the wife who heaps shaming language on her husband for not being a sufficient provider, calling him a loser and a deadbeat. That is because she considers the home to be her domain, and she doesn't want her uniqueness as a mother to be overshadowed by her husband in the caregiving role. And so for most mothers it is literally unthinkable that she would ever actually choose to be a sole breadwinner. But the sole caregiver role is one of her options, because her husband is willing to offer her that choice. It is not reciprocal. Therefore it is grossly offensive for you to insinuate that fathers are somehow rejecting the role of sole caregiver; until mothers are willing to enable them financially to occupy that role full time, it is the mothers who occupy a position of privilege.
As I have said before, you feminists sure do have a knack for taking your immense privileges as women and portraying them as victimhood. It doesn't work on MRAs, but it sure does hoodwink a significant portion of the public. The most privileged people -- western women -- are so privileged and pampered that many of them can't even perceive it, let alone acknowledge it. Options equal power, and women have more.
John...the key here is "sole" caregiver/breadwinner. C'mon...do you really believe that even in traditional families, Mom is the "sole" caregiver. Perhaps the word you are looking for is "primary."
ReplyDeleteRe: "breadwinner-hommemaker families-
Only seven percent of US families fall into this category.
The world is changing. In some demographic areas, woman are the primary breadwinners in one third of the two-parent households. Across the board, the stat is 20%. In intact dual (full-time) income families, women provide 40% of the total household income.
Indeed, it is in the lower-income brackets where one finds the majority of SAHMs.
So lets be careful here...as of this year, there are more women than men in the workforce, (unprecedented)and my sense is that this will be an ongoing reality.
@OP
ReplyDeleteExcellent, DarkSideKat!
"Women's bodies and skin are no more public property than men's, and, if you can't manage to see someone in public and find them attractive without thinking they are evil and are asking for you to rape them, you are the problem, not them. "
There are soooooo many men who don't do this. Rapists and their pro-rape MPAs counterparts need to stop pretending that wanting to rape is somehow "normal" or that every man feels this way. It's similar BS you see NAMBLA members spouting about how they're "normal". In contrast, I don't go around thinking, "hmm, I bet if I kill that person, I'll get away with it muhahahah" because I'm not a sociopathic murderer nor have said tendencies. The most horrible part is that, since we as a society DO think it's normal to attack women, we allow rapists to blend in...