But I have a question for you Men's Rights Redditors. Since I can't ask it there, I'll ask it here, and you can respond here: What have I ever said on this blog (or elsewhere) that is in any way an example of feminist "extremism?" I challenge you to find a single "extremist" statement here, or a single example of misandry. (Note: Saying "oh, the whole blog is extremist" or "it's obvious you're an extremist" something along those lines is not an answer; it's a way of begging the question.)
If I really am some sort of extremist, it should be quite easy to find specific examples of this extremism.
they did the same to one of my blog-posts. I read some of the comments about it. Luckily, they were mostly just being trivially ignorant, rather than outright hateful.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteDue to the rhetoric of left wingers -- especially Democrats in the U.S. Senate prior to the 2010 general election -- any invocation of the term "extremist" is usually just a euphemism for a strong difference of opinion.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I'll throw out an example of extremism. Haven't you asserted that the pay gap is due to massive conspiracy by misogynistic employers who pay men higher wages merely because those employers hate women? To me that's an awfully kooky argument to make (and coincidentally, I disagree with it because of its kookiness). Hence, I contend that your position is extreme (that is, in the sense of its kooky and conspiratorial world view).
By the way, David, aren't those Senate Dems your philosophical buddies?
left wingers and democrats are virtually non-overlapping entities
ReplyDelete"Haven't you asserted that the pay gap is due to massive conspiracy by misogynistic employers who pay men higher wages merely because those employers hate women?"
the patriarchy is not a conspiracy, it's a systematic cultural bias. but twisting the concept enough to make it look "kooky" makes it so much easier to dismiss, huh?
I am a left-wing Democrat. Just for the record. I vote Democratic in every race in every election, I volunteer and organize exclusively for Democratic candidates, and anyone to my left is in danger of falling into the void.
ReplyDeleteJust felt the need to represent on behalf of the leftwing Dems out there.
As for this:
"Haven't you asserted that the pay gap is due to massive conspiracy by misogynistic employers who pay men higher wages merely because those employers hate women?"
That would, indeed, be a kooky thing to say. So kooky that I have never, ever (literally NEVER) heard anyone say it. Surely you have some sort of link you could post to this amazing argument?
@Jadehawk:
ReplyDelete"The patriarchy is not a conspiracy, it's a systematic cultural bias."
What is a systematic cultural bias (I call it feminist dogma) is the baseless assertion that a systematic patriarchal bias not only exists, but is also so strong that it would somehow motivate capitalists to throw away money on excessive wages for male employees.
Kooooooookiness!
You have "Warren Farrell" on your enemies list. His compassion towards members of both sexes is on par with that of the Dalai Lama, and anyone who labels either man an "enemy" is pretty extreme.
ReplyDeleteYou claim right here that a man sending a message to a woman on a dating site criticizing her feminism equates to him wanting to fuck her. That's a bit extremist - for her being female and his being male, you assume he is a cretinous sex-starved slob whose overt disgust is some elaborate ruse to get some manhater into the sack. It's curious how someone's political views turn a message implying zero sexual arousal into some lecherous creep's pipe dream. Then again, I don't make an effort to force biology and sociology to conform to my half-baked theories.
You think that because a disempowered male assigned the label "loser" by society is actually suffering from excessive male power - and that disempowered men bitter from witnessing female privilege need to be mocked. Of course, I'm not sure how many women there are who are labeled "unfuckable" who remain chronically single only to be mocked for some delusional inadequacy on their part.
And...
You have become fixated on female victims of violence while only glossing over the overwhelming (3:1 ratio if I recall) majority of male homicide victims and moderate majority of male victims of violent crime in western society - they're an afterthought. All this despite claiming you have a semblance of interest in men's issues.
You attempted to censor your discussion with Paul Elam because of the... title he chose to host it. Yes, the title is what caused you to want to blow the whole conversation off the internet. Censorship is a typical tactic of extremists, from Boston to Baghdad.
Seems a bit extreme - and stupid. Maybe that's just me, though.
are you a libertarian?
ReplyDeletebecause those are the only people left in the world who still believe in the existence of homo economicus.
those "capitalists" pay men more than women because they're honestly convinced that the men do a better job than women. there's fucktons of studies on this, like the one with identical CV's send out with male and female names, where the male names got more interview calls. the bias is the automatic, subconscious assumption that if it's a woman, she is actually worse, and worth less.
Haven't you asserted that the pay gap is due to massive conspiracy by misogynistic employers who pay men higher wages merely because those employers hate women?
ReplyDeleteUh, no, I have not. It's a complicated issue. You can read what I did actually say here:
http://manboobz.blogspot.com/2010/11/further-reading-gender-pay-gap.html
Yes, I do think that centuries of cultural/legal/social barriers directed towards women are a large part of what led to the massive differences in salaries and opportunties we used to see, and that the legacy of these things, as well as continuing sexist attitudes towards women, contributes to the differences that remain.
When I say "sexist attitudes," I don't mean that a bunch of raging misogynists sit down together and plot how to screw women over, though there certainly are some raging misogynists out there (hence this blog). But sexism can also consist of things like the assumptions (held by men and women alike) that women should be the ones to give up their careers to take care of the kids, etc etc.
Patriarchy is a complicated historical phenomenon, and as Jadehawk notes, it's a bit silly to caricature it as a conspiracy of misogynists.
Also, John, I thought you were in favor of patriarchy. Wouldn't that, by your logic above, make you kooky and conspiratorial?
@Jadehawk
ReplyDeleteWait, wait, wait - you seriously believe that a faceless, soulless corporation which will fire its whole staff and move off to Thailand to widen profit margins is going to systematically avoid cheaper workers only for their body parts? Because that's what you're saying, in a nutshell. Why wouldn't a cigarette company say, "Alright boys, we're going to hell anyway. Let's just fire all of our men and hire only women now. We'll save a fortune!"
In a word, kooky.
there's fucktons of studies on this, like the one with identical CV's send out with male and female names, where the male names got more interview calls.
ReplyDeleteWho's statistically more likely to launch a frivolous class-action lawsuit against the company after arriving late, leaving early, and spending all day complaining about how she can't get ahead because of some conspiracy?
You feminists have dug your own graves there.
Additionally, men take less sick days and are less likely to take time off for having children. One way to solve this would be for men to get the same paternity time and job protection women do, but you feminists are content to just moan about some conspiracy against women because you couldn't care less about men.
"Because that's what you're saying, in a nutshell. Why wouldn't a cigarette company say, "Alright boys, we're going to hell anyway. Let's just fire all of our men and hire only women now. We'll save a fortune!""
ReplyDeleteare you dense? do you know what a subconscious bias is?
they (and not all "they" either. look up the Korean Chaebol and their girl-workers) don't think that because it doesn't occur to them and because they think they'd suffer a productivity loss, since, as i just explained, they automatically assume a woman will be worse at the job than a man would.
this bias has been studied and confirmed over and over. a woman needs to be twice as good as a man to be seen as his equal.
and here comes IR, confirming what I just said.
ReplyDelete"One way to solve this would be for men to get the same paternity time and job protection women do, but you feminists are content to just moan about some conspiracy against women because you couldn't care less about men."
ReplyDeleteyeah, I guess that's why the most feminist country in the world, Sweden, has parental leave. That's why other progressive, feminism-friendly countries are also moving in that direction.
It's a rather pathetic lie propagated by feminist haters that feminists don't care about men
IR, you kind of make my case for me, dude. Warren Farrell is like the Dalai Lama!?
ReplyDeleteAnd I'm not exactly how I "censored" Paul Elam by bowing out of a "debate" with him part way through after he 1) tried to change the rules of the debate to his benefit, 2) threatened to censor a commenter who agreed with me,and 3) basically told me to "shove it." (It was AFTER all this he decided to change the headline and introduce the portions of the debate I had already written by calling me a "fucking moron" and encouraging other MRA to repost my writings without my permission.)
You can read all about it here:
http://manboobz.blogspot.com/2010/10/paul-elams-hypocrisy-and-douchebaggery.html
And here:
http://manboobz.blogspot.com/2010/10/paul-elams-continuing-childish-and.html
Other than that, the only specific thing you've got is ... that I assumed someone sending someone else a message on a DATING SITE possibly wanted to DATE (and maybe have sex with) that other person. You are aware that this is what DATING SITES are for, right? For, you know, helping people find other people to DATE.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteoh yeah. patriarchal cultural narratives are, like, totally women's fault. and it's absolutely the Swedish MRA's who pushed thru parental leave. totally.
ReplyDeleteplease go back to your own planet, this one is already full.
My belief is that the pay gap is a reflection of female privilege, rather than female disadvantages. Employers pay extra for continuous and relevant experience that was gained on the job. Since too few employed women are willing to empower their cohabiting male partners with a choice to (A) be supported by the woman full time, (B) be supported by the woman part time, (C) be supported by the woman temporarily until he achieves an educational goal, or (D) be employed full time with options A through C as a backup -- since too few employed women offer these options to their partners, those men only have the option to work full time. Options equal power, and in this sense women have more. The fact that women placed a higher value on utilizing male-provided options like A, B, C or D above means that those options were more valuable to them than the money that they otherwise would have earned had they remained in a continuous full-time job as a wage slave. For men, the only perk in being a wage slave is a few percentage points of higher pay compared to those women who are privileged with other options besides wage slavery.
ReplyDeleteThe pay gap reflects female privilege, despite the conspiratorial feminist myth that men who foster female privilege are somehow oppressing women. But then, feminists do have a knack for obscuring the privileges of women and turning them around to look like burdens. It's a sneaky rhetorical tactic that has enjoyed wild success on the unsuspecting public, but it doesn't work on me.
As far as my views on patriarchy, I don't embrace feminist definitions of that word; it would take a wider discussion before you understood how I define patriarchy. Give me an entire post, David, and we can thrash it out. But I won't bury that discussion in the comments of one of your many feminist posts.
IR, every feminist I know supports paternity leave. A quick google search will turn up numerous examples of feminists arguing for more paternity leave time.
ReplyDelete" the patriarchy is not a conspiracy, it's a systematic cultural bias. but twisting the concept enough to make it look "kooky" makes it so much easier to dismiss, huh? "
ReplyDeleteProof please
"It's a rather pathetic lie propagated by feminist haters that feminists don't care about men"
ReplyDeleteSo the phrase used COMMONLY by feminists "what about teh menz" really means they do truly care about men? HA!
Wait what? That phrase is mocking a certain conversation-derailing tactic, not the very idea of caring about men. Geez get a grip.
ReplyDeleteAlso I have not met *one* feminist opposed to parental leave. Not in my life!
ReplyDeletePaternal too. Oops!
ReplyDeletefor starters:
ReplyDeletehttp://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?collection=journals&handle=hein.journals/brklr65&div=38&id=&page=
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1975.tb00676.x/abstract
http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/A94/90/73G00/index.xml
http://psp.sagepub.com/content/27/1/48.short
http://das.sagepub.com/content/14/2/191.short
"Wait what? That phrase is mocking a certain conversation-derailing tactic, not the very idea of caring about men. Geez get a grip."
ReplyDeleteCan you prove this? If you can't, what does this tell?
I'd also like to point you to the things I've posted just on this very blog in the past few days that often bring up concern for mens rights and the way patriarchy or kyriarchy or the system or whatever you want to call it hurts and dehumanizes men.
ReplyDeleteThe "What About the Menz" comment is what a guy gets when he barges into a discussion of something that affects women differently than it effects men, because it's coming from a different place and has different intents and impacts, and draws a direct equivalence that isn't particularly helpful. It wouldn't be a shorthand if it didn't happen over and over again, and has zero to do with feminism not caring about men or actively despising men or any of those myths. It's shorthand just like "tldr."
Also this phenomenon is in no way unique to feminism:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.derailingfordummies.com/#butbut
also, wtf is with the "prove it" BS?
ReplyDeleteThis isn't math; there are no proofs, only evidence.
And as evidence we can give nicko all KINDS of stuff to read, since he is really interested in the topic:
ReplyDeletehttp://feministallies.blogspot.com/2007/10/what-men-can-do-responding-to.html
Still waiting for all those examples of feminist "extremism"...
ReplyDeleteJust enjoy the wave of free traffic, David.
ReplyDelete@M:
ReplyDeleteThis was quoted from your link to the Finally Feminism blog:
"What it boils down to is this: Men, not women, need to be the ones creating the spaces to discuss men’s issues."
Many discussions about gender and sex dovetail on public policy, and that affects men and women alike. Men are taxpayers and citizens and have just as much a stake in health and safety as women do. What the above comment does is attempt to silence men -- not just in "feminist spaces", but in deliberative political bodies. That is why we have a Violence Against Women Act, despite the fact that men are battered more often than women in non-reciprocal partner violence and men are attacked more often than women in reciprocal partner violence. It has become politically incorrect in crafting public policy to acknowledge the uniqueness of male pain.
One time that I heard the "what about teh menz???" comment was in the wake of a 2007 appellate court ruling in California, in which a provision of the state's Health and Safety Code was overturned by the court. That overturned provision had allowed taxpayer money to be denied to any domestic violence shelters that admitted male victims, and it specifically defined domestic violence as a crime against women. When the court ruling was announced, men's advocates celebrated. It was a victory for male victims of domestic violence; with the court's ruling, now matching grants would finally be available for DV shelters that admitted men. It was in the midst of this celebration about a men's issue, and a major court victory on behalf of male victims, that I saw the "what about teh menz?" phrase being used.
That phrase is specifically designed to silence male-friendly voices, especially in the arena of public policy.
@Jadehawk:
ReplyDelete"for starters:" [links followed]
All but one of those links went to documents that had to be purchased if read in their entirety. One of them described a study about blind interviewing of applicants to an orchestra, but didn't include the actual published study; it was just an abstract.
I suspect that you thought that you hit the ball out of the park with all those links, but really it seems that you either (A) didn't read the documents yourself, or (B) were unable to articulate the findings here in the comments.
Deeze: "Just enjoy the wave of free traffic, David."
ReplyDeleteI hate to tell you, but you guys are not a terribly desirable demographic.
@David Futrelle:
ReplyDelete"Every feminist I know supports paternity leave. A quick google search will turn up numerous examples of feminists arguing for more paternity leave time."
Except in certain jurisdictions, such as the UK, statute prohibits men from utilizing the same amount of time for family leave that women receive -- policies implemented due to the guidance and direction of feminists.
"What the above comment does is attempt to silence men -- not just in "feminist spaces", but in deliberative political bodies."
ReplyDeleteNo, that comment is specifically about conversations about womens issues and feminism as particular experiences or notions impact women differently than men. It is not in any way about anything like that. It is asking people who are reading feminist blog comments or listening to women talk about specific things and how they specifically apply to the female experience to consider whether bringing in a male corollary, though it may not be the same experience with the same factors, diverts the conversation to places that mean people are no longer talking about the topic they set out to discuss.
That is all it is saying.
The uniqueness of male pain is very real, and the whole point of that post is that in the uniqueness of various experiences, bringing in similar but structurally and socially different matters can be unhelpful. I will admit that there is a unique male pain; what that 101 piece is saying is that there is actually a unique female pain too, and that there is a phenomenon, especially on the internet but in real-life conversations as well, for male participants to refuse to acknowledge this in how they reframe the discussion.
It has nothing to do with the Violence Against Women Act because it is about how we behave in conversations about these things. Frankly, the idea that majority-male legislative bodies might somehow be practicing this sort of this is a bit odd. And it's not like VAWA isn't gender neutral save its name.
I do believe that there needs to be more discussion of domestic violence against men. This is a very common belief in the kind of feminist circles I associate with.
"What about teh menz" is not an effort to silence male voices; it's about saying "we can have that discussion as well, but it's not helpful here," and just as it isn't always helpful to bring in a similar issue affecting men to a discussion of how something *specifically* affects women, it isn't helpful for women to do that in a discussion of things that specifically impact men.
If you take off your Feminists Evil goggles for a bit you will see that this is what "what about teh menz" means. Feminism is full of "male-friendly" voices too.
"Except in certain jurisdictions, such as the UK, statute prohibits men from utilizing the same amount of time for family leave that women receive -- policies implemented due to the guidance and direction of feminists."
ReplyDeleteWell I don't know those feminists, and I will leave it to UK citizens posting here to take that any further, as I am not familiar with UK statutes.
The comment (from Finally Feminism):
ReplyDelete"What it boils down to is this: Men, not women, need to be the ones creating the spaces to discuss men’s issues."
@M:
"No, that comment is specifically about conversations about womens issues and feminism as particular experiences or notions impact women differently..."
Political discussion leads to political action. If the cultural debate considers DV victimization to be a women's issue -- rather than a people's issue -- then the effect is to suppress male pain by the time public policy is crafted. Have you ever listened to a Congressional hearing on domestic violence? The whole thing is dominated by the vulnerability, needs and concerns of women. Male victims are barely mentioned during VAWA reauthorizations; instead, men are acknowledged in such hearings as perpetrators or potential perpetrators. Male pain is silenced; female perpetration is legitimized (especially where the Duluth Model of batterer intervention programs is in force). Don't assume that just because most of the lawmakers are male that they're automatically acting on behalf of males. They're acting on behalf of women.
David, you are running out of arguments against Western men. It's getting boring.
ReplyDeleteMen are now more and more talking about you in their forums and blogs - they say openly what they think about you after you were signing up with fake-IDs lurking and nitpicking in their forum threads and blogs,totally ignoring their demands, making fun out of their personal problems.
Male extremist feminists can be even more deluded than female ones...
David, the male extremist feminist?
That's really funny. Isn't it?
But what did you expect, David? Honestly?
Did you expect MRAs will admire for your drivel?
If you are seriously interested in what YOU call misogyny (it's actually not misogyny) you better should research WHY so many Western men are disappointed in Western women instead of considering them all as assholes and losers.
Just my opinion.
That comment, though, is not saying those conversations shouldn't happen. It is saying that it doesn't always have to happen in the *middle* of a conversation about something that is specifically about something else.
ReplyDelete"Have you ever listened to a Congressional hearing on domestic violence? The whole thing is dominated by the vulnerability, needs and concerns of women."
I would suggest this is not *feminism* at fault, but (pick your term) the system, patriarchy, kyriarchy, etc. It's a culture that tells men speaking up about DV is something that comes with a lot of shame attached. Feminism isn't about shutting up survivors of abuse.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete"All but one of those links went to documents that had to be purchased if read in their entirety. One of them described a study about blind interviewing of applicants to an orchestra, but didn't include the actual published study; it was just an abstract.
ReplyDelete"
nick asked for evidence; i gave him evidence. your lack of access to scientific journals is very much not my problem. as for the orchestra thing, here it is, in it's entirety. i linked to the abstract because it was shorter: http://www.faculty.diversity.ucla.edu/search/searchtoolkit/docs/articles/Orchestrating_Impartiality.pdf
@M:
ReplyDeleteWhat is so difficult about you acknowledging the shortcomings of feminism, or those of its enabler, chivalry?
Imagine that it's 1965, and you're a battered woman. There are not yet any shelters in existence to help domestic violence victims, and you're trying to raise awareness of the plight of female DV victims. What would you do (more pointedly, how would you feel?) if the quote from the Finally Feminism blog came at you this way in the form of public reaction?
"What it boils down to is this: Women, not men, need to be the ones creating the spaces to discuss women’s issues. The legislature is no place to be discussing these issues; they're a private matter best left to the families involved."
Please put on your empathy glasses! VAWA renewals are dominated by feminists. Feminists testify at them. Shelter workers, all feminists, testify. The dominance of women's issues is so pervasive that it's considered a small victory when even the slightest nod is given to male victims, such as this one with DV scholar Richard Gelles on May 5, 2010. I was shocked when I learned that they let him testify.
@Jadehawk:
ReplyDelete"nick asked for evidence; i gave him evidence. your lack of access to scientific journals is very much not my problem."
1. You haven't established that the links that you provided contain actual evidence.
2. Your feeble attempts to justify the notion that patriarchy is responsible for women's oppression have utterly failed here in this thread, and your failure to adequately articulate and support your position is not my problem nor anyone else's. You made the assertion; you failed to back it up effectively. Not my problem.
um.
ReplyDeletefeminists are in general against "chivalry", that being a symptom of patriarchy
nick asked for evidence; i gave him evidence
ReplyDeleteNo you didn't at all. I asked for proof. That proof being; when feminists use the phrase "what about teh menz" please indicate where they really mean...?
"That phrase is mocking a certain conversation-derailing tactic, not the very idea of caring about men. Geez get a grip."
Now we know if men used such sarcasm against women's issues, they would be labelled as misogynist. But the typical feminist bigot will be in total knee jerk denial about that fact.
Chivalry is an enabler of feminism? Last I checked chivalry was part of the complex of behaviors and beliefs feminism calls "patriarchy" and would like very much to get rid of.
ReplyDeleteI have my "empathy glasses" on here and continue to remind you that that Finally Feminism page is about people with historical and cultural privileges entering discussions people with a different experience are having about their *unique experience* and turning the entire discussion into a different discussion. It is not hurting *anyone* in this world to allow women, or the disabled, or people of color, or LGBTQ folks, or any other group to have their spaces for discussing their unique experiences, and as someone who brought up the unique pain of men above I would expect you to understand that some experiences are, in fact, unique to various classes of people because of how they are situated in this society and how various structural and cultural forces shape that experience.
That you continue to insist something I posted in response to someone asking for proof that a particular internet shorthand means what it means is about spaces other than this, or is about something else, is just refusing to acknowledge that either context or context exist. This is not about denying male voices, it's about *derailing internet discussions*.
Your failure to read the evidence does not constitute a failure on my part to support my argument. I can lead you to the evidence, but I can't make you read it.
ReplyDeleteNicko81m, if you want to respond with some sort of logic undergirding your points I'll listen but that was nonsense. I linked you to explanations of what is meant by that phrase.
ReplyDeleteI guess if I show up at an MRA site insisting that everyone talk about my experiences you will all be super welcoming and won't mind that I derail the discussion? Will you welcome me into a discussion about the unique pain of men or would that be unhelpful to the discourse?
"No you didn't at all. I asked for proof. That proof being; when feminists use the phrase "what about teh menz" please indicate where they really mean...?
ReplyDelete"
are you having some problems with chronology? forgetting what you write? here, let me refresh your memory:
nicko81m said...
" the patriarchy is not a conspiracy, it's a systematic cultural bias. but twisting the concept enough to make it look "kooky" makes it so much easier to dismiss, huh? "
Proof please
December 29, 2010 9:54 PM
and as I've already said, this not being math, we don't deal with "proof", we deal with evidence. proofs only exist in math.
Jade, tell me where the evidence exactly is in them links?
ReplyDeleteInstead of giving me a bunch of links, tell me exactly where feminists say "what about teh menz" in the meaning of what you expressed above?
Jade
ReplyDeleteand as I've already said, this not being math, we don't deal with "proof", we deal with evidence. proofs only exist in mat
So where's the evidence? Besides the small number of men who have lots of power over most of the population in societies like America, how do most men have more power than most women in societies like America?
Wow total pariwachy, I see it everywhere, man
nicko, you have some severe memory issues. the links are a response to your first post, not your second one, which wasn't even up at the time I posted.
ReplyDelete"Besides the small number of men who have lots of power over most of the population in societies like America, how do most men have more power than most women in societies like America?"
ReplyDeletebecause they're given more respect, and because they're more likely to be hired and promoted because they're perceived as more competent even if they are not. read the goddamn links.
I come from Queensland Australia. The Prim minister is a woman. The premier of Queensland is a woman. So two of the most powerful people who run the society I live in are women. Does that mean I can start crying out "matriarchy" and oppression against men?
ReplyDeleteThat's about as pathetic as the feminist argument is on patriarchy. It's such a fucking laughable joke. It makes feminists look like morons.
this is actually an awesome new Catch-22, I haven't encountered before. I started collecting these scientific articles because d00dz were refusing to listen to well-argued essays because "they're just opinion"; now that I give them the science instead of "just my opinion", they whine that I'm not writing them an essay.
ReplyDelete" because they're given more respect, and because they're more likely to be hired and promoted because they're perceived as more competent even if they are not. read the goddamn links."
ReplyDeletePlease provide the evidence by pointing out which parts in the links hold SOLID PROOF that this exists?
lol, I guess that means there's no more racism in America either.
ReplyDelete"Please provide the evidence by pointing out which parts in the links hold SOLID PROOF that this exists?
ReplyDelete"
for the las time: science doesn't deal with proof, it deals with evidence. the links are the write-ups of that evidence. all of them, in their entirety. that's what scientific papers are.
"for the las time: science doesn't deal with proof, it deals with evidence"
ReplyDeleteSo show me the evidence?
Tell me in what exact parts in the links provide *cough* evidence *cough*
Oh, Yohan, you lovable goof. I'm not "running out of arguments against Western men." I haven't made any arguments against Western men to begin with. I am a Western man. I DO criticize the tiny minority of Western men who have decided that all Western women are evil dirty whores.
ReplyDeleteWait you need solid proof that male privilege exists in order to understand that the world, while vastly changed in the past century, still remains a place full of systems built, over history, to privilege certain voices and experiences over others? It takes more than a few decades to bring an unequal world into parity for all, nicko, and this is true for all inequities. Just because there are more women in the workplace and in positions of power doesn't mean that human society is just hunky dory and all people are equal.
ReplyDeleteAnd since you mixed me up with Jadehawk: I posted links about where people are coming from with "what about teh menz" and how it in no way means that feminists have no sympathy or time for men's issues; in reality, I, as a feminist, believe that *gender equality* is an important goal, and that means for men too. When feminists use that term its in regard to someone making a comparison between womens unique experiences and mens unique experiences as though there cannot be spaces in which womens experiences, which are often quite different from those of men because of societal structures, cannot be discussed without some unhelpful comparison being drawn.
Do you think some mens issues should be discussed without corollary womens experiences *always* being brought into the discussion or the issue whether it truly fits or not? Yes? Same thing.
Correction:
ReplyDeleteas though there cannot be spaces in which womens experiences, which are often quite different from those of men because of societal structures, CAN be discussed without some unhelpful comparison being drawn.
"I DO criticize the tiny minority of Western men who have decided that all Western women are evil dirty whores."
ReplyDeleteBut you fail to criticise the feminist movement who constantly make up false stats about how evil men are. Do you truly think there would be as much illogical paranoia towards men today if feminism didn't go overboard?
The totally irony to your post is that feminism is ALL ABOUT!...YES...ALL ABOUT men are evil.
It never ceases to amaze me that feminists these days are 100 percent shameless hypocrites.
I had no idea I thought men were evil. I thought men were people, just like women.
ReplyDelete"I had no idea I thought men were evil. I thought men were people, just like women."
ReplyDeleteditto. i shall have to inform half my friends and my boyfriend that I think they're evil and that I really hate their guts. Man, such a bummer.
M
ReplyDelete"Do you think some men’s issues should be discussed without corollary women’s experiences *always* being brought into the discussion or the issue whether it truly fits or not? Yes? Same thing."
You see this is the funny thing that I have acknowledged for years.
Let's say a topic on female domestic violence comes up. If a person comes into the topic in the sense "what about male victims?"...that person is likely going to get put in the back seat or even belittled.
On the other hand, if a topic started on male domestic violence victims that have nothing to do with female domestic violence victims and a person jumps in with "what about female victims"...people belittling that person or shifting that person to the back seat would be considered as misogyny.
I find it funny how feminists still claim to be oppressed when political correctness favours women
"Political correctness" is not a complex of centuries-old social relationships, practices, structures and beliefs that shapes the world we live in today. It's a belief that dehumanizing language aids the dehumanization of people. You can argue whether or not you think it's true but it is most definitely not a social force on par with things like racism, homophobia, or sexism.
ReplyDeleteHonestly, if men are having an open discussion of domestic violence as it pertains specifically to the ways men experience domestic violence *as men* in a society that diminishes the voices of male victims and a woman showed up demanding that the conversation also include the specific ways women experience domestic violence, I would not consider that *misogynistic* at all, at least as a hypothetical description of such a discussion. It would be disruptive, because it would be *off topic*.
Pardon, I would not consider men asking her to not derail the discussion misogynistic at all, given the hypothetical situation at least.
ReplyDeleteParental leave is important to feminists, not because they give a rats ass about men, but because they want to limit the advantage men have when they work more hours, gain more experience, and are more dependable over the long haul because of fewer absences. In other words, feminists want men on parental leave to mitigate the advantage in a work environment men gain by being forced to work more. It is analagous to feminist opposition to single sex education. It's not that feminists believe that boys are better educated in co-ed environments, but they want to ensure that boys don't get a leg up. They are afraid that teaching to boys will take the edge of female advantage in education.
ReplyDeleteMagdelyn, paternal leave is actually important to me because I think the each individual regardless of gender should be able to choose to be the primary caregiver of a child or should be able to take time off at the beginning of the child's life however he or she sees fit.
ReplyDeleteYou are welcome to put words in the mouths of feminists all you want but that does not make those words the actual beliefs of feminists.
"I hate to tell you, but you guys are not a terribly desirable demographic."
ReplyDeleteOh, come now Dave, no publicity is bad publicity. Jezebel is doing great things for Roosh.
ReplyDeleteDavid Futrelle said...
... I DO criticize the tiny minority of Western men who have decided that all Western women are evil dirty whores.
I wonder what makes Western men thinking like that - considering all Western women as whores etc... out of what reason?
And this is not such a 'tiny minority' as you call them.
Interesting, you NEVER criticize the huge number of women who consider men merely to be violent rapists or ATMs for alimony.
Forced Paternity Leave in Sweden:
ReplyDelete"...Yet many Swedish fathers are reluctant to use their “papa months”. Mothers take as much as 85% of all parental leave. This frustrates feminists, who believe that shared responsibility for child care is a key to equality in the labour market..."
http://www.economist.com/node/2335623?story_id=2335623
Forced? Really? Reading comprehension! Also, you might want to quote that whole paragraph unless you're just trying to twist the issue. Just a thought.
ReplyDeleteYou may quote the whole paragraph yourself, sweet cheeks.
ReplyDelete"Interesting, you NEVER criticize the huge number of women who consider men merely to be violent rapists or ATMs for alimony."
ReplyDeleteTo add on to that, men are GENERALLY deemed guilty until proven innocent of such things.
But of course, that’s all fine and dandy. That's not sexism. That's not misandry. That's the typical political correct notion.
It's only sexism when women are painted to the same severity when it comes to gender.
Women the second class citizens? huh give me a break.
If any group such as blacks were painted as someone guilty until proven innocent, it would be classified as a form of hatred. The only time it's not classed as such a form is when men as a gender are targeted as such.
That's the very definition of second class citizenship. Men as a gender are the lease favoured when it comes to political correctness.
and another Catch-22.
ReplyDeletefeminists don't let men be SAHD's because they don't care about men; except when they do, and then they're clearly forcing them to do it, because they don't care about men.
Amazing, how feminists are against men both when they are for and when they're against paternal leave.
"magdelyn said...
ReplyDeleteYou may quote the whole paragraph yourself, sweet cheeks."
So the point of that paragraph was that women participate in the labor force at very high numbers while also shouldering the majority of the child care and that feminists would like to see more men take on some of that burden. That has nothing to do with your contentions about feminists seeking to limit male advantage, which is based on your *beliefs* about feminism and not on feminist thought.
"and another Catch-22.
ReplyDeletefeminists don't let men be SAHD's because they don't care about men; except when they do, and then they're clearly forcing them to do it, because they don't care about men.
Amazing, how feminists are against men both when they are for and when they're against paternal leave."
Hahaha exactly. Logic, can u haz it?
You could show them ample amounts of proof or evidence, it will never be enough or good enough. But have a man provide, in an opinion piece, evidence based only on partial findings, and call it conclusive proof of something, and you'll have the bobbleheads come out in full force, "Yep, yep, just as we thought!!" No further evidence required.
ReplyDeleteSee On Herpes and Hypergamy
Amazing, how feminists are against men both when they are for and when they're against paternal leave."
ReplyDeleteHahaha exactly. Logic, can u haz it?
The feminist logic conclusion is very simple: Feminists do not need men, but sperm-donors.
My conclusion is also simple: The best is to have nothing to do with a feminist.
No marriage, no children, no paternity leave,
And of course, no alimony and no child-support.
Problem solved.
Do you agree?
Yohan, what you just said does not make any sense unless you see the world as "us" versus "them." Of course any one woman who does not want to get married or have children should not, and any one man who does not want to get married or have children should not. That has nothing to do with the discussion.
ReplyDeleteI agree that Yohan should have nothing to do with feminists. In general, I think people who hate feminists, who attribute made-up conspiracy theories to them, and who think they're vindictive, psychotic bitches out to destroy mankind---I think that those people would be well advised not to marry and have children with feminists.
ReplyDeleteYou know what my biggest beef with feminists is? That they didn't send me the memo saying that we're done with men and are relying on sperm donors now. Very inconsiderate.
"Yohan, what you just said does not make any sense unless you see the world as "us" versus "them."
ReplyDeleteUmmm isn't that what feminism is all about? It's about women versus men? It's about trying to stop evil men from being privileged?
Do feminists only have a licence to have the us versus them mentality?
"Forced Paternity Leave in Sweden"
ReplyDeleteUm, speaking as an Englishman living in Sweden I can attest it is not forced. And yes, different couples split their joint maternity leave in different ways. I've had two colleagues recently take long leaves of absence up to eight months. I wish I'd had that for the birth of my son in the UK. But not all take the benefit, nor are they forced to. Another colleague took a mere week's leave after the birth of his kid.
Drifting into anecdata for a moment, one of the other interesting things I have noticed it the very large number of men on childcare duty here in Sweden. Certainly far greater than I experienced in the UK. The number of men attending the open preschools with their kids is encouragingly high.
Sandy said...
ReplyDeleteYohan, what you just said does not make any sense unless you see the world as "us" versus "them."
.....
and any one man who does not want to get married or have children should not...
You misunderstand my statement.
MRAs are teaching men to look one step forward.
It's about divorce.
For a Western woman, it does not matter, if the marriage is long or short, as she is almost always the winner, under any circumstances.
For a man, there is nothing to gain in case of marriage and in case of divorce, he is almost always on the loser-side.
It's not about marriage, it's about future divorce. You have to consider that as a man and especially as a father.
Yohan, feminists don't give a flying fuck about male problems. What you are saying will just go in one ear and out the other. You will get nothing but a blank stare.
ReplyDeleteIt's misogyny to even express female privilege. It should all get pulled under the rug and never allowed to be exposed.
Ummm isn't that what feminism is all about? It's about women versus men?
ReplyDeleteNo, that's the MRA version of what feminism is all about. Blackwell described the MRA version of what feminism is all about quite succinctly within the comments section here:
"Since I started reading this blog a few weeks ago, I've come to the realisation that MRAs hate feminism because they think it's a female version of their own ideology. Because these men promote male superiority (not equality), have contempt for the opposite sex, and want to restore all laws to privilege themselves, they believe that's what feminists are after for women. They literally don't understand how a women's movement can have anything other than control of men as an ultimate goal, because they've molded a men's group with the exact opposite goal. Every time I read bizarre claims about feminists considering women superior and wanting to dominate the world, I have to forcibly remind myself that they're approaching feminism as a parallel ideology to their own brand of sexist bigotry."
"The feminist logic conclusion is very simple: Feminists do not need men, but sperm-donors.
ReplyDelete"
indeed, we don't "need" men. but we like them, because despite the rather bad sample presented here, most men are nice and fascinating and caring people worth spending time with and caring for.
and if you don't like marriage, then you have something in common with many feminists, as many feminists are against marriage, as well.
Jadehawk
ReplyDelete"because despite the rather bad sample presented here"
Translation: The feminist definition of a bad sample of men is a man with a spine who won't be a pawn to feminism. We are expected to agree with anything feminists say or else we are bad.
“most men are nice and fascinating and caring people worth spending time with and caring for.”
Ha! Unlike feminists who appear far from being nice or caring as they will likely put male issues to the back seat while prioritising any female issue.
The men who you are complaining about is a reflection in the mirror of yourself and the majority of the obsessed feminists.
John...you will not make headway disputing Jadehawk's contention that a boy name on a piece of work gets the work a higher evaluation than a girl name.
ReplyDeleteThis is established social science, consistently supported over time and demographics by methodologically sound studies. Complaining that you are unable to access the studies is...well...a trifle chickenshit.
(Jadehawk-a "Fuckton?")
John, there is an ORGY of research. Do some.
yes, a fuckton. a metric fuckton even. it's a perfectly cromulent unit of measurement ;-)
ReplyDelete" John...you will not make headway disputing Jadehawk's contention that a boy name on a piece of work gets the work a higher evaluation than a girl name"
ReplyDeleteWow that's funny, considering that more women are getting passed to go into uni than men these days.
Uh Nick...what part of "over time" are you missing?
ReplyDeleteJadehawk....Cromulent? You are bone evil. 8-)
nick, once again you are confusing some factoid you've simply made up with the truth.
ReplyDeleteFar more women than men apply to college, and in order to keep the ratio of men and women students closer to even, many college actually give male applicants a leg up in the admissions process:
"In recent years, several college leaders have admitted that their institutions give a boost to male applicants to maintain gender balance on campus"
http://motherjones.com/mojo/2010/01/gender-gap-college-admissions
Nick is so funny, he just keeps blasting an ideology that exists in his imagination as though he's really *getting* us by brutally ripping apart something none of us believe.
ReplyDelete"The totally irony to your post is that feminism is ALL ABOUT!...YES...ALL ABOUT men are evil."
ReplyDeleteNo, not at all.
Certainly, there is within feminism discussion about the evils that some men do. There's certainly a conversation of how male privilege oppresses women. But you will find few feminists who paint men as inherently evil. There may be odd individuals somewhere out on the crazy fringes, but so far as I can see there are none in the mainstream. You will find many more feminists who will view this train of thought as unhelpful and counterproductive.
Your view of feminism is of a phantom movement that simply does not exist except in your own imagination and fears. What a pity that you cannot see this and actually engage with real feminists.
Ummm isn't that what feminism is all about? It's about women versus men?
ReplyDeleteIt's hard to better what Pam writes. But no. The adversarial relationship exists only in your mind. Though it might seem that way because acceptance of feminism might require you to give up some of that precious privilege you enjoy.
Percyprune: ..... acceptance of feminism might require you to give up some of that precious privilege you enjoy
ReplyDeleteSo far no feminist could explain me what privileges these might be for the average male.
Jadehawk: most men are nice and fascinating and caring people worth spending time with and caring for
Yes, because marriage and divorce are almost always a lucrative business for the woman, hardly for the man.
See report below:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/30/camille-grammer-demands-5_n_802896.html
Camille Grammer cried over her first post-divorce Christmas without Kelsey, but she may have reason to smile once the divorce settlement comes through. According to the New York Post, Camille balked at Kelsey's initial offer of $30 million and expects a much larger sum.
He wasn't offering child support or alimony, ...
... He wants to give me only 30 million dollar, and no child support and no alimony, waaahhh.....waaaaaahhhhh....
Yes, and "privilege" is all about something that is bestowed upon people by a system of social relationships, not about something any one individual knowingly takes from another. The idea that discussing this cultural relationship means anyone is talking about how one group within it is *evil* is just ludicrous.
ReplyDeleteYohan, I believe people have tried to talk to you about what male privilege is and you have balked at engaging them. You don't get to ignore a matter and then said it does not exist. Also, you seem quite tellingly obsessed with marriage and divorce above all else. This is called nursing resentments, not formulating a coherent and rational worldview.
ReplyDeleteWhat did Jadehawk's comment have to do *specifically* with marriage? My short argument on marriage is that if you don't want to deal with the headache of severing a contract, don't enter into a contract in the first place.
*say* it does not exist
ReplyDelete"So far no feminist could explain me what privileges these might be for the average male."
ReplyDeleteAre you sure they hadn't tried to explain but you didn't listen? You appear from your posts to display a pattern of selective reading.
But let's see what privilege might be explained to you:
* Improved job prospects in many professions.
* Being on the favourable side of the wage gap.
* Few or no glass ceilings.
* Being treated as if your body and choices with what to do with it are your own.
* Being spoken to as an equal in most public and professional spaces.
* Being better represented in the political sphere.
* Being less likely to be subject to sexual harassment.
There are many other privileges, but these are a start.
Let's just see how privileged we are:
ReplyDelete* Improved job prospects in many professions.
AA anyone?
* Being on the favourable side of the wage gap.
This has been disproved time and again. I make the same as anyone else in my field.
* Few or no glass ceilings.
I'm not the CEO type and most non-CEO's I know are not either. Look down at the glass cellar.
* Being treated as if your body and choices with what to do with it are your own.
Conscription? Lack of male reproductive rights?
* Being spoken to as an equal in most public and professional spaces.
Equal to whom? My peers treat me as equal but my manager treats me as subordinate.
* Being better represented in the political sphere.
NOW, VAWA. 10 times the funding for female cancer than all the other cancers combined?
* Being less likely to be subject to sexual harassment.
Creeper, loser? Take it like a man? Man UP? Are you a man or a mouse?
Yes, I didn't realize how easy I have it.
Here are a few more privileges men are born with:
ReplyDelete*More likely to be homeless
*More likely to lose child custody and become an indentured servant
*More likely to die on the battlefield
*More likely to die at work
*More likely to get a harsher sentence for a crime.
*More likely to be raped, mugged, shot, killed violently
*More likely to be laughed at while being abused by your spouse.
These a just a few privileges we men are born with. These are our birth rights and we are fighting to the end so the status quo doesn't change.
@percyprune
ReplyDeleteWhile I appreciate your friendly reply to me, let me say, I do not notice any privilege FOR ME out of your list which clearly points to rich people, politicians, CEOs ...
About your list, I really wonder, what professions this might be (for ordinary people), maybe construction or otherwise heavy or dangerous work where women in general do not apply?
The favorable side of the wage gap I see only because of overtime, nightwork, work on Banking Holidays, as all females around me do not like this kind of additional income.
Glass ceiling, I am not a CEO.
Choice to do with my body what I like, well, I would say, women have a bigger choice to use their body for their advantage
Spoken as an equal in public, this depends solely on your social position, not on your gender.
There are plenty of women, who have a higher educational background, higher income etc. and they have more to say than I do.
Political sphere? Are you joking? I am not the son of a politician and I am not rich and I am not living in my native country anymore.
Sexual harassment, just my opinion, it's up to you as an adult to avoid certain people. As a child however, you are much less protected as a boy than as a girl.
Most ordinary men, like me, will not notice any benefit from your privilege list.
So you think, only men have privileges, and only women have disadvantages?
And women are never better off than men under any circumstances?
Yohan, You may very well see some of the privileges I outlined in my post. :)
ReplyDeleteWitman and Yohan are confusing issues of class stratification with issues of gender inequality. There are as many women as men who don't have access to the channels of power because of their backgrounds--the only difference is even when women have the highest possible qualifications, they're much more unlikely to ascend the power ladder than men are.
ReplyDeleteI call Bullshit!
ReplyDeleteIt is the false feminist doctrine that confuses all of mankind with the top 5% of the richest people. Half of the population cannot possibly fit in that niche. So why are all women so opposed to the very, very rich when they are already more than equal to the average man?
You think it's tough to ascend as a woman? Try being born a poor white boy in America! Your chances of climbing the social ladder are extremely difficult because you have to do it on your merit alone. Nobody cares about poor white boys and they can smell the trailer park on you when you walk into the room.
Enough with the bullshit!
I was born with a plastic spoon in my mouth and I overcame that on my merit alone. I know a lot of men who are still poor.
ReplyDelete@witman
ReplyDeleteNow let us see the privileges for ordinary men comparing them with ordinary women in my native EU country.
1 - retirement for women at least 5 years earlier than men, but claiming the same retirement allowance (this is the law up to 2019, no earlier revision possible)
2 - no obligation for women to any unpaid military or otherwise social services (which means for most young men 9 to 12 months of no income)
3 - child support by law is solely from the father to the mother (even if the child is already an adult, studies and not living with the mother anymore)
In the rare cases where the child is living with the father, the mother has no obligation to pay anything.
4 - Dies the husband, the wife will receive a pension, dies the wife, the husband receives nothing.
I am waiting now for percyprune to explain to me my privileges out of 1 - 4. Or at least to explain me how I am an equal...
To be an equal (men do not ask for privileges as feminists do) might be good stuff for a nice dream... too good to be true...
You're missing the point, witman. Also, what does being white have to do with anything? Do you think that white men are particularly badly off?
ReplyDeleteAnd of course I realise it's hard to ascend as a poor person--male *or* female. You seem to be conveniently forgetting that there are plenty of poor women about too, who have no easier of a time bettering their prospects than poor men.
The reason feminists are so interested in the top 5% of the population is precisely because it's the demographic that makes almost all the decisions for the rest of us. The fact that poor people, people from ethnic minorities, and women are all excluded from this cohort leads to systematic discriminations that feminists and other civil rights campaigners want to overturn. But since we can't ascend to those positions, even when we've done everything our male counterparts have, we can still justly claim that men have more privilege than we do. The fact that you don't think it's significant that the overwhelming majority of the most powerful people in the world are male means you clearly don't understand the implications of that divide.
witman said...
ReplyDeleteI call Bullshit!
It is the false feminist doctrine that confuses all of mankind with the top 5% of the richest people. Half of the population cannot possibly fit in that niche.
I think, even many more than 50 percent of all men do not fit into this 'very rich category' or 'very influencial VIP' groups'.
Most men are not politicians, CEOs, celebrities, the Pope and his Catholic bishops or in otherwise leading or rich position.
We are men, but just out of ordinary families with moderate income.
It becomes now more clear with this thread, that feminists do not understand this, simply ignore these facts.
witman said...
.... I know a lot of men who are still poor.
Me too. But nobody cares about them. Not only men, but even boys not even out of elementary school. And there are a lot of old men, sick men and so on...
You need the right gender otherwise nobody will listen and the replies you receive are merely scornful remarks. This blog is a good example...
Blackwell said...
ReplyDeleteYou're missing the point, witman. Also, what does being white have to do with anything? Do you think that white men are particularly badly off?
I think so... see link below
UK: new Foreign Office rules which ban white males from gaining work experience at his department.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1297421/Work-experience-FO-Not-middle-class-white-male.html
Blackwell said ...
ReplyDelete... You seem to be conveniently forgetting that there are plenty of poor women about too, who have no easier of a time bettering their prospects than poor men.
Nonsense!
It's much easier for poor women than for poor men. There are 1000s of organizations - which are receiving millions of USD and EURO out of public funds - which are caring solely for women, and for colored people, and for gays and even for monkeys... etc. etc.
I do not know any major organization which takes care of poor white men.
If you know one let me know.
The only who cares about men - including the white man - are the MRAs and if he still can, the concerned man himself out of own responsibility.
And I should not forget to mention the prisons, the only place to go, if you exclude suicide as an option.
Women enjoy further a wide spectrum of feminist-friendly laws, which makes it possible for them with the help of greedy lawyers paid out of public funds to demand money from men, from companies and from the government often with ridiculous arguments.
Generally much easier in Western countries for poor women than for poor men to find support of any kind.
You guys are absolutely not understanding what privilege is and are swapping out matters of class privilege for matters of gender privilege. Feminism does not focus on the upper class to make generalizations or any such nonsense -- "male privilege" is one of many intersecting privileges (or, on the other side, intersecting disadvantages). The anthropologist poster on these comments sections has written a cogent explanation of "intersectionality," the way many of us are privileged in some ways and disadvantaged in others.
ReplyDeleteI have posted links to a very basic explanation of what feminists mean by "male privilege" but instead of reading it and thinking about it -- which does not mean *agreeing* with it, just considering it on its own merits rather than just scoffing -- people glanced at it or didn't even look and then went right on with their denunciations of the "feminism" they invented as an enemy.
Privilege is an idea that does not just exist in feminism. It is the idea that various classes of people have advantages within a system of social relationships. I wealthy black man has class privilege but is still disadvantaged compared to those with white privilege; someone's female boss may benefit from both white privilege and class privilege but also suffer in a system that takes maleness more seriously: male privilege.
If you really want to examine the subject, there is much reading you can do. If you just want to keep insisting that privilege doesn't exist, well, for people who like to talk about feminism you're just showing yourselves to be people who like to use feminism as a boogeyman without learning what it truly is.
"You guys are absolutely not understanding what privilege is and are swapping out matters of class privilege for matters of gender privilege."
ReplyDeleteThis is exactly it, M. And instead of fighting class oppression (the source of some very legitimate woes), these men are waging a totally irrelevant battle against some make-believe version of feminism they've chosen to attribute all their problems too.
And Yohan, why don't you go look at your prison statistics and your homicide statistics and your college admission statistics, and compare rates for white and non-white males, alright? As to the idea that there are no organisations that help poor men, I think you'll find that organisations that help the poor don't discriminate: the YMCA, Goodwill, the Salvation Army, Oxfam, and the Red Cross, to name a few. Not to mention the countless groups that help veterans. Or the many social programs that help both men and women in need.
Oh, and M, just saw your comment on the 'feminist cat' post that reads very similarly to what I've been trying to argue in this posting. It seems obvious that a lot of the grievances aired by MRAs are class-based, not gender-based. Not that I expect the peanut gallery to agree...
ReplyDeleteWhite men living in the US (or any Western country, really) in 2010 who say "WHAT privilege?!?!" remind me of the old story about God and Moses hanging out and Moses asking why God didn't do something to help this one particular wretched guy, so God put a giant diamond in the road and the dude tripped over it and hurt himself.
ReplyDeleteIf you are living in 2010 and you're a white man (as I am) and you can't see that you are one of the most privileged people in the history of planet earth, you're never, ever going to be happy unless you fundamentally change your outlook.
Seriously. I am white, hetero, not disabled, and from a middle class background. I am aware of my privilege, even though privilege by definition can be hard to see without critically examining the world around you and how you are situated in it. The blanket rejection that men have privilege is just bizarre. Would that we could all switch genders for one day so that these guys could experience the fun of being unable to leave your house or apartment without being belittled and harassed.
ReplyDeleteM,
ReplyDeleteI fully understand what you're saying. I just call bullshit because in any situation anywhere in the world, it is harder and tougher to be a man.
Let's take the DR Congo for instance. There is a lot of focus on the women and the systematic rape that goes on there. Nobody thinks about the men who are disfigured, dismembered and dehumanized except to blame them for the rapes that in many cases they are forced to commit. I really feel badly for the women who endure such circumstances, but I also know that it is not easy to be a man in those countries.
I used to be a feminist until I started to experience discrimination due to my gender. It was then that I realized that I am a Humanist. I believe in equal rights. I believe in equal pay for equal work. I believe that everyone has the right to self determination. What I do not and will not tolerate is anyone telling me I have privilege when I have lived my entire life in feminism.
And if you think that men are not belittled and harassed on a daily basis, you have your head in the sand. We fear for our lives and we fear for our safety. We have additional burdens as well such as the safety and lives of our women and children that we are expected to protect and die for.
ReplyDeleteWhen that plane had to land on the Hudson river and was quickly filling with water, guess who got to evacuate first. Women and children first. Perhaps the next time a boat sinks we can make sure the children get a life boat and then fight it out for the rest of the seats.
I am also a humanist. I don't see how that is contrary to feminism, which is actually, believe it or not, about human rights. Denying that privilege exists only harms the cause of human rights.
ReplyDeleteIt is so strange to me that you say you have lived your whole life in feminism -- feminism is not the dominant ideology in this society.
What you are describing with regard to the Hudson near-crash is chivalry, an idea based in sexist structures that feminists would like very much to see gone from the world. Such a thing is the end result of a culture that is still based very much in sexist roots, not something that feminists applaud. Were you really a feminist? Because it's kind of a basic idea of feminism that such chivalrous sexism is definitely harmful and unfair.
I don't know where you're getting the idea that people are only concerned about women in the Congo. It is not easy to be a man in *any* country, as it is not easy to be human generally. We are all subject to socioeconomic forces beyond our control.
Refusal to even *acknowledge* male privilege makes one a pretty bad humanist.
And refusal to see that Feminism is a flagrantly sexist term makes one an exceptionally bad humanist.
ReplyDeleteIf you support or condone any legislation or law that mentions the gender of the victim/accused in any way, you are part of this sexism and I hope that your father/husband/son/uncle/cousin/etc never falls prey to these sexist and discriminatory laws for you will be eating some bad tasting crow for as many years as it takes to clear their good name.
So feminism as a term is in itself sexist? What? A human rights movement seeking to create a more equal world by lobbying for the humanity of an oppressed class tends to begin with the issues of the oppressed. This is pretty much how inequity is best addressed, because the people who are beneficiaries of inequity tend to not get on board quite so readily as the disadvantaged classes. Pick your human rights movement--it stared as an agitation for the rights of the oppressed. What it calls itself is a truly silly quibble. Before there was the civil rights movement there were "race men"...were they "racists"? No. They were activists for equality.
ReplyDeleteThe word "feminism" does not make the movement itself sexist. You are making an absurdly surface-level argument. And you are forgetting that feminism is about changing the structures that create inequity, not about vilifying men.
One of the characteristics of privilege is that its absence, and the condition of true neutrality, is seen as discriminatory, as privilege is viewed by the privileged class as "the way of the world." The "Feminism 101" blog I've linked here previously tries to explain that with the phenomenon of women taking their spouses' names being seen as "normal" and women keeping their own name -- a situation of true neutrality -- being received as somehow aberrant, or even sexist against men. Men and women do not have an equal playing field in this world, and by and large the things that do favor women in some way are 1. the minority and 2. created by sexism, the system of sexism, and not be feminism somehow seeking to oppress men. The chivalric system I mentioned above is a good example of that.
What legislation or law are you talking about? Something like VAWA? Because that's just a name for a law that is gender neutral. And the idea that there needs to be some sort of movement to stop violence against women is not built on the idea that violence against men ought to be ignored. Both are noble goals. Both have different contexts. One does not exclude the other, and the system that shames men for reaching out for help due to domestic violence was not created by feminism, but by the systems feminism opposes.
Also, like others have said here, I consider myself first and foremost an "anti-oppressionist." Regardless of what one labels it, the end goals are the same and if you genuinely think privilege is some fantasy that gay rights activists and people or color and feminists are engaging in, I really can't help you. Privilege exists. Thousands of years of human socioeconomic structures don't just change into equality in a generation. There is much work to do on all fronts, and the very real fact that women as a class are situated as "less than" -- and things like chivalric "save the women first!" are based in the idea that women are "less than" and must be coddled and "saved" are not "female privilege," they are sexist -- must be ended, in concert with ending other forms of "less than" and "other" in this and other societies.
ReplyDeleteSo what M is saying is that because men are the ones we always force to be turned into Swiss cheese on the battlefields, women are seen as "less" than men.
ReplyDeleteIn other news, the Nazis saw Gentiles, straights, and sycophants as "less than" Jews, gays, and dissenters. This is because they coddled and "saved" the former from the death camps and oppression.
I think it's possible that men like nitwit construe their privilege as a burden.
ReplyDeleteIR if you want to come back with something logical I'll engage you. Godwinning the discussion all to hell isn't helpful.
ReplyDeleteThe history of warfare is not a history of women as a powerful class forcing men to go out and fight while they stayed home being lazy. Until very recently in the West, women were akin to property. They were hardly the class of people pulling the strings that govern warfare.
If you are not aware of the intersecting privileges that govern social relations, you are not paying attention. Nothing is so simple as "men have all the power" vs. "women have all the power", and if you took some time to understand the idea of privilege and intersectionality you might actually learn something about feminists not being your enemies. At the very least you'd stop mounting arguments that make you look ignorant.
I love how M explains how she's not my enemy, and in the next sentence calls me ignorant.
ReplyDeleteFeminists are such charming, pleasant people - it's a true wonder they come off as spiteful, angry, unlovable harpies who have to maliciously fabricate lies to paint themselves as even remotely attractive.
She also thinks that comparing the power structures that force men to fight and die to the similar power structures of Nazism somehow equate to Godwin's law, which is defined as comparing your opponents to Nazis. I wonder how she could have confused feminism with the established power structures? Is it because feminism is taught all the way from kindergarten to graduate school level courses? Is it because the differences between male and female accomplishment are written off as one global multi-millennial conspiracy? Once again, this is a mystery.
I also love how our feminist thinks everything, no matter how clearly disenfranchising it is, translates into a colossal "fuck you" to the female sex alone. 9 in 10 inmates are male? Those privileged inmates don't appreciate the power they have to squat behind bars.
"Women were akin to property." Yeah, feminists are notorious liars, so I'll take anything that drips out out of that gutter-pipe any lying feminist calls a mouth with a grain of salt. After all, with feminism, the ends - no matter how trivial or imaginary - always justify the means.
Blackwell said...
ReplyDeleteYohan....As to the idea that there are no organisations that help poor men, I think you'll find that organisations that help the poor don't discriminate: the YMCA, Goodwill, the Salvation Army, Oxfam, and the Red Cross, to name a few.
The RED CROSS discriminates in case of any emergency, read
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/31/food-distribution-in-hait_n_443619.html
According to CNN ... Women were the only people allowed to receive a bag... From CNN:
....
But things didn't sit well with some men.
"What about me? I didn't get anything. I need food," said Johnny Sanon Stevenson. "Many people could not participate."
What you say about the RED CROSS is simply said not true.
M said...
ReplyDeleteSo feminism as a term is in itself sexist? What? A human rights movement seeking to create a more equal world
The word "feminism" does not make the movement itself sexist.
Something like VAWA? Because that's just a name for a law that is gender neutral.
The word 'feminism' is clearly sexist.
Feminism favors certain groups of women over men (regardless of age), of any race and even over other women. Not every woman benefits out of feminism for sure.
An organization like UNIFEM (related to United Nations) is not gender-neutral, its for women only. Just one example.
About VAWA, the name of this law is sexist and the law execution of it is also sexist, if you do not like to hear that, change the name of this law.
M said...
ReplyDeleteYou guys are absolutely not understanding what privilege is ...
Feminism does not focus on the upper class ...
Privilege is an idea that does not just exist in feminism. It is the idea that various classes of people have advantages within a system of social relationships.
I gave you a clear list of my disadvantages and asked you to explain MY privileges and I see you cannot.
Of course feminism focus on the upper class, to get more influence, like quota for CEO.
But where are the quotas for 'ordinary jobs'?
And yes, privileges exist not only in feminism.
For example to be a rich man means enjoying advantages compared to a poor man, like to be able to buy better food, live in better housing, have better medical care, and to be rich and male means to have always a young woman next to you regardless your looks, age and even criminal records.
Nobody will doubt, that to be rich is better than to be poor. This privilege can be seen easily by everybody.
The problem with feminism is that it claims ALL males have privileges solely because of their gender. Feminism in this sense is nothing but gender discrimination for itself.
Well, I cannot say, that I see any advantage at all for me solely because I am a male.
Longer working hours is not a privilege, forced military services is not a privilege, late retirement is not a privilege, less medical care by specialists is not a privilege...
-----
A good question is now what can you do AS A MAN against being FORCED TO RECEIVE such 'privileges' you don't need and you do not want to receive?
Are privileges for men the same as discriminating restrictions?
The men's rights movement is offering an answer to these questions and offers various solutions.
Of course feminist do not want to hear that...
witman:
ReplyDeletei am not belittled and harassed on a daily basis. maybe you live in a place where you do experience this; if so, i feel for you.
if you are a white man living in the us, i must say...
ur doin it rong
Raul Groom said...
ReplyDeletewitman:
i am not belittled and harassed on a daily basis. maybe you live in a place where you do experience this; if so, i feel for you.
if you are a white man living in the us, i must say...
Well, some people are lucky and some are not.
So you belong to the lucky ones. Good for you.
Something what you have to learn and it seems you do not understand:
Not all white men are in the same lucky position as you are.
If you are living in 2010 and you're a white man (as I am) and you can't see that you are one of the most privileged people in the history of planet earth ...
What a BS-talk is this? What has this all to do with your color of your face? White or whatever...
I belong to these white men, who were not lucky. Born in deep poverty after WWII on the loser side near the former iron curtain area, the former communist borderline.
And yes, I was belittled and harassed on a daily basis by feminist women and their manginas. And I never noticed any 'privilege' for me.
And when I was packing my bag and left, I was the asshole and the loser.
Now I am living among non-white people since 35 years. I will never go back to my 'equals'.
MRAs in Western countries have my full support.
Raul,
ReplyDeleteSo if I am belittled and harassed, I am doing it wrong but if it happens to a woman it is a case of systemic discrimination?
I see! You have opened my eyes! I am have the privilege of being responsible for what happens to me but if it happens to M, it is a clear cut case of her being an unprivileged woman. I do believe you are either a liar or are deluding yourself if you think society doesn't expect you to act a certain way simply because you are a man.
Feminism is a movement to advance the interests of women. Any ideology that takes gender into account is clear cut sexist and just because you can cover your ears and yell LALALALALALA does not make it a humanist movement.
Sorry about the bad grammar, I should have proof read that.
ReplyDelete"I do believe you are either a liar or are deluding yourself if you think society doesn't expect you to act a certain way simply because you are a man."
ReplyDeleteAs it happens, this weekend I am going to interview a fight trainer who once trained Muhammad Ali. One of my favorite Ali quotes applies here, quite perfectly"
"I don't have to be what you want me to be. I'm free to be what I want to be."
You assume I believe a lot of things that I don't believe. What I'm trying to do is open your eyes to the fact that your happiness is your own responsibility. That's true of women, men, black people, white people, everyone.
But if you're a member of an entrenched overclass, and you think society is holding you back... you are in need of a new outlook. What you don't need is to surround yourself with an echo chamber of others who think as you do - it will only help you to continue in misery.
Raul Groom: What I'm trying to do is open your eyes to the fact that your happiness is your own responsibility.
ReplyDelete"I don't have to be what you want me to be. I'm free to be what I want to be."
This statement is only true in case of very rich men, but otherwise?
It still makes sense for a single totally independent thinking young man who never had any private relationship with a woman.
But believe me, such young men are really rare due to a brainwashing feminist education system.
Your statement is for sure not true with a man, who is already trapped in poverty over decades, due to divorce and follow-up alimony and child-support to his ex-wife.
If he cannot pay out of what reason, he will be moved to a jail. He is not free to be what he wants to be. That's for sure.
Your statement is worthless for old men, sick men, jobless men, men in military etc. etc.
Unfortunately most men are not rich and therefore are NOT free to be what they want to be.
Yohan:
ReplyDeleteYou have a lot of excuses for your unhappiness. I'm not trying to convince you they aren't valid. Indeed, I don't see the point of trying to convince you of anything.
As for young men who might think of emulating your outlook: note that what you are emulating is the approach of someone who suffers from crippling unhappiness, and believes that the path to happiness is closed to him.
Perhaps choose someone else to be like.
@Raul Groom
ReplyDeleteI am not unhappy now, why should I? What a nonsense talk from you. - I merely told you that your statement
I don't have to be what you want me to be. I'm free to be what I want to be
is only possible for men, if they have the financial resources to go ahead with it.
Most men however, worldwide, do NOT have enough money to do so.
Hope this is now clear to you.
That statement is not mine, but the statement of a child born to a middle class black family in Louisville, Kentucky during segregation.
ReplyDeleteHaha, Raul prances from saying that he's only what he wants to be to very clearly labeling Yohan as "miserable".
ReplyDeleteOnly a feminist could be so stupid. Don't bother with the long-winded rationalizations about how calling someone "miserable" is right but drawing inferences on someone's views from their statements is wrong. I know, I know, feminism is never wrong, all hail feminism, etc etc etc. There, I did it for you, now you can get back to taking strolls in drag, or whatever it is you self-loathing male feminists do to get your jollies.
And they wonder why they're seen as stupid.
"That statement is not mine[...]"
ReplyDeleteOf course not, when has a feminist come up with anything original? Even feminist theory is plagiarized from Marxism, which blames all of the problems of one people on a different group of people, while eschewing such oppressive notions as personal responsibility or initiative.
Is it any wonder they have to resort to bomb threats and professional sabotage when their rickety philosophy is threatened?
Your precious feminism will continue to phase out, whether by the MRM and father's rights or, I'll admit more likely, by your own indoctrination and stupidity. After all, when a feminist has to run every thought through a few filters and conform it to some moldy paradigm, she isn't exactly an intellectual powerhouse.
By the way, Raul, I hope you had a happy new year. I also hope whatever poor woman you shamefully lusted after did not scurry away from you after your ruthless inquiries as to whether you were "making her uncomfortable" or "moving too fast." I also hope she was able to stomach the interspersed tearful and verbose atonement for the "sins of your wicked gender" without laughing or retching, and was not creeped out when you asked to borrow her shoes for "the march."
ReplyDeleteMale feminists. Where would we be without them?
I never said I was unhappy. I never once indicated that I was miserable. I am stating what I believe and hold dear. I am responsible for my own happiness and have always taken the bull by the horns and forged my own life without groveling that I was born poor, raised by a single mother on welfare and generally disadvantaged. Thank God I was born with a penis or I'd have never gotten out of that mess.
ReplyDeleteYohan said:
ReplyDelete"I gave you a clear list of my disadvantages and asked you to explain MY privileges and I see you cannot."
^ And this is what I always find funny. I have asked many feminists many times about proving to me how I as the average middle class male is privileged.
Every single time I have asked this question, I have never got a straight logical answer. All I get is cockeyed laughable crap such as pointing out rich men I don't even know.
It's friggin hilarious to claim that I am privileged over the next woman I walk past on the street or the next female shop assistant I come across.
Most crap that feminists spew out these days is comedy to me. They are truly that fucking stupid or if not that, highly delusional.
"I know, I know, feminism is never wrong, all hail feminism, etc etc etc."
ReplyDeleteThat's because today's feminists are malignant narcissists
IR, a comment of yours was caught by the spam filter; it's up now.
ReplyDeleteIt was an incredibly idiotic comment that suggested you hadn't bothered to actually read the comments you were responding to, but it is up now.
I love how David does not even bother to tell he how it's idiotic or how it implies I haven't read the original comment (which I did, twice). I suppose he takes this idiom to heart. Given the typical feminist's aversion to debate or even basic conversation (snarky insults and brain-dead chants do not count as conversation) outside of her insular groups, this is unsurprising.
ReplyDeleteI love this belief you all have that you can define anything however you want to define it and the world will follow suit. You have no actual clue what "feminism" means, and yet you keep yammering at educated people with invented definitions and imaginary ideologies as though it's possible to make a point about a complex of beliefs you won't deign to actually engage, or even to understand enough to get a proper definition. I don't know what circles this kind of thing works in but it's hilarious and yes IR, it is ignorant. Ignorant by its very definition. Perhaps you don't know the actual meaning of the word "ignorant" either?
ReplyDeleteAll the sub-topics are equally ignorant. Witman appears to not know what "humanism" is, or at the very least to be treating it as a surface-level semantic matter that is somehow more inclusive than "feminism" because it has "human" as its root. "Hypergamy" is hijacked into a whole other stratosphere of self-serving invention. You know, I know this is just a blog and that some of you are pretty aggrieved individuals, but no amount of grievance in the *world* makes words or whole schools of thought mean only what you want them to mean if you yell loudly enough or in concert with others.
This blog is fun to read but the comments quickly get tiresome because you guys don't know what you're talking about and have no interest in learning. I'm sure this comment will receive bunch of replies about what feminism is, each one more willfully ignorant than the last. Whatever floats your boat, guys. Just remember that what you *think* about a subject doesn't make that subject *what you think it is*.
Happy New Year.
This blog is fun to read but the comments quickly get tiresome because you guys don't know what you're talking about and have no interest in learning.
ReplyDeleteDo you know that heterosexual men can have problems too? This is a simple question, an opportunity to educate me if you will.
Also, would you care to educate me as to how I am privileged, and how anything that makes me feel powerless and oppressed as a man actually somehow equates to us thinking women are "less than" men?
Sorry if the latter question is a bit long, I'm trying to quote you as directly as possible. I could even bring up the quotes and my interpretation of them if you're worried I might be misrepresenting you.
IR, your comment was idiotic in part because you accused Raul of not having original thoughts because he quoted Muhammad Ali in order to back up his point. Using a quote as evidence is not plagiarism, nor is it unoriginal.
ReplyDeleteApparently he lacked the facilities to fully interpret the quote, as he proceeded to state this:
ReplyDeleteBut if you're a member of an entrenched overclass, and you think society is holding you back... you are in need of a new outlook. What you don't need is to surround yourself with an echo chamber of others who think as you do - it will only help you to continue in misery.
I've read that active participation helps accelerate the learning process, so I'll see if you can find the two contradictions to the earlier quote in the italicized text.
M
ReplyDeleteAs IR was saying, please educate us on feminism. I am really curious to know how me as the average middle class male is privileged.
I have never ever gotten a logical answer from a feminist. I have at least asked a 1000 feminists the same question. Will you be the first feminist ever to come up with a logical substantial answer?
OK M,
ReplyDeleteYou got me! Feminism does not stand for Feminine (Female) and the Human in Humanism does not include both males and females. I can understand that your narrow world view only accounts for females and their rights but this is happening to the exclusion of the rights of men (and children).
It's time to lose the sexist nomenclature and adopt a new world view that accepts all humans as equal regardless of their gender.
Nick, I have answered your requests before only to have them ignored. And I see you're asking the same question I responded to in another comment thread now. Bad faith engagement is not the same as seeking a substantial answer.
ReplyDeleteIR:
"Do you know that heterosexual men can have problems too? This is a simple question, an opportunity to educate me if you will."
See this question itself is borne of ignorance. You have no reason to think that I don't know that heterosexual men have problems, and your belief that as a feminist I don't know or care about the problems of straight men is based in ignorance of what modern feminists actually believe of care about, or even about what feminism seeks to dismantle. Hint: it is not a movement about what's wrong with men or how men are bad. It's about the structural underpinnings of socioeconomic life. I expect you know some of this since you made a comment about Marxism above (though it's as silly to say feminism is "plagiarized" from Marxism as it is to say progressivism is "plagiarized" from Marxism, or the civil rights movement, or gay rights, or any other anti-oppression/human rights movement).
I've also mentioned caring about men's problems in comment after comment since joining this blog. Assumptions are not helpful, and I maintain that the seemingly angry guys commenting on this blog are just all about assumption and not engagement, because the "feminism" they're talking about does not exist in the circles I travel in or in the minds of the very intelligent, very empathetic feminists whose writing I read--those people genuinely want a better world and your mischaracterization of them genuinely just makes you look ignorant, as I said before.
As far as privilege, I've written about it several times in the short time I've been posting here and each time no one actually engaged the issues--they just used my responses or links as fodder for further grievance and misapprehension. I don't recall if you were one of those people, but assuming for a second that you're genuine in your inquiry:
"Privilege" is not a concept unique to feminism. It is used across movements and schools of thought that study how the system of social relationships that govern human life, human organization, and human thought. It is a core idea of the idea of "intersectionality," which is an important part of the feminist thought I find most helpful. Intersectionality means that there is class privilege, white privilege, hetero privilege, all sorts of privileges, and they intersect in ways that mean it's not so simple as a man always having all the benefit in a situation, all the time, that's the end. A lot of what MRA-sympathetic guys on this blog argue when denying the very idea of privilege is actually *based in using the idea of privilege* but focusing only on class privilege.
For example, saying that you were born in poverty and therefore can't be a beneficiary of any sort of "male privilege" is actually employing an argument about class privilege. It is possible to be the beneficiary of some amounts of privilege at the same time that you are disadvantaged in other ways, racial, economic, access to education, lack of disability, etc. It is about where you are situated within a system of social relationships that still thinks of "mankind" being, well, *man* kind, but also middle class or higher, and white, and able-bodied, and straight, and all those other things.
CONT
CONT
ReplyDelete"Male privilege" is not a simplistic idea that men are in control all the time and get whatever they want and women are a permanently downtrodden class--it is about the ways "male" is seen as the default in this society, the ways maleness is privileged in almost invisible ways because those ways are so much a part of the fabric of our world -- and I would argue that any reasonable person *must* admit that no movement, feminism or any other human rights movement, can transform thousands of years of human habit and social structure in a generation -- that it can be almost invisible at first.
This blog begins discussing that idea by talking about how a woman taking her husband's name is the norm, in considered the "neutral default":
http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/2007/03/11/faq-what-is-male-privilege/
And it is. A woman giving up part of her identity is considered the neutral, normal way of the world when it is actually something that "privileges" the man. This is a very simple example, but it is fairly easy thing to see, is it not?
Male privilege is not some simplistic idea that men have all the advantages and women have all the disadvantages. It is the idea that being read as male means you are more likely to be taken seriously, more likely to have your ideas heard on their own merit, that you are in some way the "default setting of humanity." It means nothing about men not having real problems.
According to this system of beliefs, there is no such thing as "gay privilege" or "people of color privilege" or "female privilege" because the world we live in continues to see all these classes of people as a kind of *other.* This is not to say that women can't and don't benefit from the sexist undergirding of society, just that it's considered something like "benevolent sexism" rather than "privilege." It's a sexist system giving women perks for fitting into its pegs. When a judge gives a woman primary custody of a child *because she is a woman*, this is benevolent sexism at work rewarding her for being the matronly caregiver class whether she herself is actually a matronly caregiver or not.
A police officer arresting the man on a DV call because he or she can't conceive of the woman being the abuser is operating on sexist ideas that benefit the woman: benevolent sexism. It is different than male privilege, because it is entrenched in ideas that women *can't* be this way or must always be protected as a class, not as individuals who are capable of doing harm to others.
Feminists are opposed to things that bestow advantages on women over men because that is not true equality. In the world we still live in after thousands of years of chivalric structures and only a few measly generations of feminism, there is nothing approaching true equality on the horizon.
Also, to argue that things that either study women as a class or seek to improve the position of women as a class, like NOW or UNIFEM, are sexist because they focus on *women* is missing the forest for the trees.
M
ReplyDeleteI apologise if you have answered that exact question before. I didn't see it.
Again, the answers you are giving here are not substantial.
"This blog begins discussing that idea by talking about how a woman taking her husband's name is the norm, in considered the "neutral default":"
So if a woman changes her last name to the same as mine, what privilege is this giving me? What exactly benefits me out of all of this? That's right, nothing! So in a logical conclusion, this is not a privilege.
Are women forced to change their last name in marriage? Is someone pointing a gun to their head and telling women to do it? Or do women wilfully do this by choice?
"It is the idea that being read as male means you are more likely to be taken seriously, more likely to have your ideas heard on their own merit, that you are in some way the "default setting of humanity."
I've heard this laughable type of opinion many times before from delusional feminists.
For one small example, how the fuck can you say males get taken more seriously when if we express our problems, we are likely told to man up and grow a pair. Or if a male is a victim of domestic violence of rape from a woman, it's likely that he will be taken less seriously than a woman. That right there is female privilege loud and clear. That right there is women being taken more seriously than men.
Males more likely to have ideas heard on their own merit?
ReplyDeletePlease explain this better. Give some examples. I have never seen any example of this in my whole life.
According to this system of beliefs, there is no such thing as "gay privilege" or "people of color privilege" or "female privilege"
I agree with there being no such thing as gay privilege... but colour privilege and female privilege. Are you serious? What world do you live in?
Anyway, to cut this short, here is an example of colour privilege and female privilege all in the one package.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1297421/Work-experience-FO-Not-middle-class-white-male.html#ixzz0uf5PraL8
because the world we live in continues to see all these classes of people as a kind of *other.*
Well it's funny how a feminist mentions this as it seems that feminism perceives men as a class of people as a kind of *other* as we are deemed as violent, tyrants, oppressors, and women are innocent victims. Feminists have a whole different attitude towards male domestic violence victims than they do towards female domestic violence victims. So this clearly shows that feminists perceive men as someone who is the other. Women in general treat men different compared to their female friends. So to say that males are the only ones that somehow treat women as the other and to class this as privilege is a weak argument.
And speaking of the examples you used for benevolent sexism. It’s funny how you prefer to label it as that instead of labelling it as female privilege as it’s pretty god damn obvious that it’s exactly female privilege.
The forest of of male privilege has been obscured by the trees of benevolent sexism. Clever girl; playing with words in such a fashion.
ReplyDeleteGotcha!
You see M, what feminists assume (ass, u, me) about MRAs is that we are against women having equal rights yet you argue our case in the idea of benevolent sexism. Most MRAs love women and I'd say that most see women as humans deserving of all the rights and "privileges" of humans.
What Men's Rights Advocates are in fact fighting (resisting?) against is this benevolent sexism that is systematically eroding the rights of males and making them into some sort of second class citizen as righteous payback for some oppression our forefathers exercised over OUR foremothers.
nick, your comment was caught by the spam filter; it's up now.
ReplyDeleteBenevolent sexism is part of what feminists would like very much to get rid of, so if you argue that *feminism* is the enemy or that feminism is responsible for the effects of benevolent sexism you're truly missing the point. Benevolent sexism is part of what feminists would call "kyriarchy" or "patriarchy."
ReplyDeleteI would disagree that benevolent sexism is even capable of making men into second-class citizens, though.
"Males more likely to have ideas heard on their own merit?
ReplyDeletePlease explain this better. Give some examples. I have never seen any example of this in my whole life."
Nick, in the interest of genuinely furthering this discussion I will leave this to the social scientists reading to answer, because if this is not something you can see in your own experiences or have read about or learned about or heard from female acquaintances, the only way to make you see it is to offer some studies, and the social sciences is not my field.
I can offer you experiences but I imagine that would not pass muster, nor would the ironic point that guys in these comments routinely question whether the women posting are truly authoritative voices on how they, as women, experience the world and how it treats them.
Why do you guys always post stuff from the Daily Mail? That's like linking to Fox News. Grievance-driven yellow journalism is not proof of anything. Link a reputable source on the same subject, please.
"Well it's funny how a feminist mentions this as it seems that feminism perceives men as a class of people as a kind of *other* as we are deemed as violent, tyrants, oppressors, and women are innocent victims."
You are misunderstanding the concept of "other" and "othering" in the context I used it in. Also, this is exactly the kind of thing I was talking about before with regard to putting words into feminism's mouth and looking pretty silly and ignorant in the process. A whole complex of beliefs and inquiries does not become something just because you say it is.
"And speaking of the examples you used for benevolent sexism. It’s funny how you prefer to label it as that instead of labelling it as female privilege as it’s pretty god damn obvious that it’s exactly female privilege."
Ditto with this. You can redefine terms all you want or ignore what the actual tenets of a belief system are all you want, but that doesn't mean I have to take you seriously. "Privilege" has a particular meaning here. It doesn't mean just "perks." You can't throw out its meaning without ceding the argument.
M,
ReplyDeleteTake the case of rape for instance. Let's compare rape with murder to make it the worst thing you can do to a person because most people (including MRAs) agree this is an egregious crime. In a murder case, you cannot simply say that a murder has taken place, there has to actually be a body (murder) in most cases.
In a rape case, the word of the accuser is all that is required for there to actually be a rape (even if it didn't occur). Now the media will say that all women are terrified that there is a rapist on the loose but they will not tell you that every man that does not have an alibi for that particular time frame is a likely suspect. All those men then become victimized even if she is lying because in the words of one of FEMINISM'S heroins Marilyn French "All men are rapists and that's all they are"
We are not all rapists and we are in need of protection from this type of systemic discrimination and blatant sexism.
My privilege? I am a rapist and that's all I am. I am not a great father, husband, son, academic, scientist, etc. I am a rapist and that's all I am!!
Here is that same blog on "female privilege":
ReplyDeletehttp://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/2008/02/09/faq-female-privilege/
I imagine a lot of you will disagree with this section:
"Not only is it subjectively favorable in its characterization of women, but it promises that men’s power will be used to women’s advantage, if only they can secure a high-status male protector.
[Glick and Fiske (February 2001).]"
But I would suggest that you think about the state taking the place of the "high-status male protector" in instances like divorce, alimony, custody disputes because it does not literally have to be a man.
Witman, this may be too complex a discussion to really get into here, but as quickly as I can: the modern feminism I am familiar with has disavowed a lot of the radical feminists who said things like that, and feminists themselves actually smacked them down in their own era. People who say or said those kinds of things are not my heroines and never were, and you can see examples of this in the discussions that occurred after the bigoted, nasty radical feminist Mary Daly died. These people are the boogeywomen of a bygone age. However, I am not familiar with Marilyn French save for her name so can't comment on her specifically.
ReplyDelete"In a rape case, the word of the accuser is all that is required for there to actually be a rape (even if it didn't occur)."
As in many crimes, like robbery, burglary, trespassing, etc. The lack of a $200 bill does not mean that the alleged victim ever had that $200 bill. Rape is not unique in this way.
"Now the media will say that all women are terrified that there is a rapist on the loose but they will not tell you that every man that does not have an alibi for that particular time frame is a likely suspect."
This is a bit of a silly argument, is it not? If there is someone out there doing harm to people, be it a murderer or a rapist or a mugger, people tend to become concerned about their *safety*. This does not mean that people really think that every person matching the suspect description is a *likely* suspect; it means that people tend to be more alert to their surroundings.
"All those men then become victimized even if she is lying because in the words of one of FEMINISM'S heroins Marilyn French 'All men are rapists and that's all they are'"
As I said above, feminists don't actually believe this and this is not what is going through people's minds when they find themselves being more alert to their surroundings. If the only way to ensure your safety is to pay attention to who's around you, you do that, because what else can you do? People behave this way when there are other high-profile crimes being committed according to a pattern. And the fact that men are more likely to be the perpetrators of violence -- violence against men and women, though men are most likely to be the victims -- or the perpetrators of rape -- against men and women -- means that people are more likely to be on their guard around men when they have been alerted to a string of crimes in their community. This does not mean people think *all* men are rapists or violent criminals.
What else are people to do?
"My privilege? I am a rapist and that's all I am. I am not a great father, husband, son, academic, scientist, etc. I am a rapist and that's all I am!!"
I know not a single feminist who thinks like this, so you can rest easy I guess that feminists are actively fighting to have men seen as rapists, as all rapists.
Feminists talk about "rape culture." Just like with the idea of privilege, it is a concept that means the structures of a society devalue a woman's right to own her body as wholly her own, not that men are rapists, or that these ideas about womens bodies are something held by specific individual men. It is absolutely *not* about vilifying men; it's about the idea of a fair an equal world in which we all have full autonomy over our bodies and no one, male or female, has a right to do things to us we don't want done.
This means scrutinizing a woman who stops taking birth control in order to get pregnant and does not tell her partner as much as it means scrutinizing men who grab women on the subway (which is part of that daily harassment and belittling I was mentioning above).
Nick, do you not think it is a privilege for a man's children and his male children and their male children to carry on his name?
ReplyDelete"For one small example, how the fuck can you say males get taken more seriously when if we express our problems, we are likely told to man up and grow a pair. Or if a male is a victim of domestic violence of rape from a woman, it's likely that he will be taken less seriously than a woman. That right there is female privilege loud and clear. That right there is women being taken more seriously than men. "
Being told to grow a pair when you express real problems is wrong, and is part of what feminists call "patriarchal" thinking. Patriarchy is not kind to men either. It's about dehumanizing men into people who can't fully express themselves or fully be themselves without being reminded that they're transgressing a harmful gender role, and criticizing this kind of thing is part of feminism too. I recommend Tony Porter's short speech "The Man Box" as an introduction to those criticisms.
"Privilege" is is a way of saying that those who are part of the historically more powerful classes benefit more from those roles than do the historically disadvantages classes, because the roles we are all given privilege one kind of being over another. It is not saying that it is genuinely good for the *individual* on either side. A man who is good at playing that macho role that can be so harmful to the individual has many benefits in this society. Is this what MRA-ish types are talking about when they talk about alpha males? Possibly? I don't know.
A woman who is good at playing her role is playing the role of someone who is dumber than men, who is weaker than men, who is good only as a caregiver and needing protection. These *roles* as they are written favor one class as the superior group. That is part of what "privilege" means. A woman can use these sexist ideas to get back at a man--she can play weak after assaulting a man and get the police to believe her, but that is not privilege because it is premised on the idea that she is naturally powerless, sweet, and needs protection.
Does that make sense?
Tony Porter:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=td1PbsV6B80
M,
ReplyDeleteI would hazard to guess that we are in the same camp under a different flag. If you are actually FOR male reproductive rights, then God Bless YOU! You just need to know that people like French and Dworkin have tainted feminism almost beyond repair; much the same as any crude misogynist taints the MRM.
Please answer this question for me:
If a man and a woman are drunk and have sex (with her on top) is he a rapist, she a rapist or both of them rapists? Now what happens if he is on top but she is just as willing?
These are the unfair laws I speak of that paint men as rapists if the woman can claim that she was drunk. Mind you that I have (in my shameful past) woken up beside a less than stellar woman after a night of drinking and just had to suck up the fact that I slept with an undesirable woman and in no way felt that she violated me.
I have no answer on the drunkenness question. This is not a subject I've ever really felt comfortable drawing a hard line on, as it depends so much on the individuals. My position on acquaintance rape is simply that we each as individuals have absolute authorities over our bodies and what is done with them, and that if someone says they don't want something done even if it's someone they've had consensual sex with before, that is a serious violation of one's body autonomy.
ReplyDeleteOne reason feminists focus on this, on the idea of consent, is not to harm men or support a world in which men are unfairly accused but because our culture does not yet understand the idea of absolute body autonomy for women the way it grants a fair amount of body autonomy for men. I am not saying that the culture grants this idea of autonomy on any of us absolutely, just that the female body is seen much more as a kind of public common than is the male body with regard to sex and sexual acts. As I said before, I have been groped by strangers more times than I can count. In order to stop rape -- and to stop *misunderstandings* about what rape is -- it's important to further this idea that each of us has to consent before something can be done sexually to our persons. This is what feminism fights for, not for the idea that "all men are rapists" or anything like that.
I don't think Dworkin has damaged feminism beyond repair. So long as the world isn't equal, there is work to be done in any movement regardless of what its members may have advocated, be it black superiority or lesbian separatism or anything that is used to vilify a very broad and multifaceted human rights movement and its beliefs.
Raul Groom said...
ReplyDeleteThat statement is not mine, but the statement of a child born to a middle class black family in Louisville, Kentucky during segregation.
Now I understand...
I have the privilege to become a heavyweight boxing champion.
Thank you for enlightening me.
NICKO81M: I have asked many feminists many times about proving to me how I as the average middle class male is privileged.
Every single time I have asked this question, I have never got a straight logical answer. All I get is cockeyed laughable crap ...
For the average ordinary male (and those below average) privileges do not exist, more the opposite - as mentioned already in this thread most homeless people are male, most people in prison are male, most people doing dangerous and heavy work outdoors are male, most jobless people are male....but who cares?
If a wealthy person tells you that sure, they were born rich but the reason they're where they are today is solely because they're really smart and a hard worker, do you immediately accept that there was no privilege at play for this person? You seem fixated on the ability of wealthy men to attract a certain kind of woman--if one of those men told you all of the things above about how he's rich because of who he is and not because of any societal advantages, and he also attracts the kinds of women who date him because of his personality and his looks alone, would you accept that? That person was given certain advantages in access to power and the *appearance of power* that influenced how they are seen and where they sit in the world...and yet these privileges are mostly invisible to the recipient. This is what *privilege* can look like to the *privileged*, Yohan.
ReplyDeleteI say this as someone who, like most of us, is a beneficiary of some amount of privilege.
M
ReplyDelete"Nick, do you not think it is a privilege for a man's children and his male children and their male children to carry on his name?"
It's not a so called privilege as there is no benefit. This is what I was asking you before. How on earth can it be when people change their last name to the same as mine? Does it make me get more money? What exactly changes in my life that all the sudden makes me more privileged than before? What do I get out of this?
It never ceases to amaze me when seeing the things feminists come up with. This is nearly as bad as what I saw the other day. This feminist was claiming that it's female oppression to only refer women as females.
Feminists seem to come up with the dumbest crap to claim their delusional victim status.
"Being told to grow a pair when you express real problems is wrong, and is part of what feminists call "patriarchal" thinking."
Am I missing something here? How on earth is it "patriarchy" when men are being belittled for showing concern towards male problems?
No wonder why I don't take 99 percent of feminists seriously.
A woman who is good at playing her role is playing the role of someone who is dumber than men, who is weaker than men, who is good only as a caregiver and needing protection. These *roles* as they are written favor one class as the superior group.
It depends how you look at it. To me, it seems that men had to go out in the real world and put up with the stress and physical labour from the demands of their employers in the work force. While women simply lived far less stressful and physically demanding lives as they only needs to take care of kids and do house work.
The man paid for everything to keep the woman living. In other words, it seemed that the man was the woman's financial slave. And to get into this position, the man had get down on his knees and bare gold and jewellery for the woman to approve the marriage.
It had nothing to do with women as being perceived as someone dumber than men. If that’s the case, please provide some proof. However, women perceived as someone weaker, yes this is the case as biology doesn’t lie. This is not sexist. And this is why men were put out to do all the hardest task to keep living while women had it easy at home.
“he can play weak after assaulting a man and get the police to believe her, but that is not privilege because it is premised on the idea that she is naturally powerless, sweet, and needs protection.”
THIS IS PRIVILEGE FFS. If she can manipulate the laws and judgements based on her gender, this is undeniably a privilege placed by gender. In other words, its also called having an incentive which all relates to having privilege.
M
ReplyDelete"Nick, do you not think it is a privilege for a man's children and his male children and their male children to carry on his name?"
It's not a so called privilege as there is no benefit. This is what I was asking you before. How on earth can it be when people change their last name to the same as mine? Does it make me get more money? What exactly changes in my life that all the sudden makes me more privileged than before? What do I get out of this?
It never ceases to amaze me when seeing the things feminists come up with. This is nearly as bad as what I saw the other day. This feminist was claiming that it's female oppression to only refer women as females.
Feminists seem to come up with the dumbest crap to claim their delusional victim status.
"Being told to grow a pair when you express real problems is wrong, and is part of what feminists call "patriarchal" thinking."
Am I missing something here? How on earth is it "patriarchy" when men are being belittled for showing concern towards male problems?
No wonder why I don't take 99 percent of feminists seriously.
"A woman who is good at playing her role is playing the role of someone who is dumber than men, who is weaker than men, who is good only as a caregiver and needing protection. These *roles* as they are written favor one class as the superior group."
ReplyDeleteIt depends how you look at it. To me, it seems that men had to go out in the real world and put up with the stress and physical labour from the demands of their employers in the work force. While women simply lived far less stressful and physically demanding lives as they only needs to take care of kids and do house work.
The man paid for everything to keep the woman living. In other words, it seemed that the man was the woman's financial slave. And to get into this position, the man had get down on his knees and bare gold and jewellery for the woman to approve the marriage.
It had nothing to do with women as being perceived as someone dumber than men. If that’s the case, please provide some proof. However, women perceived as someone weaker, yes this is the case as biology doesn’t lie. This is not sexist. And this is why men were put out to do all the hardest task to keep living while women had it easy at home.
“he can play weak after assaulting a man and get the police to believe her, but that is not privilege because it is premised on the idea that she is naturally powerless, sweet, and needs protection.”
THIS IS PRIVILEGE FFS. If she can manipulate the laws and judgements based on her gender, this is undeniably a privilege placed by gender. In other words, its also called having an incentive which all relates to having privilege.
"Patriarchy" is shorthand for "the system" or any other term you want to use to describe a complex system of social relationships that ascribes gender roles and expectations. The idea that men must behave in these limiting ways and should be mocked and dehumanized for not behaving according to gender roles is part of a patriarchal, or kyriarchical, structure according to feminist thought.
ReplyDeleteIf you want to narrowly define the world privilege to mean "palpable material perks," go right ahead, but you are ceding the argument by being unable to address it head on. I already discussed intersectionality and privilege as something that is defined by relations.
Nick, I just saw your most recent comments and again will ask you to actually put some effort into understanding what is meant by privilege in these contexts if you want me to continue responding openly here. You don't get to define everything from a place of ignorance of what is being discussed. To insist that you can do so is actually kinda...privileged of you.
M
ReplyDeleteThe Prime Minister of Australia is a woman. The premier of Queensland is a woman. Women like Oprah Winfrey have more money and power than 99 percent of men in America. Women hold most of the jobs.
Its funny how these so called societal disadvantages women have, there are still rich and powerful women that exists.
I am also sure Margaret Thatcher has these societal disadvantages because she's a woman!
Feminists need to stop blaming their own failures on men. It's time to grow up and act like adults instead of little children that want their ice cream handed to them for free on a silver platter.
M: Why do you guys always post stuff from the Daily Mail? That's like linking to Fox News. Grievance-driven yellow journalism is not proof of anything. Link a reputable source on the same subject, please.
ReplyDeleteYou want to say, that reports from the DailyMail are untrue?
I don't think that reports of daily crimes against men (like the report of false rape allegations) or reports of biased court decisions are fakes.
I am not linking always to the DailyMail, I often give links to TheLocal/Sweden and various other news agencies, I also give links to various research institutes.
You in return, see this thread, provide links to finallyfeminism and youtube.
See, as a feminist who regularly reads the work of, communicates with, and is friends with lots of other feminists I can say with authority that I know of no feminist who blames her failures on men. Not one. Again, if you want to use a school of thought or a multifaceted human rights movement as your foil you must know something about it to win your argument, and if you are truly ignorant of that which you're criticizing you have ceded the argument before you've even begun it.
ReplyDelete"Its funny how these so called societal disadvantages women have, there are still rich and powerful women that exists."
This is why I have been discussing privilege in an intersectionality context. If you want to ignore all that to pretend that I'm saying something highly simplistic, again, that's your prerogative, but you are ceding the argument by moving the goal posts here. Things are not this simple, and feminism does not insist that they are. *You* are insisting that it does, and you are reducing a school of thought you are apparently not all that familiar with to something facile here.
Yohan, the Daily Mail's sensationalist reporting on individual incidents add nothing to a discussion of socioeconomic realities. And yes, I would suggest that their reporting is suspect.
I provided links to Finally Feminism and YouTube to give examples of the kinds of ideas I'm talking about in order to define concepts like "privilege" and "benevolent sexism." That Finally Feminism blog exists specifically because it's tiring to explain these things again and again and again. It does not *prove* anything I'm saying, only provides definitions.
Anyway, I have to get back to work now. Later.
M
ReplyDeletePatriarchy means men having dominance over women. Your example of patriarchy with the "grow a pair" opinion doesn't make sense. More than anything, it's male disadvantage. How on earth can male disadvantage be placed in the patriarchy category?
This is another ploy feminists play when they play the blame game. In a feminist perspective, most or all problems women have are the fault of men. Most or all the problems men have are the fault of men. In other words, everything seems to be the fault of the evil menz.
Your opinions on male privilege are unsubstantial and really don't make much sense. Like the typical feminist, you just pull things out of your ass and claim female oppression/male privilege under a faulty premise.
finallyfeminism!
ReplyDeleteFinally! I am the MAN! THE MAN! Not only am I am man, I am a white man. I am THE MAN bow before me!!!
God! That thing you feel, it is the quickening. There can only be one!!
Non-whites and women alike must bow before me for I AM THE MAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
ReplyDeleteI'm not just a father/husband/son/uncle/etc I am THE MAN!!
ReplyDeleteScrew you guys not only am I THE MAN, I am taking my ball and going home!
ReplyDeleteSorry, I'll take my ball home after this repost from AntZ@
ReplyDeletehttp://www.avoiceformen.com/2011/01/01/staring-out-from-the-abyss/#comment-11389
If you do not believe me, post this request on any feminist site — it does not matter which one, you can choose at random:
“The sexist policy of commercial airlines prohibiting men, but not women, from sitting next to unaccompanied minors to prevent child abuse hurts both men and women. I ask for your help by writing protest letters to commissioner Gillian Calvert.
As a fellow feminist, Commissioner Calvert is likely to listen to your request that she cease her support of this hateful policy. Suggested reasons that you might forward to Commissioner Calvert:
1) There has never been a case of in -flight child abuse, so the sexist policy addresses a non-existent problem.
2) Collective guilt is utterly immoral for any group of people, including men. Requiring all Muslims to sit at the back of the aircraft for security reasons would be equally morally repulsive.
3) Even if the policy was needed and moral, selecting men, rather than women, for presumption of guilt makes no sense in light of the much higher incidence of female child abuse:
1.1) Women are 34 % more likely than men to abuse children in general (p 65, US Dept Health & Human services “Child Maltreatment Report 2008)
1.2) Women are 111% more likely than men to abuse their own children (272,000 mothers and 128,000 fathers (p. 51 of the same report).
1.3) Women are 110% more likely than men to murder their own children (358 mothers and 170 fathers, p. 62 of the same report)
Misguided collective presumption of guilt for all men hurts both men and women:
Men are hurt for obvious reasons by a sickening sexist policy that shames and degrades all men for crimes that are primarily perpetuated by women.
Women are hurt also, since the wide-spread perception of men as ‘depraved predators’ who are untrustworthy around vulnerable people makes it extremely difficult for any man to choose nurturing careers such as father, home-maker, or caretaker. Consequently, the majority of this (mostly unpaid) work ends up on the shoulders of women.”
David, this would be a great time for a new topic.
ReplyDeleteKirk out!
"Now I understand...
ReplyDeleteI have the privilege to become a heavyweight boxing champion.
Thank you for enlightening me."
Do you want to become the heavyweight boxing champion? If so, you could give it a shot. Of course most people will fail at that. But no one is stopping you from trying.
Probably you have other goals. You seem to see women and feminism as standing in the way of those goals. I, personally, have never experienced that. I've pursued chemical engineering (failed, but not because of women) filmmaking (jury's out, but lots of women have supported me and helped me on my way), fatherhood (WIN, big assist to the womenfolk especially my lovely wife), computer support (now retired, but it sustained and supported me for ten years - my best boss was a woman), and many other pursuits, successful and not.
I just don't really understand what is it about feminism and, frankly, femininity itself that is repressing you. Women think you're creepy and don't want to fuck you? Reading between the lines, it sounds like you moved somewhere else where cultural expectations of men are different and now women don't think you're creepy. Good idea! That worked for a friend of mine and he's happily married to a Japanese woman.
So what's the problem?
Witman I hope all that gleeful posting after someone seemingly managed to get into my account, access my Google info and delete my most recent comment (which showed up at first, so I imagine someone deleted it) isn't you gloating! Cause whoever did that is the biggest baby the world has ever known. I wouldn't be proud of being a baby, but to each their own I guess.
ReplyDeleteAnyway ruomyesjnick and Yohan, I responded to you but the comment was deleted by someone other than me.
This is strange, change your password and choose a very complicated one.
ReplyDeleteNobody else, except the owner of this blog (David) and you, log-in with your account can delete your postings.
Spamfilter?
Raul Groom: I just don't really understand
ReplyDelete....Reading between the lines, it sounds like you moved somewhere else where cultural expectations of men are different
That worked for a friend of mine and he's happily married to a Japanese woman.
So what's the problem?
Yes, I did the same, moving 3 decades ago into Japan and never back.
I do not have any problems now. - However I share my experience and help as MRA other men to avoid some serious mistakes in their life.
I try to calm down angry Western men and advice them not to do something which might be illegal.
For sure, all what I can say out of my experience, any contact with a Western female in a Western country is a high risk and might turn out as a financial disaster for the man, even he did nothing wrong and had the best intention.
In countries outside of US/UK/EU - away from feminist laws - the situation for the man as husband or father is clearly better.
Women might be the same, but laws are not the same everywhere.
Spamfilter?
ReplyDeleteThat's what I'm thinking, too.
"For sure, all what I can say out of my experience, any contact with a Western female in a Western country is a high risk and might turn out as a financial disaster for the man, even he did nothing wrong and had the best intention."
ReplyDeleteThere is a certain specific type of man for whom that seems to be the case. There may be some value in encouraging those types of men to leave the West, or to avoid women.
What you also seem to understand is that there is another type of man who does not have this problem. You have lots of derogatory terms for these men. But can't you see that it is in fact better to be a mangina, to enjoy the company of women and not risk disaster?
I said, any contact with a Western female in a Western country is a high risk.
ReplyDeleteIt's like a lottery, some woman might be good, some woman might be bad. Prenups are worthless.
How do you know, who is who?
It's the woman who decides. She needs you, she keeps you.
Laws are against you, because you are a man.
If she does not need you anymore, she goes with somebody else, gets pregnant from him, kicks you out and you still have to pay child support for her child and she is living with her boyfriend in your former house - and you are living in a van, as there is not even a shelter for you.
As divorce rates are often 50+ percent, so you can imagine how risky a marriage is for a man and why many young men in Europe are not interested anymore in family and children.
Alimony in UK to the ex-wife might be as long as for 40 years after divorce, did you know that?
"If she does not need you anymore, she goes with somebody else, gets pregnant from him, kicks you out and you still have to pay child support for her child and she is living with her boyfriend in your former house - and you are living in a van, as there is not even a shelter for you."
ReplyDeleteIf this is the norm somewhere, I agree that legal system is in need of reform.
It's not the norm where I live, or anywhere I ever have lived. I have a sneaking suspicion, though, that we're talking about a single specific case. It might be illuminating if you provided more detail about what actually happened.
"Laws are against you, because you are a man."
ReplyDeleteAnd yet, it's laughable how the nutty feminists keep claiming that males are a more privileged gender than women.
The evidence can be right at their face such as the obvious anti-male laws in America, and yet they are dumb enough to still say men are privileged.
Here is an interesting and memorable article on female privilege. This one is a few years old but it’s a very good speech.
Guilt by genitalia
http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/1007/1007thomasguilt.htm
"Pam said...
ReplyDeleteSpamfilter?
That's what I'm thinking, too."
Nope, it wasn't the spamfilter because my post showed up and then disappeared. I then got a warning from Google that there was suspicious activity on my account. Definitely strange, but probably just a hiccup.
M's post wasn't spam filtered. (Nor did I delete it.) I'm as baffled as she is; hopefully it was just some weird glitch.
ReplyDelete