Let's start with a comment so delightfully loopy I went ahead and screencapped it, for no good reason. Nergal suggested that women over 40 weren't worth dating. Another commenter challenged him on this, which resulted in this response:
Now, granted, I've never actually seen deflated balloons half-filled with cottage cheese, but I, er, have seen recent photos of Jennifer Aniston topless. And I'm guessing there isn't really much resemblance. Anyone else thinking of that line in 40 Year-Old Virgin in which Andy compares a woman's breast to a bag of sand? Seriously, if you're going to throw Jennifer Aniston out of your bed, do it because of The Bounty Hunter. Or Love Happens. Or The Break-up. Or Marley And Me. Or All About Steve. (Oh, wait, that was Sandra Bullock.)
Meanwhile, The Man On The Street attacked evil women for deceiving men by wearing makeup:
Women’s supposed integrity, empathy, and virtue has been proven time and time again to be a farce. A mask. Just as the phony paint (made of foreskin and feotus’) that many women use to fool silly beta types into believing the false front of beauty.
Herbal Essence -- not to be confused with the shampoo of the same name -- lamented that "online dating is a female candyland of power trips, validation-seeking, and ego boosts," and related how he totally put down some dumb broad he met online. I would bet good money that whatever happened between Herbal and his alleged date did not actually go down this way:
I once had a 2 month-long relationship with a girl. She flaked once without explanation (the third date) and I told her very politely but firmly not to do it again. She did it again three weeks later, and I sent her a text that said “You’re dumped.” Two hours later, I had a hysterically crying girl on my doorstep, begging for my forgiveness. I told her “In the age of cell phones there is simply no excuse to disrespect my time like that. Go home.” and shut the door in her face.
Big Daddy from Cincinnati, the author of the post that started the discussion, added a few more thoughts. including this bit of advice:
For the purpose of finding pump-and-dumps, don’t mention anything that sounds like conservative political views in your profile. The ones most likely to let you lick it and stick it will think you are an asshole if you espouse these views, no matter how logical you are in presenting them. Getting nookie is an emotional, not logical, process. Deal with it.
Yeah. I'm sort of thinking that a guy who uses the phrases "pump and dump" and "lick it and stick it" will set off asshole warning alarms in most women even if he doesn't start blabbing on and on about how much he loves Glenn Beck. Interesting, though, how women wearing makeup is an evil act of deception, but a dude trying to conceal his retrograde political leanings is a-ok.
Firepower wins the award for brevity with this little gem of misogyny:
Playing hollowed-out courtship rituals with single-mom manatees stoked with anti-depressants (mainly SSRIs) is no great calling for a man.
But WGMOW wins some points for managing to compare women on dating sites to two different animals at once:
[M]ost of the women on the “serious” dating sites tend to look like elephants and/or have the intellect of a howler money. But they’ve been schooled by the dating industry to believe that they are beautiful on the inside, and that you, as a man, are shallow if you can’t sense their inner beauty. However, don’t expect one of these monsters to look for your inner handsomeness, only your wallet. Despite the fact that they claim to be strong and independent, they are just looking for a man who can “Support them in the style I’m entitled to.”
Keyster suggested that any man who decides to go ahead and date one of these SSRI-taking elephant-manatee-monkey women should make sure to illegally record their sexual encounters so he won't be accused of breaking any laws:
[I]f you insist on persuing pooh-tang for fun, ALWAYS have a recording device rolling. Preferrably a video camera. You don’t want your life ruined by a bitter revenge seeking shrew. Remember all they have to do is dial three numbers 9, 1 and 1, and you’re screwed for life. Protect yourself!
I'll end this little compilation with the always-quotable Peter-Andrew:Nolan(c), who attacks women for ... not wanting to have sex with robots. Seriously.
You women endlessly moan on about how terrible us men are. Yet how much are you spending on creating your ideal robotic men? NOT ONE CENT. Why? Because you don’t want the man, you want what the man provides. Today measured in money. No-one is going to pay a robotic man to work so he won’t bring you what you so clearly want. MONEY.
On the other hand? How much money are MEN spending on robotic women? LOTS. And why are they doing so? Because they percieve that there is a MASSIVE market for robotic women. Why? Because they will be EASILY preferable to the VAST MAJORITY of real women. For a start they will have an OFF BUTTON.
Something tells me that when the sexy robot ladies arrive at last, there will be men on the internet complaining about what a bunch of bitches they are.
--
If you enjoyed this post, would you kindly* use the "Share This" or one of the other buttons below to share it on Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, or wherever else you want. I appreciate it.
"Why? Because you don’t want the man, you want what the man provides."
ReplyDeleteHahaha, completely missing the fact that what a man provides could never be provided by a robot. That is, connection with another human being and love.
This quote shows that the poster does not understand the value of other people as thinking, feeling beings. A perfect robot would fit just as well, the only difference he sees is that the robot doesn't have a job (also why couldn't a robot have a job in this future?).
I thought that us ugly girls were supposed to wear make-up so that we can better ourselves and become deserving of a relationship. But apparently if we do that we're just being lying bitches.
ReplyDeleteOh, we're also not allowed to get older. Hear that women- get turned into vampires right now before you hit 40 and become unworthy of sexual contact.
As much as some MRAs try to argue that this type of talk is just what women do, it isn't. Women don't degrade men like this. In fact, most women together talking about dating will focus on what women can do to help themselves. It's about learning to be happy while single. That's the thing that you'll see over and over again when single women are talking. It isn't male bashing but talking about how to learn to be happy alone.
Where are the MRAs talking about this? And I mean talking about being really alone- not alone with your collection of sexbots. That is so creepy. Why would someone want to have a fake relationship with an object? I like my vibrator as much as the next girl but I don't want to dress it up and have dinner with it.
Interesting thing on the political views...every guy I have met off of AFF was or is a conservative/Republican. It is weird actually.
ReplyDeleteElizabeth
ReplyDeleteYou think that's weird. I've been cruising around BDSM sites/forums for a few years.
Now before I go further, you are probably thinking me with masculine views in here, I would be a patriarchal master/dom. In fact, I not a dominant nor a submissive. I am just curious to explore different experiences from being on the bottom, not a submissive or slave.
Anyway, the point I am wanting to make is that most dominant women I have had chats with either in forums or in private chats and the topic feminism somehow comes up, they claim to be feminists. Even the ones who claim to have an interest in female supremacy. That really makes me think of their true motivations of being a feminist.
The one’s in forums who appear to have the most strong views or appear to be highly interested in the feminist scene seem to have an interest in female supremacy in their interest list.
So you have a certain kink, and you manage to find some women online who are a perfect match for your kink, and then you get mad at them for being feminists?
ReplyDeleteFWIW, there are plenty of subs who are feminists too. The BDSM culture, in working out rules to keep people safe, has been heavily influenced by feminist thinking about consent. So it's not surprising that many women in that subculture, whether they are tops or bottoms or both, would be feminist.
Who said I got mad because they are feminists, David?
ReplyDeleteWhy aren't you making the same type of criticism towards Elizabeth?
My point was that the majority of dominant women on them sites mention that they are pro feminist. And to make it raise my curiosity even more, many of them are into female supremacy too.
"The BDSM culture, in working out rules to keep people safe, has been heavily influenced by feminist thinking about consent."
How is this ONLY feminist thinking? Are non feminists or anti-feminists non-consensual?
Well, you said you questioned "their true motivations of being a feminist."
ReplyDeleteAs for consent, people on MRA/MGTOW sites regularly mock or complain about attempts to make sure consent is completely clear. Many MRAs/MGTOW think that the idea that a person can take away consent in the middle of a sex act -- an idea that is central to the BDSM notion of safewords -- is ludicrous. I think that anyone who doesn't think you can say "no" after saying "yes" would be a very dangerous sex partner, and even more dangerous in the context of BDSM.
I can't wait for a poster to chime in to say that David wrote all those posts.
ReplyDeleteI am just curious to explore different experiences from being on the bottom, not a submissive or slave.
ReplyDeleteOh, for fucks sake. BDSM circles are generally hostile to feminism and if you feel the need to distinguish between "bottom," "submissive," and "slave" you damn well know that.
nick, a lot of women claim to be feminists but don't care about the exploitation of human beings. When approached with certain women's issues they are very resistant to clear cut information about inequality even when manifesting as abuse. Some let an empty "progressive" agenda come first. When someone says they are a feminist, one never knows what that means until it's explained. There are many women who understand what feminism has done for women and so feel it's disrespectful to claim they are not feminists, but aren't personally sitting around pondering the issues enough to speak on them. Also there are feminists on websites that will attack people that research the sex industry and LOVE mras, because they both feel the same way about exploitation. There is one MRA on youtube that swears up and down he does not care about rape, and we thought with his first video he was trolling, but he came out with a second one just like scarecrow did with his blog, reiterating that he really does feel that way. There are "feminists" who scream, don't you DARE say I am not a feminist, who support him and consider other feminists who discuss exploitation enemies, and yes, this really goes on.
ReplyDeleteThe point here is, we never know what that means,when someone identifies as feminist, really. There are lots of feminists that would question my feminism, because I do have a streak of theism in me that will never go away, I think.
i'm constantly amused by things like this -
ReplyDeleteon the one hand, women are bitchs for going to college and paying my own way - we should go "back to the kitchen" and etc...
but then we're "evil" for staying in the kitchen and being supported by our husband/boyfriend/whatever.
look, if you insist that "your" woman doesn't work, you don't get to be angry that she's "living off of you".
i swear, the lack of logic would be sad, if it wasn't so funny :)
What's the point of singling out SSRIs? I mean I know lots of people who stigmatize use of psychoactive medications, but do SSRIs say something different in the minds of those stigmatizers than other antidepressants? Color me bemused.
ReplyDelete@nick: A lot of the BDSM model of consent has been taken from feminist academic work on the issue of consent.
ReplyDeletePeter-Andrew:Nolan(c)doesn't think that investment in computers and other labor saving machines replace "man"power? Or does he not think that any money is being spent to create those things? Or do they not count because women don't want to have sex with them?
Sophia: "BDSM circles are generally hostile to feminism"
ReplyDeleteI'm no expert, but most of the people I've run across who are into BDSM are feminists.
triplanetary: I was wondering that about SSRIs myself; several commenters brought them up. Maybe it's the only kind of antidepressant they've ever heard of.
Or maybe they have some sort of side-effect fetish; some old-school tricyclic antidepressants make breasts bigger (for guys too). Of course, they can also cause paralyzed intestines, black tongue, "change in skin pigmentation and star-shaped opacities on the eyes."
http://www.crazymeds.us/tca.html
@David:
ReplyDeleteThe relationship between BDSM and feminism can be kind of complex, but the basic idea is that feminist thought is unnecessary in an environment where power roles are spelled out and agreed to ahead of time. Also, a lot of feminists are hostile to BDSM, due to what they percieve as the fetishization of inequality.
"Well, you said you questioned "their true motivations of being a feminist."
ReplyDeleteDavid, I think it would raise most people’s curiosity if a woman claims to be a feminist and also claims to be into female supremacy or want female led relationships. There is obviously a huge contradiction here that makes the person look silly.
I think any feminist who identifies as a sub/slave or dominant in a relationship is silly as feminists have aggressively ranted about patriarchy/male led relationships an awful lot.
Being a top or bottom is one thing but being a sub/slave or dominant is another as it’s totally not about equality in day to day life in most aspects throughout a relationship.
About what MRA/MGTOW people say, I don’t believe many would have that insane view. I do think there are a lot of really young guys on there that like to flame random offensive BS for their own kicks. There are also some older men who simply have some messed up views. But that aside, places like that are a target for shock jocks who say things they don’t really mean. I am not an MRA nor MGTOW. I do browse through them sites rarely though.
What a ridiculous notion, women buying sex toys instead of dating men! Can you imagine such a device? I bet you can't find anything like that at your local sex shop. Especially not lining an entire wall or more...the mere thought makes me vibrate with laughter.
ReplyDeleteMy point is super subtle!
Anyway...the "foreskin and foetus" quote is another t-shirt contender. Seriously, what the FUCK?!?
missyb9479- it'd be no good. Everyone knows that female vampires turn into lesbians.
ReplyDelete(TVTropes link redacted, because I'm not cruel.)
Niko-- The whole point of non-crazy-person feminism is that people get to choose what they want to do, not simply conform to gender roles. Therefore, you can want to be a dominant or a slave, and still consider yourself feminist-- because you chose the power-dynamics relationship, because it gets you off.
ReplyDeleteWow...that robot sex guy could write for The Onion. Hilarious!
ReplyDelete"BDSM circles are generally hostile to feminism and if you feel the need to distinguish between "bottom," "submissive," and "slave" you damn well know that."
ReplyDeleteUhhh... whut?
I've spent more than a few years in 'BDSM circles' and have yet to see proof that's true. If I've learned anything, it's that the BDSM subculture is like any other group - comprised of diverse people. They tend towards feminism, just because most of the participants, having worked out their kinks, have rejected at least a few heteronormative assumptions about sex. Also, there's an emphasis on all parties having a good time, safe sex, communication and respect for boundaries - which are all things which feminists advocate. That being said, I've run across a few women I wouldn't classify as feminist, a few men who were creepy misogynists and people of both genders who needed a therapist more than they needed a spanking.
Some feminists may disagree with the notion of BDSM because they think it's exploitive. But, again, that's the funny thing about feminists - they're also people. People who can do things like agree on a few core principles but disagree on the details. Why, I've even known feminists who have had the complicated viewpoint that they disagreed with BDSM on a theoretical basis, but didn't think they had the right to prevent adults from engaging in consensual power exchange. This particular feminist disagrees strongly with the notion that BDSM is anti-feminist. I personally think that any sex act between consenting, passionate adults who are enjoying themselves is an act of love - no matter what it might look like on the outside.
And also, 'bottom,' 'submissive' and 'slave' all have different connotations. 'Bottom' is a pretty much catch-all term, the person who pretends to surrender their power. 'Submissive', 'slave' and 'masochist' all have more specific definitions about what that power exchange looks like. You can be a submissive without being a masochist, be a masochist without being a slave or be a slave without being a submissive - but they're all technically bottoms.
All these bizarre, self-defesting notions about dating. If only they had someone to help them out. Someone who knew what he was doing. Someone like...
ReplyDeleteSGT. ROCK!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OfrQDQfbRJY
Lady Victoria von Syrus
ReplyDeleteTo me, a bottom is someone who only likes to be dominated in the bedroom in a sex game. Other than that, he/she is equal to the other person. Outside the bedroom or within the relationship, no one has the upper hand or no one leads.
Lady Victoria von Syrus said...
ReplyDelete"They tend towards feminism, just because most of the participants, having worked out their kinks, have rejected at least a few heteronormative assumptions about sex."
They tend towards feminism because they are female supremacists who see BDSM as a way of acting out what they want to act out in real life but can't because feminism hasn't 'progressed' that far yet.
You feminists would eagerly agree that guys who play first person shooters are acting out what they'd like to do to folks in real life.
But when it comes to a woman into BDSM it's all fantasy.
'You feminists would eagerly agree that guys who play first person shooters are acting out what they'd like to do to folks in real life.'
ReplyDeleteNo, video games are all fantasy, too. I don't have a problem with violent video games - I personally enjoy the Wolfenstein and Left 4 Dead franchises (and Grand Theft Auto - though it's not a FPS, it's certainly got a lot of flak for being violent). When I've had a bad day, nothing cheers me up like wasting a few hundred zombies.
What you don't seem to understand is that the male bottom in a BDSM scene has consented. In fact, there's a good chance he has *paid* for the session. He wants to be there. Likely, he has negotiated his fantasies, desires and boundaries with his top. If he wants to stop, he uses the safe word and everything stops. There is, in BDSM, a presumption of equality - all participants have equal needs and desires, regardless of gender or what the scene might look like after it starts. It's a game - that's why they call it play.
Out of curiosity - if you believe that all women who are into topping men in BDSM are female supremacists acting out their 'true desires,' what do you think of the male tops? What about when a man tops another man, or a woman tops a woman? What if the principals switch roles halfway through the scene?
"In fact, there's a good chance he has *paid* for the session."
ReplyDeleteWhere do you get this theory from? Your ass?
There are plenty of female dominants who simply top instead of dominating a man's whole life or relationship. I look into relationships all the time in places like fetlife and see this commonly.
I have never paid a pro domme and I never will. These women are a waste of space and a waste of money. They are leeches in the scene, just like the one's who seek financial slavery.
Out of curiosity - if you believe that all women who are into topping men in BDSM are female supremacists acting out their 'true desires,' what do you think of the male tops? What about when a man tops another man, or a woman tops a woman? What if the principals switch roles halfway through the scene?
I know you are directing this post at evilwhitemalempire. But what I want to point out within the BDSM scene, the accusation of misogyny get's thrown around a lot easier towards male dominants than misandry does towards female dominants.
I think misandry is totally rampant throughout the BDSM scene and I guess misogyny is too.
'Where do you get this theory from? Your ass?'
ReplyDeleteThe fact that there are a lot of pro Dommes out there who are somehow getting enough sessions to pay their bills. I didn't say that the man was certainly paying, or even almost certainly - just that there was a good chance he was.
You are certainly free to disagree with the notion of paying a Domme, but the fact remains that there is a large group of men who are more than happy to pay for their sessions. No one is forcing them to pay - it's a choice they're making of their own free will, after evaluating all their available options and choosing the one that suits them best.
"what do you think of the male tops?"
ReplyDeleteDo they not creep you out?
You think they don't fantasize about rape?
You think that in their fantasies (the ones played out only in their heads) that their victims consent beforehand?
Do they still not creep you out?
@nick, it is not true that sub or slave necessarily applies outside of the bedroom either. I think you are confusing 24/7 with subbing. Someone can both sub inside the bedroom and be equal outside of it. Victoria is right, they refer to preferrence for specific types of sex acts/scenes. They aren't even necessarily meshed as simply as she puts it either. A masochist can top while recieving pain. As a switch who has done both men and women, and actually been involved in BDSM scenes that were pure internet based, my experience is that tops disease is far more common amoung men. Accusations of misogyny get thrown out far more often because it is far more common. First, because it is far more common in western culture, period. But also because we live in a culture with expectations that men be the dominant or active sexual partner and that women be passive and submissive. Also, last time I checked, those that thought a male top was misogynist per se (rather than just pointing out common misogynist ideas that were showing up in BDSM circles as well or a specific person's misogyny) tend to have pretty negative views about the female subs as well. And female doms are routinely accused of beng man hating over masculine bitches and male subs accused of being unmasculine for subbing (<-see how that ties into the notion that subbing in sex is for women and domming is masculine?). Most anti-BDSM sentiment out there isn't coming from feminist quarters (not that there aren't anti-BDSM feminists, but "liberal feminism" is far more popular right now that "radical feminism" so it isn't even a majority of feminists who are anti-BDSM).
ReplyDelete> You feminists would eagerly agree that guys who play first person shooters are acting out what they'd like to do to folks in real life.
ReplyDeleteNo. I would not agree to that. Now STFU so I can go back to playing Call of Duty.
"You women endlessly moan on about how terrible us men are. Yet how much are you spending on creating your ideal robotic men? NOT ONE CENT."
ReplyDeleteSee, for all that Peter-Andrew:Nolan(c) ((c)?) comes off as a worryingly rage-filled lunatic in that thread - all "Western women are evil money-grubbing whores who hate all men and only want us for our money, and I shall prove it by giving you a link to my annotated court documents from my divorce, which I happen to have here on my website as evidence for all those other young men who might some day think about marrying someone female, and I will keep doing this until Western women apologise for everything they've ever done!' -, I have to give him credit for one of the most hilarious lines I've ever seen quoted on here. Seriously, I stand in awe.
Nick, as others have pointed out wanting a female lead relationship doesn't mean you believe in female supremacy anymore than wanting a male lead one means you believe in male supremacy. It's just kink. You can get off on/be emotionally comforted by being lead by the opposite sex, and still believe that you are equal.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete""what do you think of the male tops?"
ReplyDeleteDo they not creep you out?
You think they don't fantasize about rape?
You think that in their fantasies (the ones played out only in their heads) that their victims consent beforehand?
Do they still not creep you out? "
They frighten me if they don't know the line between fantasy and reality (which would be a few, disturbed individuals). Otherwise I think they are just dandy. "Creep out" is not the right word in either case.
Nick-my reason for finding it weird is that it has been consistent.
ReplyDeleteAnd unlike you, I am not viewing it as a bad thing. Just odd.
There's a difference between fantasizing about acting out a consensual rape scene and really wanting to rape someone. Many people who have rape fantasies do not actually want to rape/be raped. They want to act out an intense fantasy scenario with a consenting partner.
ReplyDeleteIf a male top did actually want to rape someone, he's not only a bad top, he's a terrible human being and I want nothing to do with him. If he wants to act out a rape fantasy, that's something entirely different.
Either you are completely ignorant of the BDSM scene and ethics, or you're being purposefully obtuse. You certainly don't seem to understand the emphasis and importance that is placed on consent in the scene. A good top wants his/her bottom to also enjoy their playtime and doesn't want to play with someone who doesn't really want to play with them.
Thank you, Dave, for this post. Reading comments from Spearhead provided Mrs. Bathrobe and me with hours of mutually shared hilarity. It's kind of a guilty pleasure, though--sort of like gawking at an old-timey freak show, but instead of people with disabilities, the attraction is people with really, really stupid ideas. Come to think of it, this describes most of the internet, as well.
ReplyDeleteLady Victoria-I have a feeling that Nick is all too often trying to be purposely obtuse.
ReplyDelete@ Elizabeth:
ReplyDeleteLikely he is, but I tend to err on the side of caution when it comes to defending BDSM.
Oh, and my own comments were mostly directed at evilwhitemaleempire, who believes that all female Dominas are secretly (or not so secretly) female supremacists, rather than Nick.
ReplyDeleteCaptain Bathrobe is my favorite Boobz poster.
ReplyDeleteNice job, David!
Of course I am also David.
Aw shucks, Sandy, you done made me blush! :) Thanks for the kind words.
ReplyDeleteI suppose this is the "pat on the head" that I'm supposed to have been seeking from feminists (according to one of our MRA friends) by posting here. Well, it was every bit as good as I imagined it to be. :) Thanks.
I'm sorry David, but is this article suggesting that someone who doesn't feel the same way about relationships as you do, someone who isn't interested in commitment, is somehow a misogynist? I just want to clarify, because really, many of the quotes you displayed seem to suggest that the poster is superficial, but not misogynistic. granted, there are some rather low brow individuals, other angry ones, but overall, I don't see any misogynists, as non seem to indicate all women are as described, merely the women they are dealing with on dating sites or whatnot? Would I bring wrong to identify women on AshlyMadison.com as whores and adulterers? what about my identifying women on sugerdaddyforme.com as gold diggers? Do these generalizations make me a misogynist? if not, is it only because you feel the same way?
ReplyDeleteAs for your comment:
"Interesting, though, how women wearing makeup is an evil act of deception, but a dude trying to conceal his retrograde political leanings is a-ok. "
You are looking at two different peoples comments and equating them to be coming from the same person or ideal. Why can't one person see the deceit as despicable and another see that same deceit as fair game to perform deceit of their own? Why the assumption of the double standard? The person who said women's deceit was despicable never said that men being deceitful was acceptable, and the guy being deceitful never said that women's deceit was unacceptable. You are aware people are allowed to have differing opinions on things? Not everyone needs to think and react in the exact same way. I feel the need to point this out to you because you are making that mistake repeatedly through this article, starting with the assumption that your way of thinking of relationships is the only right way.
Booboo: "The point here is, we never know what that means,when someone identifies as feminist, really. There are lots of feminists that would question my feminism, because I do have a streak of theism in me that will never go away, I think."
let me give you a clue what anyone who isn't a feminist identifies a feminist as being... When the term "I am a feminist" is used, the only people a non feminist has to identify with are those in the public eye who identify themselves as feminists, and they generally tend to be the women that are accusing men of all being rapist (in hostile ad campaigns identifying male children as "Potential rapist" hung in grade school libraries), or women claiming that for rape cases, the presumption of innocent until proven guilty should be thrown away, and a man should go to jail solely on a woman's whim unless he can prove she gave and maintained consent (how, with video recording?). or perhaps the women who identify as prominent feminist activists claiming a female minister is "hopeless and unqualified" for thinking the idea of any consensual sex is rape is ridiculous, that boys failing in school need to be looked into, and that boys and men need a voice in government and so opened a department for them under her ministry? Does that really sound like grounds for being labeled as hopeless and unqualified?
Kratch: "overall, I don't see any misogynists, as non seem to indicate all women are as described"
ReplyDeleteIf you don't see any misogynists there, there is something drastically wrong with your eyesight. Here's a hint: When someone uses a phrase like "women are [insert horrible generalization about women]" that is a clue that they just might be a raging misogynist.
See if you can find the misogyny in these quotes:
"Women’s supposed integrity, empathy, and virtue has been proven time and time again to be a farce."
"You women endlessly moan on about how terrible us men are. Yet how much are you spending on creating your ideal robotic men? NOT ONE CENT. Why? Because you don’t want the man, you want what the man provides."
Some other clues: guys who think all women above 40 are too ugly and/or worn out to date, including Jennifer Aniston, guys who brag about dumping women in a cavalier fashion for some ridiculous transgression, guys who regularly refer to women they consider fat as "manatees." That sort of thing.
"men need a voice in government " This fucking cracked me up. Considering that men make up a majority of the government in every country in the world (Rwanda is the sole exception and the the margin was 56 to 44 percent for the parliment in a country that is 55% female).
ReplyDeleteI suspect that the universe in which Katch lives is a completely fictional one.
"men need a voice in government " This fucking cracked me up. Considering that men make up a majority of the government in every country in the world (Rwanda is the sole exception and the the margin was 56 to 44 percent for the parliment in a country that is 55% female).
ReplyDeleteAnd a large portion of those men are like David, incapable of seeing men's problems as anything but their own problems to deal with, even if it's the law or family courts that are screwing them over. just because men are in government does not mean they have a voice. Government officials are required to act equitably and unbiased... well, except for ministers for the status of women and whatnot (different countries have different names), who's actual job description requires being biased towards one gender. the fact there is not a legal counterpart has resulted in a plethora of problems that have been ignored or trivialized, and many others that have developed that wouldn't have if there was a balance in government. the fact you are blind to this doesn't bode well for your own credibility.
Let me ask you this... It has been known for 40 years that men are also victims in domestic abuse. Depending on what reports you look at or whether you look at perpetration vs outcome, you will come to different conclusions on to what degree they are victims in relation to women, but this is all irrelevant, men have absolutely NO resources to which they can make use of when they are the victims of Domestic abuse. If men have such a voice in government, why then are only women getting any resources at all? Why are laws being passed that actually defines abuse as a man on women offense and not defined regardless of gender. Why are women who are waking up their boyfriends by slapping them across the head repeated, and then when he doesn't take it like a punching bag, she can justifiably kill the abuser and walk away scott free, no jail time? throughout history, women have always been in the forefront of men's decision making. you may want to pretend otherwise because your modern expectations don't fit into past dynamics, but that's your problem, not ours.
missyb9479: “As much as some MRAs try to argue that this type of talk is just what women do, it isn't. Women don't degrade men like this. In fact, most women together talking about dating will focus on what women can do to help themselves.”
ReplyDeleteMaybe not so much these days, but in the early years of the feminist movement, angry feminists were far more degrading and damaging then angry MRA’s are today. Even today, you don’t see government-sponsored posters on the walls of grade school libraries with images of young girls labelled “potential gold diggers”. There have been posters of young boys labelled “Future abuser”. In colleges, you don’t see posters of pregnant women labelled extortionist, you do see rapist on images of men. Which would you rather be labelled? A manatee or a violent criminal?
"Women’s supposed integrity, empathy, and virtue has been proven time and time again to be a farce."
ReplyDeleteThe generalization that women are empathic, virtuous, innocent, pure, nurturers has been proven false repeatedly. Every week there is a new article about some female teacher that has “seduced” her underage student. Not a day goes by that I don’t see a women prove one of these attributes false, but I can go weeks without seeing one of them proven true. This person’s assertion is no different then claiming the accusation of men being violent is also false, except that the false perception of women is a positive one and the false perception of men is a negative one. Is it really misogynistic to acknowledge what you believe to be a false perception? I still see both misrepresentations perpetuated by people time and time again.
"You women endlessly moan on about how terrible us men are. Yet how much are you spending on creating your ideal robotic men? NOT ONE CENT. Why? Because you don’t want the man, you want what the man provides."
Which part? The women moaning endlessly or the not building robots? Or perhaps it’s the accusation that what women want from men isn’t something a robot can provide? I’m not to particular on the whole replacing women with robots concept, not that this guy is advocating that (in this quote. Just acknowledging that a handful of men are vying for that goal), but the question valid, regardless of how disturbing. If you’re referring to the generalization that women are constantly moaning about how terrible us men are, then you don’t spend enough time with single women… that’s your problem. There are ample enough examples of that generalization being perpetrated on this very website, enough so to justify the generalization. You can claim it’s not a true generalization, but to claim it’s misogynistic is well beyond reaching.
If your talking about the question about robot men… it’s a question, and he answers it correctly, no money is being spent on developing robot men… This isn’t misogynistic.
As to the accusation of women wanting something a robot can’t provide… aside from some of your followers agreeing with that statement, it likely comes from this kind of study, that suggests that, as of 1990, 40% of women wanted to “marry up”, up 100% from 1950. If the trend continued, that would put 60-80% of women wanting to marry up… not something a robot can provide. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/8237298/What-women-really-want-to-marry-a-rich-man.html
So you’ll need to be more clear, where is the misogyny? Remember, just because you don’t like it, or find it vile/disturbing, doesn’t make it misogyny.
“guys who think all women above 40 are too ugly and/or worn out to date, including Jennifer Aniston, “
Being shallow is not misogyny.
guys who brag about dumping women in a cavalier fashion for some ridiculous transgression
Being shallow is not misogyny.
guys who regularly refer to women they consider fat as "manatees."
Being shallow and vulgar is not misogyny.
You really need to look up the definition again.
"A manatee or a violent criminal? "
ReplyDeleteUm, neither. Why do you think one justifies the other?
Also, the point of the future abuser campaign was NOT that all boys are destined to abuse. It was that children who witness abuse are more likely to abuse themselves. The shock of the campaign comes from the boy's innocence.
Kratch-that was then, this is now.
ReplyDeleteAlso, most of the law I have seen regarding domestic violence is that whoever is the most dangerous is carted off to jail. That young woman who slapped her boyfriend in the face was wrong-but the reaction of punching her face with a fist shows he is not only wrong but of greater danger then she is. Perhaps to you this is not the case and the slap is exactly equal to a punch.
Men are also encouraged to speak up when they are being harmed by a female-they are given the right to ask for protective orders, to seek legal redress when she hits him, and to be upfront with the judge regarding it. There are shelters where he can seek refuge.
Also, the reason that women get those resources is because women banded together and they worked their butts off for it. I know a LOT of state legislators. They are generally lazy creatures who usually focus on their own pet projects. They have to be pushed and pushed hard to get things like funding for shelters and those funds are constantly in danger of being cut.
Men could do the same thing-no one is stopping them.
"Um, neither. Why do you think one justifies the other?"
ReplyDeleteirrelevant: missyb9479 said "Women don't degrade men like this". She was wrong. The question was rhetorical.
"Also, the point of the future abuser campaign was NOT that all boys are destined to abuse. It was that children who witness abuse are more likely to abuse themselves. The shock of the campaign comes from the boy's innocence."
Is that how the 8 year old boys are going to see it while plastered on their library walls? Don't be naive. It was an attack on the self esteem and moral of boys... or was the whole effort to inspire girls by showing them as successful athletes and professionals forgotten when making this campaign. really, ask yourself how showing girls as successful is a good thing while showing boys as "potential abusers" is also a good thing (except in the minds of man hating feminists)?
Elizabeth: “Kratch-that was then, this is now.”
ReplyDeleteIrrelevant. During the beginnings of the feminist movement, there was a lot of angry women that said a lot of awful things. If it wasn’t for this angry, the movement wouldn’t have grown so quickly, as the drive wouldn’t have been there. Now men are starting to get angry, and despite feminist efforts to suggest otherwise, there are ample good reasons for it. But now you have people like David picking out the angriest amongst them for display, pretending that, because feminist anger doesn’t fester in the same way (ANYMORE), that it is somehow unacceptable and feminists are above that kind of thing (they weren’t, even if that was then this is now). Your argument suggests that you can only be angry if feminists are angry, or back in the 70’s, not anymore. That’s ludicrous
”Also, most of the law I have seen regarding domestic violence is that whoever is the most dangerous is carted off to jail. “
VAWA… Violence Against WOMEN Act.
Perhaps this video will enlighten you. http://www.vimeo.com/1649038
Or perhaps an example of the policy that dictates police action, that assumes the abuser is the man and acts accordingly. http://www.endingviolence.org/files/uploads/vawir_policy_2004.pdf
Elizabeth: “That young woman who slapped her boyfriend in the face was wrong-but the reaction of punching her face with a fist shows he is not only wrong but of greater danger then she is. Perhaps to you this is not the case and the slap is exactly equal to a punch. “
Not sure what situation you’re talking about, but I’m referring to this one, where the man ended up DEAD, and his murderer got away with it. http://www.nationalpost.com/news/canada/case+fuels+debate+over+domestic+violence/4051267/story.html
”Men are also encouraged to speak up when they are being harmed by a female-they are given the right to ask for protective orders, to seek legal redress when she hits him, and to be upfront with the judge regarding it. There are shelters where he can seek refuge. “
Shelters? Care to name a few? There are homeless shelters, there are not abuse refuges. As for men being encouraged to speak out about it… ROFL.
”Also, the reason that women get those resources is because women banded together and they worked their butts off for it.”
So… because women worked for it, they should get it exclusively? So, all the things men have worked hard to build, we should get to keep that exclusively for men? Is that really the argument you’re trying to make? The funding is there, the law states the funding should be distributed to both sexes, there is no one in parliament who is speaking for men to ensure that happens, and that’s what I was told I was wrong about.
”Men could do the same thing-no one is stopping them.”
Actually yes, many feminists ARE stopping them. Just look at the opposition I’ve gotten simply for mentioning it. Errin Pizzey has received bomb threats and threats to her children and grandchildren for speaking out on behalf of male victims. Google her.
Elizabeth: I brought up DV as an example of men's voice not being represented in government. I think your last sentence..."Men could do the same thing-no one is stopping them" acknowledges that men don't have these things (even if the claim no-one is stopping them is naive). If men had the voice in government darksidecat says they did, we'd have it and wouldn't need to push.
ReplyDeleteIt amazes me how easily people get off point in this place. I wasn't talking about domestic abuse, I was talking about men not having a voice in government, and you completely ignored that part in order to debate the example...
The point is that men have a voice. They just need to use it. So if they do not have those things they want, then they are not using their voices.
ReplyDelete83.4% of the members of the US Congress are males. They have those men they can contact.
78.4% of the state wide elected officials are male in the US. They have those men they can contact.
76.7% of the state legislators are male. They have those men they can contact.
To claim that men have no voice is ludicrous on the surface of it and goes downhill from there.
Men have the perfect right to contact any of those elected officials in the United States and have their voice heard. They have the right-as written by other men-to petition their government for redress of their wrongs. They have the right (as long as it follows state or federal law) to run for office themselves if dissatisfied with the response.
That they fail to do so is not because of some sinister plot by women or feminists. Quit blaming women or feminists for standing up for their rights when your own sex refuses to stand up for theirs.
man, what's with how stupid gynophobes are?
ReplyDeleteKratch - I love how people like you blame women for providing an example of how all men are violent abusers, but when a woman gets raped it's her fault because she should have known it was going to happen, and men can't help themselves because of evolution or whatever excuse you come up with to excuse how dreadful you are.
I'm raising my sons not to rape and abuse women kind of the same way we raise our kids to share and not hit. It's worth mentioning, because every other source they're going to see and hear is going to tell them what a good idea it is, and how they can't be held responsible for the provocations of whores.
Good luck with your terrible opinions, I hope they don't get anyone else killed or hurt.
Won't someone please, PLEASE think of the men?
ReplyDelete*wrings hands*
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete*puts on a cape and yells* "I WILL!!!"
ReplyDeleteDarkSideCat
ReplyDelete"nick, it is not true that sub or slave necessarily applies outside of the bedroom either. I think you are confusing 24/7 with subbing. Someone can both sub inside the bedroom and be equal outside of it. Victoria is right, they refer to preferrence for specific types of sex acts/scenes."
Wrong, a sub simply submits to anything (except his limits) 24/7 regardless if its sexual or not. This includes any activity out of the bedroom such as being told to do domestic chores etc. Or even when the sub is not in the dom/dommes presence and in his/her own house.
A bottom is someone who simply only plays in the bedroom solely for sexual acts. When both people go outside the bedroom, the power play stops.
"Accusations of misogyny get thrown out far more often because it is far more common. First, because it is far more common in western culture, period"
What a load of fucking crap!
For just one single example how common misandry is; it’s common for a woman to judge a man as a potential user, rapist, or paedophile until proven otherwise all because he has a penis.
In the BDSM scene alone, if a man just simply shows lots of interest in his sexual fantasies, he is considered as a fake that just wants to use women in the name of BDSM. Yet females can express all they want about what sexual fantasies they crave in BDSM and never get shoot down by the community.
"But also because we live in a culture with expectations that men be the dominant or active sexual partner and that women be passive and submissive"
Another load of total baloney. Especially when women everywhere simply express to men one way or the other if men don't act like this or that or treat women like this or that, these men will never get laid.
If that's not domineering behaviour, what is?
Sandy
"Nick, as others have pointed out wanting a female lead relationship doesn't mean you believe in female supremacy"
I never ever said that. But as usual, feminists like to twist things around. Please indicate where I exactly said that female supremacy and female led relationships are the same thing?
My point is when I raised this topic, I expressed that many self proclaimed female supremacists in the BDSM scene also claim to be feminists. And these types seem to be the most interested in the feminism scene compared to others.
"Won't someone please, PLEASE think of the men?"
ReplyDeleteThat's the typical sexist feminist attitude towards men's issues.
It's mostly some sarcastic comment such as the one I quoted above or "what about teh menz"
Wow, I thought feminism was supposed to be against sexism and discrimination
Elizabeth, you are mistaking an individual voice to contact a politician with a voice that is a representative for the interests of the chosen target. Just because men are in office doesn't mean those men are representing the interests of men, they are representing the interests of everybody, and more often then not, women.
ReplyDeleteit is as simple as this. There is a representative specifically for women in government. Gender equality dictates that there should likewise be one for men, and there isn't. it doesn't matter how the rest of government is made up, as they are supported to be representing the best interests of the people, all people, and that includes women as much, if not moreso then men. So if that is good enough for men, it should likewise be good enough for women and no gender representatives should exist.
I consistently hear the claim that feminism is about gender equality, but when equality is asked for, that request is rejected. And people wonder why men are beginning to hate feminism, and realize it isn't about equality, but women/feminists getting their turn.
@ Kratch: You from Germany? Yeah, that attack from the manhaters on Ms Köhlerschröder was evil, wasn't it. I mean seriously, blaming that young lady who certainly first needs to find her place in the government for having done absolutely nothing for FAMILIES so far? How could they do that? Hello? She's a WOMAN! Some patience please.
ReplyDeletePoor lady, and she just said that lesbians shouldn't feel uncomfortable about straight sex and that women shouldn't complain about getting paid less than men, because women all get paid like cleaners, even though they work as engineers in reality.
Seriously, I don't get what the "fight" for men's rights is supposed to do with this post. So men being "critical of women" are allowed to spread their misogyny because they failed to create a male equivalent to feminism? Men's rights are one thing, stupid insults another. I'm telling ya, going on like this, you'll never reach your goal because no one will take you seriously.
See, that's exactly what has been mentioned so many times on this blog. You just sit there and troll feminist sites. And if someone tells you to actually do something about your complains, you find a thousand excuses not to do this and blame FEMInism for not focusing on men.
Elizabeth just said this above: Just think, what the feminists have done to achieve all this. What have you done so far?
And what is this supposed to do with this post's topic anyway? It's about misogynist comments from the Spearhead. Not a single mention of men's issues and the likes. David just points out that these so-called MRAs often DO hate women. There's no doubt about that, but no justification either.
Elizabeth: "Men have the perfect right to contact any of those elected officials in the United States and have their voice heard. They have the right-as written by other men-to petition their government for redress of their wrongs. They have the right (as long as it follows state or federal law) to run for office themselves if dissatisfied with the response. "
ReplyDeleteWomen likewise have these same rights. They likewise have the rights to contact those officials and have their voice heard. To petition fore redress of their wrongs. To run for office if they are dissatisfied. So why then is there still a government official specifically there to represent their issues? Why is it unreasonable to ask for the same, equal, representation for men?
You know ALL of those laws you hate? Do you think that those just came about because one day, some men woke up and said "I am so going to pass a law that gives Title IX funding to women sports in colleges."
ReplyDelete"I am going to write and pass a law that gives women the advantage in divorces because well gosh darn it, those little ladies deserve it!"
No, it is because women decided to get together and work to get what they wanted done. So in those places where the law seems to be ever so unfair to your gender? It had nothing to do with men suddenly deciding that being office means kowtowing to women-it means that they listened to the people talking to them. And again, nothing stops men from doing the same thing.
“And again, nothing stops men from doing the same thing. “
ReplyDeletePolitical correctness stops men from even opening their mouths about male issues as we get accused for being misogynist, weak, whiners, someone who can’t get laid, or just because females had it worse in the past, men are not entitled to complain about female advantage in the present.
If such strict political correct forms of poison didn't exists, there would be far more men trying to do something about it. In fact, these issues against men wouldn’t exists as we speak if such obstacles were not blocking that freedom
"Yeah, that attack from the manhaters on Ms Köhlerschröder was evil, wasn't it."
ReplyDeleteit was opposition to someone looking into the interests of boys.
"for having done absolutely nothing for FAMILIES so far"
She acknowledges boys are falling behind in school. She established a department for boys and men. Are boys and men not part of a family? Are women the only indicator of what a family is, and thus, anything that isn't specifically tailored towards women isn't family related?
"What have you done so far?"
I've contacted several government officials, asking questions, looking for answers. And have been systematically ignored.
"And what is this supposed to do with this post's topic anyway?"
Ask DarkSideCat, who choose to take a single comment out of a rather long post of mine, and turn it into a new discussion. Your tone seems to be directing the blame at me though. typical. just for clarification, I wasn't even claiming Boys and men needed voice in government (I do believe it), but instead was stating that Schroeder recognized that need.
Elizabeth. Those laws were passed by the men as well as the women in office. why the need for the special women minister? The fact you don't see my point, that you're not even trying, is really annoying. this isn't (just) about men getting specific complaints addressed, it is about equal representation in government. Having ministers who are gender neutral, but happen to have a penis, is not a representative for men, they are representatives for the people. The minister for the status of women (In Canada, whatever in the US) is not a gender neutral representative, she is specifically representing the interests of women.
ReplyDeleteIE, Government has an official that is specifically representing women's interests. Otherwise, all other representatives are gender neutral, regardless of their personal gender. In fact, if they do something that is in men's best interest, they will be accused of discrimination and misogyny and booted out of office. have you not seen the opposition to the presumption of shared parenting (unless deemed not in the best interests of the child) in custody agreements. Government officials are reluctant to even touch the issue, because it isn't desirable to the feminists who claim to represent women and equality (how is shared parenting not equal?), and they fear for their career's. Harvard's dean got sacked for nothing more then noting an observation that men seemed to do better in the sciences and maths.
Nick-for women to get the rights that men took, and still to a great extent take, for granted...they had to organize, march, petition, be threatened, spit upon, go on hunger strikes, be forcibly fed, die in custody, interrupt congressional hearings and spend decades pushing as hard as they can to get the same rights as men and/or equal at best treatment from the law and society.
ReplyDeleteThey were mocked, laughed at, told to go back to the kitchen, treated with disdain, yelled at, had things thrown at them, tossed into mental institutions...And the latter? That was just in the past thirty years to get things like DV shelters opened up. The right to have a bank account in their name. The right to have a job that they do not get fired from for getting pregnant. The chance for their daughters to play sports like they were not allowed to.
Men refuse to organize and do anything for themselves because of what? Someone might laugh at them? It is not PC? Since when are men so fragile that the very idea that a woman or another man might mock or yell at them makes it impossible for them to do anything?
Please, spare me the histrionics over that idea that men cannot organize for male rights.
Larry Summers was not sacked for that reason-he did resign six months later and was given a very generous package upon his resignation.
ReplyDeleteHe was censured for being a boob though.
Government officials who are too wimpy are being so because no one is bugging them about it. I know government officials-you ask them to do something and raise enough heat-they WILL act. So get off your duff and go demand that something happen.
"Nick-for women to get the rights that men took, and still to a great extent take, for granted...they had to organize, march, petition, be threatened, spit upon, go on hunger strikes, be forcibly fed, die in custody, interrupt congressional hearings and spend decades pushing as hard as they can to get the same rights as men and/or equal at best treatment from the law and society. "
ReplyDeleteSo feminism never stood for equality like claimed. It stood for women getting what they want and men can go to hell. All those men who stood along feminism, calling and demanding equality, their efforts were only for women, not for themselves?thanks for finally acknowledging that.
@ Kratch: "I've contacted several government officials, asking questions, looking for answers. And have been systematically ignored."
ReplyDeleteThat's exactly how you guys are NOT supposed to do it. How many women have created self-help groups for victims of rape and domestic violence on their own? How many women have taken action for their cause with NO official help from the government and other institutions? If you wanna do something for male victims, please, do me a favour (seriously!) and go ahead. Inviting some guys over to you and offering a place to exchange negative experiences costs almost nothing and is arranged very easily.
As for boys falling behind in school, how do you wanna know it hasn't always been like that? Maybe it's just more obvious, now that most schools are mixed?!? But kindergardeners and elementary school teachers have mostly been female in your praised Fifties too, haven't they? As well as the fact that boys are mostly raised by their mothers (women) anyway, as their dear fathers are out to work all day long.
Kratch-what part of "the SAME rights...and/or at best EQUAL treatment" do you not understand?
ReplyDeleteSame/equal means that it is exactly what men have. Not men get more. Not women get more. THE SAME.
"Nick-for women to get the rights that men took, and still to a great extent take, for granted...they had to organize, march, petition, be threatened, spit upon, go on hunger strikes, be forcibly fed, die in custody, interrupt congressional hearings and spend decades pushing as hard as they can to get the same rights as men and/or equal at best treatment from the law and society."
ReplyDelete"They were mocked, laughed at, told to go back to the kitchen, treated with disdain, yelled at, had things thrown at them, tossed into mental institutions...And the latter? That was just in the past thirty years to get things like DV shelters opened up. The right to have a bank account in their name. The right to have a job that they do not get fired from for getting pregnant. The chance for their daughters to play sports like they were not allowed to."
Please provide proof to all this harsh treatment of this
"For just one single example how common misandry is; it’s common for a woman to judge a man as a potential user, rapist, or paedophile until proven otherwise all because he has a penis."
ReplyDeleteNot because he has a penis. Because you can't be un-raped after it happens.
If I meet a guy on the internet I won't give him my phone number or address before we meet. I give him my google voice number which forwards to my phone but can't be traced to my address. I go and meet him in a public place instead of him coming to my house or me going to his. Is this because I assume he's a rapist? No, but because I have to protect myself. Rape is real. It does happen. And once it happens you can't go back and undo it.
BTW, this is one of the things women talk about when they talk about male privilege. You don't understand the real physical fear that comes from something as simple as walking alone at night in the dark or going on a first date with someone. You can't understand it because it isn't something you have to live with. Just like I, as a straight woman, can't ever understand what it is like to be a lesbian and have to be afraid of expressing public affection with my partner out of concern that someone will be offended or might harm me in some way.
I'd also say that the way that I treat strangers is just sort of common sense. If my little brother was going to have a first date with a woman he met online I'd also suggest he not give her his real phone number or let her know where he lives. She could be unstable or dangerous. It's a fact of the modern world that we have to treat all strangers with suspicion until they earn our trust.
Women aren't being wary of you because you have a penis but because you are a stranger. Stop assuming everything is about your gender. It isn't.
I also can't comment about the school posters because it's an issue I don't know anything about. I also don't know anything about German politics so I also can't comment on that issue.
Lydia. MRA's are exactly what you are calling for, groups of men gathering together to organize a movement. It has it's angry quacks, just like the feminists did. Those angry quacks get more of a voice then most of the feminist quacks due in large part to the internet. of course, we're all labeled as misogynists for doing so. Even the most influential activists, such as Fathers & Families, has been called misogynists and have serious feminist opposition.
ReplyDeleteAs to boys falling behind. That's an ignorant argument your making.
Elizabeth: "what part of "the SAME rights...and/or at best EQUAL treatment" do you not understand? " I'm asking you that very same question. Along with "How is having a representative solely for the interests of women, but not having a male equivalent (look up the origin of that word) "equal treatment"?"
Women have a minister for women. having the SAME/EQUAL would indicate there would be a minister for men as well. What's your excuse for the inequity here?
Missy. unfortunately, the school posters are an example of what we're talking about when being accused of being rapists. A women being cautious is prudent, even advisable, and most men (unfortunately, I can't speak for all here) don't hold that against women (in fact, many men will come to the aid of a woman. I have, twice.), except in ridiculous cases (IE, If I say hello to a girl in a club while at the bar getting myself a drink, and she treats me like a rapist, it will annoy me). But posters implying I might be a rapist, or implying men are all potential rapists or abusers. or the worst, posters that just say "men rape" (more subtle, but same message). That pisses me off. it would be like having public service announcements advising men that "women are looking to get themselves pregnant to bilk you of child support for the next 18-26 years". This doesn't say all women are doing this, just that there are women that are doing this... but I suspect the insinuation would piss you off just as much.
ReplyDeleteI'm curious how men like David, who have been fighting right alongside feminists for equality, feel about being told "if you have problems, deal with them yourself. feminists had to fight for the equality women have, men can do their own fighting. and all the fighting you've been doing for equality was really just for women."
ReplyDeleteDavid?
http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/awhhtml/aw01e/aw01e.html here ya go Nick.
ReplyDeletehttp://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F50E16F8395B11738DDDAE0894D9415B878DF1D3
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/Whunger.htm
http://womenshistory.about.com/od/suffrage1900/a/suffrage_brutal.htm
http://www.jofreeman.com/aboutjo/persorg.htm
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/2860794/effects_of_mass_media_messages_the_pg2.html?cat=9
................
Why is it so hard for men to make the effort?
Kratch-there will be women beside you but we will not DO your work for you.
ReplyDeleteElizabeth: "Kratch-there will be women beside you but we will not DO your work for you."
ReplyDeleteFirst off, you're have actually been opposing me. You are an example of why it is so difficult to get things done. Feminists didn't have an organized opposition, they simply had people resistant to change.
Second off, MRA's already have women beside us. I notice you didn't say feminists will stand beside us. I suspect you know why, even if you're not willing to admit it, even to yourself.
Third. men have already done a lot of work for equality by supporting the supposed feminist goal of equality. The fact you are claiming I'm calling on women to do the work to resolve our issues, when our issues are a matter of inequality that were supposedly the goal of the feminists so many men backed... you don't see a problem here? You don't see how this is an example of feminists getting what they want and then tossing the tools like David who supported them to the roadside ditch.
It is exactly as I have said above, you and lydia both are acknowledging that feminism was never about true equality, but rather, just about getting women all the benefits men have and not making things equal. feminism was a lie, and it duped men like David into helping out, with the promise of equality.
you still haven't answered my question... how is having a minister for women, but not a male equivalent, the same/equal?
Is there a problem with women receiving equal treatment in your country? Then that is why it is equal to have a women's ministry to try to actually have equality.
ReplyDeleteIf men already have preferential treatment, there is no need to have an agency to enforce it.
Kind of like how in the US it is silly to have a White History Month-most school books are written about white people. One side already gets preferential treatment.
If there is no preferential treatment of men, then I support your desire to have a men's agency or the removal of a woman's agency. Otherwise, there is a legitimate cause to have one.
"Why is it so hard for men to make the effort?"
ReplyDeleteopposition such as yourself, and a failure of feminists like yourself to acknowledge the work and support men have already put into establishing equality (not realizing it was only equality for women).
Kratch, political activism is hard. No one gives you anything. You have to work for it yourself. That's how it always works. Whites didn't just wake up one day and say, hey, let's give civil rights to blacks! No, it took a lot of hard work by mostly African-American activists, against incredible opposition, much of it from police and politicians, to accomplish anything.
ReplyDeleteMale politicians didn't just wake up and say, hey, let's give money to DV shelters! Feminists and other activists had to build the shelters up themselves; most shelters still get their overwhelming majority of their budget not from govt. funds but from private donations -- which is one of the many reasons "father's rights" activist Glenn Sacks was such a douchebag when he advised his fans to call donors to a DV shelter whose ads he didn't like.
There are plenty of feminists doing DV work who would be happy to help men build their own shelters. That is, if the men in question don't: attack the funding sources of female shelters (like Glenn Sacks did); make jokes about and in some cases actually encourage DV against women (like Paul Elam and his fans); or generally spend the majority of their time bashing women and/or feminists and complaining about how unfair it is that feminists don't do their organizing for them.
"Is there a problem with women receiving equal treatment in your country? Then that is why it is equal to have a women's ministry to try to actually have equality."
ReplyDeleteThat explains the existence of the womens minister, it doesn't explain the absence of them male equivalent.
"If men already have preferential treatment, there is no need to have an agency to enforce it."
But we were establishing equality, the need for a male equivalent was to maintain the developing equality.
"Kind of like how in the US it is silly to have a White History Month-most school books are written about white people. One side already gets preferential treatment."
Thank you for reminding me. Black people have had it far worst, and still do, then women... why no minister for black affairs?
"If there is no preferential treatment of men, then I support your desire to have a men's agency or the removal of a woman's agency. Otherwise, there is a legitimate cause to have one."
So it's all or nothing with you? You can't have men currently getting preferential treatment in some area's (debatable, but whatever, I'll roll with it), and women getting preferential treatment in others? and thus, a need for both positions? Why must there be NO preferential treatment of men in order for there to be equality in government?
@Kratch: Men fought with women for women, women will fight with men for men. Unless, of course, you continue to blame feminism for men's discrimination and refuse to accept that most of your discrimination has been created by men themselves. Why, for example, is it so hard for you to abolish the stereotype of the male perpetrator? Who has been reinvoking that other stereotype of the superior male strength and power?!? People won't acknowledge these weaknesses ever if you continue to claim that men are "naturally" stronger than women!
ReplyDeleteAlso, why are there never articles about male discrimination in men's magazines? Why don't you ask the Playboy to write about male victims of sexual abuse? (And no, I don't mention the Playboy to mock you, I do so because it's a popular men's magazine and known for its brilliant articles.)
The first time I've heard about mothers abusing their sons was in a TV magazine named Mona Lisa. As the title suggests, it was actually about women's issues. What do Spike and DMAX and Maxim TV report about all the time?
There should be no preferential treatment of either sex. But if there is a problem for women in having equal treatment, it appears that it is being addressed by having this agency.
ReplyDeleteThis is not like dividing up cookies "one for Joseph and one for Mary." This is about addressing a lack of equal treatment.
Lydia-I know! Naked chicks.
ReplyDeleteDavid. Male private DV shelters have been attempted. They get strong opposition from feminist movements.
ReplyDeletehere is an example of a handful in the UK http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1346600/Male-victims-domestic-violence-My-wife-knifed-back.html
here's a relevant quote
"But the refuge faced a great deal of opposition when it opened, and still attracts criticism because it doesn’t run police checks on residents to see if they were, actually, the perpetrators of the violence."
imagine if a men's movement demanded women checking into abuse shelters be run through a police check? there would be an outrage.
The Easton Alliance for the Prevention of Family Violence appears to have gone under when it couldn't get further funding from the Ontario Women's Directorate, yet there are currently over 20 shelters in Toronto alone. men like yourself fought for equality right alongside feminism... We shouldn't be getting the opposition that we are from feminism for trying to get our share of that equality.
Just imagine the outrage that would occur if an actual minister for the status of men was established (if you can't, look at the opposition and personal attacks Kristina Schröder's has gotten, and all she did was establish a department for men under her women's ministry.
I'm curious if you're going to answer my question on how it feels to be told "you fought for equality alongside feminists, but that equality was only for women, if you want equality for men, you can start over on your own". it is a betrayal (at the very least, by Elizabeth, if you're unwilling to accept it as a common feminist view), and it seems to me you are making excuses rather then acknowledging it.
regardless, I'm done for tonight. be back tomorrow.
@Lydia:
ReplyDelete"Why, for example, is it so hard for you to abolish the stereotype of the male perpetrator? Who has been reinvoking that other stereotype of the superior male strength and power?!? People won't acknowledge these weaknesses ever if you continue to claim that men are "naturally" stronger than women!"
Biological reality is no stereotype; men are physically stronger than women. To acknowledge this reality is perfectly healthy and beneficial to both men and women, because it recognizes that men have something unique to offer both to themselves and their loved ones. It is feminist ideologues who portray male uniqueness as a gender construct -- a cultural myth -- and anyone who fails to join them in their emasculation of men they accuse of promoting anti-male stereotypes! Now that's some demented thinking right there; promote a myth (men are identical to women), then suppress dissent by promoting a second myth (non-feminists are responsible for the first feminist-inspired myth). It's lunacy, it's ideological, it's dogmatic. It's feminist!
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteKratch: the article doesn't mention FEMINIST opposition to the shelter, simply "opposition." It may be that local residents didn't want it in their neighborhood. DV shelters for women often face this sort of opposition.
ReplyDeleteAlso, despite this opposition, the shelter survived. This is an example of successful organization. To write about it in the past tense "male shelters have been attempted," as if it's pointless to continue trying, is defeatist and absurd.
Re: shelters that admit male victims:
ReplyDeleteA men's advocate named Pete Jensen once told me that he tried to open a shelter for male victims. Immediately local feminist ideologues who were supportive of the status quo (i.e. no shelters for men) began demonstrating against it, saying that it would be a haven for batterers. They must have thought that homelessness and disempowerment of ALL male victims was somehow the only surefire way to ensure that batterers wouldn't offend in the future. And any genuinely non-violent male victims who might have benefited? Out in the cold.
Not long after these demonstrations, Jensen's attempts at forming a shelter for male victims were met with bureaucratic stonewalling and he was denied a permit because of the efforts of a local county supervisor, who -- like the demonstrators -- also happened to be a feminist. It's not easy to advocate for men, especially when a shelter is intended to be built specifically for male victims.
So basically there were some demonstrations against a shelter and some stonewalling?
ReplyDeleteIs that any reason to give up? No. You keep working on it. That is why politics is hard. Keep pushing the issue.
@Kratch: The reason Ms Schröder got these personal attacks was because she literally said the first gen of feminism was made up of a bunch of manhating, sexually frustrated lesbians (the latter word meant as an insult). Of course, she worded it more nicely, but it was still her who started the attacks in the first place. It's ok if she creates a boys' "department" in her ministry, but she shouldn't necessarily further perpetuate these kinds of stereotypes about feminism.
ReplyDeleteBy the way: you know that *gender* equality for men would mean more men in "weak" women's jobs?!
One thing I've always wondered is how alright MRAs are with members of the society like stay-at-home dads. Interestingly, these men can be described as feminist, but at the same time they actually stand up for themselves and men too and demand their share of equality by taking a traditionally female role. So they're basically liberating women and men at the same time! Feminism is alright with them. But Spearhead readers?
This is one problem of the Men's Rights Movement: That when it comes to real gender equality, they live up to the double standards they accuse feminism of holding.
@ Elizabeth: :-D But seriously, I mean it. The Playboy would be a good magazine to host an article like this.
Elizabeth
ReplyDeleteIt's obvious that all your links promote situations back in the EARLY 1900s era when not many people including the average MEN had no rights back then. If average men tried to promote rights back then, the same would have happened to them. Only the big boys had a say
...just like even times like the 50s
@Elizabeth:
ReplyDeletePushing the issue involves pointing out the reality of anti-male bigotry, in addition to subsequent efforts. But think of it from a male victim's point of view. His vulnerability is precisely the notion that he is invulnerable. His weakness is the perception of his own strength. Even right here in this thread, DarkSideCat illustrated this same mentality, saying that vulnerable men somehow have a network of friendly supporters merely because most elected officials are males.
My argument is that it doesn't require the legal, political and cultural emasculation of males in order for us to accept that males have vulnerabilities and for us to stand up and help men in crisis situations. You don't pass yourself off as an advocate for abuse victims and then in the same breath cite male hegemony as the pretext for leaving a particular male victim (or set of victims) out in the cold. Part of soldiering on is acknowledging these realities.
A women's strength is her facade of vulnerability; a man's greatest weakness is his facade of invulnerability.
@ John: Seriously, duh. I so knew some dude would show up and explain (mansplain) this to me. That's what I wanted to say: Even if it's true, if you keep mentioning this on you MRM sites, people will never take the issue of DV towards men seriously!
ReplyDelete"Oh yeah, we men are much stronger than those squishy wimminz, but *starts whimpering* hey, we're so threatened by those evil [insert disgusting slang word for the female genitals here]!!! Look what she's done to me: *lifts shirt to reveal tiny purple-coloured bruise* She's so evil!"
Don't get me wrong, abuse of men IS serious and seriously horrible, but
superior attitude + whining about every shit = bad combination.
Don't blame me if more men are getting abused.
John Dias
ReplyDeleteYour truth gets pulled under the rug in a PC and feminist view. But *cough* we men have to fight for something that's nearly impossible to fight.
As feminists are supposed to be about equality, they sure don't show it when it comes to equal concern and passion towards no matter what gender.
All I see is women first, men second…if there is a second place. Probably no place at all. What does the equality movement (the gender police) do? NOTHING
Since the issue of male domestic violence is a very serious one-a bit of protesting and complaining or the stonewalling should never have been enough to stop the creation of it.
ReplyDeleteThat male who was trying to do the laudable work of establishing a safe haven for a male victim could have gotten the feminists on his side-but did he actually call up the local NOW chapter and ask for help? Did he work with the churches in the areas? What did he do to establish the need for such a center for the local county board?
Did he organize a petition drive and not just ask men but the women too? Did he get testimony from officers having to deal with the domestic violence calls?
Did he contact the local and state political organizations to see what kind of resources did they have or were willing to commit?
The women who were protesting-did he contact the leaders organizing those protests and talk to them about what evidence he had showing the need? Did he work with the local gay organizations?
There is a lot that I do not know but I do know that it should not take one protest and one petty official to prevent something that needs to be done from being done.
Men's problems in feminist language "what about teh menz" heh
ReplyDeleteElizabeth
ReplyDeleteDid most men had much say to a woman in the early 1900s to the big boys?
Your comment makes no sense and your previous one basically ignores what women went through to get the rights that men barely had to fight for. (With the glaring exception nonwhite suffrage.)
ReplyDelete@Nick: "Men's problems in feminist language "what about teh menz" heh"
ReplyDeleteGuys like you is why the Men's Rights Movement gets nothing done.
Can any feminist please cite me how and where feminists care about men as they do towards women?
ReplyDeleteWhat does equality mean?
David Futrelle said...
ReplyDeleteSee if you can find the misogyny in these quotes:
"Women’s supposed integrity, empathy, and virtue has been proven time and time again to be a farce."
He's a misogynist because he dares to call a spade a spade.
"You women endlessly moan on about how terrible us men are. Yet how much are you spending on creating your ideal robotic men? NOT ONE CENT. Why? Because you don’t want the man, you want what the man provides."
He's a misogynist because he notices that women like money. A lot.
Some other clues: guys who think all women above 40 are too ugly and/or worn out to date, including Jennifer Aniston, guys who brag about dumping women in a cavalier fashion for some ridiculous transgression (how DARE he!!!), guys who regularly refer to women they consider (THAT ARE) fat as "manatees." That sort of thing.
So basically anybody that has the audacity to tactlessly criticizes women is a misogynist.
Evilwhitemaleempire:
ReplyDeleteBlanket judgments are stupid. The blanket judgments of women in those statements make the statements misogynistic.
If someone said "All (enter race here) people are lazy idiots," that would be racist because it makes a generalized stereotyped and untrue statement about a group of people.
Just because one, or two, or all the women you've met "like money. A lot" doesn't mean that all women are gold-diggers.
Don't make blanket statements about any group. It makes you look really stupid.
Elizabeth said...
ReplyDelete"Your comment makes no sense and your previous one basically ignores what women went through to get the rights that men barely had to fight for."
Yes the American revolution was barely a fight at all.
"what women went through to get the rights"
They caught colds standing around in the cold and rain holding picket signs yapping about not being able to vote at a time when most dudes couldn't either.
"Don't make blanket statements about any group. It makes you look really stupid."
ReplyDeleteDon't be a part of a stupid group and no blanket statements will be forthcoming.
If someone said "All (enter race here) people are lazy idiots," that would be racist because it makes a generalized stereotyped and untrue statement about a group of people.
ReplyDeleteBut what if it's a true statement?
You reckon stereotypes just materialize out of thin air without any factual basis and are not based on REPEATED observation?
Evilwhitemalempire:
ReplyDelete"Don't be a part of a stupid group and no blanket statements will be forthcoming."
You just made a blanket statement about making blanket statements.
Okay, the blanket statements stated above are all about women. Not feminism, but women. I don't know if you've heard, but you can't choose your sex (right away). So, tell me, wise sir, how we poor unfortunate members of the Stupid Groups should save ourselves.
"But what if it's a true statement?"
To be a true statement, it has to be true about every member of that group. Because you don't know every woman in the world or every (enter race here) person in the world, the statement is not true. The statement MAY be true for an INDIVIDUAL, but not for the group, even if based on repeated observation.
For example, I have repeatedly observed white males beating their wives and girlfriends. But it would not be a true or fair statement to say "All white men beat their wives and girlfriends." That would do an injustice to a huge number of white males who do not beat their wives or girlfriends. The statement is true, correct, valid, and just for the INDIVIDUALS I witnessed, but not for the group.
They caught colds standing around in the cold and rain holding picket signs yapping about not being able to vote at a time when most dudes couldn't either.
ReplyDeleteBut the reason that most dudes couldn't either wasn't because they were dudes. Most dudes weren't landowners, but not because they were dudes.
"But the reason that most dudes couldn't either wasn't because they were dudes. Most dudes weren't landowners, but not because they were dudes."
ReplyDeleteWhy didn't those dudes catch a cold holding picket signs yapping about not being able to vote? Because, again, it took women to change something.
Evil White Empire-after 1870, universal male suffrage had occurred. It took another 50 years of effort to get universal suffrage for the US.
ReplyDeleteIt was not a few women standing in the rain yapping.
David. You dodged my question for a second time. You ether actually agree with these girls, that feminism has not been about equality, but simply about women… or you are a hypocrite, unwilling to speak a dissenting view to your followers, even when given a reason, despite your insistence that MRA’s should be speaking out against the trolls on their boards without cause. I'm truly curious which it is?
ReplyDeleteElizabeth: “There should be no preferential treatment of either sex. But if there is a problem for women in having equal treatment, it appears that it is being addressed by having this agency.”
I’ve never claimed the minister for women wasn’t needed. I claimed there was a need for equality, in that ether both genders get one or nether. There being a men’s minister in no way hampers or impedes a woman’s minister, and yet, you yourself have said you will only support a men’s minister once all women’s problems have been solved… “If there is no preferential treatment of men, then I support your desire to…”. Why the need to wait for women to get everything they want before men can be cared for? Why oppose a men’s minister (as you have been doing in this very thread) who can work separate and alongside the women’s minister so that both gender’s issues can be dealt with simultaneously? Why does a men’s minister seem so threatening to you? It’s not like a men’s minister is going to come in and take away all women’s rights again… unless you believe it’s women’s right to die 4 times less from suicide (not like a men’s minister would make women kill themselves to equal the tally ether), or it’s women’s right to deny their children from ever seeing their father, defying court orders in the process.
Lydia: “Men fought with women for women, women will fight with men for men.”
Men thought they were fighting for equality, not women. The fact that they were duped is why so many men are angry now. Perhaps you don’t see that now due to your female privilege? ;D
Elizaabeth: “a bit of protesting and complaining or the stonewalling should never have been enough to stop the creation of it.”
If feminism was really about equality, a bit of protesting and complaining or the stonewalling should never have happened. Where is the equality in opposing male shelters? This is the problem you are having. You still believe feminism is about equality even as you are saying it's women only. Women only IS NOT EQUAL.
Lydia: “The reason Ms Schröder got these personal attacks was because she literally said the first gen of feminism was made up of a bunch of manhating, sexually frustrated lesbians (the latter word meant as an insult).”
ReplyDeleteNot asccording to the interview as posted here http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,728175,00.html
Notice that, according to this article, it was that very interview that riled Schwarzer. http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,728207,00.html
In this interview she actually stated there was nothing wrong with feminism, that she simply didn’t agree with it’s core statements, and that her best friend was a feminist. Your impression of Schroeder likely comes from the propaganda levied against Schroeder since then by feminists that don’t like a women with her own mind being in power.
“By the way: you know that *gender* equality for men would mean more men in "weak" women's jobs?! “
And more women in the low end dangerous jobs that cause 98% of workplace deaths to be men? Or how about more women homeless and on the streets? Those men don’t get jobs at all. Your belief that women are on the bottom rung is faulty.
“One thing I've always wondered is how alright MRAs are with members of the society like stay-at-home dads.”
There are several MRA’s that ARE stay at home dads. Many of them are fathers rights activists that would gladly be stay at home dads if they could be, but aren’t even able to see their children at all because the mother denies court ordered access.
“Interestingly, these men can be described as feminist, but at the same time they actually stand up for themselves and men too “
Again you acknowledge that feminism isn’t about equality. Male feminists also have to stand up for themselves, because feminism isn’t about equality.
And no, not a single fathers rights activist would call himself a feminist. Many would have once upon a time, until they realized what you have said outright… twice. Feminism is only about women, despite the lies about equality.
“This is one problem of the Men's Rights Movement: That when it comes to real gender equality, they live up to the double standards they accuse feminism of holding.”
Read David’s disclaimer on the side. It specifically says his posts do not represent all MRA’s, that not all MRA’s are misogynistic. Don’t equate the tripe David puts here with the MRA.
Lydia: “Don't blame me if more men are getting abused.”
Why not, your actively opposing the idea of giving men assistance. And feminists have blamed me for women being abused (in this very thread I was accused of blaming rape victims for their victimization by Socratic method man. I've said nothing of the sort) and I don't oppose women's shelters. You’ve done so in this very thread. Your condescending attitude towards male victimization perpetuates the resistance to male support.
Kratch, people in an oppressed or disadvataged group fighting for equality are fighting both for themselves and for equal rights for all. I certainly don't go around complaining that Martin Luther King didn't devote much of his time or energy to fighting for the rights of white people. (Though he actually made overtures to the labor movement and supported union members who were white.)
ReplyDeleteSo too feminists can and have fought both for equality and for women's rights -- at the same time, because in a situation where women are disadvantaged they are the same thing.
That said, feminism has never been only about women. Feminists fight against gender stereotypes that harm and restrict men -- like reducing the stigma associated with men being househusbands, etc. And feminists have also challenged old notions of chivalry: every feminist I've ever dated paid for herself, for example.
And feminism has simply expanded our understanding of the world, of culture and history. I'm a fan of horror movies, for example, and much of the best work on the subject over the past 30 years has come from feminists. I don't think it's possible to really understand what's going on in horror films without the insights we've gotten from feminism.
These are just a few scattered examples, but it's very clear to me that feminists, in fighting for women's rights and equality (not contradictory things, but largely synonymous) have improved the world for men as well.
David, I'm not talking about Feminists doing the work. I don't know how many times I need to say this. I AM talking about feminists BLOCKING efforts. Look at the opposition to my suggestion for a men's minister. Equality dictates there be an equivalent counterpart to the women's minister, and yet, Elizabeth and Lydia have both said men don't need one, that men already have representation from the politicians who are legally required to be gender biased. This doesn't demonstrate equality, it demonstrates female privilege... Women get what men have, but men can't have what women get/have. If feminists were really about equality, they would support a men's minister, even if they weren't willing to do the fighting... But that's not what we see here or elsewhere. We see resistance to the idea. The resistance Schroeder has gotten is example of this same feminist attitude actually being perpetrated in politics. This is evidence of why many people believe feminism has never been about equality, but rather, about female empowerment... As much as it can get, regardless of equality.
ReplyDeleteIf feminists were for equality, they wouldn't be so opposed to a presumption of shared parenting, making accusations about father's rights activists motives being a symbol, and that fathers don't actually want to spend time with their children (how is this supporting the reducing of the stigma of fathers being family oriented? If anything, it promotes the "fathers don't care as much as mothers do for their children" mentality)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fathers'_rights_movement#Shared_parenting
"That said, feminism has never been only about women. "
Check. hypocrite. I actually asked you straight up to ether agree or speak against your followers, and you effectively refused until I called you on it. And even this paragraph of your's is coddling and excusing Lydia's claim that it was a fight for women only. If you can't even tell Lydia and Elizabeth that they are wrong for believing feminism as about fighting for women only (as opposed to your claim here that feminism was fighting for equality, even if it would be more beneficial for women then men).
"These are just a few scattered examples, but it's very clear to me that feminists, in fighting for women's rights and equality (not contradictory things, but largely synonymous) have improved the world for men as well."
Fighting for women's rights is not fighting for equality... it is fighting for women's rights. They may not be contradictory, but they aren't synonymous ether. Equality for women, by it's very nature, is an inequality (it's an oxymoron), because it's ONLY FOR WOMEN. Something that is only for one group is not equal.
I failed to complete my though...
ReplyDelete" If you can't even tell Lydia and Elizabeth that they are wrong for believing feminism as about fighting for women only (as opposed to your claim here that feminism was fighting for equality, even if it would be more beneficial for women then men)."
Should conclude
If you can't even tell Lydia and Elizabeth that they are wrong for believing feminism as about fighting for women only when you are specifically called out on it, then where do you get off telling MRA's that they should be telling off the trolls on their sites?
Excuse you Kratch, I never said that politicians are legally required to be biased for one gender or not. Nor does the fact that there is a woman's agency mean that men are not having their rights ignored-it means that there is an effort to ensure that both sides have their rights respected.
ReplyDeleteBut I think you are ignoring that and assuming a lot that is not in evidence.
Kratch: Given that neither Lydia or Elizabeth has said what you claim they have said, no, I'm not going to "tell them off."
ReplyDeleteElizabeth: "Excuse you Kratch, I never said that politicians are legally required to be biased for one gender or not."
ReplyDeleteThat was my error, I meant unbiased.. It wasn't intended as an accusation of what you said. I can’t edit old posts to correct that mistake. This shouldn’t have been difficult to identify as a typo, given my argument up to this point. Therefore, the statement should have read like this: “Equality dictates there be an equivalent counterpart to the women's minister, and yet, Elizabeth and Lydia have both said men don't need one, that men already have representation from the politicians who are legally required to be gender neutral. “
David: "Given that neither Lydia or Elizabeth has said what you claim they have said, no, I'm not going to "tell them off.""
Lydia said "@Kratch: Men fought with women for women,."... FOR WOMEN. not for equality... FOR WOMEN. “..women will fight with men for men.” Future tense means the fight was never for men, or equality in general. men’s concerns will have to wait until the women get what they want.
Elizabeth said “Quit blaming women or feminists for standing up for their rights when your own sex refuses to stand up for theirs.”
“Their” rights, not equality, “their” rights. Men need to stand up for their own rights, regardless of feminisms claim for supposed equality… and should expect to get resistance to those attempts from feminists, just like she’s providing resistance to my suggestion. Elizabeth’s resistance to a men’s minister demonstrates as clear as saying it outright, that equality will not be accepted if it benefits men. Her suggestion that men shouldn’t get a minister until all women’s “inequity” is dealt with is ludicrous and sexist, and flies in the face of true equality.
The world, for the most part, is already biased towards able-bodied, straight, white men.
ReplyDeleteIt's not able-bodied, straight, white men's fault that the world is biased towards them. The point is to be aware of that bias and privilege and fight for equality.
That's why we need representatives for women, different races, et cetera.
"For the purpose of finding pump-and-dumps, don’t mention anything that sounds like conservative political views in your profile. The ones most likely to let you lick it and stick it will think you are an asshole if you espouse these views, no matter how logical you are in presenting them. Getting nookie is an emotional, not logical, process. Deal with it."
ReplyDeleteI am puzzled as to how "pump-and-dump" is consistent with conservative values. Is this a man who believes this kind of conduct is immoral, but only when engaged in by other people? "Logical", my foot. Penises have no logic.
Lexi: "The world, for the most part, is already biased towards able-bodied, straight, white men.
ReplyDeleteIt's not able-bodied, straight, white men's fault that the world is biased towards them. The point is to be aware of that bias and privilege and fight for equality."
And does that also mean that concerns that affect able-bodied white males should be ignored? What about males that aren't able-bodied or white? A men's minister would also look into things like the reasons and solution for high levels of minority incarcerations, or equal funding for prostate cancer research and awareness campaigns. He would look into homelessness (being that 90% is male) and suicide rates (80% of suicides are male. In Canada, suicide is the the leading cause of death after disease/cancer. Higher then accidents. That's right, more men kill themselves intentionally then die by accident).
The fact that white males may be privileged (debatable, but irrelevant.) doesn't mean they have no problems to address, or that their problems should be ignored.
"That's why we need representatives for women, different races, et cetera."
we're not talking about why we need representatives for women (and there are non for other minorities, they all get lumped under heritage or culture. FYI). I am asking why there is not an equivalent male minister.. equivalent meaning equal.
Amused: "Penises have no logic."
Guilty of the same kind of generalizations you claim him of.
@ Kratch:
ReplyDelete"Interestingly, these men can be described as feminist, but at the same time they actually stand up for themselves and men too
Again you acknowledge that feminism isn’t about equality. Male feminists also have to stand up for themselves, because feminism isn’t about equality."
In fact, I was actually referring to the MRM's supposed antifeminism, not feminism. I wanted to ask how this goes together that a person can stand up for both women's and men's rights, as many a MRA thinks that doesn't work.
By the way, most feminists I know stand up for true gender equality. It's just that there are issues that affect mostly women, issues that affect both genders equally, and issues that affect mostly men. Of course a movement that calls itself FEMINism (this is getting repetitive) would care mostly about women's and gender equal issues. That doesn't mean they're against the fight for men's rights.
It just doesn't make much sense to blame feminism for not focusing on issues like military draft, as (at least in Germany) this doesn't affect women, but is instead a perfect example of discrimination from men against men.
So I think men are "emancipated" enough themselves to work against things like this on their own instead of blaming feminism for not doing that. It's a question of independence and capability, or, as my maths teacher liked to word it, being "grown up yourself".
Stop thinking mommy will come to clean up your self-created mess.
Oh, and I never said I oppose the protection of male DV victims. I just said it doesn't go together to constantly brag about men's supposed superior strength and then to wonder why it is so hard for society to acknowledge the existence of DV against men. You know, I believe the word for that is "logic".
Lydia... Again your missing the point. men are blaming feminism because it is actually OPPOSING men's right attempts. This very debate alone is a prime example... "Men don't need a voice in government, they already represent X%" is not an egalitarian response to pointing out there is a minister for the status of women but not a male equivalent.
ReplyDelete"Oh, and I never said I oppose the protection of male DV victims."
I'm not certain if I accused you specifically, I don't think I did... I'm generally speaking of feminism as a movement. The prominent and politically active feminists that do oppose men's issues being addressed. Who claim acknowledging men as victims/women as perpetrators is misogynistic.
"I'm not certain if I accused you specifically, I don't think I did... I'm generally speaking of feminism as a movement. The prominent and politically active feminists that do oppose men's issues being addressed. Who claim acknowledging men as victims/women as perpetrators is misogynistic."
ReplyDelete"Lydia: “Don't blame me if more men are getting abused.”
Why not, your actively opposing the idea of giving men assistance."
Do I really need to reexplain why people think the MRM has no clear stance on what its goals are...?
Seriously.
And, seriously, again:
"men are blaming feminism because it is actually OPPOSING men's right attempts."
It isn't.
Duh.
Not gonna say more on that.
And the next thing you're quoting - I believe Elizabeth said this? - it's true! Most countries are ruled by men, and yet all those men can't do something for male DV and rape and divorce gold-diggery victims? It really DOES take - duh! - A WOMAN AGAIN to create a boys' department in her ministry???
Seriously. For the third time.
But hey, Ms Köhlerschöder is preggers, did you hear? Maybe she's having a boy, so she can pamper even more men while her hubby is out to work doing absolutely nothing for his gender.
Maybe the feminists should start some "Adopt a Men's Righter" campaign where each of us teams up with a man who's got plenty of complaints but no way to get them through, and help him fix his problems. I mean, come on, we've come so far all on our own, it won't be much of a deal for us to take care of some guys' discrimination.
Oh no, my inner Good Samarian just came through again.
What do 99 percent of feminists do to make things better for women?
ReplyDeleteThey always use the word "we" as in they had a part of it to….yeah right, as if I am going to fall for that. Only a small minority of feminists have actually made things happen.
99 percent or all the feminists on the net who tell MRAs to do something about this or that are hypocrites as they are practically doing the same which is sitting on their fat ass and complaining on the internet and then use the word “we” as in they had some part in making things change for women.
The next feminist who tells MRAs to do something about it, think about your own hypocrisy before you open your hypocritical mouth.
As for telling men to do something about it; for example, what can I do about getting more support for male domestic violence victims such as getting shelters? I could stand at the government’s door and scream all day about it. I would probably only last 5 minutes anyway as the cops would take me away. As it’s politically incorrect to complain about male issues, the complaint mostly falls in deaf ears. That’s mostly the reason why nothing ever get’s done about obvious issues. We are whining misogynist even if we just talk about it.
Yet things like billions of dollars get handed to the VAWA so easily. And then they have the audacity to call them selves the second class citizens. heh
Hi, this is Christine, Big Daddy from Cincinnati's brother's girlfriend. If you read his article, you will see that he said something disrespectful about me, I suppose so he could look "cool" if front of all the guys on spearhead. (And then he shared the article with his brother!) I sent an email to the owner of this blog, but I wanted to go ahead and share a little bit of what I said in my email here.
ReplyDelete"Let me give you a picture of who "Big Daddy" really is: he is fat (yet he criticizes fat women?), mumbles when he talks to the point that I can't understand him half the time and generally seems like an unhappy and controlling person who never has any fun. It seems to me that he is writing for spearhead just to get attention and feel important. I know he has been unsuccessful with his dating life over the past few months (surprise, surprise!) and I suppose this is his way of putting the blame on women instead of looking at how he needs to improve himself. I actually feel sorry for "Big Daddy" because I can tell he needs more love in his life: both in learning how to give and receive love. I sincerely hope he releases all this negativity so that this can happen one day.
I just wanted to share this so that people, especially women out there who might be taking these misogynistic websites seriously, to get an idea of who is really behind these articles. These so-called men are barely even worth paying attention to. They feel inadequate and therefore need some kind of outlet or someone to blame."
As someone who used to be a victim of domestic violence, I don't see any difference between the attitude of my former abuser and the attitudes of these men, including "Big Daddy".
But that's okay. I am in a great relationship now. Somehow his brother turned out to be a wonderful man despite the abuse they both went through during their childhoods. While my boyfriend learned to cope by improving himself, Big Daddy just seems to only know how to cope by being arrogant. I have two hopes for Big Daddy: 1) That he eventually learns to be a happier and more loving person, and 2) That his daughter never ends up meeting a man with his attitude.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteLydia wrote:
ReplyDelete"Oh, and I never said I oppose the protection of male DV victims. I just said it doesn't go together to constantly brag about men's supposed superior strength and then to wonder why it is so hard for society to acknowledge the existence of DV against men. You know, I believe the word for that is 'logic'."
In my opinion, the reason why society doesn't acknowledge male weakness is indeed related to this phenomenon. Men feel a need to be validated and elevated by women for framing themselves in the protective role. Lydia, you're a woman and so I don't expect you to relate, but as a man -- even an MRA myself -- a man's desire to be the hero and swoop down and rescue can be very powerful. Female validation can also be very powerful to a man. But helping a man? As a man you don't get validated for that, and you often don't get praised; you just have to quietly have empathy and help the guy. It's not usually going to earn you any brownie points if you're a male elected official and you point out an injustice that males suffer from disproportionately. The way that you must help males in reshaping public policy -- and this is a political strategy -- is to somehow show that you're helping females. Unfortunately that's often the only way to get such legislation through the gates, and to neutralize opposition.
In a separate comment, Lydia wrote:
"Most countries are ruled by men, and yet all those men can't do something for male DV and rape and divorce gold-diggery victims? It really DOES take - duh! - A WOMAN AGAIN to create a boys' department in her ministry???"
Maybe it does take a woman in public office to feel more empathy for a man, compared to the empathy that male elected officials would care to display. Personally I've noted this phenomenon. A woman risks nothing about her womanhood if she stoops so low as to advocate for male victims; this is not the case for a man, who risks being called a misogynist merely for speaking on behalf of vulnerable males. Maybe it would be a good idea if more women ran for office; no one is stopping them (except themselves).
“Do I really need to reexplain why people think the MRM has no clear stance on what its goals are...?”
ReplyDeleteI did not accuse you of opposing the protection of male victims, I accused you of opposing assistance. There is a difference, a subtle one, but a significant one. I said “getting men assistance”. That includes a minister for status of men, which you HAVE opposed. My statement remains true.
“"men are blaming feminism because it is actually OPPOSING men's right attempts."
It isn't. “
It is. It’s doing it in this very post when people say shit like “Won't someone please, PLEASE think of the men?” in a clearly condescending post. If male issues aren’t even aloud to be mentioned without ridicule… THAT IS opposition. It’s no different then telling a woman to go make me a sammich. The words themselves may seem benign, but the meaning is crystal clear… dismal. And there are many dominant feminists (the ones that actually count in defining what a feminist really is) actually doing things to oppose men’s issues, Harriet Harmen being an example.
“And the next thing you're quoting - I believe Elizabeth said this? - it's true! Most countries are ruled by men, and yet all those men can't do something for male DV and rape and divorce gold-diggery victims? It really DOES take - duh! - A WOMAN AGAIN to create a boys' department in her ministry???”
You just don’t get how government works. It has been feminised. It requires the men in office to think of women first in order to not piss ff the activists. Men being in power does not mean they can use that power in gender biased ways, they are required to be neutral at best, feminist at worst. Male issues will incur the ire of the feminist movement, and that can risk career’s. And for this reason and for true equality, there must be a men’s minister to represent men’s issues, who is allowed to be somewhat biased in government, JUST LIKE WOMEN HAVE. Why is it so hard for you feminists to understand what equality actually is?
As to a woman creating the department for boy’s in her ministry, it’s much harder to be called a misogynist when you’re a woman, therefore much easier to do things for men. But as I’ve noted, she’s still getting attacks from feminists. And what’s her being “preggers” have to do with anything? Or is that just another attempt to somehow undermine her qualifications? And I thought feminists were about breaking down gender roles, seems to me you are trying to enforce the stay at home mom, working dad gender role
“Oh no, my inner Good Samarian just came through again.”
And we return to condescension and dismissal. Whatever, go make me a sammich!
"Amused: "Penises have no logic."
ReplyDeleteGuilty of the same kind of generalizations you claim him of. "
Kratch: Yes, I hold on to this ridiculous notion that no person can claim to be a logical thinker just by virtue of his or her sex organs. I don't believe there is any scientific proof to support the idea that having a penis fosters logical thinking, but feel free to prove me wrong. Same applies to vaginas. A generalization? Please.
"seems to me you are trying to enforce the stay at home mom, working dad gender role"
ReplyDeleteYou're not really good at understanding sarcasm, are you? I meant that SHE as a WOMAN has to take care of men while her dear husband, ... yeah, what, actually? What's he doing for men? I just wanted to point out what the MRM is suffering from.
By the way, this goes out to John, too, I'm much more eager to call women misogynists than men. BECAUSE I rather expect a man to stand up for his own gender. When a woman does so, I always just think of the overprotective mother cow.
"And we return to condescension and dismissal. Whatever, go make me a sammich!"
Again, sarcastic comment to point out what's wrong with...(continues forever).
@John: Is that the reason why so many men started feeling "useless" when women became liberated more and more? Because we don't need your protection anymore?
See, I notice quite a lot that some men are totally "focused" on women. Sexually and socially. It's like you're still trying to impress us, as in pre-feminist times, but at the same time, we've become competition for you. Is that correct?
This is one of the saddest facts about men, that somehow liking women and staying away from them doesn't go together for you. That would indeed be "Happy Bachelorship". Instead, for many of you, it's either loving or hating us.
I think guys need to learn, like women did, that they're ultimately just responsible for themselves, and if a guy is threatened by his woman, it's not about weakness, it's not about being perceived misogynist, it's not about being a "White Knight", it's just about saving yourself, which, in that case, means getting away from that woman.
@Lydia:
ReplyDelete"@John: Is that the reason why so many men started feeling "useless" when women became liberated more and more? Because we don't need your protection anymore?"
I don't usually say this because I consider it to be rather low-brow, but in this case your comment calls for an exception:
LOL!
Sista, are you on crack? Who is enforcing the laws? Who is running the military? For that matter, in an intact family which partner -- husband or wife -- is the one expected to go check out that creepy bump in the night? Not women, you can be sure of that.
If you feminist women didn't actually need the protection of men as a result of your physical nature, then you wouldn't constantly be calling for the passage of so many draconian laws. You would just be.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete“You're not really good at understanding sarcasm, are you?”
ReplyDeleteThis isn’t the first time you’ve accused someone (and not just me) of this. Perhaps you just aren’t very good at delivering it? Or perhaps, you’re prone to revitionist history, equating something as sarcasm in order to avoid owning it? Oh, but that couldn’t possibly be the case, nothing is ever a woman’s fault, right? (Sarcasm)
“ I meant that SHE as a WOMAN has to take care of men “
You’re mistaking a desire to do something with it being required of her. She chooses to stand up for men, she doesn’t have to.
“What's he doing for men?”
I’m not sure, but as a man and an elected official for all people, not just men, he needs to be careful. Daniel Raad is the first male politician to speak up for men, and he came out swinging, no subtleties, no tiptoeing around the issues. He laid out the truth and has gotten a backlash for it. But it was the only way he could, any man could. He had to get all the issues out in the first strike and hope people could see them as truth before he gets buried under feminist attacks. It was a HUGE career gamble that will follow him the rest of his life, good or bad. We shall have to see how it plays out, but if he doesn’t get the boot, you can be certain many other countries will follow behind. If he does get the boot, well, point proven… It’s dangerous for a man to speak up.
“I'm much more eager to call women misogynists than men. BECAUSE I rather expect a man to stand up for his own gender. When a woman does so, I always just think of the overprotective mother cow.”
Acknowledgment that standing up for the male gender is considered misogynistic or somehow wrong IE, being an overprotective mother cow (and I thought David was blaming MRA’s for equating women to animals? Seems it’s a trait of feminists too).
“I think guys need to learn, like women did, that they're ultimately just responsible for themselves”
ROFL. Many Feminists to this day still blame everything on men, “the patriarchy”, and their oppression (to this day), hardly what I’d call taking responsibility for themselves. Taking responsibility means owning your own failures and mistakes, not just your success. Battered wives syndrome being an excuse for murder or chopping off penis’s, and post partum for infanticide, are perfect modern day examples of ways some women DON’T take responsibility for themselves. Not to mention your repeated refusal to acknowledge saying “you don’t need a men’s minister” isn’t resistance to suggesting a men’s minister, despite the plethora of issues a men’s minister could and should address. Despite the definition of equality demanding an equal counterpart to the female minister.
It’s also a very lonely life looking out for yourself and no-one else. Likely the reason mothers hoard the parenting responsibilities. Because despite all your complaints, it still remains a fulfilling role.
“and if a guy is threatened by his woman… …it's just about saving yourself, which, in that case, means getting away from that woman.”
And what if it is about his children, just saving himself doesn’t do them any good. Do feminists not understand the concept of putting others before their own needs? It’s just about being responsible for yourself… no-one else? No wonder so many of our youth today are arrogant little s#!ts, no-one takes responsibility for them.
@amused… and it really is no man’s calling to try to court a manatee, single mom or otherwise. Different species after all, and the aquatic environment would just add too many complications long term. If you want to play word games, go right ahead.
@Lydia:
ReplyDelete"I think guys need to learn, like women did, that they're ultimately just responsible for themselves, and if a guy is threatened by his woman, ... it's just about ... getting away from that woman."
And just what mechanisms do abused men have for getting away from abusive women? Their physical strength advantages, in the public's mind, unfortunately overshadow the hidden but superior emotional strength that it took for such abused men to constrain their own urges to strike back at their female abuser with physical violence. So you say that women should never be challenged, but that the man should run away from her and lose everything that matters to him in the process -- his children, his home, his life. Judges, because of the White Knight urge in so many men, are predisposed not to take women's abusiveness seriously, and therefore they are much less likely to grant an abused man's request for a restraining order against an abusive woman. Knowing this reality, many abused men won't even make the request, because it's likely to backfire and simply result in a protracted legal battle that will likely leave them penniless, childless and emotionally broken and despaired.
The devolution of authority from the family to the State just makes these types of outcomes inevitable. The State doesn't care about you; it's not your family; it has no blood connection nor emotionally compelling loyalty to you. The State also considers female-perpetrated emotional abuse to be harmless, but an emotionally abused man feels emasculated. The State considers emasculation irrelevant, and typically will not order the female perpetrator of emotional abuse to attend a program for female perpetrators of emotional abuse. At best, it will refer such female abusers to attend a program which urges them to consider themselves victims and to make better mating choices in the future. Female abusers are simply not challenged enough in this culture.
And you're expecting men to just flee, like chased dogs? It's time that we as a culture started challenging abusive women as the perpetrators that they are, rather than victims.
"LOL!"
ReplyDeleteWhat lol? I'm into girls. The last thing I need in my life is a man, or a society ruled by men who can't do anything for themselves. That doesn't mean I hate men.
To Kratch and John: You guys sure know to read between the lines. Or read between someone else's lines, because I can't remember having said all those things you accuse me of saying. John, I said that women don't need protection because YOU said it's a man's urge to protect women. There you go. Protect yourselves.
And please where did I say men should just run away losing everything they have doing so? I was thinking of DV shelters which provide a place for men, and yeah, their kids too (if they have any, wasn't thinking of that, btw, sooorry) to get away from the woman temporarily.
Women, especially feminists, DO take care of themselves nowadays, that is to say, they have a job to sustain themselves and don't worry as much about "finding a man" as they did in earlier times, as opposed to a man who still needs to show a woman what a great guy he is and feels "unmanly" if his woman doesn't depend on him. "Not being needed by a woman" is still one of the biggest threats to masculinity. Where, do you think, does all that hatred towards lesbians come from?
Is that why you think feminism opposes men's rights? Because you simply misinterpret that into its teachings?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete@Lydia:
ReplyDelete"John, I said that women don't need protection because YOU said it's a man's urge to protect women. There you go. Protect yourselves."
Women need protection BY men FROM men (and from women too). Whether that is in the form of a husband, a boyfriend, a security guard, a policeman or a soldier, you're already getting the benefit of men's protection even as you run around saying that you're somehow independent of men's protective qualities. You just don't realize it.
My original point is that since there is a strong urge in men to protect women, it's hard for some chivalrous men to acknowledge that women can be violent or abusive, and therefore they are easily manipulated into interpreting women's abusiveness as some sort of defensive reaction, never offensive. Chivalry is, in fact, what I believe to be the motivating factor for so many male elected officials voting in so many one-sided (i.e. women-benefiting) and draconian laws which can turn every male into a criminal in one instant, so long as there's some woman to call upon some judge while she points the accusing finger.
And as far as your comment on supporting men's access to safehouses for domestic abuse victims, that's commendable. But the vast, vast majority of domestic violence service providers turn male victims away from safe houses for DV victims, if they acknowledge male victimization at all. The best that a man can hope for is to get sent off to some hotel with a voucher in hand, and in terms of security a hotel is not always the equivalent of a domestic violence safehouse.
“There you go. Protect yourselves.”
ReplyDeleteIf we do protect ourselves from violent women such as self defence, we are yet still seen as the bad guy as the saying goes "violence against women is wrong no matter what"
Even women...yes women... are probably more likely than men to have this mentality of female privilege.
"Not being needed by a woman" is still one of the biggest threats to masculinity"
Can you please provide substantial evidence to this? More than anything, myself and the men around me don’t want to be a life support system for women or in other words, a financial slave.
Myself and the men around me want a woman who has the intelligence and capability to financially support herself without bumming off of others.
Lydia
ReplyDeleteAs your big bad patriarchal, woman oppressing, government gives around a billion of tax payers to VAWA each year, would you have a problem if VAWA started getting a lot less?....Like the funds from tax got halved because now tax from males won't be counted to support VAWA?
After all, women can look after themselves now right? So for that, VAWA funds should be cut in half as no more tax from males should go into VAWA funds, instead it should go into funds to support men.
Would feminists be protesting over this? I think they would without a doubt as feminists usually want their cake and eat it to.
Lydia: "You guys sure know to read between the lines."
ReplyDeleteperhaps it is that your underlying feelings are more prominent then even you realize. As for everything I have "accused" you of saying, I virtually always put the quote right before it. you're more then capable of reading it yourself and finding why I made the accusation, and then being certain not to make the mistake (if it is one) again... or do you need us men to spell it out for you?
It might also help to realize, that when I say "feminists", I'm not talking about you specifically, though you may or may not be included amongst them, I am talking about the feminists who influence politics and industry... the feminists that actually matter and act on their opinions.
"This is one of the saddest facts about men, that somehow liking women and staying away from them doesn't go together for you. That would indeed be "Happy Bachelorship". Instead, for many of you, it's either loving or hating us."---Lydia
ReplyDeleteStaying away from a misandrist like you is a good thing.
Women need protection BY men FROM men (and from women too). Whether that is in the form of a husband, a boyfriend, a security guard, a policeman or a soldier, you're already getting the benefit of men's protection even as you run around saying that you're somehow independent of men's protective qualities.
ReplyDeleteYou're claiming that 100% of soldiers, police officers, and security guards are male. This is obviously false.
The corollary is also that security guards, soldiers, and police officers offer protection not to society at large, but to women as a class, because they are appointed to do so by men as a class. Are men therefore excluded from the protection of the police or the army? Obviously not. Another false construction.
The entire structure of governance and the social contract comes into play here. There is nothing intrinsically gendered about getting a government together, passing laws, deciding on a mechanism to enforce them, and hiring people to do the enforcement. It's ultimately the government that bears the responsibility for the protection, not the police or the army. And when the government is elected by the people, it's the people who bear the ultimate responsibility.
So I think it's a little presumptuous to claim that the entire structure of governance and law enforcement is just a favor that men do for women.
"There is nothing intrinsically gendered about getting a government together, passing laws, deciding on a mechanism to enforce them, and hiring people to do the enforcement."
ReplyDeleteThat statement begins to fall apart once government has one person placed specifically to be biased in favour of one gender but does not for the other.
@SallyStrange:
ReplyDelete"You're claiming that 100% of soldiers, police officers, and security guards are male. This is obviously false."
I apologize if I seemed to imply such a ridiculous thing, so please allow me to clarify. Unlike the female population of soldiers, police officers and security guards, from a security standpoint the males in such roles are actually necessary.
John: Okay. Men protect women -- until they don't. And women need men to protect them -- until we have to fend for ourselves. There were exactly two times in my life where I found myself in actual danger at home from an intruder. Both times, I protected myself and the other people in the house. On one of those occasions, I was with my boyfriend, a very traditional patriarchal type who liked to brag about how women need men's "protection". But when it became clear that someone was lurking in the apartment, he told me he had a stomach ache, gave me his gun, explained how to use it, and I ended up protecting BOTH of us. Turned out, I really didn't need him to protect me -- the gun was enough. Which once again demonstrates what I've pointed out before: your superior muscle power is increasingly irrelevant in a technological world. People who use and invent technology don't need you to protect them -- you need THEM to protect YOU.
ReplyDeleteGrowing up and throughout my life, I saw men bragging about doing "manly" things, while women actually did them. Women supposedly needing men for their muscles and their money -- it's 99% empty chatter and bragging, not actual reality.
There is something else that needs to be mentioned. Earlier, John Dias, you stated how a woman can't possibly relate to how a man feels. Accordingly, I assume you cannot possibly relate to how a woman feels, but suffice it to say, it's deeply humiliating to be required to always be a victim in order that some guy may validate himself by "saving" you. Men who see themselves primarily as saviors of women need women to constantly be in danger. They actually don't give a shit about the quality of women's lives -- if anything, they want women's lives to suck, so that there is "saving" to be done. I mean, they feel useless otherwise, right? Once again, I don't expect you to relate to how women feel, but personally, I prefer to live by that famous principle that Benjamin Franklin came up with -- that people who trade their liberty for temporary security deserve neither, and in the end, lose both. Thus, I'd rather spend my life in greater danger than be a perpetual victim in order to provide some guy with a raison d'être; it's better to die than to live at another's mercy and be treated as a perpetual child and a lackey.