Wow, David. You accuse the MRM of wallowing in whiny victimhood, and a bunch of our favorite MRAs show up to engage in...whiny victimhood. Color me completely unsurprised.I absolutely love the contrast between the commenters' predictions of MRA Total World Domination within a few years time and your rather self-evident observation that these guys don't really do shit except whine all day on the internet. I've studied social movements a fair amount, and I've never read that mass whining ever led to much in the way of social change. Still, only time will tell, I suppose.Good article.
So what do 99 percent of feminists do about female issues again? That's right, NOTHING. Just like all the feminists on this blog. They have never lifted a finger for women's issues and yet they always seem to use the word "we" when talking about feminism has battled this and that.99 percent of feminists who accuse MRAs doing nothing but whining about men's issues are hilarious retarded hypocrites
hey nick, I guess the fact that my free time is split between working the rape victim support hotline and at the domestic violence shelter means that I do nothing huh?
Ah, briget, but what are you doing about victims of false rape accusations? How come you don't do anything for them? Who cares about rape when there is this much bigger problem of false rape accusations? Why do you feminists focus on women all the time? As long as there are men in the world who experience problems, it's not fair to dwell on women!!(Disclaimer: that was sarcasm)
hey briget, you must have lots and lots of free time with how busy those rape victim support hotlines are.Oops! I forgot! I'm supposed to get a constipated, humorless, self-important feminyst with a stick up her ass to help me devise an appropriate "Trigger Warning" before this comment (because we know how very sensitive David Fruit-relle and you all are). It would say something like this: "Truth About Rape Culture is About to be Expressed."
Amused: Disclaimer: You aren't even mildly amusing.
amused, my general response to them is that the rape victim support line helps both male and female victims, and the shelter that I work at doesn't discriminate based on gender so I am helping men as well.
briget, if you had an once of honesty, you'd admit you never fielded a single call at this alleged hotline.
> briget, if you had an once of honesty, you'd admit you never fielded a single call at this alleged hotline.That's what I was exactly thinking. Just because I called out on the hypocrisy, you'll get feminists making shit up just to cover their ass.If every or most or 99 percent of feminists were working at these hotlines, there must be one hell of a lot of these call centres. Like in every street corner or something
Nick, I'm glad you consider all of my financial support to Planned Parenthood and the food banks of my city to be doing "nothing."See, I have the financial privledge to be able to show support with dollar signs. I also donate to the NAACP and MRFF. Besides, I consider it a public service to keep you on here commenting and away from actual, live people. David has my undying gratitude.
Admit it briget! You're just making the whole thing up! In fact, how do I know you really exist? How do I know you're not really someone else? Someone like..Paul Anka, perhaps? Well, I'll have you know that there is no evidence of Paul Anka ever working at a so-called "rape" hotline, so there!Good day, Mr. Anka. I said, GOOD DAY!
Also, I love how anything said that contradicts Nick and Jason is automatically lying. It's kind of ironic. Or something.
If any of you FEMYQWERTYISTS had any sense of decency, you would admit you run over dogs for fun. Other animals, too, I bet. I was there. Not cats though.
Tawaen, nothing is contradicting me and Jason. The simple fact is that 99 percent of feminists don't lift a finger for female issues, all they do is complain. Then they have the audacity to criticise MRAs for doing the same.
If people such like David was even lifting a finger for female issues, he wouldn't have so much time to devote in this blog. Then you have to think about the other things in his life. Work, friends, family etc etc. It just wouldn’t all add up
Hmm, I can't speak for other feminists, but I work in an archive preserving people's historical collections, mostly women because of the nature of our institution. I also mentor college students, also mostly women, because they seem more likely to request help. In my free time, I volunteer at our community market, and work to support local artists and craftspeople. In fact, I would argue that every decision a person makes tells us something about what they believe, whether they are consciously trying to build lives consistent with their values or just doing so unconsciously. From what I can tell, a lot of MRA's want to tell other people what's wrong and have them all get to work on fixing it. On some issues MRA's and feminists could probably work together. (not calling each other names would probably help the cause) But, you may have seen the news recently, we've got some serious shit of our own that we're trying to shovel. (If you live near a major city there is going to be another March for Choice on March 26th.) Also, nick, what makes this blog *not* feminist work for David? How are you qualified to define what is and what is not a feminist act?
nick, I have at various points in my life been involved in different kinds of political activism, including some for feminist causes, helping to organize events and protests, going to "clinic defense" and the like. I'm not currently doing that. I do know that a number of the feminist commenters here are involved in activism and/or other kinds of real-world efforts to help women (and men) -- working at shelters, running for political office, and so on. Most of the feminists I know personally have been involved in activism at some point in their lives.
Since we're all sharing: I don't do volunteering because I don't have time (I'm very busy at my job and I spend most of my free time resting from it). But at work I do my best to mentor students (most of them female) and I also do microlending (i.e. lending money to small businesses who get their applications for a loan rejected by regular banks because they're too small) on Kiva. Most of these businesses are owned and run by women in Third World countries, but you can lend money to men, too.
To be fair, Nick does enough whining for 10 MRAs, so he definitely does his part for the cause.
To be really fair (and not just pretend to be) most social movements probably are 99% talk, 1% action. It takes a lot of discussion and education, not to mention fund raising, to organize a movement to effect social change. For every SNCC activist who sat in at a lunch counter, there were probably quite a few more people who answered phones, wrote letters, did fund raising, etc. Social movements don't just happen spontaneously. What's different about the internet age is that we get to see some of the debates playing out in blog forums. It is entirely possible that the MRM will organize to actually put their agenda into action (whatever that agenda may be). I just haven't seen it yet.
Exactly, Capt. Bathrobe. MRA says "X isn't fair. Why don't feminists fix that?"Feminists "We're sort of busy taking care of issue Y. If X is that important for you then why don't you do something about it?"MRA "Ack. Shaming tactics. You are trying to make us feel bad for not doing anything to support issues X when most women aren't doing anything about Y."Feminisit: "Yes. Most people aren't socially active. But we are and we're working on Y. That has nothing to do with X."MRA "If you don't fix X then you must hate men. X isn't fair. Do something about X"Rinse. Repeat.
I love how the MRAs that are usually constantly complaining how feminists are taking over everything in the world and poisoning it with feminism now suddenly think feminists do nothing to further their cause. Which is it, are we brutally conquering the legal system and stealing babies or just sitting around chatting?
I checked out your post and some of the comments in the bit of spare time I've had this evening. Just came across this little bit....Factory says: March 9, 2011 at 8:27 pm Actually, the misogyny (what little of it there is) in the Mens Movement...ROTFLMAO!!! Yep, there's one that's well-grounded in reality.
I'll just post here what I posted over there:It’s as if David Futrelle didn’t read the “Meet the Men’s Rights Movement.” David spends his time quoting the most radical and simple minded representations of MRA’s. He fails to acknowledge the fact that feminists take the MRM very seriously. The gnashing of teeth by main stream feminists when the Male Studies initiative (http://www.malestudies.org/) got up and running was incredible. As mentioned in the Meet the Men’s Rights Movement piece, MRA’s have had much success in areas of family law. Furthermore, MRA’s have changed the narrative in the slandering feminist concept of “Rape Culture.” Take a look at David. A good analogy is like a prison guard. Prisoners are forced to live in a prison. Prison guards live there by choice. David goes to the most radical MRA sights and spends his days there. Now that, my friends, is kind of creepy.
Hide: “(If you live near a major city there is going to be another March for Choice on March 26th.) “Is that choice for everyone? Or Just women? Some issues are close enough for both genders to be tackled simultaneously, by making the issue gender neutral.BathRobe: “It takes a lot of discussion and education, not to mention fund raising, to organize a movement to effect social change.”Thank you for acknowledging this. This is especially true when there is another already established ideology and movement that actively opposes and attempts to discredit the emerging movement. The smear campaign being waged by David, equating the hateful comments of some as representative of all (including Glen Sacks, whom in the comments, you claimed was responsible for 25 activists being belligerent to that shelter, based solely on the comments of a handful of people on the spearhead in response to that hateful baby “redefine manhood” ad), doesn’t help (the hateful comments themselves don’t help ether, but as Dworkin proved for feminists, that kind of hate can be overcome. though having people use them to smear the entire movement is something feminists didn’t need to endure).Missy: “Feminists "We're sort of busy taking care of issue Y. If X is that important for you then why don't you do something about it?"”MRA “we did. Our issues got buried under a pile of feminist propaganda BS, accusations of abuse, attacks on our character and then cries that women suffer from the same or similar problem, and the solutions they already have in place aren’t effective enough… IE, turning the discussion into an opportunity to advocate women instead of men, as it had began.”“Feminisit: "Yes. Most people aren't socially active. But we are and we're working on Y. That has nothing to do with X."”What is it you do for feminism?David:I suppose this article finally proves that the disclaimer at the side is just for show, to be used as a scapegoat to avoid blame. You should like take it down if you seek to maintain any degree of honesty
Kratch: Sacks called on those activists to call the donors to the shelter. Whether or not they were belligerent, they were calling in an effort to get the donors to stop donating to the shelter. Instead of trying to raise money for a shelter for men, they were actively trying to harm the finances of a shelter for women. I'm not going to deal with the rest of your comment as it is, as usual, ridiculous.
David, the theme of your GMP piece is that there is no activism in MRA. Isn't that punchline contradicted by your statement that MRA's are calling donors of a shelter to stop funding? Furthermore, many in the MRA movement believe that domestic violence shelters are anti-male propoganda. ( http://www.chronwatch-america.com/articles/4030/1/The-Domestic-Violence-Industry--Hateful/Page1.html )
BTW, the thought that MRA's don't do any activism certainly is not true in my case. I was one of the organizers of the newly formed non-profit Erotic Service Providers Legislative, Educational and Research Project ( http://esplerp.org/ ) which will be filing suit in California to try to enjoin the enforcement of prostitution laws. I edited and the text of San Francisco's Proposition K for the proponent of the measure, and designed the petition (http://www.yesonpropk.org/). Prostitution laws are a direct attack against men. I am my cities bicycle and pedestrian advisory committee...just to name a few of the things that get me out of the house.
Maggie, you really need to read a bit more carefully. As I said, the calls were "the closest thing" I've seen to an activist campaign. It was also not a terribly constructive one. How does trying to take money away from a shelter for women -- mostly for women, it actually helps men too -- help male abuse victims? As for your activism, well, that actually seems a lot more constructive. I think prostitution should probably be legalized, as do many feminists. I don't think prostitution laws are an attack on men, though. I think it's probably fair to say that you are not a typical Men's Rights activist, however.
"And that’s a pity, because—if you set aside the misogyny of so many of those in it—the Men’s Rights Movement does actually raise some legitimate issues. Male victims of domestic violence really do deserve shelters and sympathy. The epidemic of prison rape deserves to be taken seriously, instead of simply providing an easy punchline to crude jokes. MRAs raise real concerns about the effects of circumcision. But they’re not likely to make any headway on any of these issues if they keep doing what they’re doing."Wanna bet?
I volunteer as a medic on weekend night shifts, riding an NHS ambulance and helping injured/sick men and women receive emergency medical care and taking them to the hospital when necessary.I also go on the internet and attempt debate with MRAs who seem unable to do anything except mock feminists and call them names. I'm not denying that there are men's issues that need addressing, but these guys don't really seem to want to address these issues - they prefer to rant about how It's All Women's/Feminists' fault, and fantasize about a perfect world in which those uppity bitches will finally know their place.
Amused: Disclaimer: You aren't even mildly amusing.Actually I find her extreme sense of entitlement and superiority to be highly amusing, as well as her ludicrous strawmen and her assumption that anyone who disagrees with her must hate women, evidence and ethics be damned.
Ooh, did I hit a couple of nerves :)Gentlemen, I get your complaint, I really do. Why should feminists discuss the ways in which women's lives can be made better and safer? Instead, everyone should focus on what men can do for men and what women can do for men. Right? Why should anyone worry about laws being passed which deprive women of gynecological care and bodily autonomy, as well as laws that permit hospitals to refuse life-saving care to women, at a time when child support laws imperil men's inalienable right to fuck without a condom? Obviously, the latter is a much greater affront to human decency and the welfare of society.Meanwhile, why don't you explain to us all the ways in which you don't act entitled, and how you don't believe yourself superior to women, and how you don't assume that anyone who disagrees with you must hate men, evidence and ethics be damned.I will concede that there is one area in which you are superior to me, gentlemen: when it comes to amusement, though I may be anywhere from non-amusing to mildly amusing to you, YOU amuse me endlessly.
Wow, you sure were quick to illustrate my point, as well as to demonstrate a warped understanding of how burden of proof works. This from someone who claims to be a lawyer, no less.
Cold, why don't you also grace us with the MRA staple about "shaming language" and "ad hominem" comments? I totally get a kick out of you guys nonsensically spouting them fancy-sounding fifty-cent words and pretending you speak Latin. I want to hear that whole complaint about how feminists respond to criticism of feminism with personal attacks -- how it's a "female" tactic, and how MRA's never respond to criticism of the MRM with personal attacks and you, know, shaming language. Like, you know, you and your buddy Jason TOTALLY didn't do it here. Go ahead, Cold, please -- it would really amuse me.
"Ooh, did I hit a couple of nerves :)"---AmusedYou haven't done any better with remarks like this. Of course, I slag, but I slag with flair and sardonic wit. Employ some creativity coupled with creative thinking and we'll talk shop.
I'll use shaming language and ad hominem comments as I see fit; I won't do it just because you asked me to. If you really are a lawyer and not just pretending to be one on the Internet, then you have learned a bunch of Latin legal terms in law school which you use with regularity in court. So, by your twisted logic, you are constantly pretending that you speak Latin. By that same logic, anytime you go to a sushi bar and order "tekkamaki" instead of "tuna roll" you are pretending that you speak Japanese.Calling an idiot an idiot and a misandrist a misandrist may constitute ad hominem attacks, but they are not logical fallacies. Since most people are too stupid and/or lazy to actually read up on how logic works and on what defines a fallacy, they habitually use the term "ad hominem fallacy" even though there is no such thing. The typical feminist shaming language response combines an ad hominem attack with a logical fallacy, usually that of the red herring or the illicit metabasis. The thought of you frantically Googling for some help in understanding the meaning of that last sentence has already provided me with enough amusement to last me through the day. Thanks, and keep on amusing me.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Cold: "If you really are a lawyer and not just pretending to be one on the Internet, then you have learned a bunch of Latin legal terms in law school which you use with regularity in court. [...], etc."Actually, I don't give a shit whether or not you believe that I'm a lawyer. You MRA nitwits are so wrapped up in the fantasy that the world revolves around you, you constantly make the mistake of believing that people desire your validation. I will note one thing though: I mentioned that I am a lawyer once, in the context of a discussion where it was actually relevant: a discussion about an area of law in which I have expertise. Since then, you've dragged out the fact that I am a lawyer (or the allegation, as you prefer) every single time you address me or talk about me -- which, of course, proves that this is something that really chaps your ass. Your angry rantings won't change what I am in actual reality -- but they do demonstrate again and again how very fragile your ego is. If it's any consolation, I didn't choose this profession for the purpose of annoying you. Then again, who knows, perhaps that comment will offend you by its implication that it's not all about you.As for the practice of law -- if you had any familiarity with it, you'd know that Anglo-American jurisprudence has been moving away from archaic medieval Latin and Old French terms for about 50 years now. Self-important lay assholes use legalese far more copiously than lawyers do, and always incorrectly. Oh, and another thing you learn in law school: a bunch of fancy-sounding terminology does not pass for a convincing argument. In fact, a well-known technique among lawyers involves writing the first draft of a brief or oral argument without any terminology, in plain everyday English, to see whether it actually makes sense and sounds convincing enough without all the frills. But of course, common sense is lost on misogynists.Oh, and, spouting fancy foreign verbiage for the purpose of self-aggrandizing -- whether it's archaic legal terms or names of sushi -- qualifies as pretending to speak a foreign language in a bit to impress people one believes to be dumb."Calling an idiot an idiot and a misandrist a misandrist may constitute ad hominem attacks, but they are not logical fallacies."Calling a genius an idiot, and a decent person a bigot isn't a logical fallacy either. Man, your understanding of logic stinks."Since most people are too stupid and/or lazy to actually read up on how logic works and on what defines a fallacy, they habitually use the term "ad hominem fallacy" even though there is no such thing."Since most MRA's believe they have an innate understanding of logic springing from their penis, as well as that Spearhead is a competent source of information on how logic works, they habitually make statements about logic that are nothing short of comedy gold."The typical feminist shaming language response combines an ad hominem attack with a logical fallacy, usually that of the red herring or the illicit metabasis. The thought of you frantically Googling for some help in understanding the meaning of that last sentence has already provided me with enough amusement to last me through the day."Oh, I bet it wasn't nearly as amusing as the image of you giggling with narcissistic excitement over your uncanny ability to string a bunch of fancy-sounding words together; the image of you slapping your knee: "Yesss! I got to use the word 'metabasis' in a sentence, finally! Also 'illicit'! I am such a genius, I have a vocabulary of no less than a hundred words, of which no less than thirty make me sound really smart in front of this feminist! Thanks, Spearhead! Bet she's gonna cry now!"
Lawyers rarely use Latin in court anymore.With the spread of self represented litigants, it is considered unfair to do that to them so most lawyers are trained to use regular English.
"Which is it, are we brutally conquering the legal system and stealing babies or just sitting around chatting?"Well, since MRAs are obvious cowardly liars, and know that they are, feminists will be accused of whatever will be most convenient at the time for MRAs to shit out some more cowardly lies and flaccid bigotry. This is the best they can do.
And Amused - you're bleeding hilarious. Watching them squirm and try to puff up their chests to come off macho and intelligent is worth the prive of admission.I'm so very glad I rescued myself from MRA clutches before I became one of these useless whining liars.
Cold or Nicko, here's a question for you. How can I get you to like me? I'm a woman in my late twenties. This cannot be changed. But let's assume that I am willing to change everything about myself that can be altered, to make it so that guys like you will admire and approve of me. Please, tell me - what do I have to do? How should I behave? Who do I vote for? What should I wear? What church (if any) should I join? Because I'm real interested - you claim to not be misogynists, and for now, I'll believe you. If you are truly not misogynists, then there must be some aspects of womanhood and femininity that you admire. I am passionately curious to find out what qualities you approve of in women. And while I can understand saying, "Don't do X," I'd prefer more proactive measures - tell me what *to* do, instead of what I shouldn't do.
Kratch: "Is that choice for everyone? Or Just women?"I understand that you want a form of hormonal birth control for men. I think that's a good idea; I hope some pharmaceutical company is working on that problem right this second. The march has two objectives; to protest the erosion of Roe v. Wade and to support Planned Parenthood.Planned Parenthood provides medical care for men and women, it provides STD testing which keep both men and women from infecting their partners, it is the one of the cheapest places to purchase condoms, it provides education which gives men and women better control over their reproductive health and, therefore, over their choices. Also, rolling back Roe v. Wade is bad for men as well as women. I know that a lot of MRA's feel that it is unfair that they must financially support children they would have preferred aborted, I don't know how to address that. My preference would be a strong governmental support system into which we all pay a reasonable tax so the cost is spread across society and not placed just placed on unwilling parents, but that is very, very unlikely. We don't even want to fund schools for children who exist. That being said, making abortion more difficult to access is only going to make that problem worse. It leads to more children, perhaps unwanted by both parents, and those children will be legally entitled to more support payments. Finally, if you're asking about the right of men to choose to continue a pregnancy that a woman has decided to abort. I cannot see an ethical place from which that can be argued. From what I can see, giving birth in America is unpleasant, expensive, dehumanizing and increasingly unsafe. Access to contraception and abortion are less unpleasant, less costly, safer, and help maintain people's autonomy. You may have a different perspective, of course.
> Since most people are too stupid and/or lazy to actually read up on how logic works and on what defines a fallacy, they habitually use the term "ad hominem fallacy" even though there is no such thing. I'm an expert on formal semantics, and my wife teaches rhetoric. Ad hominem is a fallacy, in "informal logic" . Walton, Douglas (2008). Informal Logic: A Pragmatic Approach. Cambridge University Press. pp. 190 pp., cited on the Wikipedia page for "Ad hominem".
I saw a news article that some pharmaceutical company in Indonesia is developing a male birth control pill - they're basing it on a plant that's locally used by men to prevent pregnancies. They've done animal testing and a small human trial, and now they're ready to move on to larger scale human testing. Good news, eh!
Nick, if 99% of feminists never lifted a finger women wouldn't be where they are today. Women nowadays can now vote, work and go to college because somewhere along the line a woman fought for those rights. We've come a long way and we've still got a ways to go too.
Personally, I just dick around on the Internet and draw cartoons all day.Lady Victoria, your question is one that interests me as well. As a woman over 30, I'm pretty sure I have no place in the ideal MRA world and should hie to an ice floe right now, but there may still be hope for you! As far as I've been able to discern, this is what a woman must do to be acceptable to MRAs:1. Do not work outside the home. Only evil man-hating career women have jobs, plus if you have your own income you'll have more power to cheat on your partner, instead of him cheating on you as is the proper way of things.2. Do not be a homemaker. It means you're just leeching off a man's hard-earned money, plus it's a fake job because everyone knows housework takes no effort and children raise themselves.3. Accept any offer of sex from any man who approaches you. Otherwise you'll hurt his feelings, which is worse than a million rapes.4. Never have sex. It makes you a slut. Also, any woman who has sex instantly contracts a million billion STDs.5. Do not go out with outgoing, self-confident guys. They're hateful "alpha males" and "bad boys."6. Do not go out with introverted, shy guys. They're hateful "manginas" and "white knights."7. Do not go out with women. Lesbians, eww.8. Don't spend any effort on your looks. Only shallow gold-digging bitches do that.9. Don't be fat, ugly, hairy, badly dressed, or visibly older than 25. Only gross lesbian man-haters do that.10. Don't be attractive. Women just do that to frustrate and manipulate men.11. Don't be unattractive. Women just do that to insult and annoy men.12. Never leave a man for any reason.13. Don't hang around boring a man and infecting him with your stupid girly girliness.14. If you get divorced, give your husband custody of the kids.15. If you get divorced, see to it that your husband doesn't have to do any sissy child-rearing.16. Never have an abortion.17. Never have a baby.18. Always pay your own way, support yourself financially and emotionally, and never ask a man for help with anything.19. But don't be independent. What are you, some kind of feminist?
Cold or Nicko, here's a question for you.How can I get you to like me?Following the golden rule would be a good start.I'm an expert on formal semantics, and my wife teaches rhetoric. Ad hominem is a fallacy, in "informal logic" .I'm an expert in being right by virtue of baselessly claiming expertise, and my girlfriend teaches advanced sophistry. Ok that's not true, but seriously, the idea of ad hominem being a logical fallacy surfaced in the late 1800s and depends on the questionable idea that the same argumentative approach can be valid in some situations and a logical fallacy in others.[source: http://www.humanities.mcmaster.ca/~hitchckd/adhominemissa.htm]Those of us who don't accept such a broad definition of "logical fallacy" and who prefer to define them as argumentative approaches that are ALWAYS fallacious don't accept the idea of an "ad hominem fallacy". Every legitimate accusation of an "ad hominem fallacy" is actually the combination of an ad hominem attack and a proper logical fallacy, expressed in the same sentence. There are also a huge number of groundless accusations of it where an ad hominem attack is correctly identified but no proper fallacy has been committed, at least not in that sentence. Amused makes this mistake frequently.
@SallyStrange,Indeed, that IS good news! Seriously!I guess I'm just not very bright, because I can't seem to fathom how feminists, largely supportive of the birth control pill for women, are seen as deliberately hindering efforts to produce a birth control pill for men. Unless, of course, the more conspiracy-theory minded MRAs think that feminists publicly support birth control for women. while actually abhorring it in private, in order to lull men into a false sense of security so we can later "extort" child support from them.And just think of the other freedoms that await men once a male birth control pill is ready for market! No longer will they have to quit their job when they get married, be fired or forced to resign from work when they have a baby on the way, be banished from school if pregnancy results from the sexual intercourse they've had....... oh, wait......
Oh, and, spouting fancy foreign verbiage for the purpose of self-aggrandizing -- whether it's archaic legal terms or names of sushi -- qualifies as pretending to speak a foreign language in a bit to impress people one believes to be dumb.How do you know it's for the purpose of self-aggrandizing? On wait, you don't, you just like talking out of your ass, which incidentally helps to ease my skepticism of you actually being a real lawyer. And yes, I hold a negative opinion of lawyers and of the legal system in general, since when was that a secret?Most people who use Latin terms use so for the purpose of PRECISION. English is a living language and the meanings of words have this pesky tendency to change over time. The use of Latin terms for important concepts is popular in many different academic disciplines precisely because their meanings are unlikely to change, Latin being a dead language and all.Again, when ordering a Japanese dish in a Japanese restaurant by it's Japanese name most people aren't trying to fool the waiter into thinking they speak Japanese; You would have to be an idiot to think that. What they are doing is called "being precise". An order of "miso ramen" is far less likely to be misunderstood than an order of "noodles in a broth containing fermented soybean paste".For someone who acts so superior you sure are ignorant. If you actually did go to college you might want to consider asking for a refund as they really did an awful job of educating you.Calling a genius an idiot, and a decent person a bigot isn't a logical fallacy either. Man, your understanding of logic stinks.Responding to a true statement with another true statement does nothing to demonstrate any lack of understanding of logic on my part, although it certainly would call yours into question if you hadn't already demonstrated it to be piss-poor.
Hmm... I find it interesting that Cold won't really give me a substantial answer, but spends quite a lot of his time trashing lawyers?Maybe he really just doesn't like women...?I mean, if he (I am assuming Cold is male) laid down what he thought made a virtuous woman, he'd have to stop moving goalposts around, at least for part of the time. Or just admit that he straight up doesn't find women likable. @Shaenon: It was coming to those conclusions that made me realize that no matter what I did with my life, someone was ready to tell me, 'yer doin' it wrong.' That was one of my first realizations when developing my personal feminism - if every choice I make is going to make some people unhappy, then I should really only care about making me happy.
A substantial answer would constitute more text than what is allowed in a single comment here and would not be worth my time unless it was being viewed by a wide audience. I told you how to get started, the the very first thing you did was do the opposite of what I suggested.See, I suggested that you follow the golden rule, which means that you treat others the way you would want to be treated. I'm pretty sure that, after expressing your legitimate gripes against a certain profession, you wouldn't want others to respond by saying "Maybe she really just doesn't like men...?" Unless I am wrong and that really is how you like to be treated, you broke the golden rule. People who flagrantly disregard the golden rule tend not to be liked.Before you even go there, I don't follow the standard golden rule. I treat others as they treat me and as they treat my compatriots, but when I meet people for the first time I give them the benefit of the doubt. I do this because I have higher priorities than being liked; if being liked was my only concern then I would always follow the golden rule.
Cold, I actually don't care if you like me or not. I asked the question because I have yet to get a straight answer out of a self-described MRA on what sort of woman they actually like. They duck the question, ignore me or pretend like it doesn't matter. And who knows, maybe to you it doesn't actually matter. Maybe there is no possible way for a woman to be a good person in your eyes.
This woman on YouTube is well-liked by MRAs and considered by most of us to be a good person. I certainly consider her to be one.Telling you that I don't consider it to be practical or a good use of my time to answer your question in full here isn't "duck[ing] the question" any more than when a physics professor refuses to tell you everything that was covered in the lecture that you missed or the course that you didn't take.
I think Shaenon's answer pretty much summed up what MRAs want.
Er, my HTML tag was eaten but "This woman on YouTube" was supposed to link here:http://www.youtube.com/user/marinaistehsexUnfortunately I see that she has now made all of her videos on feminism and men's issues private for some reason, but she is liked by MRAs because she shares our viewpoint, even if she doesn't explicitly call herself an MRA.
I think Shaenon's answer pretty much summed up what MRAs want.Shaenon's answer is a strawman, but of course strawman arguments and guilt by association are about all you are good at so it is no surprise that you would agree with it.Oh, and, uh, MRAs aren't all clones of each other. I know that idea has the effect of reducing all of your brilliant "dismantling" into a bunch of mined quotes from individuals who might be actual MRAs and might be feminist posers, but it's true nonetheless. We aren't clones of each other; if MRA #1 wants X and MRA #2 wants the opposite of X, that doesn't mean that MRAs as a whole want to have X and the opposite of X simultaneously.
Well, yeah, that list was written as if all MRAs were one dude. Which is kind of a frightening talk. But I have seen each and every one of these ideas put forth -- to general assent from the MRA/MGTOW masses -- on all sorts of forums. The next day someone else will say the complete opposite and get the same show of support from the guys there. Maybe I need to look around to find specific examples of MRAs stating completely contradictory things all by themselves.
I'm not asking for a detailed analysis, just for you to take five minutes to tell us what you think makes a woman likable. Here, I'll start:What makes a person likable is when they are intelligent and thoughtful. I enjoy spending time with people who are creative, self-assured and confident. A good person doesn't lie or steal and does their best to reduce the amount of suffering in the world. A good person treats everyone they meet with respect, or at least civility. A good person finds happiness in making the people they care about happy; but they don't neglect their own needs. A good person recognizes that they aren't perfect, and can accept themselves - and by extension, accept that other people will make mistakes as well. A good person is willing to let other people live their own lives as they see fit, provided others aren't being harmed. If they choose to be a parent, a good person tries hard to be best parent they can be. A good person recognizes when they've done something wrong, and will work to make amends. A good person is up front about what they believe and will stand by what they say. A good person stops for pedestrians crossing the street, avoids eating veal and recycles their old soda cans. A good person takes responsibility for their choices. I timed it, it took me just over five minutes to write that. Now, my description is gender-neutral, because I think that what makes a good person is about the same no matter who you are. However, lots of MRAs enjoy dividing people into camps based on gender, and it seems like their requirements for a good man and a good woman are different.
Lady V, there is nothing inherant to gender that causes me to like or dislike someone. If you want me to like you, don't try. be yourself and if I like you I like you, if I don't, I don't. There is nothing someone (man or woman) can do to make me like them if I come to dislike them. But as I am a pretty easy going person, and take peoples faults as part of who they are, I don't tend to dislike many people. That said, I do have a big problem with hypocrites and people who refuse to debate reasonably. If you keep turning my argument into something else you find easier to debate, or take the moral high-ground, I will have nothing to do with you. But to my experience, you have not been one of those people. You are open to debate and tend to counter points I've actually made. Unlike many others who post here.Hide: "to protest the erosion of Roe v. Wade"And protesting the decision of Dubay vs Wells would fit right along side. Both involve reproductive choice. It's just one is supported by feminism and the other is opposed by it. "That being said, making abortion more difficult to access is only going to make that problem worse. It leads to more children, perhaps unwanted by both parents, and those children will be legally entitled to more support payments. "That's debatable. It can also be said that men and women will Actually take more care of their birth control if the fallback of abortion becomes more difficult to acquire. Additionally, adoption could become more common, which signs away the parental responsibilities of both parents. But overall, I would like to see both men and women have reasonable access to various means of controlling their reproductive rights."if you're asking about the right of men to choose to continue a pregnancy that a woman has decided to abort."No. This is not something I agree with ether. very few MRA's do (except those also involved in the abortion debate as pro lifers). Most MRA's just want the results of the abortion debate (the choice to terminate parental responsibilities) to be applied to both genders equally. You're welcome to check out the debate on another of Davids threadshttp://www.manboobz.com/2011/03/feminists-lizard-brained-sperm-hunters.html
However, lots of MRAs enjoy dividing people into camps based on gender, and it seems like their requirements for a good man and a good woman are different.Not just different, but polar opposites, like most everything else in their dichotomous world.A good man commands obedience and a good woman obeys men's commands.
"Not just different, but polar opposites, like most everything else in their dichotomous world.A good man commands obedience and a good woman obeys men's commands."You are equating the handful of men that David mines from MRM sites as being representative of the entire MRA. Nether I nor anyone I've seen have ever said that women must obey men's commands.But the feminist definition is virtually the opposite of that you equate to MRA's. You demand women be given respect (but feel men deserve to be distrusted, even feared as a predator and abuser, and must earn their respect), and that men should be submissive and subservient to women's needs (by allowing discrimination such as affirmative action, and hateful Domestic Violence and rape industry propaganda, without complaint). "The good men project", which this very article links to, and who's editor's and frequent writer's (Hugo as an example) are clearly feminist, demonstrates this perfectly.
Actually, if legal abortion becomes less accessible, that just means that desperate women will try other measures to end a pregnancy they don't want - like black cohosh, which only works some of the time and only early in a pregnancy, and which can cause more problems (for instance, it can potentially kill a woman if her pregnancy is ectopic). And abortion is already pretty difficult to get, depending on where one lives. If you're a fairly well off woman living in an urban center, you're likely able to find a provider, pay for it and take the time off work. If you're a poorer woman living in a less densely populated area, it's going to be harder - especially if you live in a state which has placed extra restrictions, like mandatory waiting periods. Men who are terrified of the responsibilities of fatherhood should be all for making abortion easily accessible to all women. The key to reducing abortion is increasing education and the availability of reliable birth control (which you can usually also obtain at clinics that perform abortions). I'm all for the development and commercial accessibility of a male pill, and I know many male friends who are hoping for it as well. These are men who know that condoms fail every now and then, and that once the egg is fertilized, the choice is out of their hands. Also, Amanda Marcotte had a much more articulate response to the idea of 'paper abortion' than I.http://pandagon.net/index.php/site/comments/link_farm_and_the_emotional_exhausting_men_who_believe_themselves_so_oppres/
A good person doesn't lie or steal and does their best to reduce the amount of suffering in the world.Strawman arguments are the result of intellectual laziness at best and deliberate lying at worst, and either way they increase the amount of suffering in the world.
Kratch:Is that case being appealed to the Supreme Court? It looks like it was decided in the 6th Circuit court.
Kratch: "It can also be said that men and women will Actually take more care of their birth control if the fallback of abortion becomes more difficult to acquire."This argument doesn't make much sense to me. We should put barriers in people's way so they act more virtuous, as we define it? What happens if they don't act like we'd like? They are punished by having a shittier, more difficult life. Why not accept that people aren't perfect and give them as many tools as possible to reduce the harm that could come from their decisions? What's the downside?I'm pretty sure that people are not going to stop having sex and that birth control is not going to become infallible. We know how people act and what the consequences of those actions are, that's all of the information we need to craft policy focused on harm reduction.
Kratch-Dubay v Wells was dismissed according to Wiki.I think his argument was a bad one-the courts do not generally take the lead in changing public policy.
Briget said: "you can be an anti-statist and a feminist at the same time. Today's political "feminism" has been taken over by statist philosophy. Being known as anti-statist could get one kicked out of many feminist circles today. What would the hypocritcal liberal Democrats say: Get out of my movement, anti-statist anarchist! Of course.Feminist "icons" like Obama, Biden and Hillary Clinton are warmongers who send more troops to Afghanistan. They support bank Bailouts and Bush-era legislation like the Patriot Act. They are Okay with the death penalty being in most states. They support the war on drugs! This is NOT humanist, pro-equality action. If YOU support them, you do NOT support "equality." The hypocritical NOW organization pushes for custody for the mother in all situations, regardless of parental fitness. They made excuses for a mom who drowned her kids, going after the father, mostly. They've done worse things than that. If you support NOW, you don't support equality. The list goes on. Some of the earliest feminist "heroes" were racist, like Margaret Sanger. She talked about "inferior races". Wonderful. Others, like Christabele Pankhurst, tried to shame men into fighting in the war, with the white feather campaign. Yeah, I know the Non-feminists and Conservatives have done a lot of damage, too, the Bushes, and Mccarthy's. But if I had to write about all the bad, and the hypocricy of "Feminists" who endorsed patriarchal values like chivalry, and INEQUALITY, it suited them, I would be writing posts all day.
@springer80:Is your point "Some people in the past who did good things also did bad things" or "Some people are imperfect at living their beliefs" or "Some people hold beliefs that are internally inconsistent"?Those things are true about people, it's not a solely feminist malady.
You are equating the handful of men that David mines from MRM sites as being representative of the entire MRA. Nether I nor anyone I've seen have ever said that women must obey men's commands.Why do you (and Eoghan used to do this, too) think that my (and anyone else who opposes MRAs and MRM) only knowledge and experience with MRAs and MRM comes from David's site? I can't speak for anyone else, but I have been aware of and have perused MRA and other MRM sites from long before David's site even existed.Here are some comments from The Spearhead alone, never mind other sites that I've frequented, that do tend to lean towards espousing that women be obedient to men:Carnivore:"When God created mankind, He ordained that men should lead and be the authority while women should follow and submit to men's authority.""The question, of course, is not what I or you or any other man wants; the question is, what is good for and promotes a society and culture. Historically, that is clear: a patriarchy with a private life of solid, father-led families and a public life run mainly (99.99%) by men."Toby:"This dependent relationship requires the child to submit to the parent’s authority just as a healthy adult relationship requires the female to submit to the male’s authority."Elusive Wapiti:"Although I realize that many, if not most here are not observant Christians, a more perfect illustration of why feminism is a rebellion against God and His created order could not be offered.The order goes like this...God - husband - wife - children. It was set up in this way not because men are somehow better than women...the Bible is quite clear in that regard...but because this arrangement works for the benefit of us all. Little wonder then that we as a species suffer terribly when this order is corrupted or inverted."ramzpaul:"In a similar manner, submitting to your husband is acknowledging that he has legitimate authority over your life."Welmer:"So, in a society bound by laws that evolved as a means to govern male behavior, the only way to maintain a balance of power between the sexes is to grant men authority over women. Men submit to the law (both spiritual and temporal) and women submit to men. When women are no longer under male authority, lawlessness prevails because they are not bound by the law.""...this mastery over wives was just another difficult job for most men. It's even worse now, because women are not broken in as girls."zebert:"All females are to be surrendered to the central authority (of men) at birth."David Collard:"Nobody likes to obey another human being, or even comply with his wishes. Women will always complain about following their husbands. The only really important question is: does she actually do what you want her to do? Nothing else matters.""I have no compunction about expecting my wife to honour my wishes as to how she dresses and behaves. I don’t like women in trousers, and I expect her to wear skirts or dresses.""Frankly, if any man here thinks telling a woman what to wear is too extreme, maybe he needs to reconsider his programming. That is nothing."
My initial post was too lengthy, so here's the remainder:Simonsen:"I’ve found a lovely Eastern European woman, pretty, smart, entirely traditional, who basically hates American women, views them with utter contempt. Why? Because she gets them for what they are, and she has kept her own family’s values. Look at her family VERY closely – this is what you will get. In my gal’s case, dad is a true patriarch, of the kind not seen in the USA for decades: good-natured but a tad grumpy, authoritarian, and openly contemptuous of women doing anything but housework and cooking – he treats them as cute but clueless and needing male supervision 24/7.This, of course, is exactly what my gal expects (and why, before me, she found American men clueless and pansified). And this is what I get. Her dad and I, of course, get along spendidly."Anonymous:"Being a husband, therefore, involves having that mailed fist, but with a velvet glove over it. Ideally, all the wife ever sees is the glove, but at some level she knows the armored fist is there."Keyster:"The natural balance of power in the male/female bond has been compromised by feminist culture. The more people come to terms with this reality, the sooner we can begin to correct it."
Lady V, I don’t disagree with you regarding making abortion more accessable, but I find it disturbing when people demonstrate a hypocrisy by claiming women need and deserve “more” access to abortions while simultaneously denying men even a semblance of the choice that abortion gives women… For the exact opposite reason they demand abortions (IE, women need abortions to prevent parenthood when something unexpected happens… but men should take responsibility and pay their dues when something unexpected happens.). I can not in good conscience advocate for abortion without doing so for male reproductive rights simultaneously, and if someone chooses to reject my call for male reproductive rights, my choice to defend it, and to acknowledge the double standard between men and women in this regard, does not take away from my agreement that abortion is a good thing. The simple fact is, so long as feminists tell men that they should take responsibility for any sex that lead to children, while denying them any say into whether that sex even leads to a child (and if they don’t like it, keep your pants on), I am willing to apply those same arguments back at them in the abortion debate.I’ll read Marcotte’s article later, but if it’s anything like that joke she posted on good men’s project, I highly doubt it’s even remotely as articulate and intelligent as what you could come up with on your own.Hide: “Is that case being appealed to the Supreme Court? It looks like it was decided in the 6th Circuit court.”I am not certain, as I am not particularly familiar with the intricacies of the American legal system… But I think the Supreme Court has already rejected it…http://www.whitman.edu/rhetoric/decisions/10-laura-lewis-dad-support-child.htm“This argument doesn't make much sense to me. We should put barriers in people's way so they act more virtuous, as we define it?”Be aware I do not advocate for the closer of abortion centers. I actually agree with them. However, the arguments levied against male reproductive rights are no different then those trying to be avoided by abortion. Take responsibility for unwanted parenthood. If the solution to men’s reproductive rights concern is to ether use a condom and suffer the consequences should it fail, or stop having sex altogether, then that solution should be equally adequate for women as well (with or without abortion), who have far more options, and even more effective options, then a condom. If that solution is deemed inadequate for women, then why is it not also inadequate for men? Therefore, while I don’t advocate putting up barriers for women, I don’t see it as anything unreasonable so long as feminists and courts likewise keep barriers in place for men. As to what you quoted… Many people these days, men and women, think of abortion as an easy fix. The rates of abortion have skyrocketed over the last decade or two. Some places more then others. This shows abortion as being used as a form of birth control. If abortion becomes less available, both sex’s will not have the fallback of abortion. Men currently assume or trust women who claim they don’t want kids, and when pregnancy occurs, she refuses to abort. Without the trust that abortion is available, men may take more responsibility. Women likewise sometimes think they don’t want children, but upon become pregnant, change their minds. If abortion was no longer as accessible as a fallback, getting to the pregnant part and changing ones mind would become less frequent. Admittedly, this may be offset by the number of truly accidental pregnancies that would become more difficult to stop (but there is still adoption and abandonment), but we can’t be certain to what degree ether of these factors will play out.
"Why do you (and Eoghan used to do this, too) think that my (and anyone else who opposes MRAs and MRM) only knowledge and experience with MRAs and MRM comes from David's site? "because I have openly seen some posters here claim that they can't be bothered to go to a link David posted to see the source of the quotes he provides, that they will simply take Davids words at face value. This followed by the fact that all opinions of MRA's are based upon the same pool, IE, the spearhead, that David mines (IE, even if you do visit them, your motivations may be ether similar to David's (finding justification to attack the MRM) or based on David's direction (given he rarely posts from anywhere else)). Lastly is many of you seem to lack an understanding of the actual issues being fought for my MRA's, and instead have some pretty far fetched assumptions or misrepresentations, of which any time actually spent reading things other then the hate spewed at the spearhead (IE, a place where angry bitter men gather, whether they have purpose or not. IE, akin to a bar where they can trash talk all they want with absolute anonymity.) would result in a more clear and reasonable understanding of the issues. Now, while you may or may not be an exception, I know for a fact some of Davids more vocal posters are exactly what is described, and I know based on their own confessions.
Kratch:I understand your position. I do have a quibble with this though, "This shows abortion as being used as a form of birth control." because abortion *is* a form of birth control. I might not think it is the best idea to have multiple abortions, but I am not willing to be the arbiter of what is a good and valid abortion and what is not. I also think that the image of a lady who has abortion after abortion is a bit of a canard. As a rational lady, I imagine most women respond to abortion the way I responded to mine, by saying, "Wow. I'm not going to fucking do that again." and then doing everything they can to not. But then, that's also the way I respond to getting cavities filled and having the flu because I did not get vaccinated and other minor medical interventions, because we're all doing the best we can.
The rate of *legal* abortion has perhaps gone up, but abortion has always been around. Women have always had ways to try and get out of a pregnancy they didn't want, like the herbal methods I cited earlier. Pennyroyal and feverfew can also serve as early term abortifacents, and it's thought that giant fennel could as well (giant fennel being hunted to extinction in Roman times, likely because of its birth control properties). And when abortion becomes inaccessible, infanticide goes up. Way up. Infanticide wasn't even a crime in most of the world until fairly recently (recently being the last few centuries or so). Basically, by restricting abortion, all you're doing is putting women's lives at risk. Not every woman changes her mind when she gets pregnant - some just do not want another child, and will do what they have to so they won't. You're also ignoring the cases where an abortion is needed because the mother's health is at risk, or when it's discovered the fetus has such terrible defects that it will not live long after birth.
“I do have a quibble with this though, "This shows abortion as being used as a form of birth control." because abortion *is* a form of birth control. “I see that as a very morbid and distasteful view of abortion. While I may agree it is beneficial to have access to, I do not see it as so trivial as to be placed on par with condoms and diaphragms. Furthermore, it is unique as it is a reactionary rather then a proactive means of preventing a birth, as well as is the termination of a potential life after it has begun growing, not prior to it’s creation. As such, it is in a class of it’s own… as far as I’m concerned.Lady V. this is the last time I will say this. I agree that abortion clinics should be made more accessible. I just CAN NOT show sympathy for a group of people complaining about how access is being limited to something they themselves are denying outright to another group of people. Let me quote myself:“Lady V, I don’t disagree with you regarding making abortion more accessible,”“Be aware I do not advocate for the closure of abortion centers.” (Admittedly, I spelt closure wrong the first time)I have said this a few times now, but you still insist on lecturing me about the benefit of abortion, ignoring my agreement, and then further ignoring my arguments for why I am reluctant to show sympathy to feminists. This is the very attribute I listed above as causing my disliking people, when you asked how you could be better liked by MRA’s. Did you ask simply to find a means of getting under our skin? Of using as a means to perturb and rankle us?
My points are, "Some people are imperfect at living their beliefs" and "Some people hold beliefs that are internally inconsistent". It is inconsistant to claim total independence, and yet want to be protected by others, with no protection offered in the other direction.For instance, some feminists would screech "I don't need a man!. I'm a independent womyn! I tell them: So, that means you don't need the firefighters who might put out your fires. Or the garbageman. Or what about the men that built your house in the first place! Or the electricians, etc. "Call out the sisterhood" on their hypocrisy!
Part of why I give such detailed comments is because this is not merely a private discussion between Vicky and Kratch - other people are reading, participating or even lurking. And you claim to want to make abortion more accessible, but then wonder if people would behave better without it. It's hard to tell if that's what you actually believe, or if you're just musing out loud. And many feminists are totally in favor of a male pill. Most of the feminists that I know believe birth control should be widely and freely available to all genders - in fact, most of what I know about the development of the male pill, I know through reading feminist blogs. Some women might believe in trapping a man with a pregnancy, but I would have a very difficult time calling that woman a feminist. And yes, my question about likability was mostly a rhetorical one. Argue against it all you like, but I've read a lot of MRA/MGTOW/PUA blogs myself, and it seems like a woman can never do anything right in the eyes of the men who frequent there - yet they get offended when they are called misogynist. Well alright, my thought process goes, perhaps they just have a radically different idea of what a virtuous woman is. Maybe they really are angry at 98% of the world, but can find 2% of women likable. Even if it is only 2%, I'm interested to know what MRAs find is a likable quality in a woman (MGTOWs and PUAs get a pass on this one, since it's pretty easy to tell what each group finds likable). Of course, any man who is truly not a misogynist will be able to answer precisely what they find likable in women and will be able to describe the qualities they can admire. Even if that quality was 'A good Christian woman who does what she is told and doesn't talk back.'
@Kratch,Actually, my first experience with MRM/MRA sites came from following a link posted on a Christian blog some time ago. I don't want to belabour the religious faith issue on this blog, but Christianity is a religious faith that I chose after studying and juxtaposing several faiths, and I have been interested in discussing various aspects of it (including "proper" gender roles) with fellow Christians ever since. The site that was linked to in the blog that I was reading just happened to be The Spearhead. My motivations for visiting there and other MRA/MRM sites is to be able to speak from a "having seen it with my own eyes" position when discussing some issues, be it here or on another blog/forum.It is quite apparent to me that even though some of the MRAs are not downright misogynists, most do subscribe to the "women are lesser than men in most everything" meme, and I can see how some of those prevailing beliefs work AGAINST trying to justify and effect some of the changes/reforms (lack of DV shelters for men, child custody and support decisions, to name a couple of examples) that the MRM/FRAs/MRAs want to see happen.If I might take one of your examples to show what I mean about the "shooting yourselves in the foot" effect that MRAs are currently experiencing.... Affirmative Action, for example. Do I support it? I have mixed feelings about it, as on the one hand it tends to uphold "otherizing", but on the other hand I don't want to see backsliding to previously acceptable hiring practices, such as this one that Carnivore provides for us:"Try suggesting that women’s suffrage is bad or that hiring preferences should be for married men supporting a family, single men and lastly women, in that order."I know that there is more to Affirmative Action than just the gender aspect of it, but he and all who would agree display why there continues to be a need for something like Affirmative Action, as imperfect a legislation that it is. The objection to Affirmative Action does not appear to be based on wanting meritocracy to be utilized in hiring practices, but, rather, that hiring practices should reflect keeping people in their "proper" place.As much as MRM and MRAs continue to bleat about feminists in particular and women in general wanting to have all the rights and privileges once afforded only to men without any of the associated responsibilities, the MRM and MRAs seem to want the male-only privileges of patriarchy (or traditionalism, if you prefer) without the negatives that primarily affect males only that are associated with it.
@Kratch,I just finished posting a lengthy response to you, and it will hopefully appear when it breaks its way out of the spam filter.
“It's hard to tell if that's what you actually believe, or if you're just musing out loud. “I do believe that abortion clinics should be made more accessible. But so long as Feminism actively opposes male reproductive rights, in particular, giving men a choice between the periods of conception and becoming a parent, just as abortion gives to women, for no other reason then to support a child that did not need to be brought into a world of poverty, but was done so anyways knowing the father would not support it (or not knowing one way or the other in the case of having the baby without ever informing the father)(IE, the situation as it would be if male reproductive rights were granted, not how it is now)… then I must consider alternatives that would put men and women on a more equal footing. I strongly believe in equality, and if Feminism insists that male reproductive rights are immoral and/or detrimental, and that a man should step up to the responsibility when he has sex and it leads to whatever the woman wants it to, then I believe a solution should be implemented to apply that reasoning to both genders… ether that, or acknowledge the argument is flawed (because it is).“And many feminists are totally in favor of a male pill.”And while the male pill would allow men to avoid the situation in the first place, it still doesn’t address the disparity of choice between post-conception and pre-parenthood. Just as there are medical complications for some women and the pill, so to will there be complications for some men. Those men still deserve a right to choose (but that choice should be far more costly then the male pill, so as to avoid the opt out being used as birth control over the male pill). But until a male pill is on the shelves and not 5 years away (like it’s been for decades), I will advocate for male reproductive choice.“Argue against it all you like, ““Of course, any man who is truly not a misogynist will be able to answer precisely what they find likable in women and will be able to describe the qualities they can admire. Even if that quality was 'A good Christian woman who does what she is told and doesn't talk back.'”Was my answer above insufficient? Or are you now the one musing aloud?“and it seems like a woman can never do anything right in the eyes of the men who frequent there”I’m curious if you may be equating some of the anti-feminism as anti-woman, or perhaps equating the acknowledgement as flaws as some kind of general overall attack on women, or both? I can regularly pick out flaws in my friends… My brother is perpetually late, to the point that I often tell him events I host are starting 1-2 hours before their actual start time so that, maybe, just maybe, he will arrive at a reasonable time. This does not mean my brother can do no right, or that I somehow hate him. What it means is he has a flaw, something about him that annoys me, and I acknowledge that flaw. Just because some men don’t like certain attributes in women, does not mean they don’t like women at all.
"The objection to Affirmative Action does not appear to be based on wanting meritocracy to be utilized in hiring practices,"The objection to affirmative action is largely an objection to the claim that women face discrimination in the workplace and that men do not. It is dishonest to claim men "have it better" in the workplace when there are government supported actions in place that specifically discriminate against men. And prominent feminists will often ignore such actions in favour of calling for more discrimination in the workplace to make things better for women (despite women now being the majority of the workforce). It's no different then in schools, where, at least in Canada, women have over 900 scholarship options, and men have less then 150, the gap between the number of men and women attending and graduating post secondary institutions is ever widening in favour of women (larger then the gap that existed between men and women when feminists claimed it was unacceptable) and yet government still insists on putting more money into getting women into post secondary and nothing for men. It's one thing to claim there is subtle discrimination against women in the workforce (if it wasn't subtle, it would be prosecutable), it is something else entirely to ignore active and overt discrimination in the opposite direction while doing so."As much as MRM and MRAs continue to bleat about feminists in particular and women in general wanting to have all the rights and privileges once afforded only to men without any of the associated responsibilities, the MRM and MRAs seem to want the male-only privileges of patriarchy (or traditionalism, if you prefer) without the negatives that primarily affect males only that are associated with it. "Acknowledging that prominent feminists are actively trying to reverse the power balance between men and women and attempting to stop that imbalance is not the same as trying to reverse things back to the starting point. Think about it this way, when I'm driving and I hit the brakes, it is not because I want to go back to where I started driving, it is because I don't want to continue going forward in the direction i'm going at that very moment.
As far as I am concerned, Kratch, you answered the likability question well enough (unlike Cold, who seems to have abandoned this thread). Let me put it another way - it's called the "Yeah, But They Have a Point" game. I usually play this with Republicans, Christians and other groups with whom I disagree. The challenge is to find at least one good thing about the opposition. Granted, it's been harder for me to successfully play it with the rise of the Tea Baggers & Sarah Palin, but I can still find some good things about each (people *should* be irate if their government is not listening to them; and Sarah Palin promotes an active and healthy lifestyle). I certainly don't agree with the rest of their rhetoric, but I feel like I can safely criticize someone as long as I can successfully play "Yeah, But They Have a Point."Being critical of a particular woman, or being critical of stereotypically female behavior, is not necessarily misogynist. What is misogynist is being so contemptuous of women that one cannot find one likable thing about a woman, or one way for a woman to be a good person. It's possible to be misogynist without that (my hypothetical Christian is still misogynist, just in a different way), but I find that asking my question usually gets a good response. A lot of MRAs enjoy moving the goalposts, as Shaenon illustrated, making it impossible for a woman to ever do anything right. As much as I disagree with your particular stance, Kratch, I can at least respect the fact that yours is well-stated and that you stand by it no matter what the topic of discussion is. But on that - what do you say to the notion that a child has a right to be taken care of or that a child has a right to parental support? Does a man's right to have sex without risking fatherhood trump a child's right to be taken care of? A woman who has an abortion is not abandoning a child; a man in your case is.
A lengthy comment from Pam was in the spam filter; it's up now, about 5 comments up, and worth reading.
@Kratch,I'm not saying that some of the issues that the MRM and MRAs are concerned about are not without some merit, I'm pointing out that their approach, combined with other beliefs that many of them hold and air, has a tendency to bite them in the ass.Now I can't tell some of them that the patriarchal or traditional values that they cling to are wrong, even though I myself DO believe that they are wrong, because I can't and won't force someone into believing something that they don't believe, as that won't change their heart, but I CAN try to point out how some of the beliefs that they hold combined with the manner in which they air their concerns, resonates, and not in a good way, with the audience(s) that they need to reach (which is not necessarily the audience that they are speaking TO). Take my example of Carnivore's statement, for instance. To some that might just seem like hyperbole, but to others it invokes a memory of something that was very real in a time that was not too long ago in the grand scheme of things. It may also invoke memories of a time when employers could and many (but not all) did force women to quit their jobs once they got married, fired women from their jobs if they became pregnant, etc. So when they need to reach the audience that's in that proverbial car you spoke of, it's an audience that's been travelling a long uphill road in said car, and that audience can hit the brakes when they may be uncertain if they want to continue forward, but any easing off of the foot that is on that brake, and.....My next question to you is... how the heck were you able to respond to my post when it was still in the spam filter???
David - I read just about every post you write, even though I comment very seldom, and I have to say that your site is amazing. It's the only place I've seen where sometimes feminists and MRAs manage to have a dialogue. Sure - most of the time the MRAs resort to ad-hominems and some truly sad name-calling, but I've actually read a comment or two by your MRA visitors that I can agree with (or at least see and accept the reasoning behind, even if I don't agree). I think it's mostly thanks to your patience, and the patience of regular commenters, who refuse to give up and keep engaging these people.I don't think that anyone will be convinced that wasn't convinced before... but the existence of dialogue where none was before, and the promotion of at least some understanding where before there was nothing but contempt is valuable in and of itself.Thanks for that.
“Let me put it another way - it's called the "Yeah, But They Have a Point" game….”Fair enough. But on the flip side, I would be surprised if there were more then 5 or 6 feminist posters on Davids website that could play that game with MRA’s without contradicting themselves or parroting someone else. You, Briget, Elizabeth being the 3 I can name for certain.“But on that - what do you say to the notion that a child has a right to be taken care of or that a child has a right to parental support? Does a man's right to have sex without risking fatherhood trump a child's right to be taken care of? A woman who has an abortion is not abandoning a child; a man in your case is. “I agree completely that a child has a right to be taken care of and supported. But nothing in that right states that it must be done against the supporters will. If a woman chooses to have a child against the fathers wish’s and after that father chooses to opt out**, it would be here choice to take on ALL the responsibilities in providing that support on her own. It is no different then a woman choosing to have a child via sperm Donors. She is doing so knowing full well she will not get support from the father, because that is the CHOICE she made. I see no reason that cannot be taken further in order to grant men the equal right of choice regarding reproductive rights. If a woman is capable of choosing to abort, abandon, adopt or keep a child, she is capable of making that choice with or without the support of a man, and there is nothing about men’s reproductive rights that would change any of that.**Please note again my personal acknowledgement of the timeframe in which a man can opt out. IE, within months of him first learning he is (to be) a parent. This ether gives the man who’s baby hs not been born yet the opportunity to accept or reject parenthood with time enough for the mother to make an informed choice… Or else it allows a father of a child that is already born and has been raised and supported by the mother alone up to that point, without his knowledge, the choice to let her keep raising the child without his knowledge and support, as she has been doing up to that point anyways.“I'm not saying that some of the issues that the MRM and MRAs are concerned about are not without some merit, I'm pointing out that their approach, combined with other beliefs that many of them hold and air, has a tendency to bite them in the ass.”Oh, I don’t entirely disagree. I personally hate the spearhead as being associated with the MRM. I feel it is a good tool for the MRM in finding people who are truly interested, but I see it as a place for all men who are angry or concerned to gather, including many who truly have no interest in the MRM and just seek other bitter, angry or hateful people to complain with. And those people being associated with the MRM both bother me and hurt the movement as a whole. But it also needs to be noted that simply speaking up for men and comparing what men lack that woman have been given has led to me being called a woman hater and misogynist on a number of occasions. Simply asking … “why is there a minister for the status of women and not one for the status of men” and then providing examples of ether why a men’s minister would be helpful and is needed, or if those reasons are deemed insufficient, why the women’s ministers duties are therefore also insufficient, has garnered this individual a great deal of personal attacks. http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=60266912006&topic=14674But on the flip side, I think any interpretation of people like Paul Elam and Glenn Sacks by David is personally biased to the point where he will interpret in the worst possible way, what is being said, and will refuse to acknowledge the very same sarcasm and underhanded humour that David himself uses. Furthermore, I think many of David’s posters opinions of people like Paul Elam and Glenn Sacks are tainted by David’s own bias and the clear smear campaigning David does on this website.
“My next question to you is... how the heck were you able to respond to my post when it was still in the spam filter???”I’m just that good. LOL but seriously, I get subscriptions sent to one of my emails (which is used solely for my MRA postings/work), and things caught in the spam filter are still sent to the subscription email immediately.There may be one of mine in there right now.
Wow--I'm really confused by all of this. One the one side this MRA speak of mailed fists in velvet gloves is repugnant. It really seems to be an expression of utter weakness.On the other side I have these highly educated very verbal women who seems to be full of everything I couldn't stand about my wife.Really--just repugnant people on both sides of the equation.Now before any of you MRA MOFO'a get on my case--I am you--but better.I have been ripped off by the courts--i had the three hundred mile drive every weekend.I had the visitation with my infant in the front seat of a pick up truck in winter in Ontario.I wanted the mother of my child dead.But I didn't do it. And I swallowed all of it till now we have a cordial relationship where the best considerations of our child are looked after.I'm hoping once my divorce goes through to have the same situation with the mother of my younger daughter.hey--if I have to drop off the mammoth steak at the door and walk on to make sure that my kids are looked after then fine.But before anyone decides to be "okay" with that--understand that I had a real battle with the urge to take a fuckng flame thrower into court and burn down any mother fucker who got in between me and my kids. I can't tell you how angry the assumption of that 'power' by anyone made me. And secondly--I love my girls--but I fear I'm going to have problems with the way they turn out if they turn out anything like the women I have known.I'm a tall, strong, educated man with a good job who cares about his community. I love my girls--i do not beleive in corporal punishment or belittling them in any way. I value reason over faith--my daughters and I have a tradition of taking our time in museums , art galleries, zoos. The next vacation is to drumheller to visit the dinosaur digs and the Tyrell museum. I have a budding paleontologist in the eldest. I believe the way to raise them is to let them know they are loved and valued and they have the power to shape their own lives with the capabilities in their own right. I this way I consider myself a feminist. It's just that I find myself a heterosexual with no desire to have anything to do with women lately. At all. So if I am GOING MY OWN WAY.Understand its nothing personal--i just have no more time to waste with an entire gender who automatically beleive due to the possession of a uterus that their opinion on vaccination as an example--trumps actual medical knowledge. Or that their gender somehow gives them the right to criticize my choices in raising my girls. I don't even know why I'm rambling at this site actually--the separation is fresh--I'm tired. I'm angry that ui put up with all of it as long as I did and more--I'm scared of the next steps around custody--she's already trying remove joint even though I have custody for six days out of 14. And that's only because I'm voluntarily giving up the house. Its all my daughter has known and I couldn't have her move way from that. The divorce will be painful enough.I'm hoping that the end will be cordial. I just find it sad that when I speak of being happily alone for the rest of my life and actively avoiding any deeper entanglements every one of my male friends--married or single--nods and understands it. Hell they actively support the idea.My femal friends and family? They get offended by the idea. Seriously--the same response--you will get over it--you will get on board again.Like my decision is the biggest threat to them personally somehow...ah fuck it...I am a man.
John Kilian:I don't know exactly what happens in those conversations with your female family and friends. On the one hand, quite obviously, your love life is no one's business but yours, and you should live as you choose without anyone's judgment or interference, as long as you harm no one else. I think most people will subscribe to that principle. On the other hand, if you constantly harp on a point, going on and on to your female family and friends about how sick you are of women and how you are fed up with women and how you wouldn't touch a woman with a ten-foot pole -- well, there is a point at which you are kind of making it their business, because if you do that, you are trying to get a rise out of them. I mean, reverse the genders. Imagine one of your female family or friends decided she would never be in a relationship again after getting out of a horrible marriage to a real asshole. I'm sure you'd have no problem with such a decision per se, especially since you wouldn't really be in a position to have a problem with it in the first place. Now imagine, alternatively, that in addition to making such a decision, she talked at length about how sick of men and their assholish superiority she is, and how she's totally done with men because they are just repugnant people. At some point, you'd probably get your hackles up. Wouldn't you think?You should also consider the possibility that when your male acquaintances endorse your resentment of women in front of their wives, girlfriends and daughters -- they are insulting the women in their lives. I don't think it's unreasonable for them to take offense. As much as you claim women regard themselves as superior, isn't it interesting how socially acceptable woman-hating talk is at picnics and barbecues?i just have no more time to waste with an entire gender who automatically beleive due to the possession of a uterus that their opinion on vaccination as an example--trumps actual medical knowledge. Or that their gender somehow gives them the right to criticize my choices in raising my girls.And? This is a female flaw, according to you? Read some of the postings on this site again, if you will. A common refrain by MRA's: "Men hunted the woolly mammoth and built civilization, created great art, music and literature, built awesome buildings, designed cars and planes, while women spent all their time sitting on their asses and eating bonbons!" Since men who make such statements have neither hunted the mammoth, nor created great art, music or literature, nor designed any buildings, nor invented new technologies, nor ever contributed to civilization in any significant way, the inference to be drawn from their argument is: "I am superior to women because I have a penis, just like Mozart did." You see MRA's make that statement all the freaking time. No one on this site, to my knowledge, has ever argued that women are superior by virtue of having a uterus; but there are plenty of arguments to the effect that men are superior by virtue of having a penis. But I do have this perception that whenever women assert that they are merely competent about something, it triggers the offended response that "OMG, this bitch thinks she knows better than me!!"Also: if women didn't get a disproportionate share of the blame in child rearing by virtue of having a uterus, maybe certain women wouldn't be tempted to argue that their uterus makes them especially competent. After all, anything goes wrong with a kid, it is automatically assumed the mother is at fault. Kid gets measles? It's because the mother ignored medical knowledge, and how repugnant it is that women don't get science! Kid gets a neurological disorder? It's because the mother "allowed" him to be vaccinated despite certain well-publicized doubts regarding the safety of vaccination, and what kind of a mother would take those risks?? Pick your poison.
“Now before any of you MRA MOFO'a get on my case--I am you--but better.”And you’ve decided to prove this by sinking to the lowest denominator… personal insults, arrogance and misogyny. You sound like the worst of the men that David regularly quotes, not their betters.“And secondly--I love my girls--but I fear I'm going to have problems with the way they turn out if they turn out anything like the women I have known.”And you can be certain your disdain for women, which WILL come through in your attitudes towards your daughters as they grow older, will not help change that.“No one on this site, to my knowledge, has ever argued that women are superior by virtue of having a uterus; “You would be wrong. It has come up on a number of occasions discussing male reproductive rights. You yourself very nearly skirt it in you comment, and certainly acknowledge that it is done…“ maybe certain women wouldn't be tempted to argue that their uterus makes them especially competent.”As to the bulk of that paragraph, is it because mothers are forced to be the caretaker, or because men aren’t allowed? I can tell you for certain that one of my male friend fathers have actually been denied the chance to spend alone time with his son by their wife (not ex) because the children had a mild fever and the mother did not trust him to take care of the child for two hours while she went out, despite his insistence that, not only was he capable, he WANTED the time, even if his son was sick. You can’t claim that mom was “forced” to be the responsible parent. I have two other friends that are treated pretty much the exact same way.
Kratch said: "I think any interpretation of people like Paul Elam and Glenn Sacks by David is personally biased to the point where he will interpret in the worst possible way, what is being said, and will refuse to acknowledge the very same sarcasm and underhanded humour that David himself uses."FWIW, I don't think Sacks is an asshole; I do think he made a really really bad choice in the way he handled the FAmily Place issue. Elam, on the other hand, is an straight-up misogynist asshole who somehow he manages to come up with excuses, again and again, to fantasize about violence against women, either as what he sees as "satire" or more straightforwardly. Hard to find a lot of humor in stuff like this:http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/fqia1/the_scourge_of_rape_yeah_whatever/c1i5awy
When I read screeds like John's I always wonder "why on earth did you get with this person in the first place? There are plenty of warning signs way before you get to the alter (or bed.)"
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.