Friday, April 15, 2011

Imaginary Feminism

An Imaginary Feminist in action.
There’s a great post up on The Pervocracy inspired by, well, some of the more lovable characters who frequent the comments section on this little blog – our resident antifeminists. As  Holly notes, the feminists posting here devote much of their time (naturally enough) to arguing for feminism, while the MRA types, by contrast, tend to argue against an imaginary enemy that only bears a vague passing resemblance to actual feminism. Holly sets forth the tenets of this imaginary feminism, or IF, as she’s managed to glean them from the comments by MRA types here.

IF, she notes, is monolithic:

Anything said by anyone calling themselves a feminist can be assumed to be true of anyone else calling themselves a feminist. Some random thing Andrea Dworkin said in 1973 is tattooed on all IF's chests backward so they can read it in the mirror. All IFs simultaneously subscribe to the beliefs of Valerie Solanas, Catharine McKinnon, Betty Dodson, Phyllis Schlafly, Twisty Faster, and that person who wrote those weird articles about Firefly. 

Imaginary Feminists have no real grievances, are eager to take rights away from men, love shaming men, and are simultaneously sex-hating puritans and sex-obsessed sluts.

In other words, they are dastardly creatures indeed. If they really existed, I would oppose them too.

The post is hilarious and spot-on in its critiques. Well worth reading.

EDIT: Link fixed. 

--
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.

175 comments:

  1. Interesting and somewhat true. But aren't people here doing the exact same thing when talking about MRAs? Stones in glass houses and all that.

    ReplyDelete
  2. we don't completely mischaracterize MRAs and MGTOW's.

    ReplyDelete
  3. "we don't completely mischaracterize MRAs and MGTOW's."

    Really? You take selected quotes from MRA boards and attack them. How is this any different from someone going after select feminist sources? Like Andrea Dworkin, Valerie Solanas, and that blogger who said that women should abort all male foetuses and refuse to nurse baby boys? If there is a difference, I haven't caught it so far.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Not so much, Ion. If you read the posts and comments here you'll see many, many examples of precisely what Holly is talking about. And I have yet to meet an MRA/MGTOWer who has a realistic view of what feminism is and isn't. It's certainly possible that such a person exists, but I haven't met one yet.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Ion, if you look at the sites I discuss and quote in my posts here, you'll see that the comments I quote are rather typical; you can find many more like them. I link to the sources of my quotes, so you can follow the links and see for yourself. (A couple of the MGTOW sites require registration, but that's a roadblock that is easily overcome if you really want to see if I'm taking quotes out of context.)

    When I quote from sites like The Spearhead and A Voice For Men that allow readers to upvote and downvote individual comments, I tend to only quote those comments that have many (usually dozens) of net upvotes; in other words, these are comments that MRAs themselves have singled out as reflecting their own views.

    Again, if you go to almost all of the sites I link to in my "boob roll" -- which include most of the biggest and most popular MRA/MGTOW sites on the internet -- you will find rampant misogyny there. And you will see almost no one ever criticizing such misogyny.

    There are a few sites that are less obviously misogynistic; on Reddit's Men's Rights subreddit, for example, some regulars do in fact criticize the misogyny that's often found there.

    But, as I've said before, the only way in which I "cherry pick" quotes is that I seek out those that are interesting and/or entertaining. Finding misogyny on MRA/MGTOW sites is as easy as falling off a log. Finding interesting misogyny takes a bit more time.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Ion - Also, the MRAs here never seem to contradict these quotes! It would be one thing if they said "no, I don't hate women"; instead, they always seem to say "no, I hate women for a really good reason."

    Maybe that's why we haven't gotten to see the warm fuzzy side of MRA.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Ion, I think David's gone over this several times already in the past. If you think he is just cherry-picking the worst articles or quotes from the MRM or MGTOW, then what sources do you think are legitimate? Do you know of any that aren't so steeped in woman-hating? That actually give a crap about Men's Rights instead of just blaming it all on the womenfolk?

    If so, where are they? Can you give us links?

    ReplyDelete
  8. lon, David has repeatedly asked commenters here to link to examples of reasonable, non-misogynistic posts on MRM / MGTOW sites.

    If David is "cherry-picking" the worst, then can anyone direct us to some of the best?

    Correct me if I'm wrong, more frequent readers, but the response is always complete silence.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Wow. I love Firefly and went to read these "weird articles." Uh, I have to be honest, that writer is batshit insane. My wife, who is a feminist and a fan of Firefly, was rather outraged at all this sexist bullshit she spouts while pretending to be a feminist (like derisively calling male feminists "unicorns"- kinda reminiscent of "mangina" insofar as insults go). Sadly, I know feminists can get to such a point of delusion that EVERYTHING looks like an attack against women.

    But to be fair, she's still not nearly as insane as most MRA quotes posted on this blog.

    ReplyDelete
  10. When the MRAs do take David up on his challenge and cite what they consider "reasonable" MRA voices, it always ends up being someone like Warren Farrel or any number of the other prominent rape apologists in the MRA blogosphere.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Triplanetary - Never mind authorities; they never seem to be able to man up themselves to say "I believe in men's rights and I believe we deserve better, but I accept women as equals and despise violence against them."

    It really doesn't seem like a contradiction to me. And I wouldn't even require a Big MRA Author to say it; I'd be impressed if even an MRA commenter went that far.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I found the article anyway, and it's great! But I thought you'd like to know.

    I particularly liked this paragraph:

    Any time an IF calls you a "sexist," "misogynist," "chauvinist," or anything along those lines, she is merely trying to shame you into silence, and you shouldn't fall for that old trick. In fact, the shaming language just got you out of listening to anything else in her argument! Anything an IF says is invalid in toto if she failed you to address you as "Gentle Scholar."

    I vow to henceforth address all my MRA interlocutors as nothing but "Gentle Scholar."

    ReplyDelete
  13. Link fixed. Blogger sometimes inserts garbage into the URL when I post a link. It's annoying.

    ReplyDelete
  14. francois, yeah, I think Holly's characterization of that Firefly stuff as "weird" was a case of deliberate understatement.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Wait a second-someone just criticized a feminist! Wow. That means that um, we acknowledge faults in our own side!

    One of the biggest problems with MRAs and MGTOWs is they never do that. Not one of them who post on here said, even weakly, "Discount, bad form dude" when he was making seriously insane comments that they knew were out of line.

    ReplyDelete
  16. @ Elizabeth -

    Yeah, you mean when he was threatening rape, and tossing "cunt" around like it was verbal confetti? Good point. As I recall, Ion was posting right at that time, and he didn't seem to have a problem with it.

    ReplyDelete
  17. In one of Farrell's books he talked about the woman who shoot up a school. He said she poisoned her own son, accused a pre-pubescent boys of raping her, set fire to a Jewish Community Center, shot only boys, poisoned a fraternity....and God, all kind of stuff. He was talking about Laurie Dann, a paranoid schizophrenic who had obtained a gun and opened fire at a school, poisoned some food and drinks, took a family hostage, set fire to their house, and killed a small boy and herself (not at the same time.) The comments try and pose Dann as some kind of feminist hero who got away wiht something, and pointing out all the errors is regarded as a 'personal attack' on the author. But it's typical MRA crap. Laurie Dann didn't even have a son, and and what she did is what I've enumerated here.


    And then there's Farrell's repeated sleights of hand to try and make men look oppressed. He talks about how only man have to serve in wartime---but he neglects to mention that many men try mightily to get out of it and never serve, and how serving is a necessity for some forms of credibility in today's Armed Forces. He doesn't mention that women were kept out of combat---by men who then made combat a necessity for advancement. Nope, it's all about the poor menz. Women never get discriminated against. That's Warren Farrell. You can imagine what his followers are like, yet MRAs bristle at the idea that he might not be perfect and 100% right.

    ReplyDelete
  18. I just pulled out my copy of Farrell's book and looked at his bizarre discussion of Laurie Dann. I remember the case pretty well, because it happened when I was living in Evanston, and Dann actually lived briefly at a house near where I lived.

    Dann was psychotic; she tried to kill all sorts of people, all sorts of ways -- with poison, by burning down a house (she also tried to burn down a school and a daycare center, all filled with both men and women, boys and girls), by shooting them. She shot a number of boys, and killed one, but she also shot two girls and seriously wounded one of them. There was zero indication she was driven by any anti-male agenda.

    Lepine, in Montreal, deliberately targeted women and wrote an anti-feminist screed explaining his actions.

    To compare the two is ludicrous. Also, Dann was very clearly psychotic; Farrell blames a Winnetka paper for his factual errors, but even someone unclear on the details of Dann's rampage would have certianly picked up the very basic fact that she was not acting rationally or with some sort of anti-male agenda.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Here's wikipedia, which mentions Farrell's distorted retelling of Dann's story:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laurie_Dann

    You can see his "correction" at the bottom of this page on his web site:

    http://warrenfarrell.org/Resources/index.html

    ReplyDelete
  20. Ion, thanks for pointing out the idiotic hypocrisy from feminists in this blog. But even that the evidence of hypocrisy is right in their face, they will be in knee jerk denials about it.

    Any such movement either for it to be feminism or men's rights will likely have the same amounts of sexism in it. But feminists seem to have this sexist perception that the male gender is more sexist than another gender.

    In a feminist world, even disagreeing or having criticism against feminists/women which is not veering anywhere near sexism will still be deemed as "sexism" by the whining group of bigots.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Actually, yeah. I don't think you can criticize "women" as an entire group without being a sexist. That's almost the definition right there.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Aaaaaaaaaaaand here comes Nick-ignoring the actual criticism just a few post above his of a feminist writer by another feminist.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Perhaps what we need is a post that details "No, I really take popular examples" so that instead of answering the question eleventy-billion times, someone (or David) could just link it. That is pretty much the first question that gets asked. I mean, a bit is addressed in "Dumb Things to Assume About This Blog", but I think a clearer point is needed.

    Other than that, I loved that post. Really spot on.

    ReplyDelete
  24. In a feminist world, even disagreeing or having criticism against feminists/women which is not veering anywhere near sexism will still be deemed as "sexism" by the whining group of bigots.

    Such a fool-proof strategy for remaining in denial about the existence of sexism!

    ReplyDelete
  25. Shorter MRAs: "Nuh uh, you are!"

    ReplyDelete
  26. Absinthe, good idea. I'll do that. Not that this will win over my critics; I've addressed the "cherry picking" charge repeatedly and quite a few of the MRA/MGTOWers who comment here have gone on repeating the same charge. But it would be handy to have a little link.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Perhaps you should start wailing on whole posts. Bit harder to accuse you of cherry picking.

    Nick...

    There has been criticism of women.

    Fine...

    HEY FEMINISTS! Women routinely discriminate against men in the field of Nursing! What do you have to say for yourselves?

    (Psst! Hey men! Now start applying in greater numbers! The only way we can make stick it to the feminists is if we make moves too and stop calling nursing a woman's job!)

    Both sides aren't campaigning for this equality. Feminists aren't accepting that the field is indeed heavily skewed to women and men won't apply because the field is heavily skewed towards women. Men are not given equal opportunities despite claims that they are. So if you want to campaign, here you go. Here is a genuinely nice thing you can do for men and indeed for the entire field of nursing which could do with greater competition to encourage better nursing because competition would increase and thus quality. Everyone bloody wins.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Yo Feminists!

    You fucked up when you...

    -refused to acknowledge the significance of biological differences between men and women for ideological, rather than scientific reasons. Turns out you were mostly right, but that doesn't excuse it.

    -ignored the differences between the experiences of white women and women of color, and excluded women of color from the movement. You continue to do so, in fact, though in lesser numbers than before. Much more remains to be done.

    -tried to maintain that transgendered women are not "real" women, thereby reinforcing the oppression that trans women face, as well as men. And this is no laughing matter; women face an elevated risk of sexual assault compared to men, but transgendered people are at an even higher risk, AND they are much more likely to be beaten or murdered.

    Criticizing feminists is easy, but not as easy as mocking the MRA movement.

    ReplyDelete
  29. That should be "transgendered men," there, in the third bullet point. I was not talking about cis men.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Re: men in nursing

    Academic article abstract:

    The small but growing number of men in the nursing profession does not herald a progressive integration of masculine and feminine sex roles. The evidence presented in this paper suggests that even in female-dominated occupations such as nursing, patriarchal gender relations which reflect a high valuation of all that is male and masculine, play a significant role in situating a disproportionate number of men in administrative and elite specialty positions. At the heart of this gender dynamic is the need to separate the masculine from the lesser valued feminine. Male nurses do this by employing strategies that allow them to distance themselves from female colleagues and the quintessential feminine image of nursing itself, as a prerequisite to elevating their own prestige and power. They are aided in this task by patriarchal cultural institutions that create and perpetuate male advantage, as well as by women nurses themselves who, consciously or unconsciously, nurture the careers of men colleagues.

    ReplyDelete
  31. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1365-2648.1997.1997026226.x/abstract

    Link to the above-mentioned article

    ReplyDelete
  32. For a person who starts a blog about sexism going in one direction and totally ignores sexism going the other direction truly has a lot to answer for. Ignorance and arrogance of one genders troubles and not the other is a classic example of feminist bigotry.

    Deny it all you want.

    Kinda like someone saying why isn't there tax payers money going towards male DV victims and then someone says it's because there are more female victims.

    That type of sexism is so damn blind.

    ReplyDelete
  33. I love the way MRAs insist that womens' shelters are proof that women get treated with kid gloves. What they want is for women to build them shelters, even though men often objected to, fought, and made womens' shelters necessary. Where were MRAs then?

    ReplyDelete
  34. I would call that entire article bollocks. Administrative jobs aren't really what people want to do after spending years cleaning up sick people.

    Working with male nurses and indeed having a friend who was one before he shifted to medical school, the issue is there is very little support for male nurses from the culture we are in. They gain their support from the ward porters rather than other nurses in a lot of cases. It's a negative gender role for men and is routinely treated both in public and by the staff themselves until extremely recently. Even today male nurses routinely bring back statements of bias.

    The university of Pensylvannia states the drop out rate for male nurses is nearly double that of women. Stories of discrimination abound and indeed the main protectors of male nurses have been male doctors. Many parts of the world prevent male nurses from working in gynaecology.

    This entire article regards stories of discrimination against men as "hearsay". By that logic we should have regarded the 1990s as a period when any woman complaining about discrimination as a doctor as hearsay too. The field is sexist and is biased against men. Women are fully capable of sexism too.

    It is a hostile work environment for men. Let's not beat around the bush. We have not encouraged men to take up the job and we have not taken their claims seriously. A lot of the world have restrictions on where and how Male Nurses can work. Infact the entire curriculum of nursing is aimed solely at women with literally no men's health being taught and men being often depicted as violent and aggressive.

    This is a genuine case of sexism against men as society as a whole regards the field to be a woman's job. If MRA's actively campaigned for Male Nurse equality I would give them some respect.

    The field needs review and men do require protection from sexism in the field. It's a genuine case for a place where we should encourage more men to join just like the various encouragements for women to join medical school were present in the 1990s. So far I have seen only a handful of male nurses being portrayed in a positive light. The idea is that nursing is so entrenched with gender that we male nurse has to be specified while no one in the west says "female doctor" anymore.

    ReplyDelete
  35. For a person who starts a blog about sexism going in one direction and totally ignores sexism going the other direction truly has a lot to answer for. Ignorance and arrogance of one genders troubles and not the other is a classic example of feminist bigotry.

    Translation: David, you are a hypocrite for not believing our lies about how feminists hate men.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Also, I claim geek points for recognizing the illustration as the cover art for Philip José Farmer's A Private Cosmos.

    ReplyDelete
  37. I don't deny that many MRAs are violently misogynistic dumbasses, just as many radical feminists are violently misandric dumbasses. Prejudice and dumbassery know no gender. It's an unfortunate fact that the loud extremist minority often creates the group's image. But if you read the stuff from some of the movement's leaders, or a place like the Counter-Feminist, they're pretty articulate and have some real issues to talk about. This might be hard for some of the folks here, because in the feminist blogosphere, the slightest criticism of women or feminists is taken as "OMG MISOGYNY", but if you keep an open mind it might be helpful to see things from another perspective. As I said before, I don't consider myself an MRA, but from a cursory reading, some of their grievances include a family law system biased against men, police and courts which always demonize men and favor women in cases of domestic abuse, a non-existent support system for male victims of abuse, rape laws which seem to act on the principle of "guilty until proven innocent", an education system which favors women and minorities, and a few others which sound pretty legitimate, or at least worthy of discussion.

    re Discount: His comments were apparently deleted by the time I saw those threads, so I can't really comment on him. All I saw was a bunch of people attacking some non-existent person named Discount. But if he was indeed using curse words and hateful language, he shouldn't have been here. Now if only the feminists around here were held to the same standard...

    Finally, that Firefly article is hilarious. I really think somebody should show that to Joss Whedon. The guy is such a fem-worshipper, he'd probably have a conniption fit seeing what a woman thinks about his work. :)

    ReplyDelete
  38. My previous post was aimed at Sally's article not David's!

    Joss Wheedon's work is based off Buffy which subverts a horror trope. That monsters prey on young women. Particularly vampires since the original trope is from Dracula who routinely attacks beautiful young women. Buffy the Vampire Slayer is awesome for that since the entire point is that vampires need saving from the pretty young woman rather than vice versa.

    The article by allecto is quite mental. Bear in mind you are allowed to be a crazy feminist as much as your are allowed to be a crazy MRA.

    She loses the premise of the show. It's Space Cowboys. It's a Shadowrun team. It's adventures in space. It's awesome. Some women want to grow up to be space cowboys.

    1. Mal was the black woman's CO in a war. People refer to their CO's as Sir. Or else they get yelled at and made to do laps and push ups. (Or my personal favourite Spend All Day Saluting The Squirrels Tell They Learn Some Discipline!)

    2. Why should there be consequences to telling someone to shut up. In the future we hope to live in a world where we don't see the issue of saying shut up to a woman as an issue anymore. It's saying shut up. And why is her skin colour important in context of the show?

    3. Prostitution as shown by Dr Brooke Magnanti is sometimes a job choice in young women. Forced prostitution is different from someone willing entering the contract. I wouldn't do it but I am not the liberated prostitute's target market. What feminists really don't like is Pimping and the author has lost the point where Inara is in control of her clients and holds "ALL" the power. Literally screwing around with the companions has bad repercussions. Also it's a famous trope from westerns. (The Hooker with a Heart of Gold)

    4. Priests don't like prostitutes... Big Surprise there. Don't worry women get their own back when River destroys his holy book claiming "Plot Holes and Mistakes".

    5. Jayne is the instigator of violence... not Mal. And Simon's badassery comes from being educated and smart. And his threats are deadly because they aren't obvious. Simon won't kill Jayne, Jayne will just receive inferior treatment.

    6. A anti miscegenist feminist? There are plenty of black women who have had good relationships with white men. And if one recalls, Zoe's relationship with Wash ends really badly. I believe the author is black herself (She implies it).

    I think Wheedon would have a laugh at her. Primarily for co-opting A Rabbit Proof Fence as a black story (It's native Australian)

    The most insulting thing about the Firefly's writer is that she mentions the Rabbit Proof Fence as a viewpoint of black women. It's not... It's about the forgotten generation.

    ReplyDelete
  39. I don't deny that many MRAs are violently misogynistic dumbasses, just as many radical feminists are violently misandric dumbasses. Prejudice and dumbassery know no gender. It's an unfortunate fact that the loud extremist minority often creates the group's image.

    Whoops! Right off the bat, false equivalence. What you meant to say was "most MRAs" and "a few radical feminists". BTW, who would you consider a nonradical feminist? And if you answer Sarah Palin, you FAIL.

    But if you read the stuff from some of the movement's leaders, or a place like the Counter-Feminist, they're pretty articulate and have some real issues to talk about.

    David's got The Counter-Feminist over there on the sidebar, so let's have a look. Ah, I see the header at the top describes the blog thusly:
    The female-supremacist hate movement called 'feminism' must be opened to the disinfecting sunlight of the world's gaze and held to a stern accounting for its grievous transgressions. Yeah, sounds like a place for articulate talk about real issues.

    This might be hard for some of the folks here, because in the feminist blogosphere, the slightest criticism of women or feminists is taken as "OMG MISOGYNY", but if you keep an open mind it might be helpful to see things from another perspective.

    You mean slight criticism along the lines of The female-supremacist hate movement called 'feminism'? Sounds like a pretty helpful perspective to me.

    As I said before, I don't consider myself an MRA

    I just sound exactly like one.

    but from a cursory reading

    There, see! Proof that I'm not an MRA! I hardly know anything about the MRM! I've just given it a cursory reading! I am totally objective! No sir, no hidden agenda here!

    some of their grievances include a family law system biased against men

    Waaaaah! I don't wanna pay child support! Waaaaaah!

    police and courts which always demonize men and favor women in cases of domestic abuse

    Yer honor, the bitch was askin' fer it!

    a non-existent support system for male victims of abuse

    Which I propose to remedy by eliminating the support system for female victims of abuse, thereby leveling the paying field.

    rape laws which seem to act on the principle of "guilty until proven innocent"

    Yer honor, the bitch was askin' fer it!

    an education system which favors women and minorities

    Which explains the gender pay gap. And also the racial pay gap.

    and a few others which sound pretty legitimate, or at least worthy of discussion.

    The female-supremacist hate movement called 'feminism' must be opened to the disinfecting sunlight of the world's gaze and held to a stern accounting for its grievous transgressions.

    ReplyDelete
  40. re Discount: His comments were apparently deleted by the time I saw those threads, so I can't really comment on him. All I saw was a bunch of people attacking some non-existent person named Discount.

    True.

    But if he was indeed using curse words and hateful language, he shouldn't have been here.

    True.

    Now if only the feminists around here were held to the same standard...

    Say, Ion, have you noticed all the feminists on this blog who say things like "I'm gonna track you down and beat you to a pulp, motherfucker! I'm gonna cut off your fucking cock and stuff it down your fucking throat, motherfucker!" No? Guess why? It's because everybody on this blog is held to the same standards! Once again, you got the false equivalence thing goin' on, in this case equating criticism and mockery (which is what I'm doing now), with hateful language (as per my example above). I'm going to assume you can see the difference, and if you say you don't, I'm going to assume you're lying.

    Finally, that Firefly article is hilarious. I really think somebody should show that to Joss Whedon. The guy is such a fem-worshipper, he'd probably have a conniption fit seeing what a woman thinks about his work. :)

    wev

    ReplyDelete
  41. Avicenna,

    It seems to me that the lower numbers and possible discrimination of men in nursing (and probably fields like teaching and childcare) stem a lot from the old stereotype that women are just naturally more nurturing and caring than men. If we get rid of that pervasive stereotype, it benefits both men and women. Men will be free to be nurturing and caring and not feel like it's a threat to their masculinity, and women will be free to not be nurturing and caring without being called a bitch.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Hey Johnny - that quote you keep repeating from the Counter-Feminist... it might sound extreme, but when looking at places like this, I begin to understand why that sentiment exists. You've illustrated that quite thoroughly in your reply, which was basically "Your issues aren't important, so I'll just mock and dismiss them". Serves me right for trying to be serious for once. You foster and encourage hate, and then when they get hateful, you skillfully play the victim. You don't want a discussion, you just want to be right, and for them to be wrong. But, hell, look where I am: on a blog dedicated to making fun of another group. If that's not hate, I don't know what is.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Ion was being serious? Could've fooled me.

    His arguments sound more like, "Feminists are all a bunch of hypocrites! If they weren't, they'd agree with everything I say, even the fact that they're all hypocrites!"

    ReplyDelete
  44. Ion - This blog isn't exactly about "making fun" of another group. For the most part, David doesn't pull quotes that sound silly; he pulls quotes that sound hateful and scary.

    And then all the MRAs coming on here to argue say "you're being mean to MRAs," but they never seem to say "you're being mean to MRAs, because we actually respect women!"

    ReplyDelete
  45. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  46. @Amnesia

    Teaching I cannot comment on, same for child care (I believe the issue of paedophilia is what makes childcare in men such a charged issue)

    But Nursing is something I am familiar with.

    If Men's Right's mattered to their movement they would be ranting about how they want to change that. (My point being that they don't really care about actual men's rights. They would refer to these Male Nurses as Murses and Betas and how they are weak because they do such as job.)

    Ion, if you noticed I actually brought up a valid case of sexism aimed at men that the MRAs don't care about.

    MRA's have a lot to make fun of. Their Going Rand plan. Their ludicrous reasons to hate women. Their lack of an understanding of simple statistics. Their racism. Would you like us to seriously destroy their viewpoints? It does not make for good blogging sadly.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Screw it. I said I'm not an MRA, so I'm not gonna start defending them now. Especially not in a place like this, where it'd be as effective as talking to the KKK Grand Dragon about racial harmony. Post deleted.

    ReplyDelete
  48. "Would you like us to seriously destroy their viewpoints? It does not make for good blogging sadly. "

    I think you would if you could. You resort to simple-minded insults and mockery precisely because that's all you are capable of doing. :)

    ReplyDelete
  49. Most of the "simple-minded insults and mockery" are direct quotes.

    And like I keep saying and still hasn't been adressed by anyone, no one ever says "I don't agree with that quote," they just say "you're being a meanie pants using that quote."

    ReplyDelete
  50. MRA's have a lot to make fun of.(Avicenna)


    You bet they do. Many of them are also very hateful and violent. I think part of the challenge is if someone agree's in part with some of what they say, they then get labeled MRA and ultimately get shouted down and insulted(my experience on here). Ion has some good points, many feminists have good points. Neither side has all the answers. I personally dont think its going to be solved by the MRA's or feminists. Until there is a harmonized voice the abuse and violence will continue,on both sides, regardless of who does it more.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Tit for Tat, you got shouted down for specious arguments made in bad faith, not because you were sympathetic to MRAs. I remember having quite a civil discussion with you, before you proved it was just a waste of time by not really listening to anything I was trying to say.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Hey Johnny - that quote you keep repeating from the Counter-Feminist... it might sound extreme, but when looking at places like this, I begin to understand why that sentiment exists. You've illustrated that quite thoroughly in your reply, which was basically "Your issues aren't important, so I'll just mock and dismiss them".

    Hey Ion - that quote I keep repeating from the Counter-Feminist... that's the blog that you directed me to as an example of articulate talk about real issues. And it's not some unrepresentative quote that I cherry-picked from the comments. It's the header quote! It's the very first thing you read after the blog's name. It's the blog's mission statement. And you don't even bother to deny that it "sounds" extreme, you simply make excuses for it.

    You want me to be serious? Fine, I'll be serious. That quote from the Counter-Feminist sums up the entire Men's Rights Movement in a nutshell. Its description of feminism as "a female-supremacist hate movement" is a textbook example of projection. Flip the genders, and it's a perfect description of the MRM. MRAs are motivated by hatred of women, so when they look at feminism, instead of seeing what's actually there, all they see is themselves reflected.

    Their "issues" are generally bullshit, and when by accident they discover a genuine case of anti-male bias, they invariably ascribe it to "the feminist movement" and not to a society that always has been, and mostly still is, dominated by men.

    And as for your own denial of MRA-hood, I ain't buyin' it. I think your denial of MRAitude is just a pose you affect so you can pretend to be an objective outside observer. As I noted, you sound exactly like every MRA who has ever come on this blog to whine (generally) about the oppressive matriarchy that is modern society, and (specifically) about what a bunch of h8erz feminists are.

    And as I correctly predicted, you attempt to conflate mockery with hatred. Mockery is not motivated by hatred, it is motivated by amused contempt. These are two very different emotions, as you know perfectly well. If you don't like being an object of contempt, you need to stop being contemptible.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Oh please, like I give a shit whether you think I'm an MRA or not. You give yourself far too much importance, Johnny. And I see that I'm correct in thinking you didn't even look at any of the posts or articles there. You looked at the header, cried "OMG MISOGYNY LOL" and stopped there.

    But it doesn't matter, because men can't really win, can they? Their issues are automatically dismissed as "bullshit" as you so eloquently put it. If they complain, you accuse them of "whining". And on the off chance that you admit there's a real case of anti-male bias, it's of course the fault of that darn patriarchal society which oddly enough doesn't seem to exist outside feminist blogs and women's studies departments.

    I have never seen a real rebuttal to any real argument so far. Just childish attacks and insults. Including a pretty pathetic attempt to claim that your repeated attacks are "amused contempt". Here's a newsflash - you don't create or post on a blog every day because you feel "amused contempt" for somebody. There's something much bigger at work here. If they were really just nutcases, you wouldn't care. What you're afraid of is that they may be right, and so you'll do your best to screech and sling garbage at them, to convince them and yourself that they're not a threat. You don't talk to them, you mock and dismiss them. It's the tactic of a bully who knows he's losing the fight. Maybe that header isn't so wrong after all.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Shorter and yet perpetual Ion: "It's so hard being a white guy! I can't own slaves anymore!"

    ReplyDelete
  55. @ Ion:

    Here's a question for you, and I am sincerely interested in your answer.

    How can a woman be a good person? What does she have to do? How does she have to dress and behave? What should her priorities and life goals be? I don't really care how extreme or out there your answer is, I just really want to know the sort of woman who will earn your approval.

    ReplyDelete
  56. @ Lady Victoria von Syrus:

    5 bucks he says "made of rubber"

    ReplyDelete
  57. @ Cat: Probably, but this is my favorite question to ask MRAs who claim they are not misogynist. If they're really not misogynists, then they'll have an easy time describing a good person who happens to be a woman. But, of course, it's impossible for a misogynist to answer, since 'good person' and 'woman' might as well be antonyms in their worldview.

    ReplyDelete
  58. I think you would [destroy the MRA viewpoint] if you could.

    But this is obviously false. This blog is open and largely unmoderated. MRAs post here all the time. Discount was banned after he got completely out of control, but otherwise their presence is actually encouraged so we will have something to talk about.

    Naturally we're going to disagree with most of what they say and say so in unambiguous terms, but that's not remotely the same as trying to suppress their viewpoint. If we wanted their viewpoint suppressed, we wouldn't let them post on this blog.

    ReplyDelete
  59. that darn patriarchal society which oddly enough doesn't seem to exist outside feminist blogs and women's studies departments.

    And this is why people find it impossible to have a conversation with you. We could cite an arbitrarily long list of things that are or appear biased against women, but I'm sure that you would either deny that they were real ("I don't trust that source"), deny that they were actually bias ("men are just better at that stuff than women"), or make up some reason why men are the real ones suffering ("men have to own everything so they can buy sex"). Meanwhile, you have embraced the short list of grievances aired by the MRA movement and consider those to be real, important issues that need to be addressed.

    It's not that the issues the MRAs mention are universally not worth addressing--it's that you accept all the MRA issues and none of the feminist issues. Hence we identify you as an MRA.

    ReplyDelete
  60. And I see that I'm correct in thinking you didn't even look at any of the posts or articles there. You looked at the header, cried "OMG MISOGYNY LOL" and stopped there.

    This is an example of why we think you wouldn't accept any answer except agreement with everything you say. Johnny Pez pointed out a large headline from the blog you selected, and you deemed that an inadequate response. You are just going to deem everything an inadequate response unless someone just says "Oh, I guess you're right, the fact that the header calls feminism a female-supremacist hate movement doesn't actually mean they hate feminists."

    ReplyDelete
  61. (reposting the first part of my response because the data vampires got it)

    Ion:

    The thing is, we are responding to what you're saying, you're just not accepting our responses. Naturally this leads to some people assuming that you just don't read or understand anything else in the thread, and to some people assuming that the only reply you would accept would be agreement with you. For instance, you've said:

    This might be hard for some of the folks here, because in the feminist blogosphere, the slightest criticism of women or feminists is taken as "OMG MISOGYNY", but if you keep an open mind it might be helpful to see things from another perspective.

    People in this very thread have expressed disagreement with other feminists here and here. This is an example of why people think you don't read the other comments.

    ReplyDelete
  62. Shorter and yet perpetual Ion: "It's so hard being a white guy! I can't own slaves anymore!"

    Oh ginmar, your nuttiness always cheers me up. I just got a couple of ideas for part 2 of my script chronicling your adventures :)

    ReplyDelete
  63. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  64. cboye said

    "that darn patriarchal society which oddly enough doesn't seem to exist outside feminist blogs and women's studies departments.

    And this is why people find it impossible to have a conversation with you. We could cite an arbitrarily long list of things that are or appear biased against women, but I'm sure that you would either deny that they were real ("I don't trust that source")"



    When some other nutty feminist simply makes shit up in a writing about "patriarchy" of course it's not a liable and honest source.

    I find it hilarious when feminist resort to sending me a shitty link of what some delusional feminist said about patriarchy to prove that the so called patriarchy exists in America 2011.

    Just because another feminist said so, it must be truth lolz

    ReplyDelete
  65. You know, when Ion posts his detailed little fantasies about what he think I'm like, he think he's revealing something about me. He's revealing way too much about himself, in that he's revealing how he think about women.

    Of course, Ion's problem is that women don't think about him once they shut the browser window, or probably delete him off wherever he hangs out that isn't dominated by MRAs.

    ReplyDelete
  66. ....oh, and he think so constantly about them that he has these detailed scenarios in his head. How much thinking does this perv do? I mean, all he does here is protest that he's not an MRA, that he doesn't hate women, blah blah blah whatever.

    ReplyDelete
  67. The fact that David is able to come up with fresh stuff every single day and MRAs have to rely on a handful of quotes---many that are made up, many that are out of context or from fictional characters, and most of which are from women who have since died tells you how much David's not cherry-picking.

    Why do MRAs bristle at being called misogynist, anyway? It would be easier for them at this point to embrace it.

    ReplyDelete
  68. The fact that feminists blame nearly everything that's wrong with the world and their lives on men is totally and completely sexist. This type of sexism is rampant within the feminist movement.

    Then we can go on with the bogus statistics women's groups make up to demonise men and cause hatred and unjustified fear towards the male gender.

    A good example of this you will find here

    http://wendymcelroy.com/news.php?extend.1374

    and here

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/09/02/3000734.htm

    And then we can go on with how feminist have been telling us how wrong men are as for their sexuality. This is completely sexist and bigoted. Feminists attempt to regiment male sexuality. It males ever told women what to do with their sexuality, they would be deemed as patriarchal chauvinists.

    ReplyDelete
  69. Indeed, Amanda. The KKK aren't ashamed of being racist. MRAs should take pride in who they are.

    ReplyDelete
  70. The fact that feminists blame nearly everything that's wrong with the world and their lives on men is totally and completely sexist. This type of sexism is rampant within the feminist movement.

    Men (noun): Plural of man.

    Man (noun): –noun 1. an adult male person, as distinguished from a boy or a woman.

    2. a member of the species Homo sapiens or all the members of this species collectively, without regard to sex: prehistoric man.


    Patriarchy (noun): 1. a form of social organization in which the father is the supreme authority in the family, clan, or tribe and descent is reckoned in the male line, with the children belonging to the father's clan or tribe.

    2. a society, community, or country based on this social organization.

    Women enforce the patriarchy too, Nicko. Women are sexist too. They are also responsible for sexist discrimination. Conversely, not all men actively enforce patriarchal values. This has been pointed out to you about a thousand times already. At this point, one must suspect you of being a spambot, incapable of absorbing new information.

    And then we can go on with how feminist have been telling us how wrong men are as for their sexuality. This is completely sexist and bigoted.

    This is only true if you define male sexuality as being beastly, brutal, rape-prone, and totally responsibility-free.

    Feminists attempt to regiment male sexuality.

    Feminists would like men to stop sexually harassing and raping women. If you think this means "regimenting" your sexuality then you should probably consult a therapist.

    It males ever told women what to do with their sexuality, they would be deemed as patriarchal chauvinists.

    They have. For thousands of years. They are still trying to. And they are.

    ReplyDelete
  71. Nick:

    The first link is a long rant with no sources and no quotes.

    The second link is a campaign that did indeed cite one wrong statistic. Shall I link you to some domestic-violence campaigns that didn't make statistics mistakes?

    And what on earth do you mean by "telling us how wrong men are in their sexuality?" Feminists want people to be able to have sex however they want, as long as it's safe and consensual. You don't mean feminists opposing rape, do you?

    ReplyDelete
  72. It [sic] males ever told women what to do with their sexuality, they would be deemed as patriarchal chauvinists.

    Well, yes. Because telling a woman what to do with her sexuality (like telling her she's a slut for having sex with 'too many' men, when 'too many' is never properly defined, denying her reproductive health care, accusing women who report rape of lying out of the gate, etc) *is* chauvinistic. It's pretty much the dictionary definition of chauvinism. Women want to be able to have sex (or not have sex) as they wish, without being shamed or judged for it (like it's anyone else's business anyway who she chooses to fuck or not to fuck).

    Yeah, it's a terrible shame that men shouldn't rape or call a woman a slut when she sleeps with that guy over there but not you. It's totally oppressive to not be able to feel entitled to objectify women.

    ReplyDelete
  73. @ Ion:

    Here's a question for you, and I am sincerely interested in your answer.

    How can a woman be a good person? What does she have to do? How does she have to dress and behave? What should her priorities and life goals be? I don't really care how extreme or out there your answer is, I just really want to know the sort of woman who will earn your approval.


    Why, that's easy.

    Why can't a woman be more like a man?
    Men are so honest, so thoroughly square;
    Eternally noble, historically fair.
    Who, when you win, will always give your back a pat.
    Why can't a woman be like that?

    Why does every one do what the others do?
    Can't a woman learn to use her head?
    Why do they do everything their mothers do?
    Why don't they grow up, well, like their father instead?

    Why can't a woman take after a man?
    Men are so pleasant, so easy to please.
    Whenever you're with them, you're always at ease.

    Would you be slighted if I didn't speak for hours? (nicko81m: of course not).

    Would you be livid if I had a drink or two? (tit 4 tat: Nonsense!)

    Would you be wounded if I never sent you flowers? (Avicenna: never!)

    Well, why can't a woman... be like you?

    One man in a million may shout a bit.
    Now and then, there's one with slight defects.
    One perhaps whose truthfulness you doubt a bit,
    But by and large we are a marvelous sex!

    Why can't a woman take after a man?
    'Cause men are so friendly, good-natured and kind.
    A better companion you never will find.

    If I were hours late for dinner would you bellow? (David: Of course not.)

    If I forgot your silly birthday, would you fuss? (Johnny Pez: Nonsense.)

    Would you complain if I took out another fellow? (Joe: Never.)

    Why can't a woman be like us?

    ReplyDelete
  74. You don't mean feminists opposing rape, do you?

    Not in so many words, but, yeah, he does.

    Consider the Holocaust deniers. What do they really want? Ultimately, they want to convince the world that the Holocaust didn't happen because that's a necessary precondition for starting it up again.

    Likewise, all the MRA bluster about false rape accusations has the ultimate goal of making the world safer for rapists.

    So, yeah.

    ReplyDelete
  75. @ Ion

    That's a well made little song, but I wonder who you mean it to be about. I literally know no women who act like that.

    Well except for the last three lines. I and everyone I know would be mad at someone standing them up for supper or sad if their birthday was missed.

    And that taking out another fellow bit also. Though not if you mean dating outside the already established relationship.

    I do think most of the women I know would be offended by their boyfriend/husband cheating on them.

    Not my wife though, she just wants dibs on the video rights. But then again, she's awesome :P

    ReplyDelete
  76. If I forgot your silly birthday, would you fuss? (Johnny Pez: Nonsense.)

    I feel honored. *sob* This is the happiest day of my life!

    ReplyDelete
  77. Also, I'm sure Eliza Doaslittleaspossible will appreciate the shoutout.

    ReplyDelete
  78. Also, too: why can't the English teach their children how to speak? Answer me that, feminists!

    ReplyDelete
  79. "Men are so honest, so thoroughly square;
    Eternally noble, historically fair."
    So, all those big wigs on Wall Street must have been influenced by their devilish wives. Hitler wouldn't have turned out the way he was if it weren't for the wimminz? Frankly, when I look back on history, I don't see this 'eternally noble and fair' so much as wars, crime, and oppression.

    Also, I'd like to add an echo to this line:
    "Men are so pleasant, so easy to please. (Just as long as women are servicing their every need)"

    ReplyDelete
  80. Also, too: why can't the English teach their children how to speak? Answer me that, feminists!

    That's a good point too. The Hebrews learn theirs backwards, and that's just frightening! Why can't the English learn to speak?

    ReplyDelete
  81. Ion: "The sun shines out of men's asses." (summarized, not directly quoted)

    I want to point out that Ion has attacked both men and women. Women are useless evil harpies in his view, and men are emotionless and unloving. What, men might want affection and attention from their lovers and might actually care about them? Blasphemy he says!

    ReplyDelete
  82. Ion: "The sun shines out of men's asses".

    Then if I mooned you it should be called "sunning" instead? Better grab those shades then because, as George Harrison said, here comes the sun...

    ReplyDelete
  83. Quoting a musical doesn't count. Unless you're happy to have My Fair Lady do your thinking for you.

    Just admit, Ion, that you hate women. Own your misogyny. At least the racists in the KKK and Christian Identity movements are out and proud about their hatred, why can't misogynists be up front about the fact that they just don't like women at all?

    I wonder if it's because the racists aren't attracted to other races the same way a misogynist is still attracted to women. Being up front and out about your hatred of all things female is pretty much giving up all hope of sex without paying your partner directly for her time (and she'd probably be able to pick up on the fact you hate her, too, so there go your chances at being a repeat client).

    ReplyDelete
  84. My god, you really are a one-note pony aren't you. Ok, how about this: Out of the stuff I've said here so far, show me the parts which make it clear that I hate women - all women. Oh, and "You're a misogynist because you disagree with me" doesn't count.

    ReplyDelete
  85. Why don't you just come out and say "I respect women as people just like me" right now? Then there's no quote hunt, it's on record! Seems easy enough.

    ReplyDelete
  86. @Ion

    You seem to have this ridiculous idea that so many good traits are inherent in men while so many bad traits are inherent in women.

    ReplyDelete
  87. Then prove me wrong, Ion. Describe to me, in your own words, the sort of woman whose company you would enjoy and seek out. Or at least give your approval of.

    ReplyDelete
  88. Ion:

    Many people on this message board have asked you many direct questions that can be answered clearly and simply. And yet you either don't respond to those posts at all, or you quote show tunes.

    Can you please just answer one of them? Any one?

    ReplyDelete
  89. Likewise, all the MRA bluster about false rape accusations has the ultimate goal of making the world safer for rapists.

    Let's be fair and give them the benefit of the doubt--it has the effect of making the world safer for rapists, whether that's the goal or not.

    ReplyDelete
  90. I remember having quite a civil discussion with you, before you proved it was just a waste of time by not really listening to anything I was trying to say(Lady Vic)

    Interestingly enough I had a similar feeling, though you may not have been one of commenters who was insulting, it happened none the less.

    ReplyDelete
  91. Actually, I was listening. I listened closely to your concerns about the use of the word 'patriarchy', and took the time to explain to you that it didn't mean 'all men', and that feminists used the word to refer to a system, not a gender. Then there was a bizarre discussion about abuse and how you don't feel validated by strangers on the Internet about your own experiences with abuse.

    Then you returned back to bitching about feminists using the word 'patriarchy.'

    ReplyDelete
  92. One of the articles my fellow countryman Nick linked to ended with this quote:

    Dr Michael Flood is a domestic violence researcher from the University of Wollongong.

    He says the men's group is muddying the debate.

    "The group's complaint is not motivated by a genuine concern for male victims of violence. I think that it's motivated more by political agendas," he said.


    MRA's - reading from the same page the all over the world

    ReplyDelete
  93. Lady Vic

    I remember you not hearing me about how patriarchy is used by feminists to make claims about men specifically(not a system). Neither did you hear me when I tried to point out that some feminists think feminism is about women specifically(not a system). Obviously you are not one of them but they do exist, on here, and elsewhere. Alas, maybe we both need a course on communicating better. I guess I wont Bitch anymore about some of the double speak I see out here.

    ReplyDelete
  94. Why don't you just come out and say "I respect women as people just like me" right now? Then there's no quote hunt, it's on record! Seems easy enough.

    I respect individuals, not "women", "men" or "people" as a monolithic unit. I respect those whom I consider worthy of respect. So far it's been slim pickings, let me tell you. But overall, I would not say I hold women in less regard than I do men, or anyone really. Again, if you think you can prove the contrary, stop deflecting and quote away.

    You seem to have this ridiculous idea that so many good traits are inherent in men while so many bad traits are inherent in women.

    I said that? Which traits?

    Many people on this message board have asked you many direct questions that can be answered clearly and simply. And yet you either don't respond to those posts at all, or you quote show tunes.

    Can you please just answer one of them? Any one?


    I'm sorry cboye, the questions must have gotten drowned out by the flood of verbal sewage directed at me from the keyboards of your esteemed fellow commenters. You'll understand if I didn't peruse their attacks and insults carefully to see whether there were legitimate questions hiding among the refuse. If you have any specific ones, restate them now and I'll address them.

    Then prove me wrong, Ion. Describe to me, in your own words, the sort of woman whose company you would enjoy and seek out. Or at least give your approval of.

    At this point I would normally say I'm not here to play by your rules, but what the hell. A woman whose company I'd seek would have to be smart enough to have a mind of her own, reasonably witty without being snarky, able to hold a conversation, have a sense of humor which yet tends towards the gentle rather than the mean-spirited, and have an artistic talent of some kind without being conceited about it. In other words, pretty much the opposite of most people I've met here. Hope that answers your question. :)

    ReplyDelete
  95. I see my last comment's been deleted. I'm a bit surprised as I didn't think it was particularly offensive. Anyway, I guess Mr. Futrelle finally shows his true colors. So long, it's been fun.

    ReplyDelete
  96. I remember you not hearing me about how patriarchy is used by feminists to make claims about men specifically(not a system). Neither did you hear me when I tried to point out that some feminists think feminism is about women specifically(not a system).

    Oh, T4T, you "weren't heard." How terrible for you. Except you're a liar, because that's not what happened at all.

    In fact, you were being heard quite clearly. It's just that your unsupported allegations about what some vague, non-defined group of anonymous imaginary feminists think or do is irrelevant to the discussion. Unless you can provide some specific quotes to the objectionable things those feminists say or do, and explain why their contributions are more important than the academic works of well-respected scholars in the field, your whinging about "some feminists" is just self-serving sophistry and a transparent attempt to dodge the issue, which is your inability to understand and correctly use the word "patriarchy."

    ReplyDelete
  97. T4T can't tell the difference between "LA LA LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU" and "I heard you quite well, it's just that you're dead wrong."

    Which is telling.

    ReplyDelete
  98. What SallyStrange said.

    And sometimes, feminists *do* talk about men and women, because even though its a system that's to blame, we're all people caught up in the same system and making our choices based on what we've been taught by it. And feminists *are* trying to make life better for women, and it's a rather selfish demand to insist that they make life better for men, too, or it proves they don't care about men. It's like insisting that you can only be a member of Greenpeace as long as you give Sierra Club equal time as well. Or like insisting that you can't be a good Democrat unless you help make life easier for the Republicans or Libertarians, too.

    Different feminists have different things they'd like to see. Some feminists work the hardest to change the fashion industry's ridiculous and unhealthy standards; some feminists are working to get women ordained by religious organizations; lots of feminists are working to ensure women have access to things like pap smears and birth control. These things do not affect men with the same severity they affect women, so insisting that they have to spend an equal amount of time on men's issues is ridiculous, selfish and definitely in bad faith.

    ReplyDelete
  99. Lady Vic: thought you'd be interested to know I'd actually answered your question, but my post was deleted. Weird, huh? It's almost like people can attack me but I'm no longer allowed to reply back... where have I seen that tactic before... oh yeah, feminist blogs. So anyway, I'm outta here.

    ReplyDelete
  100. Are you sure it isn't just stuck in the moderation queue? David has a pretty liberal commenting policy, I seriously doubt he'd delete a reply made in good faith (or even bad faith) unless it violated said policy.

    ReplyDelete
  101. "Why don't you just come out and say "I respect women as people just like me" right now? Then there's no quote hunt, it's on record! Seems easy enough."

    It's interesting how feminists demand all women to be respected as a group, regardless of their individual actions. The concept of individuality obviously no place in feminism.

    I respect no woman or man until they've earned my respect.

    ReplyDelete
  102. "Ion said...
    I see my last comment's been deleted. I'm a bit surprised as I didn't think it was particularly offensive. Anyway, I guess Mr. Futrelle finally shows his true colors. So long, it's been fun."

    I thought you were flouncing off after your non-existent post got "deleted"

    ReplyDelete
  103. "forweg said...
    "Why don't you just come out and say "I respect women as people just like me" right now? Then there's no quote hunt, it's on record! Seems easy enough."

    I respect no woman or man until they've earned my respect."

    So you don't respect yourself? Or do you need the question diagrammed? I love how mysogonists hide behind sociopathy as a defense.

    ReplyDelete
  104. Ion: so long, it's been fun.

    Another lie.

    ReplyDelete
  105. @ Forweg

    Forget the "respect" part of it then.

    Are women people, just like you? Yes or no.

    ReplyDelete
  106. I thought women were from Venus or Mars or made out of sugar and spice?

    I cannot keep up!

    ReplyDelete
  107. I respect no woman or man until they've earned my respect

    I hate that line so very, very much. Either you don't understand the meaning of the word 'respect', or you enjoy being an ass to strangers.

    If you respect someone's opinion, if you care what they think about you... yeah, sure, that should be earned.

    But basic respect should be free to everyone, whether you know them or not, or even whether you like them or not. Basic respect means giving someone space to do their own thing (as long as they aren't tromping on someone else's space). It means giving someone the benefit of the doubt that they're a reasonable person. It means not crowding someone on the escalator or cutting someone off in traffic. It means recognizing that someone, even someone you don't know, is still a person with dignity and deserves to be treated that way.

    ReplyDelete
  108. Unless you can provide some specific quotes to the objectionable things those feminists say or do, and explain why their contributions are more important than the academic works of well-respected scholars in the field, your whinging about "some feminists" is just self-serving sophistry and a transparent attempt to dodge the issue, which is your inability to understand and correctly use the word "patriarchy." (Sally)

    Well sally, being that I am pretty new to these discussions on the patriarchy and feminism sorry I am so slow on the uptake. But at least there are other people out there who have considered the ramifications of certain "loaded" terms like patriarchy and feminism. This article may not be the best out in webland but it does get right to the heart of the matter.


    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/sep/10/kyriarchy-and-patriarchy#start-of-comments

    ReplyDelete
  109. "The matter" being that men want to whine about how tough it is being on the top of the heap. "Patriarchy" is threatening because it's such an immense system that you have to actively fight it or you'll be part of it.

    ReplyDelete
  110. The matter" being that men want to whine about how tough it is being on the top of the heap(ginmar)

    Again you prove my point. I am a man and trust me I am not on the top. Well, this morning I was briefly on top but then my wife switched position because she wanted to be on top. ;)

    ReplyDelete
  111. You're not "slow on the uptake," T4T, you're a rank liar who refuses to understand things that are inconvenient to your worldview.

    ReplyDelete
  112. So, you're saying that men haven't dominated history, law, justice, education, and everything since time began?

    And I love it when some dipshit acts like all that accumulated power doesn't have some effect on him.

    And, look! T4T wants us to know he's got a blow up doll. That surely adds to his credibility.

    ReplyDelete
  113. Shorter T4T: I am not king of the world, therefore there is no such thing as patriarchy.

    Also: SEX!!! hur hur hur

    ReplyDelete
  114. Sally

    Nope, I just dont agree wholeheartedly with your worldview. In fact some of it is just not right.

    ginmar

    blow up doll? Dont you guys ever laugh?

    ReplyDelete
  115. You see, T4T, womens' sexuality is regarded diffierently for women, so to make such a 'joke' amongst anything but extremely close friends would be risky indeed. You realy don't get it, do you? And you're not interested in learning, either. Sexuality for men is to be experienced in excess and boasted about; sexuality for women is to be restricted because women are still judged by how factory fresh they are. Privilege, you haz it.

    ReplyDelete
  116. Seriously, Tit for Tat, no one gives a shit about your sex life or even the fact that you're married. You like to trot it out as often as you can, like you can convince us that because some woman thought you're worth marrying, you must not be all bad.

    Fine. You have a wife. Good for you. You sleep with her. Good for you.

    We don't care.

    ReplyDelete
  117. ginmar

    Nope, you dont get it. My wife is French, their joking tends to be more descriptive and laid back( you should have seen the quebecois women on saturday). Culture's are different, some of us just dont take life too seriously.

    ReplyDelete
  118. We don't care.(Lady Vic)

    I know, youve made that clear too. Do you ever wonder why some dont care about your views?

    ReplyDelete
  119. T4T, so far you have demonstrated that you are incapable of understanding my worldview sufficiently to say with certainty whether you agree with it for not. For starters, you insist on using your own personal definition of "patriarchy" that only MRA type dudes use--you know, the definition that says "Patriarchy = all men evil, all women good."

    You need to get to the first step of accurately understanding where another person is coming from before you can actually agree or disagree with what she is saying. So far you haven't taken that first step. I believe that this is because you are not arguing in good faith. Feel free to prove me wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  120. If he has to tell us, well....Yeah.

    ReplyDelete
  121. My views or my sex life?

    I'd be thrilled if more people cared less about my sex life, I really would.

    Good thing that my views aren't the same thing as my sex life.

    ReplyDelete
  122. Sally

    Did you even read the link?

    ReplyDelete
  123. Lady

    Can you say humour?? I know the old saying, when in public dont discuss or joke about religion, politics or sex. I find them all quite illuminating though, obviously you dont.

    ReplyDelete
  124. It wasn't funny, it was using your wife to make a cheap shot at the rest of us.

    ReplyDelete
  125. Ion, your post was caught by the spam filter; I don't know why. I've taken it out of the spam filter and it's up now.

    ReplyDelete
  126. Then tell me its not funny, rather than getting nasty. The joke was about the reference to me being on the top because I am a man, or did you miss that?

    ReplyDelete
  127. T4T: you thought it was funny.

    Turns out nobody else did.

    1 person told a joke, thinking it was humorous. 3 people don't agree.

    The most parsimonious explanation is not that 3 people are lacking a sense of humor. The most parsimonious explanation is that 1 person told a joke that wasn't funny.

    Like Lady Vic says, it was a cheap shot and it wasn't very respectful to your wife.

    ReplyDelete
  128. I for one didn't miss the "joke" about you "being on top."

    I just thought it was so spectacularly inane and not-funny that it wasn't worth commenting on.

    ReplyDelete
  129. You fuckin' moron, my mother was French, I speak French, and I've lived there for long periods of time, as well as other Francophone countries. Nice try, though.

    ReplyDelete
  130. T4T, what was the point you were trying to make with that link? The feminists who post here -- whether they use the term patriarchy or the term kyriarchy -- are well aware that there are oppressions based on things other than gender.

    Historian Gerda Lerner, who has written the most comprehensive history of patriarchy, has explored in great detail how patriarchy dovetails with class and other oppressions. Indeed, understanding class is essential to understanding why so many women end up supporting and maintaining patriarchy: even in a system where they are restricted because they are women they may have advantages and power because they are part of the ruling class.

    ReplyDelete
  131. Sally

    I didnt say it was funny. I know many times my jokes arent. As far as disrecting my wife, you and lady dont know her or her humour, stop projecting your biases on other people.

    ReplyDelete
  132. Classic asshole move, too: "It was just a joke!" Most times anybody uses the word 'just' to minimize their actions they know they're full of it.

    ReplyDelete
  133. Nothing in that link helps me understand why you are so attached to the MRA definition of "patriarchy." Remember? Men = evil, women = good, and men are to blame for everything? The question is why you find it so hard to let go of that.

    Kyriarchy or patriarchy, take your pick, but do use an accurate definition, whichever you prefer.

    ReplyDelete
  134. Whichever one it is, it's going to be the one where men suffer from this mysterious oppression at the hands of women who make less money for more work, while the male power structure remains overwhelmingly male and oriented toward male concerns.

    Funny, that dude that whined about how hard it was to be a rich guy never took me up on my offer to trade places with him if thought he had it so bad.

    ReplyDelete
  135. David

    My point was that certain terms can stop dialogue and that sometimes if we want to communicate with certain individuals we need terms that will foster that. Though I am aware your blog isnt really about dialogue.

    ReplyDelete
  136. If a joke isn't funny, it's not a joke. Jokes amuse people and make them laugh, that's pretty much the dictionary definition of humor and joking. If something you said wasn't funny, then it wasn't a joke.

    ReplyDelete
  137. Tit for Tat, any REASONABLE individual, male or female, will be able to abandon their prejudices and biases. Even IF a reasonable person thought that 'patriarchy' meant 'all men', he or she would immediately abandon that idea when they were told, repeatedly, by people who knew what they were talking about, that they were wrong. Only an idiot hangs onto their biases and preconceptions when they've been proven wrong about them.

    I think feminists are kind of relying on people being smart enough to figure out what 'patriarchy' means on their own. I also suspect that feminists themselves are smart enough to know that bitching and quibbling about the word 'patriarchy' isn't really an argument made in bad faith. It's not like there are hordes of people out there who would be completely dedicated to the cause of feminism except for that pesky word which is holding them back. The only people who complain about feminists using 'patriarchy' as a term meaning 'all men' aren't feminists, and they aren't *going* to be feminists, so what's the point of catering to them? They'll just come up with another thing that feminists will have to do to prove themselves, and nothing will ever get done.

    ReplyDelete
  138. Well, then there's people who hide behind what they claim are jokes to say something offensive. Rush Limbaugh and others like him do the same thing.

    Gee, look at T4T sliding a little insult in there. "But I realize your site isn't about dialogue."

    Yeah, you know what? You don't get to define womens' experiences for us, thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  139. And, @Ion: Thank you. I'm sorry you don't care enough to investigate some of the other commenters here, but I know a couple of them are intelligent, humorous artists.

    ReplyDelete
  140. T4T, that joke was eye-roll worthy at best. And now, in light of the current conversation, I feel compelled to use this quote:

    A little learning is a dangerous thing;
    drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring:
    there shallow draughts intoxicate the brain,
    and drinking largely sobers us again.

    ReplyDelete
  141. *Edit: "I also suspect that feminists themselves are smart enough to know that bitching and quibbling about the word 'patriarchy' isn't really an argument made in GOOD faith."

    ReplyDelete
  142. My point was that certain terms can stop dialogue

    The only person stopping dialogue here is you, T4T, through your continuous refusal to use the common definition of several words that are key to understanding the entire conversation. You are the only one here with "baggage" around the word "patriarchy" or, for that matter, "feminism." It has been explained to you over and over again. Over and over again, you decline to absorb the information, and pretend to be a newbie who has NO FECKIN' IDEA what all this COMPLIMACATED feminism stuff is! It's not cute, and it's transparent. You are not as stupid as you make yourself out to be.

    ReplyDelete
  143. Lady Vic

    Certain jokes make certain people laugh, you didnt laugh at mine, my wife did. I guess she's not reasonable. See ya..........

    ReplyDelete
  144. Don't forget to stick the flounce, you lying troll.

    ReplyDelete
  145. Is 'my wife' the new 'my best friend is black'?

    ReplyDelete
  146. David: Ah, my apologies then. I assumed since my post initially showed up and then disappeared, that it'd been deleted, as per the FAQ.

    SallyStrange, ginmar, cynickal and the rest of the remedial class: I see you've faithfully memorized the term "flounce" as set forth in the book of feminist shaming language as a way to declare victory whenever your target decides to leave for whatever reason. Now that you've finished high-fiving each other over your cleverness at parroting this well-worn term, here's another one: Backbiting. It means taking a parting shot at someone who's leaving, or already left the discussion, safe in the knowledge that they're gone and you've got your buddies at your back. Yeah, it's pretty slimy and cowardly, but then again, no less than expected from you. Cheers.

    ReplyDelete
  147. I hate that line so very, very much. Either you don't understand the meaning of the word 'respect', or you enjoy being an ass to strangers.

    If you respect someone's opinion, if you care what they think about you... yeah, sure, that should be earned.

    But basic respect should be free to everyone, whether you know them or not, or even whether you like them or not. Basic respect means giving someone space to do their own thing (as long as they aren't tromping on someone else's space). It means giving someone the benefit of the doubt that they're a reasonable person. It means not crowding someone on the escalator or cutting someone off in traffic. It means recognizing that someone, even someone you don't know, is still a person with dignity and deserves to be treated that way.


    You misunderstood what I meant to say, or maybe I didn't say it clearly enough. Of course I don't mean I'm going to act like a misanthropic asshole towards strangers because they haven't earned my respect. There should be a 'baseline' level of regard for all people, common courtesy or the benefit of the doubt, as you say. But when I said respect I meant something more than that, like approval and admiration of that person. So basically I agree with you there.

    ReplyDelete
  148. How does this "shaming language" thing work, Ion? Are you saying that T4T is NOT a dishonest troll? Do you think he should be PROUD of making statements about himself that aren't true--for instance, his repeated claims that he doesn't understand the meaning of the word "patriarchy," and that he thinks that feminists should abandon the word due to the "baggage" associated with it mysterious, unnamed third parties? If a commenter reveals that he is not arguing in good faith, should we refrain from calling him out about it? If he truly has nothing to be ashamed about, then why should a few pixels on a screen make any difference to his emotional state? Personally, I think he is a troll--that is, he makes statements he doesn't fully agree with in order to rile people up--therefore, it's no great loss if he does leave Manboobz permanently.

    Of course, I'd also be quite shocked if he does stick the flounce.

    Also, when did "flounce" become part of the "feminist dictionary" and where can I get one of these dictionaries?

    ReplyDelete
  149. I wasn't paying attention to T4T's posts, so no comment. All I saw was he made a little joke and everyone jumped on him like a pack of angry baboons screaming and flinging feces, your usual MO really. I was referring to the 'flounce' comments directed at myself when I said I was leaving, after mistakenly thinking David had deleted my post.

    As for the feminist dictionary, it's quite a phenomenon. Did you know that virtually every feminist blogger and commenter out there uses basically the same small vocabulary of slang terms, insults and put-downs? It's like there was a big meeting somewhere and everyone settled on these as "ok, these are the insults we're gonna use" (actually, more likely some feminist with half an ounce of wit made them up and the rest of the herd adopted them because it's easier than being smart or creative on your own).

    A man who has any complaint or issue is "whining", or "whinging" if you're Australian; also acceptable is replying "waaah!" to imply that your target is a crybaby. Someone who leaves the conversation - whether out of boredom, disgust, or any other reason - is "flouncing"; this is a reason to smugly declare victory. Someone who disagrees with the official party line is, naturally, a troll or a misogynist - or both. Also popular are variations on "douche": so far I've seen douchebag, douchenozzle, and douchecanoe, which is just weird. Then there are small penis jokes, references to bingo, the "oppression olympics", and saying "teh menz" and "teh wimminz" which honestly just makes you sound like a freaking lolcat. Smug, sarcastic tone is mandatory. Bonus points if you miss your opponent's gist entirely and just throw a few insults randomly selected from the pile above back as a reply - ginmar and yourself are quite the masters at this. And that's about it. I have just described 99% of feminist bloggers and blog-commenters out there.

    Further reading here: http://exposingfeminism.wordpress.com/shaming-tactics/

    ReplyDelete
  150. Yeah, so much for that promised flounce.

    Also, Ion apparently thinks his behavior is blameless and doesn't inspire any of what he calls 'shaming' language. He ought to be ashamed. He's a sexist scumbag troll and he won't even stick the flounce because he's so pathetic this is the closest he gets to women.

    ReplyDelete
  151. ginmar, in the time I've been on this blog, I haven't seen you contribute a single intelligent, creative or relevant thought. You're nothing but a feminist caricature, an IF come to life, someone who embodies all the negative aspects and myths about feminists and none of the positive. Since I've concluded that you have nothing to say that's worth reading, I'm just going to ignore you from now on. Toodles.

    ReplyDelete
  152. Is he finally gone yet? Christ on a pony already, he's like the world's worst ham actor, trying to do all the death scenes in Shakespeare simultaneously.

    ReplyDelete
  153. If someone flounces off, and someone else points this out, is it shaming language? Is a flounce shameful behavior to begin with?

    And what if someone has done something shameful? Is calling them on it shaming?

    ReplyDelete
  154. Where I come from, calling a spade a spade makes you a straight shooter but MRAs apparently expect to me sucked up to twenty four/seven and when they don't get it they threaten to hold their breath till they turn blue.

    Sadly, they never do it. Ion's hoping we forget about his flounce. I say we bring it up till he actually does it.

    ReplyDelete
  155. If someone flounces off, and someone else points this out, is it shaming language? Is a flounce shameful behavior to begin with?

    It's just a term that is, in my observation, extremely overused on feminist blogs. To the point where it's used to refer to pretty much anyone leaving the conversation for any reason. It's shaming language because it implies that the person is "running away" after "being defeated", which could be sometimes, but hardly always, the case.

    And what if someone has done something shameful? Is calling them on it shaming?

    Depends on what you and others consider shameful. Feminists talk a lot about "slut-shaming", for example, the idea being that it's wrong. Yet someone can say "I agree with slut-shaming, because being a slut is shameful." It's the same thing. Shaming language is also used to ascribe motives and ideological positions to the target which might not actually be the truth, in which case it's just a straw man tactic.

    I actually had a longer post up a while ago but it seems the spam filter ate it again. Hopefully it'll choke on it and bring it back up sometime.

    ReplyDelete
  156. No. You cannot compare sexism to whatever it is men think they're suffering from.

    Why aren't you gone yet? YOu flounced, now follow through.

    ReplyDelete
  157. Specifically, it's generally because the poster in question feels the need to ANNOUNCE PUBLICLY to all other posters in the forum AS IF WE CARE that they are LEAVING RIGHT NOW because of what they're saying not being accepted as general truth. And then they come back in a couple of posts later to point out AGAIN SOME MORE that they're leaving. That's why people generally laugh and ask if they're going to stick the flounce, because they never do. See Ion above. I'm not talking about this at all, anymore! Except that I'll come back to talk about it some more. And also insult people.

    Brilliant minds.

    ReplyDelete
  158. amandajane5 (I fear to ask what happened to the first 4 of you), hear that whooshing sound? That's my point flying right over your head. I said I was leaving because I thought David had deleted one my posts, thus confirming that he was no different from most feminist bloggers. Turns out this wasn't the case, so I stayed. Cue the "flounce lolol" comments from the halfwitted masses. Honestly, it's about as witty and original as saying 'don't let the door hit you on the way out'. A simple "hey, weren't you leaving?" would have been enough, but then I guess they wouldn't have had the chance to use their beloved f-word.

    ReplyDelete
  159. No it was not over her head Ion-you really did give everyone the impression you were running away like a little kid. See, I did not use the term you find so upsetting that you must use it constantly and complain about us using it constantly (which was only once in this thread until you objected to it, claiming, erroneously it is a frequent feminist term.)

    ReplyDelete
  160. The whole flouncing thing does sound like a kid threatening to run away from home.

    "OMG! You guys are horrible, you won't let me watch my Epic Super Ultra Mega Chocolate Frosted Sugar Bomb Ultimate Hero Hour, I'm gonna run away AND NEVER COME BACK! See, I'm packing up my bags right now! Got all my action figures right here! You'll never see me again, cross my heart and hope to die!"

    And then they're back in time for lunch, maybe dinner if they were really serious.

    ReplyDelete
  161. But slut-shaming *is* wrong. Sex is private and personal, so it's no one else's damn business who a woman does or does not have sex with. Slut-shaming is an attempt to control women and their bodies. There is nothing immoral about enjoying consensual sex, or talking about enjoying consensual sex.

    Another problem with slut-shaming is that the goalposts are always moving. There's no magic number for a woman to know when she's had more than the socially acceptable number of partners. It shifts and changes depending on who she is and who is accusing her.

    And, of course, the double standard - for the exact same sexual act, the male partner is likelier to be able to brag about it, while the female partner is expected to be demure, if not ashamed.

    That's why feminists have a problem with shaming language, because society says it's shameful for women to talk too loudly about liking sex. Having sex, and liking it, is not the same thing as being deceitful, bigoted or immature. The latter are things which one should rightly be ashamed of, the former is not.

    ReplyDelete
  162. I wasn't really debating the merits of slut-shaming (for what it's worth, I don't agree with it - I'd rather have a world where women are into sex than one where they're not). I was just using it as an example to answer your question about whether it's shaming to call someone out on doing something shameful. Like I said, depends on who considers what shameful, and it's often loaded anyway. The shamer attempts to make the target feel they did something wrong, when objectively this might not be the case. I find it's best to not worry about it too much either way.

    ReplyDelete
  163. I see you guys have had quite the discussion since I departed. Though I didnt say I wasnt coming back. Interestingly enough, I learned a new word, could someone explain it how it is being used? If I was to "flounce", wouldnt you have to actually see me doing it?

    ReplyDelete
  164. Google it, Tit for Tat, I think most of the people here are tired of explaining shit to you.

    ReplyDelete
  165. I think the discussion of flouncing has gotten a little boring, so I'm going to try to derail things here:

    Last night I had a dream that featured a tiny bunny whose right eye (well, the iris) was in the shape of a swastika. (Sort of like one of those fucked-up contact lenses Marilyn Manson likes to wear; perhaps not coincidentally Mr. Manson made a guest appearance on a show I saw last night.) What does this mean?

    ReplyDelete
  166. I think it means that you are worried about the reemergence of some kind of unhappy or negative thing returning to your life.

    Since most Americans are raised (and this is an assumption on my part that you are American) to think that Nazis were and are the worst things ever, the fertility symbol and the hate symbol combined show that your subconscious mind thinks something really bad is going to happen again or happen period.

    Dream Dictionary

    If you entered the WaPo Peep contest, it could mean that you are worried you will not win because you forgot to include Justin Bieber.

    ReplyDelete
  167. Hmm. I'm not a big fan of dream dictionaries but you may be on to something. In the dream there were lots of these little animals and they somehow managed to sort of combine and turn into evil people who were attacking me. That kind of fits with your interpretation.

    ReplyDelete
  168. Well, did you have chilies and watch South Park's Woodland Critter Christmas? Because your brain could have been just processing that episode and the chilies made you think you were Stan.

    ReplyDelete
  169. Ah, you were watching TV before bed. My mother likes to blame every bizarre dream on watching TV or playing video games before bed. We could go with that one too...

    Or it could just be that it is near easter and these comment sections often are huge Godwin fests. It's like the zombie with sharingan dream I had last week, it doesn't have to make sense (how do you beat a zombie that has a sharingan-short answer, you don't-and I got eaten as six or seven different people before I woke up).

    ReplyDelete
  170. Why yes, Ion, you big hulky genius of a man, having an internet pseudonym with a number on the end is an endlessly fascinating and totally rare concept. It's almost like...I had to pick a number because my nym was taken already. SHOCK!!

    Also, just because I know it pisses you off, I'm going to call you a flouncer who can't stick the flounce again. Why protest? Is it because it's a word that's generally used as feminine? And feminine is bad somehow or someway because of cunts, vaginas, and twats? Make a point or don't, stay or don't, but it's a gorram internet forum and no one is ever going to miss you if you're gone.

    ReplyDelete
  171. :: puts on her Glenn Beck Conspiracy Hat ::

    Well, we all know what the swastika means. And bunnies are a symbol of Easter, and Easter is coming up, a celebration of the resurrection of Jesus. Jesus, who was killed by the Jews, who celebrate Passover the same time Christians celebrate Easter. COINCIDIENCE? I think NOT! Because we all know what the swastika means when you bring up Jews!

    The question is, David... why are you dreaming of Nazi bunnies? Why do you hate the Jews? Did you know that ham is eaten on Easter because it flies in the face of the rules for kosher food? Your dream is obviously the deep expression of an Easter-based anti-Semitism.

    :: takes off the Glenn Beck Conspiracy Hat ::

    Man, that thing stinks.

    *Disclaimer: Not intended to be factual statements.

    ReplyDelete
  172. *groan* And that is MY state's junior senator.

    ReplyDelete
  173. Ion, you big hulky genius of a man

    Why thank you, I am a genius though I'm working on the 'hulky' part. Protein shakes and all that. Also, I can't take someone seriously who steals words from Firefly. You might as well have called me a Muggle, ffs. Other than that, when you're finished pounding the straw man, I'll be over here.

    David: Dreams are weird. I recently had a nightmare that I got into a small elevator and these three huge, fat guys got in after me. We were so packed in, I couldn't move or breathe. And I thought "what if the elevator gets stuck between floors like this?" I'm a bit claustrophobic so it was unpleasant, let me tell you. I'd have rather dreamed of a nazi bunny any day.

    ReplyDelete

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

Sociable

ShareThis