 |
| A "Wacky Package by Tom Bunk. |
He's not the only manosphere dude who has concluded that the best way to screw over all those evil wimminz who are leeching off the government tit is to, er, leech off the government tit themselves. The guy calling himself AfOR -- a prolific commenter and one-time contributor to the False Rape Society blog -- explained his similar strategy in a comment on angry-dude megasite The Spearhead:
The wimminz are always directly dependent upon “no questions asked” money, usually from the public purse, and even those in industry only get away with it because the way is lead by the public purse.
Starve them of cash and you starve them of oxygen, they will literally die of starvation, and raise blue murder screaming to their last breath.
The only way to starve them of cash is to starve the State of cash, fuck the State, it can’t be fixed any other way and is now the enemy.
So how does one go about starving the state (metaphorically) and hopefully some actual women (literally)? With some slackery and/or tax fraud!
The only way to starve the State of cash is either live off welfare or work self employed and keep two sets of books, run the black / cash economy for what you can, and good accounting for what you can’t where everything is a deductible expense.
If you pay into the State, you are paying into the wimminz defence fund.
Since AfOR only rarely gets to see his kids, he figures it doesn't matter if his brand of slacktivism destroys the economy -- and possibly leads to them getting killed.
I couldn’t have less contact with my kids if we had had TOTAL economic meltdown and they had died in the ensuing chaos, so frankly speaking total economic meltdown holds nothing very scary for me, I have a set of skills that will always be in demand (a brain, two hands and a mechanical aptitude)
Nope! He's footloose and fancy free!
Freed from needing to cater to the ex bitch and freed (prevented by force of Law actually) from any obligation towards my kids I can go live in my fucking car, it provides 12 VDC to power my laptop and charge my smartphone, and I can tether my smartphone to my laptop and get internet access anywhere I can get a phone signal.
In siding with the wimminz the State has made me the very thing it fears the most, the worker who can go anywhere on a whim, the worker who can work in the black (cash) economy, the worker who is very hard to track and profile ... the worker who has no interest in taking on a debt burden or otherwise “boosting” the economy, the worker who can’t be bribed to vote appropriately because he doesn’t have a McMansion, corporate job, mortgage, etc etc. ...
I guess Ayn Rand would be ... proud?
--
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.
*Yes, that was a Bioshock reference.
Hilarious. He's a deadbeat living in his car and he's convinced that the state "fears" him. Talk about delusions of grandeur.
ReplyDeleteConsidering that this man hates his children so much that he hopes (or at least does not give a shit) that they die or starve, it seems to me that denying him any access to them whatsoever is a wonderful move.
ReplyDeleteBesides, my father is a crackhead, he has been living in cars and filthy motels while not paying taxes or child support for over a decade and the world has not fallen apart. Does anyone see a difference between Afor's Galtness and being a junkie? Because those are a dime a dozen.
"...freed (prevented by force of Law actually) from any obligation towards my kids..."
ReplyDeleteHis readers realize this means his parental rights were terminated, most likely due to child abuse, right? Clearly he's a man with great ideas.
I hate to tell you guys, but for a lot of people, living on the road is a great fantacy. I have a vw camper bus and am building a cute tear drop camper. I would love to indulge in wander lust, taking the dark back roads and seeing people I've never seen, having lived in New York City, Los Angeles, and San Francisco all my life.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, quoting the crazies does not implicate the MRM.
If you remove the children from the man you take away two things. First is ability to parent, guide, and nurture them. This is privilege part of the equation. The second is the (hold onto your panties ladies its the word you fear more than patriarchy) RESPONSIBILITY. Yep, if you steal my car there is no reason morally or otherwise I should keep making the payments. In fact by doing so I only encourage *more theft*. Destroying families is of course immensely profitable for women and they engage in this on a daily basis. Of course if you remove the incentives of child support, alimony, lawyer fees, a free house, car, and all the other amenities these "empowered" parasitic beasts claim is their due you stop the behavior. What does it profit a woman to kill her family if she has to *gulp!* PAY FOR THE DECISION. My GOD can you just imagine it? A woman unilaterally ending her marriage actually having to PAY for her own stupid decision? No man to continue to provide her with a continuous river of unearned succor for her to squander at the starbucks while HER kids (her kids unless we are talking child support then of course their HIS children...) rot at the local daycare? Such would end modern parasitic civilization as we know it. After all a modern "empowered" woman can only be empowered when she plugs herself into a mans wallet. And we certainly can't have the dear sweet little trollups actually earning their OWN money to do this, oh no. It's the MAN'S responsibility to raise (i.e. pay money to the woman) HIS children.... but he doesn't get to ever see them as she got a restraining order based on false evidence and perjured testimony. YOU GO GIRL! That's right :) go right out and get a JOB and work while the rest of us jump ship to safer havens. The only advice i'd give this guy is he didn't go far enough! He should expat and get the f*** out of the U.S. altogether. Let those sweet innocent darlings pick up their OWN tabs and achieve the fine example of civilization that their little feminist minds can conjure (look to rural Africa to see what that looks like by the way). Have fun ladies! You've killed the host and you can make own buildings, electricity, sanitation, roads, etc. Have fun!!! :)
ReplyDeleteMagdelyn, I do not think he is referring to the same thing as your decision to use a cute little camper to travel upon the road. I think he is trying to say that he would rather live in a car then be a father.
ReplyDelete@Craig
ReplyDeleteChildren aren't possessions. To regard them as such is indicative of a frightening mentality. Outside of Hollywood women don't end their relationships because they want money, believe it or not. They end it because they realize that 1) they have grown distant from the man they once loved or 2) that nice guy they fell in love with turned out to be a complete asshole. Furthermore, as the child of a single mother who grew up knowing other single mothers (I'm working class, you see), I was able to see that my dad's child support payments were necessary for us to enjoy anything more than basic survival. And believe me, my mother has worked in life (as has my father, I won't deny it). Such wasn't the case for the kids who never knew their fathers. Their mothers worked tirelessly just to survive. You're insulting some of the most hard-working individuals on the planet with your caricature. Go fuck yourself.
The thing about the MRA fantasy is that it doesn't exist in real life, just like we don't have welfare queens in Cadillacs so much as we have poor individuals who NEED the social security net in order to survive. I have observed in my life that women work harder than men. There aren't really any housewives anymore unless you import them from Asia.
So go ahead and be a deadbeat. I'm sure your conscience rests easy knowing that you've cursed the lazy bitch to not only work hard but work far harder than you are and earn far less. I mean, what do those kids need money for anyways? You, as a single childless man, will put it to good use. The resentment he feels because you lack custody is understandable, of course, but I'm pretty sure it's that selfish mentality that led to the restraining order in the first place.
Ugh, confusing in my last paragraph as to who I am targeting with my critique. It's directed at Craig when it should be directed at AfOR.
ReplyDelete@Elizabeth:
ReplyDeleteYes, I know that is what he is saying. And for that, he is a shitbag.
Divorce is a great eater of wealth. Statistically, it's the man's standard of living which increases after the divorce, and the woman's decreases (it's the one-two punch of she probably made less anyway + kids cost more than a straight child support check will provide). Oddly enough, the man's standard of living doesn't increase as much as the woman's tends to decrease, and he is still more likely to want to remarry than she is. Still, dismantling the home is going to cost them both. There's a reasonably good book called Wifework that tries to make sense of it all.
ReplyDeleteThis may not apply to the angrier divorced MRAs, as acting like a douche in court tends to act in your opponent's favor.
@Craig, which is it? Are children solely the responsibility of women, who therefore should have total right to deny acess, or do fathers have rights and responsibilities as well? You MRAs love to call for all of the rights but none of the responsibilities. Besides, child support is just that-support for your children. Children are not cars, they are human beings. Anyone who wishes ill on their children because they feel punished by being denied access has displayed precisely why they should be denied access. I definitely understand why someone who actually cared about their kids would be hurt to not be able to see them. However, such a parent, one who actually loved their children, would not begrudge trying to help their kids have food, housing, heat, etc. or wish terrible things to happen to them. For example, I would be hurt if I never got to see my family again, but I would not wish terrible things on them and I would still give what help I could, because I actually love them. Afor's statements make it clear that he does not love these children and does not care about their safety. Someone who wishes for (or is indifferent to) the death and suffering of any innocent children, let alone their own, in order punish their mother is a fucked up person who should not be the caretaker for a goldfish, let alone a kid.
ReplyDeleteA woman unilaterally ending her marriage actually having to PAY for her own stupid decision?
ReplyDeleteYeah, let's bring back the days when only men could unilaterally end the marriage and leave the woman penniless and out on the street! Those were good days.
Such a target rich environment... lets see whose first...
ReplyDelete"Yeah, let's bring back the days when only men could unilaterally end the marriage and leave the woman penniless and out on the street! Those were good days."
yes those were good days - the days that built the civilization you stand upon and contribute nothing too. Civilization can survive and thrive if women have to be nice to their husbands or be kicked out rather than being the vicious self centered harpies they have become. Civilization cannot and will not survive if women are allowed to enslave their husbands and use them and lose them which is what happens today. It isn't even questionable you realize little lady... the West IS dying. What you see around you IS collapsing and it won't last. Get used to the Burqa baby cause that's where the world is headed! A civilization based on women who hate and use men (and can use them because other men toe the line and apply violence to make sure they are little obedient surfs) is NOT sustainable. Sooner or later the men just say... "No" and walk away. Do you think the other members of your coven will somehow make and maintain the hyper complex glitzy sex in the city world you feed upon so you can continue to be a parasite? Guess again! Stand on a street corner and point to a single building or accomplishment by a feminist. Good luck. A world full of nothing by feminists is at best a well decorated cave and at worst a cess pool of cholera, plague, famine, and all those other things you take for granted as not being your problem... yet. So yes by all means lets get back to the good ol' days and give civilization a chance again. Or we can continue with matriarchy backed by socialism which will lead to the REALLY good ol' days of plunder, murder, famine, etc.
Alex said: "Children aren't possessions." Funny women sure treat them that way especially if there is a child support check to be gained out of it. They deny 50/50 custody to get to that magic 80% to maximize the amount. Is this group really so retarded that you can't see that you get more of what you pay for? If you pay women to divorce and keep kids away from dad you will get more women doing this for better or for worse (and its completely for the worse). DUH!
ReplyDeleteDarksidecat actually makes a semi-valid point so I will respond as politely as I can. The answer is both parents *should* have rights and responsibilities. That being said what is practiced today is the mother has the rights and the man the responsibilities. That is the truth. Women get custody and have the power to make up any story they like to limit the mans right to see his children. This is the truth. As for the point about Afor, what he is doing is starving the beast. He doesn't wish "harm" upon his children so much as harm upon the system that took them. You said you would continue to send money to support your kids even if you couldn't see them. Great. Tell you what I will go ahead and arrange for them to be kidnapped and you can pay the kidnappers a monthly wage for your children's care. You will no right to see them of course but you would at least have that warm feeling that tells you that you are doing something good for them. Now unfortunately you are not doing something good for society at large. Other kidnappers would emerge if such a system were permitted. Many others would soon be snatching children from their parents if it was seen that such was profitable. Get the picture now? The more fathers (and it is mostly fathers who are victimized by the child support system) continue to support the evil the more evil will grow. At some point you have to say "enough" and starve the beast. Only when it is no longer profitable for the woman to snatch the children will they stop doing it. Right now women are literally *paid* to do this and lo and behold we have millions of cases of it. As men the only good choice is just to walk away. Maybe our grandchildren won't have to go through with this nonsense as we had too. Maybe when the money is no longer dependable the evil won't be as attractive. That is what he is doing and no it is not an easy decision. It is not an easy decision for anyone to fight evil if it will mean harm to their kids but it must be done if there is to be any good in this world. At the end of the day if you pay for evil deeds you'll get them and that is what has happened. I will leave the rest of the bra burning harpies (not you darkside cat you asked a real question) to shriek about how every child snatching and father excommunication since the dawn of time is completely justified because of course women are not capable of EVER doing ANYTHING remotely wrong in this world.
Paragraphs, people, paragraphs!
ReplyDeleteSome of us have middle aged eyes here.
Who cares if Ayn Rand would be proud? Yeah I know, I know, SOME people treat her philosophy like a religion and therefore would care about that question, but I sure as hell don't.
ReplyDeleteOne major weakness in Atlas Shrugged, as well as other works by Ayn Rand, is that she was so obsessed with the apex innovators that she largely ignored or at least greatly understated the contributions of the people working for them. Economic collapse brought about by socialist/feminist policies won't come from a small number of apex innovators dropping out; it will come from a massive sea change in the attitudes of a huge segment of society. That sea change doesn't happen overnight, but it has been happening gradually over the course of the last few decades and it is starting to accelerate. The ONLY thing you can do to stop it is to change the policies that push it; NOTHING else will work, including your pathetic attempts to shame us back to being fully productive citizens.
As for "leeching off the government tit", anyone who is not a net taxpayer is doing that whether they intend to or not. Even with my involvement in the underground economy, I'm still a net taxpayer on an annual basis through my above-ground job, so as much as I'd LIKE to "leech off the government tit" it's not happening at the moment since my lack of a vagina prevents me from qualifying for the most generous government programs.
Dammit, you feminist perfect princesses, Craig hunted the mammoth for you! And this is the thanks he gets? Sheesh!
ReplyDeleteSeriously, though, Craig, what's your solution? No more divorce? No more child support? Rebuttable presumption of equally shared parenting? Come on, imagine you're dictator for a day: what would you do? Enlighten us. And, please, use some paragraphs next time.
Oh, and by the way, triplanetary is a dude, not a "little lady." Or, I suppose, in your world, a "mangina." Please be accurate with your condescending little insults--not that he cares.
Craig
ReplyDeleteEven in the midst of your angry rants I will give you this. Your kidnapper analogy is pretty spot on in certain situations. The court system does have a bias towards the mother in most custody issues. Unfortunately though, if youre too pissed off when you speak most people will miss your good points.
Difference between a kidnapper and the mother of my children being...
ReplyDeleteGenerally speaking, most mothers won't kill their children just because you miss a payment. I know you'd argue otherwise. Don't. That kind of ranting is the reason we don't take you seriously.
No, women don't see children as a way to profit. Actually, if profit was a motive they would be better off just not having children in the first place. Turns out that keeping one or several human beings alive is a tremendously expensive occupation, even if you've got a father's salary to sponge off of like the parasite you are. Paying women for divorce? Hardly. The career-conscious woman would chose not to reproduce in the first place, as many do.
Now, I should concede that if I were to lose custody of my children I would continue fighting the mother in court in order to get them back. That's fair. That's love. But I would continue to make payments, because I'd direct my anger against the individual (my ex-wife) and not anyone else (my children, the "system").
Also, lol@ your belief in good and evil. Keep thinking that way, bro. You are good, you are pure. The enemy is evil, and must be purged.
Destroying families is of course immensely profitable for women and they engage in this on a daily basis.
ReplyDeleteDangit, I missed this memo. I could be rich right now if only I'd had a family to destroy! WTF is wrong with me!
Also, lol@ your belief in good and evil. Keep thinking that way, bro. You are good, you are pure. The enemy is evil, and must be purged.
ReplyDeleteUm, isn't that how most feminists think? I've lost count of how many times I've been called "evil" for disagreeing with them or for not living as an obedient little pawn.
Now, I should concede that if I were to lose custody of my children I would continue fighting the mother in court in order to get them back.
ReplyDeleteWere you to do so, odds are about 50-50 you'd get custody. Part of the reason women are more prone to get custody in divorce cases is that men are much less likely to seek custody in the first place. Why are they less likely? Could be they just don't care, like Craig or the OP here. Or perhaps it's because they've been taught that wanting to care for children is a wussy, un-manly sort of thing to do. Or perhaps they've been told that they'll never get custody anyway so why bother? Either way, education and deconstruction of gender roles could do a lot to equalize the situation vis-a-vis child custody cases.
@Craig
ReplyDeleteThe reason women contributed so little to civilization is because THE SYSTEM WOULDN'T LET US! They didn't let women vote, they didn't let women fight, they rarely allowed women into higher education. Basically, what you're doing is the equivalent of complaining that someone on crutches can't keep up with your normal walking pace.
As for women and child support, seriously, do you really believe that the majority of women are like that? That we all care so little for the children we gave birth to (or adopted) and for the man the kids call their father?
In the past few years, I've known three women personally that have gotten a divorce. Two were escaping abusive relationships, one couldn't cope with her husband's severe social phobias. The first two were worried for their children, so they limit the interaction with the father as much as possible. The last one has custody of their son, but by no means keeps them apart.
All three women have jobs and are working hard to support their children. If they didn't have to, I'm sure they'd prefer not to rely on child support, but kids are expensive, especially once the college years come around.
Of course, I'm not saying that women are always right. Just that whether we're right or wrong, we tend to get the short end of the stick. And thus, I will conclude my ramble.
Well with twi children with different mothers--I'm up to 2000 in support a month.
ReplyDeleteGladly paid by the way.
Craig--speak for yourself buddy. I haven't got the full scoop on the situation but based on my experieince--if you are banned from seeing your kids you either have the worst lawyer in the world or you are a threat.
Having said that--2 grand remains a bargain to get the fuck out of that bullshit institution called marriage.
Working mayu ass off to service her debt, buld a home inn which i cannot make a single decision regarding the disposition of and throug it all being told that I'm a bad father and a disappointment as a husband is more than enough for me.
My kids however--are not part of that equation. SO forgive me if i actually behave like a MAN. I accept my responsibilities and carry the fuck on.
I do not let my problems with my exes ever impact my realtionships with them. In fact--one the major reasons I am not in relationships with them anymore is because I have the right to parent my kids the way I feel is best for them. And i can only do that functionally when spearate from my ex.
you know--actually getting them vaccinated. Believing that delaying gratificvation and not supplyingt them with a constant stream of junk food is a proper behavioural set. That not crying your way out of every descision is actually a beneficial thing to learn.
To love reason over faith and relying upon yourself --taking the ocassional measured risk leads to a more full life than the scotchguarded consideration otherwise.
But here's the thing. I'vehad enough of lving with or being in any kind of relationship with a woman that goes any deeper than some recreational sex or conversation over a cup of joe.
Happy to live the second half of my life in that fashion.
And yet it's alway the women I know who are the first to assure me that I will change my mind. That i will meet someone...and the more I protest the more strident that statements become.
It's like they have something personal at stake. And that is the problem. Nobody owns me. I never owned them. I never made any demands on them to that effect. I never claimed a chunk of their paycheck or told them how to live their lives and yet--I'm supposed to listen chastely while this was done to me?
Equality to the end of self determination is as it shoudl be...but don't get all bent out of shape if I deside to forgoe that pairbonding crap to benefit a gender that has ...frankly...given me nothing of worth.
Um, isn't that how most feminists think? I've lost count of how many times I've been called "evil" for disagreeing with them or for not living as an obedient little pawn.
ReplyDeleteWho wants Cold as her obedient little pawn? Hold on now, no shoving. Line up orderly please.
I'vehad enough of lving with or being in any kind of relationship with a woman that goes any deeper than some recreational sex or conversation over a cup of joe.
ReplyDeleteHappy to live the second half of my life in that fashion.
And yet it's alway the women I know who are the first to assure me that I will change my mind. That i will meet someone...and the more I protest the more strident that statements become.
It's like they have something personal at stake. And that is the problem. Nobody owns me.
You sound like a sensible sort of guy John Killion... just be aware that the social disapproval you experience for choosing not to be in a relationship is coming not from "women" but from the culture at large, which is teaching all of us that being in a relationship is just What One Does, and that only freaks and weirdos and losers decide to go it alone. Although women may be the ones most likely to express it to you, women are also the ones most likely to experience its harshest manifestations. Those particular women may indeed have something personally invested in the question of "is it best to be in a relationship or not" because they themselves have been judged harshly for not being in a relationship, or suppressed their unhappiness with their current partner out of fear of being judged for being single, etc. Who knows.
Either way, judging people for being single is not a feminist value. Nor is judging people for being married. It's all about making choices and having those choices respected.
Feminism 101.
No, women don't see children as a way to profit.(Alex P)
ReplyDeleteI agree that they might not start off with that thought but in some situations they clearly see the benefit it could be for them. Its hard to explain certain things from a male perspective in regards to child custody. Unless you have lived it. I think it would be best if both sides would stop for a minute and ask "why is that person making such claims". You might then find that they may have some legitimacy to their statements.
*points immediately to the building housing the admin portion of the courts she works for as the "Guess again! Stand on a street corner and point to a single building or accomplishment by a feminist."* There you go Mr. Not A Happy Camper Craig.
ReplyDeleteA feminist designed and helped create that building. Oh I know, it was a government building and they do not count.
Maya Ying Lin counts-she was the winning designer of the Vietnam Memorial.
There you go.
@John Kilian
ReplyDeleteI'm glad you're mature enough not to take out your frustration with your ex on your kids. I'm sorry that you've had such bad experiences with relationships, and find yourself disillusioned with women in general.
Please don't take this the wrong way, but I think seeing a therapist would do you good. Not because you don't want to be in a relationship, but because you sound like you're really hurting inside. If people don't address their own pain, a lot of times they end up hurting others.
What have women contributed to civilisation? well, first of all, 52% of the people who make up civilization...not to mention numerous inventions and developments made throughout the ages, in spite of living in cultures that denied them access to education etc.
ReplyDeleteAlso? weaving, sewing, pottery, agriculture(aka the bedrock of modern civilization) -these are all (according to current anthropological theory) female inventions.
@amnesia
ReplyDeleteI appreciate the concern. But Therapy is for wusses--
I'm kidding. Put down the shears.
I know where my pain is. I have a lot of experience in recognizing it.
I come from a home where the rod was not spared by either my irish father or my italian mother.
And yet I have never strcuk my children. Therapy --in my experience is all about recognizing that the large stripey thing in the cage with you is called a "tiger" --but it doesn't blunt the claws or pull the fangs.
...ib4:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.women-inventors.com/
A target rich environment indeed.
ReplyDeleteCraig::: yes those were good days - the days that built the civilization you stand upon and contribute nothing too. Civilization can survive and thrive if women have to be nice to their husbands or be kicked out rather than being the vicious self centered harpies they have become. :::
Good old days. Yes, women should have to be "nice to their husbands" no matter what calumny they indulge in. It is the height of self interest to wish to be treated with respect and dignity - oh, and to have equal access to the privilege of dissolving a relationship that doesn't work for them anymore rather than be thrown into penury at the whim of an asshole who is completely supported by civil law.
Gah - there's no arguing with such ignorance. I can't even bring myself to address the other blatant nonsense in that post.
Fair enough, John K. It sounds like you've been through the ringer. Relationships aren't for everyone. I wish you well whatever life choices you make.
ReplyDeleteTit for Tat:
ReplyDeleteI don't know that anyone here would argue that the family court system is perfect. In fact, I've heard as many women complain about it as men. I'll admit, though, that my understanding of the system is not deep enough to adequately evaluate whether it favors one gender over another, or the degree to which any favoritism is justified.
The sense I have is that going to court is a good way to exact revenge on your ex, whoever that may be, and that the kids are usually the ones who suffer the most in the process. In my town, we have a program called Kids Turn, which is designed to help parents to understand divorce from a child's perspective. Kids attend a group based on their age, and each parent is assigned to a separate group of other parents. At the end of the six week program, the kids publish a newsletter for the parents in which they describe (anonymously) their experiences of the divorce. I've led one of the parent groups, and let me tell you, there wasn't a dry eye in the house when the parents read that newsletter. I just wish more parents could have that perspective and not choose to put their kids through Hell just to get back at their exs. That goes for men and women.
Captain
ReplyDeleteI think one of the problems with these kinds of discussions is that many times it involves people who have not had to experience it. I think many times the issues dont stem from ex's trying to get even but more just from selfish individuals who want what they want, people be damned. I think many times both sides are as affected financially from divorce. From my experience though, the system favoured my daughters mother. The only way for me to circumvent that was out of my reach economically. So she got to have the deciding vote, which she used with impunity.I have waited 10yrs for my daughter to be old enough to see which homes afford her the most balanced approach to life and school and parenting. Seems Dad was not so bad afterall. The cost for that inequity was loss of time with my child, financial hardship and hours upon hours of travel weekly. Worth it for sure but I can fully understand why some men, who do not have my kind of support system, would be royally pissed off. The I totally disagree with many of the ways they express their viewpoints. How's that old saying go.
"walk a mile in another person's shoes,"
It seems to me both the feminists and MRA's missed that class.
Therapy --in my experience is all about recognizing that the large stripey thing in the cage with you is called a "tiger" --but it doesn't blunt the claws or pull the fangs.
ReplyDeleteWell, your mileage will always vary with things like therapy, but in my experience, if we're going to run with your analogy, therapy was more like recognizing that you have a right as a person to kindly ask the tiger to get its claws out of your gut.
Or something. I had a good therapist. I've heard horror stories, so I regard myself as lucky.
"walk a mile in another person's shoes,"
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me both the feminists and MRA's missed that class.
Bullshit. Every oppressed group in history has been told that they should see things from their oppressors point of view, and have some sympathy for their oppressors, and try to be patient with their oppressors. People like Martin Luther King said "fuck that" and got results.
For the past century women - the oppressed - have been told that they're not giving due consideration to their oppressors. Damn right, because there's no reason they should. Their oppressors already have plenty going for them. I'm fucking sick of hearing men whine about how our lives are hard too. Of course they are; nobody said they weren't. Your life is hard because you're human. Deal with it. Womens' lives are harder because they're female humans. Once we eliminate that distinction I'll have all the sympathy in the world for my fellow men, on par with my sympathy for my fellow women of course.
Until then, suck it up.
Trip
ReplyDeleteLmao, who shit in your cornflakes??
Yeah women's lives are so much harder that they commit suicide 1/4th as often as men, live many years longer than men, spend 65% of the disposable income worldwide(higher in the Anglosphere), and are about 90% less likely to be incarcerated. Since when does a supposedly oppressed group get incarcerated at only 1/10th the rate of their supposed oppressors?
ReplyDeleteTriplanetary: white knight extraordinaire.
ReplyDeleteCold said...
ReplyDeleteTriplanetary: white knight extraordinaire.
*Yawn.* Same old bullshit: the only reason men are feminists is to score points with women. Never changes, never stops being wrong.
Tit for Tat:
ReplyDeleteSorry to hear you had to go through that.
I was obviously talking about Triplanetary specifically, not all male feminists. Seems to me that a significant minority of them, if not the majority ARE just looking to score points with women, but that's anecdotal. The one thing that almost all male feminists have in common is that they will get the opposite of what they are hoping to get, whatever that may be.
ReplyDeletethus becoming what economists call a "free rider"on government services, and what the rest of us taxpayers call a "tax cheat."
ReplyDeleteThis. Just as conservatism is the search for a moral justification for selfishness, so libertarianism is the search for a moral justification for freeloading.
"Moochers" indeed.
Since when does oppression solely involve being incarcerated?
ReplyDelete"Single men are the biggest spenders. According to Bundle.com, single men spend 18% more than single women. They also carry slightly more credit card debt.
Men are just as likely as women to make impulse buys, but for some reason the stereotype sticks to women. Sure, they do spend a lot of money as managers of the household, which is why so much advertising targets them.
According to Elizabeth Duke, a member of the Board of Governors of the U.S. Federal Reserve, "Women account for 80% of all consumer purchasing decisions, making 93% of food purchases and 65% of auto purchases." And they're also more likely to be budget-conscious than men and more likely to take advantage of things like sales and coupons."
Family shopping accounts for the difference there-women tend to be the shoppers for martial couples.
women suffer from depression at a much higher rate than men, they would seem to be at higher risk for suicide. Men are less likely to make an effort to get treatment then women are. So their rates tend to be higher.
Not so fast on that incarceration thing:
Increasing arrests for property and public order offenses are partly responsible for women’s incarceration rate outpacing that of men.
That's funny, Cold. I've been a feminist most of my adult life and I've pretty much gotten what I've wanted--not everything, but I've no reason to complain (though I do anyway). I've said it before, and I'll say it again: feminism works for me. Like most people, I've got plenty of problems, but feminism is most assuredly not one of them.
ReplyDeleteCold said: "The one thing that almost all male feminists have in common is that they will get the opposite of what they are hoping to get, whatever that may be."
ReplyDeleteWhat's the opposite of ice cream? Because whatever that is, I'd like to know so I can start hoping for it.
Also, Cold, I'm just going to put this here:
ReplyDelete"Feminism boosts sexual satisfaction for both men and women, a new study suggests. "
http://www.livescience.com/1964-feminists-fun.html
Dave,
ReplyDeleteI think the opposite of Ben and Jerry's would be frozen skim milk, lousy with BGH, interspersed with hunks of dog shit and sweetened with Splenda--made by a couple of Glenn Beck fans.
Of course, now that they're owned by Unilever all bets are off.
Captain
ReplyDeleteThanks for the concern, but were good. Lots of challenge helped me become a better communicator with my daughter and stepson. Reading most of these comments makes me hope they can do a better job in regards to our diffirences. MRA's/feminists have lots of good points that totally get lost behind the vitriol they spew.
Elizabeth wrote:
ReplyDeletewomen suffer from depression at a much higher rate than men, they would seem to be at higher risk for suicide. Men are less likely to make an effort to get treatment then women are. So their rates tend to be higher.
My understanding is that women attempt suicide more often than men, whereas men complete suicide more often than women. Men are also more likely to act out as a result of untreated depression--through alcohol and drug use, violence, rage, etc. Women, by contrast, are more likely to manifest "classic" depression--sadness, hopelessness, lethargy, etc.
To be fair, part of men refusing to seek treatment is the stigma that's still attached to mental health treatment, especially for men. Of course, this stigma is in no way the fault of feminists, but rather due to the persistence of patriarchy and the idea that real men don't go in for that bullshit.
There's a great book on male depression by Terrance Real, called, aptly, I Don't Want to Talk About It. Well worth a read.
Tit said:
ReplyDelete"walk a mile in another person's shoes,"
It seems to me both the feminists and MRA's missed that class.
And then triplanetary said:
Bullshit. Every oppressed group in history has been told that they should see things from their oppressors point of view, and have some sympathy for their oppressors, and try to be patient with their oppressors. People like Martin Luther King said "fuck that" and got results.
For the past century women - the oppressed - have been told that they're not giving due consideration to their oppressors. Damn right, because there's no reason they should. Their oppressors already have plenty going for them. I'm fucking sick of hearing men whine about how our lives are hard too. Of course they are; nobody said they weren't. Your life is hard because you're human. Deal with it. Womens' lives are harder because they're female humans. Once we eliminate that distinction I'll have all the sympathy in the world for my fellow men, on par with my sympathy for my fellow women of course."
Until then, suck it up.
Hmm, missed the boat by a few hours wrt a response. I would say that it's both the men and women finding themselves oppressed by a patriarchal system: women because they are seen as possessions and men because they are supposed to aspire to an ideal of masculinity. Some dudes really do have it pretty rough. The focus is on improving the lives of everybody, of equalizing men and women as well as different kinds of men or women across their gender groups. I'm not only a feminist: I'm also pro gay rights and pro self expression and pro human rights and all that good stuff. Basically, I just think people should be allowed to live in such a manner as does not cause harm to others, free of stigma and free of fear. Idealistic dreams, obviously. We'll never have that but it's worth trying to have.
And Martin Luther King seems like someone who had sympathy for those who were perceived as the oppressors, namely the whites. He emphasized the humanity of each side, and that's why he was so successful. Individuals may play a part in oppression but the main oppressor is the culture. One of the perceptions of feminism is that it blames the men. Men are mostly blameless as an amorphous mass. Tradition is guilty as fuck.
Women attempt suicide more than men, but men are better at succeeding (women tend to use poison/drugs, which makes it easier to save them as opposed to a man, who tends to use a gun). And there are also some good points about women being more comfortable with finding help than a man who cannot admit any sort of weakness or that he might feel sad sometimes.
ReplyDeleteYou know who wants to preserve a culture in which men are derided for feeling sad and admitting they need help? People who support the patriarchy.
You know who wants to disrupt that culture and replace it with one where everyone gets to freely express emotions and ask for help without being judged for it? Feminists.
Yeah, I agree - it's awful that anyone chooses to commit suicide. It's awful that the U.S. has one of the highest rates of incarceration, a significant percentage of which are bullshit drug charges. It's awful that there are people full of despair who have difficulty getting help. But that's not the fault of feminism.
From what I've read, and gathered in discussions with many MRAs, they have a long list of complaints and how they feel oppressed. Fair enough, I won't begrudge someone else their feelings. But MRAs look at the wrong target - they want to lay all the blame with feminism, when both feminists and MRAs seem to want to agitate for the same cultural change. It's a shame that MRAs can't see that they have more in common with feminism than not.
Off topic, but is that picture drawn by Tom Bunk? Is it from a 90s MAD Magazine?
ReplyDeleteBut MRAs look at the wrong target - they want to lay all the blame with feminism, when both feminists and MRAs seem to want to agitate for the same cultural change(Lady Vic)
ReplyDeleteYou might not want to call it the Patriarchal system then(insinuating all men). Afterall, what is the difference between that and laying blame on feminists??
Mercedes Lackey has an excellent series on The Tradition as seen through the eyes of people having to live with Fairy Tales.
ReplyDeleteNow I have to go oppress Cold for not having a vejay jay.
Tit for Tat--
ReplyDeleteObviously, as has been explained approximately 3,072,482,391 times before, "the patriarchal system" is a non-human system (hint: non-human means it does not possess gender attributes) which holds men as superior and women as inferior. It is enforced by BOTH WOMEN AND MEN. It is also opposed by BOTH WOMEN AND MEN. The women and men who oppose it and seek to supplant it with a more egalitarian system are called "feminists." Among other things, of course.
And, as has been mentioned approximately 4,328,094 times before, this is quite similar to opposing "white supremacy" without also hating all white people.
Or are you convinced that MLK Jr. was a terrible racist because of his passionate opposition to white supremacy?
People who think that "The patriarchy is to blame" means "All men are to blame and all women are blameless" are simply demonstrating their own stupidity and/or laziness.
On King (exerpt from Letter from a Birmingham Jail):
ReplyDelete"I must make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.
I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that law and order exist for the purpose of establishing justice and that when they fail in this purpose they become the dangerously structured dams that block the flow of social progress. I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that the present tension in the South is a necessary phase of the transition from an obnoxious negative peace, in which the Negro passively accepted his unjust plight, to a substantive and positive peace, in which all men will respect the dignity and worth of human personality. Actually, we who engage in nonviolent direct action are not the creators of tension. We merely bring to the surface the hidden tension that is already alive. We bring it out in the open, where it can be seen and dealt with. Like a boil that can never be cured so long as it is covered up but must be opened with all its ugliness to the natural medicines of air and light, injustice must be exposed, with all the tension its exposure creates, to the light of human conscience and the air of national opinion before it can be cured....
I had hoped that the white moderate would see this need. Perhaps I was too optimistic; perhaps I expected too much. I suppose I should have realized that few members of the oppressor race can understand the deep groans and passionate yearnings of the oppressed race, and still fewer have the vision to see that injustice must be rooted out by strong, persistent and determined action. "
MLK was not half the push over that modern white media portrays him as and he was not even half the hardass that A Phillip Randolph and some of the others leaders in the movement were.
Hey, John Kilian, sorry you had such bad experiences with marriage. I'm sure your kids appreciate having you in their lives more than they can really express. You're doing a great thing by making sure they know you love them.
ReplyDeleteThe one thing that almost all male feminists have in common is that they will get the opposite of what they are hoping to get, whatever that may be.
ReplyDeleteI'm not in this for personal gain. I'm a feminist because that's where my sense of fairness and justice led me.
And Martin Luther King seems like someone who had sympathy for those who were perceived as the oppressors, namely the whites. He emphasized the humanity of each side, and that's why he was so successful.
Of course that's true. It's also not my point. King's activism rattled a lot of white people's chains. Many of them said that they sympathized with his cause but maybe he should tone it down and stop with the agitating and just patiently wait for civil rights. These white people all expected pats on the back for paying lip service to civil rights while opposing any active methods of actually obtaining them. King rightly refused to regard them as allies, and he didn't placate them with any "oh it's not your fault as an individual white person" nonsense either.
No individual man created the patriarchal system we live in today, but individual men benefit from it. And individual men are actively defending it, whether explicitly or by denying that it actually exists. Those men deserve blame.
From what I've read, and gathered in discussions with many MRAs, they have a long list of complaints and how they feel oppressed. Fair enough, I won't begrudge someone else their feelings
I don't see why not. When some white people complain about how they're oppressed by affirmative action and black scholarships and BET, I don't take them seriously. I see no need to take MRAs seriously either.
You might not want to call it the Patriarchal system then(insinuating all men). Afterall, what is the difference between that and laying blame on feminists??
See, this is what I'm talking about. Oh dear, we'd better sugarcoat the truth, lest we hurt the feelings of those poor men. Nobody gives them a break, after all.
T4T:
ReplyDeleteI think this is another place where the MRAs and feminists have a serious breakdown in communication. When an MRA hears a feminist talking about the patriarchy, he thinks she's talking about 'all men,' when that's not the case, any more than 'feminism' means 'all women'. Feminists are kind of nerds about language, and if they meant that 'all men' were culpable, they'd say 'all men.'
The patriarchy isn't based on gender, it's a system of cultural and social constructions which pigeonhole people based on race, gender, class, ableism and other factors. It's as possible to be a woman who supports the patriarchy (by believing, among other things, that men shouldn't cry, women shouldn't disagree with a man and homosexuality is wrong) as it is possible to be a male feminist. Both men and women enforce patriarchial norms on each other. I come from a very Christian extended family, where the women are all taught that their highest aspiration is to be a wife and mother and that they should rely on their husbands for financial support. These aren't feminist women, and they'd be shocked and possibly insulted if you suggested they were. They believe wholeheartedly in the patriarchy, despite being women, because that's how they've been taught.
And even when it comes to patriarchial men - feminism doesn't believe that patriarchy is inborn. So if a man has patriarchial attitudes, it's not because he was born male; but because he was born into this particular culture and absorbed the cultural values of patriarchy.
From what I've read, and gathered in discussions with many MRAs, they have a long list of complaints and how they feel oppressed. Fair enough, I won't begrudge someone else their feelings
ReplyDeleteI don't see why not. When some white people complain about how they're oppressed by affirmative action and black scholarships and BET, I don't take them seriously. I see no need to take MRAs seriously either.
Honestly, I can empathize with some of the complaints of the MRA movement, since, as I said, they're complaining more about the patriarchy than what real feminism supports.
Lady Vic wrote:
ReplyDeleteYou know who wants to preserve a culture in which men are derided for feeling sad and admitting they need help? People who support the patriarchy.
You know who wants to disrupt that culture and replace it with one where everyone gets to freely express emotions and ask for help without being judged for it? Feminists.
Exactly.
::: My understanding is that women attempt suicide more often than men, whereas men complete suicide more often than women. Men are also more likely to act out as a result of untreated depression--through alcohol and drug use, violence, rage, etc. Women, by contrast, are more likely to manifest "classic" depression--sadness, hopelessness, lethargy, etc. :::
ReplyDeleteIt's my understanding that men succeed at suicide more often than women because a preponderance of men use a gun. Guns have much less margin for error and generally produce injuries that are not easy to recover from in such situations where death is not immediate.
sallystrange
ReplyDeleteOk, I see you had cornflakes with Triplanetary this morning.
I am new to this site and just recently have started talking about these points, so excuse me for not knowing 'contextual' meaning for Patriarchal and Feminism. I would imagine most people would get the fact that they both imply gender. But if you say not then far be it for me to point that out.
Lady Vic
Thanks for your response. I think that because these are hot button topics maybe it would prudent to develop new verbiage that has no relation to gender whatsoever. It may help diffuse much of the anger from both sides before any meaningful dialogue begins.
Sam, just checked the site I got that picture at, and it was indeed by Tom Bunk. But it was a WackyPackage, not from Mad. Actually, it was supposed to be a WackyPackage, but apparently was dropped. All the details:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.wackypackages2007.com/ans3/wacky-packages-2006-ans3/slacker-jack.htm
I'll put a link on the post.
excuse me for not knowing 'contextual' meaning for Patriarchal and Feminism.
ReplyDeleteThat's not the "contextual" meaning I was referencing. I was talking about the actual, dictionary definitions of the words. Why should I excuse you from knowing the actual definitions of words that are key to a discussion you joined voluntarily? Do you have a good excuse? Did the dog eat your vocabulary sheet?
I would imagine most people would get the fact that they both imply gender.
Most people are idiots. Try not to be like them.
Neither of these words "imply" gender. "Imply" means to cause an inference to be drawn without directly stating the argument. They both reference gender directly. However, neither definition contains any sex-specific requirements. You really have trouble with this whole "meaning of words" thing, don't you? I suppose you're not used to this level of precision in the use of language. If you don't like it there's a whole big internet out there where nobody will give a flying fuck what the correct definitions of patriarchy and feminism.
It's my understanding that men succeed at suicide more often than women because a preponderance of men use a gun. Guns have much less margin for error and generally produce injuries that are not easy to recover from in such situations where death is not immediate.
ReplyDeleteWomen who complete suicide are just as likely to use guns or other lethal means. One possibility for the discrepancy between completed suicides for men and women is that women who attempt often use the attempt as a "cry for help," not because they actually want to die, and thus use low lethality methods. By contrast, men who attempt suicide often mean business and are past the point where they want any help, if they ever did. When women reach that point, they are just as likely to use high lethality methods as men.
This is not to trivialize or disparage women who attempt suicide as a "cry for help;" for my money, suicide is one area where it's good to fail. :)
@T4T:
ReplyDeleteI like the term 'hegemony' better, and Riane Eisler's word for an equitable system, 'gylany.' However, I'm not Arbiter of Feminist Language - and, really, it takes just a few minutes with Google to learn that feminists don't mean 'blame men' when they use the term 'patriarchy.' At some point, it behooves one to learn the terminology, no matter how inelegant you personally think it is. And after centuries of telling women that they had to be so conscious of what men thought and wanted that they had to ignore their own desires, I can understand why feminist philosophers would be reluctant to abandon a term solely 'because men might misunderstand it and get their feelings hurt' as the sole justification (I like the term 'hegemony' because I personally think its more accurate, as there are more qualifiers to status than just gender - for instance, in the old system, a rich married white woman was of more social value than poor black gay man).
On that note, Riane Eisler's books definitely deserve to be read.
So, T4T, you didn't answer my question. Do you think that opposing white supremacy makes you racist against white people?
ReplyDeleteMy other post had a couple of good links in it, I hope it shows up soon.
ReplyDelete@ Sally
ReplyDeleteI think the analogy breaks down a bit. More white supremacists are willing and even proud to say that they are white supremacists; while few men with patriarchial attitudes are willing to do the same. Most patriarchial men deny that the patriarchy exists, all evidence to the contrary; but white supremacists are usually more than happy to tell you about their 'movement'.
@ Lady Victoria: I believe the word of choice now in a lot of feminist blogs I read is "kyriarchy", from "kyros", Greek for master, which is meant to take into account a lot more than just sexism, but also racism, ableism, sizeism, heteronormativity, etc.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.deeplyproblematic.com/2010/08/why-i-use-that-word-that-i-use.html <- good intro to "kyriarchy"
Sally, your comment with the links is up now.
ReplyDeletewhite supremacists are usually more than happy to tell you about their 'movement'.
ReplyDeleteYeah, but white supremacists love to play the victim card, too. One of their favorites is to argue that interbreeding between people of different races represents genocide against white children...because they're not being born, or something. Or they'll quote you dubious statistics about black-on-white crime as evidence that white people are the Most Oppressed Group Evar. And I've definitely heard them assert that being anti-racist is the same thing as being anti-white.
@theclementine:
ReplyDeleteThat is also a good word!
@ Captain Bathrobe:
I didn't mean to be an apologist for white supremacy, just pointing out that white supremacists are prouder of being what they are than patriarchists.
"I'm fucking sick of hearing men whine about how our lives are hard too. Of course they are; nobody said they weren't. Your life is hard because you're human. Deal with it. Womens' lives are harder because they're female humans."---Trianything
ReplyDeleteMaybe women should stop whining and get up off their asses, too? By extension, that's what you should be advocating. Or maybe you are whining about whining or something.
Cold said...
ReplyDelete"Triplanetary: white knight extraordinaire."
Indeed. I think he's trying to assuage his guilts. Or maybe get some.
Lady Vic
ReplyDeleteI now understand how you are using those words. My feelings arent hurt, Im just making a suggestion in regards to communication or at least trying to better it. You dont have to implement my suggestion if you do not wish.
SallyStrange
You are a little too angry for my liking. I think I would prefer to play with someone else. Have a nice life.
@theclementine
ReplyDelete"kyriarchy", I just read that word on another blog. That word may be a new beginning in this angerfest we see from both sides. Instead of the blame game that is presently being implemented, regardless of what people tell me.
Tit for Tat, there's a whole century's worth (and more) of feminist writers and thinkers who don't really care that you think they're just angry and playing the blame game. All you're doing is coming in here and mansplaining to the feminists that they're just being too angry, and you probably don't even realize how trite and shallow that assessment is.
ReplyDeleteLady Vic:
ReplyDeleteNo worries. I didn't think you were being an apologist. I was giving my unsolicited 2 cents, as usual. :)
Since when does oppression solely involve being incarcerated?
ReplyDeleteStrawman fallacy; I never said or implied that it did. I find it telling that nobody can give a real answer to that question; they can only respond to it with a loaded question.
women suffer from depression at a much higher rate than men, they would seem to be at higher risk for suicide.
I also find it telling that when faced with the suicide stat, which is based on actual suicides and can only be under or over-reported if some suicides are mistakenly classified as accidents or manslaighter/murder, or vice-versa. Feminists respond with their favored "soft" stats that are conveniently murky and conveniently lacking in any hard data. Where is the proof that more women than men suffer from depression? Oh right, there is none. Perhaps more women REPORT feeling depressed, but only a fool would jump from there to the conclusion that more women actually suffer from depression. Here's a nice little excerpt from that very article:
An attempted suicide is not really an attempt at suicide in about 95 percent of cases. It is a different phenomenon. It's most often an effort to bring someone's attention, dramatically, to a problem that the individual feels needs to be solved.
Which is exactly what I have been saying for years in response to the "women attempt suicide more often" counter-stat. It's a cry for help/attention, not a serious effort to end one's life because one has lost all hope.
Not so fast on that incarceration thing:
Increasing arrests for property and public order offenses are partly responsible for women’s incarceration rate outpacing that of men.
When/if the number of women in prison becomes 50% of the total prison population, THEN you will actually have a point there. Until then, you have nothing.
Trip
ReplyDeleteIm actually pointing out the ones on both sides who seem to need a class on anger management. Im curious, do you think you fit that bill? Hopefully that question is not too trite and shallow for ya.
ReplyDelete"Feminism boosts sexual satisfaction for both men and women, a new study suggests. "
http://www.livescience.com/1964-feminists-fun.html
That's an article briefly summarizing a study to which it doesn't bother to link. Didn't you say before that if it doesn't link to the original source then it's spam?
As for getting the opposite of what one wants, a male feminist looking to score more points with women is going to be sorely disappointed, as is a male feminist looking for gender equality. In fact, when/if said male feminist finally realizes that the feminist movement doesn't give a shit about men, he will probably become an MRA.
You know who wants to preserve a culture in which men are derided for feeling sad and admitting they need help? People who support the patriarchy.
ReplyDeleteWestern society has not been patriarchal for several decades now, and continuing to claim that it is without proof just makes me inclined to dismiss you as a fanatic.
You know who wants to disrupt that culture and replace it with one where everyone gets to freely express emotions and ask for help without being judged for it? Feminists.
Oh, so THAT'S why feminists mocked me and told me to stop whining when I expressed the fact that I was deeply depressed. That was before I became an MRA, by the way.
This blog is run by someone who identifies as a feminist, and what does he do in most posts? Oh that's right, he cherry-picked quotes from supposed MRAs, although most of them cannot actually be verified as such. Many of the ones who can be verified as such are newcomers to the movement who are expressing their understandable(to non-misandrists) anger, and what does he do? He mocks them for it and lumps them into his "men who should not ever be with women ever" category. Yeah, feminists are really empathetic, aren't they?
Here's an idea for anyone who seriously wants to get MRAs (back)on board with feminism: stop telling us to get (back)on board and actually go out and DO SOMETHING that will prove to us that you care about our issues. Let's see a feminist campaign for serious punishment of false rape accusers, and equal anonymity or naming of both the accuser and the accused. Let's see a feminist campaign demanding equal sentencing for men and women, and a campaign demanding equal opportunity for men and women to opt out of parenthood. When I see that happening, then MAYBE I will get on board. As long as feminists keep advancing an agenda of female supremacy, I will keep treating them as female supremacists.
Just as conservatism is the search for a moral justification for selfishness, so libertarianism is the search for a moral justification for freeloading.
ReplyDeleteJust as feminism is the search for a moral justification for treating men like shit.
What feminists told you to stop whining about being depressed? Were they actual feminists or just what passes for feminist in the MRA movement (aka a female with a pulse.)
ReplyDeleteAnd do not think we did not notice you belittling women who have depression while expecting to be comforted for having had depression.
I also pointed out that feminism is about attaining equality for women who have unequal status with men. (Several people on here disagree with me though.) So naturally they will focus on women's issues first and not men.
They are not going to suddenly decide to start organizing to make it harder for rape victims to come forward (by making it easy for the public to shame and harass the victims like in the Texas town where the 11 year old had to be removed from the town because of the threats she was facing.) They are not going to start fighting to make it easier for men to skip out on their responsibilities. They are not going to create petitions to throw more women in prison for drug crimes or other types of crimes.
Not going to happen.
@ Cold:
ReplyDeleteI've already dismissed you as someone not worth my time, so your threat of dismissing me as a fanatic holds no water. Besides, I will gladly assume the mantle of 'fanatic for equality.'
@T4T
ReplyDeleteSometimes, anger is productive - it inspires people to move forward and change what is pissing them off. I, for one, am bleeding pissed about the attacks that Planned Parenthood is suffering - and that's only a very minor anger compared to some of the larger world issues.
Women have been told for centuries to be 'nice', to never get angry, to always put the needs of the group before their own, that other people have it worse than they do (like on this very thread, where it seems like some people are arguing that feminism should abandon fighting for Planned Parenthood to give all their attention and resources to male suicide).
So telling a feminist she shouldn't be so angry is not going to get you anywhere, especially if there are things to be legitimately angry about.
@Captain Bathrobe, I would argue that women who use pills are not less serious about suicide. In western culture, suicide is seen as a sign of weakness. Bloody suicides, however, are seen as less weak than non-bloody suicides. Which means that suicide by pill is seen as particularly emasculating. Also, the most common bloody method used by women, slitting wrists, actually has a far lower death rate than many think(particularly as most people cannot recognize the difference between venal and arterial bleeds on the limbs). Shooting the head rather than injuring the extremities leads to higher rates of death as the body goes into shock very often and reduces blood loss for the extremities but does not do so for the head. It is a myth that suicides are often cries for attention. No major psycological or mental health source supports this notion. From the National Institute of Mental Health:
ReplyDelete"Most suicide attempts are expressions of extreme distress, not harmless bids for attention. A person who appears suicidal should not be left alone and needs immediate mental-health treatment."
http://www.mentalhealth.gov/health/publications/suicide-in-the-us-statistics-and-prevention/index.shtml
@lady vic
ReplyDeleteI guess the anger Im talking about is the one that repels rather than propels. I understand where you are coming from. Do you ever notice how rare it is for either side to actually inquire if any of us personally has experienced abuse? In fact I have been on the receiving end of lots of what feminists/mra's love to talk on about. Im amazed at how few of them have personally experienced it though. When it comes to anger and how we use it I am reminded of a good quote that I shared with my daughter.
"Anger is a hot coal that burns you before you pass it on"
Ah, but anger which propels one person can be the same anger which repels another.
ReplyDeleteAnd, really, it's not anyone's job to ask if you've suffered abuse. For one, it's intrusive and rude. If you feel like it's something that you want to talk about, you can bring it up without being prompted. And even if a person has suffered some form of abuse, that shouldn't be expected to be the defining moment of their lives, around which they construct every thought - so it's possible that the feminists or MRAs *have* suffered abuse, but choose not to talk about it very much.
That being said, if you really are looking for a feminist community which takes great pains to be solicitous of members' feelings, I can recommend Shakesville - but there will be anger, there, too.
Denying anger or suppressing anger can be damaging in the long run, and I think our culture lacks good methods for dealing with anger, both in ourselves and in others. Women should feel free to express anger without being judged for it or being told to be more ladylike or reminded that they're making others uncomfortable. Men should also feel free to express anger without resorting to violence or threats. Anger is a legitimate emotion, just like joy or fear or sadness or disappointment, and it should be treated like such.
Darkside: I completely agree that all suicidal threats, gestures, ideation, etc. should be taken very, very seriously. I in no way meant to conflate the use of a low lethality method with a cry for attention. "Cry for help" was a poor choice of words of my part.
ReplyDeleteThat being said, if you really are looking for a feminist community which takes great pains to be solicitous of members' feelings, I can recommend Shakesville - but there will be anger, there, too.
ReplyDeleteAnd, whatever you do, stay away from Pandagon! They don't go easy there.
/loves Pandagon
Pandagon is also my favorite, but I've noticed that the writers at Shakesville are likelier to invite people to talk about their own experiences with abuse than most of the other feminist blogs/communities I am currently aware of. Since Tit 4 Tat seemed put out that no one had asked him directly to talk about his experiences, I thought he might find a useful outlet there.
ReplyDeleteLady Vic
ReplyDeleteIn your opinion which is more damaging to a person, physical violence or emotional violence?
Honestly, I can't say.
ReplyDeleteI can take a hit pretty well, but being excluded from something hurts me. However, I have friends who are the exact opposite - it's all about where we're strongest, weakest and what our coping strategies are. It's also a matter of degree - is it just a punch or two in a brawl, or a full-on boot squad? Is it a random person from 4chan come to insult me, or is it having to deal with hearing every day how I'm not good enough or unworthy of love?
I would say that physical violence that leads to death is the worst of all cases, but not all physical violence leads to death. Physical violence which leads to permanent disabling is also probably worse, but again, lots of instances of physical violence can be healed. And emotional neglect can leave it's own scars - I know people who struggle with having a meaningful connection with others because of childhood trauma involving emotional neglect.
And also, how would you classify threats of physical violence? Is sending someone a death threat through the phone or email physical violence or emotional violence? There are also things like being molested by a trusted family member which are both physically and emotionally violent (physical because of the nature of the act; emotional because of the betrayal). Battered women are told constantly by their partners that they aren't good enough, in addition to the physical violence. Physical violence can have its own emotional fallout, as well.
In summation, I'd say 'It's complicated and it depends.'
In summation, I'd say 'It's complicated and it depends(Lady Vic)
ReplyDeleteThat was a good response. Ok, lets say you are married and for several years you verbally and emotionally accost your husband. He is not a very literate man and has a hard time expressing his anger with words and to get it out so it doesnt hurt him in the long run he punches you in the face. In your world who is more guilty?
Thank you, Elizabeth, for illustrating the reason why the MRM exists in the first place. As for your libelous accusation that I belittled depressed women, either put up the evidence or you will demonstrate yourself to be another ass-talker.
ReplyDeleteI've already dismissed you as someone not worth my time, so your threat of dismissing me as a fanatic holds no water. Besides, I will gladly assume the mantle of 'fanatic for equality.'
ReplyDeleteThen why make what you thought were brilliant counter-points to me in the first place? How come it's only after I demolished them that you decided you needed an excuse to stop responding?
Most suicide attempts are expressions of extreme distress, not harmless bids for attention. A person who appears suicidal should not be left alone and needs immediate mental-health treatment.
ReplyDeleteYou know what that quote has in common with the one about 95 percent of suicide attempts being cries for attention? Neither of them have a source.
This is also a complicated question.
ReplyDeleteThey are both unacceptable ways to treat people, especially one's spouse.
However, the punch violates bodily autonomy (the right to not get hit), so I'm going to say its slightly worse. There are also many other options open to the man - he could leave, for one, either leaving the room or ending his marriage. He could take up boxing or martial arts as a way to channel his energy somewhere else.
But then again, if I'm being emotionally abusive, I'm probably not happy about something, either in my life or my marriage. It's also incumbent upon me to find more productive ways to get what I want - marriage counseling, therapy or learning to just let shit go.
Basically, in that scenario, I would be a terrible person for being emotionally abusive; but the husband would also be physically abusive, too. Neither person gets a pass in that situation.
Also, you imply that poorly educated people are more prone to violence, when I have to disagree. There's intellectual intelligence (such as being literate) and emotional intelligence (knowing how to deal with your emotions and the emotions of others). The two aren't necessarily inclusive of each other, you can have one without the other. The problem isn't that your hypothetical husband is semi-literate, it's that no one ever taught him a useful way to deal with anger other than by bottling it up until he lashed out with physical violence.
ReplyDeleteThat was a good response. Ok, lets say you are married and for several years you verbally and emotionally accost your husband. He is not a very literate man and has a hard time expressing his anger with words and to get it out so it doesnt hurt him in the long run he punches you in the face. In your world who is more guilty?
ReplyDeleteThey're both guilty. I don't see why it matters who's "more guilty."
I spent my entire childhood being emotionally abused by my mother, so I'm aware (as are feminists in general) that women can be abusive, and I take emotional abuse very seriously. So yes, the wife in this situation is very guilty.
But that doesn't absolve the man in this situation of guilt. If he can't cope with the situation himself or communicate sufficiently with his wife, he should look for help and support elsewhere. Instead of doing that he hits his wife. He shouldn't get a free pass.
But I did notice how you tried to stack the deck in his favor. He hits her "to get it out so it doesn't hurt him in the long run"? Quite a copout. Is your hypothetical just a hypothetical, or are you implying, as many MRAs claim, that a significant number of physically violent husbands are just responding to emotionally abusive wives? Because that would be apologistic bullshit. If that's what you're implying. If you're not, I apologize.
More to the point, why does his right to be protected from being emotionally "hurt in the long run" trump her right to not get punched in the face? They both seem like equally valid rights to me.
So in your world the woman should be held accountable for her actions just as the man should. Agreed. The problem with chronic abuse is it erodes away at the person's decision making ability and leaving is not an option(as evidenced by women who return to their abusive husbands). So in your world do you not think it is important to hear and then protect the men that have been "beaten" down by long term abuse? Afterall, if is equality we seek then we need to change the system because it seems to me the feminists are having just as hard of a time listening as the MRA's are. The loud, angry voices seem to be drowning out the cries for help.
ReplyDeletebecause it seems to me the feminists are having just as hard of a time listening as the MRA's are.
ReplyDeleteAnd it seems to me that you're a pig-ignorant concern troll. Feminists take male abuse victims very seriously. But we also don't tolerate MRAs who continually claim that a) male-on-female physical abuse is not a widespread problem, and b) women are just as likely to be abusive as men are. Concern-trolling voices of faux-moderation such as yourself tend to lean heavily on b, but it just isn't true. It's not that women are inherently better people, it's just that men get far encouragement and tacit permission from society to be abusive than women do. Patriarchy, etc.
LOL, triplanetary continues to talk out of his ass, making huge generalizations without supplying one iota of evidence. A white knight with a paper sword if there ever was one.
ReplyDeleteSo telling a feminist she shouldn't be so angry is not going to get you anywhere, especially if there are things to be legitimately angry about.
ReplyDeleteThis on a blog whose main purpose seems to be mocking men for being angry while side-stepping the question of whether they have valid reasons for being angry. The hypocrisy is growing deep here.
The problem is that it's easy to pass laws against physical violence, but less easy (or even morally acceptable) to pass laws against emotional violence.
ReplyDeleteWhat I am in favor of is including relationship education with comprehensive sex education for teenagers and preteens. Everyone, of all genders, needs to be equipped with a few basic tools for negotiation and compromise in a relationship without resorting to abuse of any kind. People need to be able to articulate what they are feeling and express that to their romantic partner without being derided. I also think that relationship counseling should be strongly encouraged for people about to get married.
Here's one of the problems I have with MRAs when it comes to the issue of male victims of domestic abuse - they take their own bad experience and extrapolate that to all women. My heart goes out to men who feel trapped in bad relationships and unhappy marriages - I was in an emotionally abusive relationship, too, and it took me about five years to recognize and admit what it was. However, I didn't let that relationship color my opinions of men or relationships in general, and MRAs shouldn't do that, either.
Also, MRAs seem to be demanding that feminists stop what they are doing to construct shelters and programs for male victims of domestic abuse. That's not how it works. I'm sure that there are some anti-domestic violence advocates who would be more than happy to give interested people the tools and resources they need to start their own advocacy programs. But this is a problem that MRAs will have to fix themselves, with people they can persuade to give up their own time and resources to the cause. It's not fair to demand that women stop what they are doing to come help the men. It's not that women/feminists/DV advocates don't care, it's that they've already committed their careers and resources to this particular cause, and it's unfair to demand that they suddenly shift focus. It's like demanding that Animal Rights Advocates immediately stop what they are doing because climate change is also a concern. They're both problems, but it's up to the people worried about climate change to fix it, not the animal rights advocates to abandon their cause for it.
But I did notice how you tried to stack the deck in his favor. He hits her "to get it out so it doesn't hurt him in the long run"? Quite a copout(Trip)
ReplyDeleteThat was in response to Lady vic's earlier comment:
"Denying anger or suppressing anger can be damaging in the long run, and I think our culture lacks good methods for dealing with anger, both in ourselves and in others"
Trip or would you prefer Stephen or Chad?
I see where you get your violent streak. You still havnt resolved your Mommy issues. :(
I see where you get your violent streak. You still havnt resolved your Mommy issues
ReplyDeleteDude, that's not helping anything.
Cold: Where is the proof that more women than men suffer from depression? Oh right, there is none....Oh, so THAT'S why feminists mocked me and told me to stop whining when I expressed the fact that I was deeply depressed. That was before I became an MRA, by the way.
ReplyDeleteYou claim that women are not more depressed then men because there is "no evidence" despite there being evidence and then say when "I had something bad happen to me...feminists were mean! Be nice to me because I was hurting!"
*cue claims of strawman, logical fallacy and whatever other claims you make to satisfy your need to always be right and never be wrong.*
The basic fact is-you were depressed at one time, have apparently recovered and that is a good thing. But that does not give you the right to claim women are not depressed in greater numbers then men when it is shown that women are more likely to be depressed then men are (and my link shows that it is probably more due to hormonal fluctuations that men simply do not have.)
As for showing you to be right-sure, if that is what you want to believe. Not like anyone could convince Mr. I know it all he is wrong.
Lady V-you have eloquently stated what I try to state with that part on why feminists should not be expected to change gears to focus on men.
ReplyDeleteLady Vic
ReplyDeleteI appreciate your well thought out responses and concur with much of what you say. My challenge(so far) is that most times I have tried to present certain ideas on both MRA and Feminist sites the loud, angry radicals tend to jump in and try to stuff their malicious anger down your throat. Reminds of road rage drivers, really tough when they are behind the wheel. Totally polite when out of the car.
What you need to realize is that it's all been done before. If you want to start agitating for anti-DV programs focusing on male victims, feminists aren't going to stop you. Some might even want to help. But you can't *demand* that help, you can only persuade people to give it. The women (and men) who are involved in anti-DV advocacy focusing on female victims have collected and published stories, they've accumulated statistics, they've persuaded both private and government donors that this is a problem, and they've set up hot lines, educational programs and shelters for their cause. This was a lot of work, done for a given goal, and while you can't ask them to change their own goal, you can certainly ask them how they did it so you can do it yourself.
ReplyDeleteIf you can start raising awareness of the issue without conveying 'all women are abusive to men!' or 'feminists are being mean by not helping!', then you'll start to see some real traction.
I havnt once stated that I believed that all women are abusive or more abusive than men. In fact I dont believe that. I do believe it is more of an issue than we are lead to believe though. Which group dynamic do you think that most violence(physical) is perpetrated on?
ReplyDeleteMale to female
Female to male
female to female
male to male
I didn't mean to imply that you had said those things, I think my larger point was lost. What I meant was, a lot of MRAs who claim to be advocating for male DV shelters & programs have a penchant for blaming women/feminists for the lack of said shelters & programs. A lot of male DV advocates also have a tendency to say and do very misogynist things. That's what pisses off a lot of feminists and DV advocates, and is probably the source of a lot of the anger you've been experiencing.
ReplyDeleteSo if you really do wish to start programs for male victims of DV or emotional abuse, those are the two pit traps you want to be aware of. Then again, it's probably going to be less of a struggle to overcome those attitudes than for the early anti-DV advocates to overcome the idea that DV was a private matter or just the result of her being such a nagging harpy all the time.
Most suicide attempts are expressions of extreme distress, not harmless bids for attention. A person who appears suicidal should not be left alone and needs immediate mental-health treatment.
ReplyDeleteYou know what that quote has in common with the one about 95 percent of suicide attempts being cries for attention? Neither of them have a source.
Actually, Cold, the link directly beneath that quote provides the source.
Unless, Cold, you're talking about the fact that the quote in not footnoted in the article, in which case disregard.
ReplyDeletePerhaps more women REPORT feeling depressed, but only a fool would jump from there to the conclusion that more women actually suffer from depression.
ReplyDeleteDepression, like most psychiatric illnesses, is largely diagnosed by self-report of symptoms (subjective experience). People who report feeling depressed often are, by clinical definition, though there are also some objective signs of major depression--usually appetite disturbance, insomnia or hypersomnia, or psychomotor retardation (appearing to be physically slow in movements). There are other criteria in terms of duration (2 weeks) and frequency (nearly all day, nearly every day) of symptoms.
There are also a variety of assessment tools used to diagnose depression, most notably the Beck's Depression Inventory. These rely entirely on patient self-report of symptoms, thoughts, and feelings.
It is widely accepted in the mental health field that women report a higher incidence of symptoms that meet the DSM-IV TR criteria for Major Depressive Disorder. There are those, however, who argue that men manifest Major Depression differently from women and that depression in men is generally under diagnosed.
Cold: on the study I mentioned, the source I gave is a site that summarizes the results of scientific research that has no reason to distort the findings of the study in question. The article also gave enough information to locate the actual study in approximately one google search.
ReplyDeleteBut here is the study itself, if you care to read it:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/6163700x51t5r169/fulltext.pdf
Cold, also, here (from earlier in this thread) are a couple of your comments that belittle women suffering from depression:
ReplyDeleteYeah women's lives are so much harder that they commit suicide 1/4th as often as men,
http://www.manboobz.com/2011/03/sticking-it-to-woman.html?showComment=1300131170843#c3991747063027403097
Where is the proof that more women than men suffer from depression? Oh right, there is none. Perhaps more women REPORT feeling depressed, but only a fool would jump from there to the conclusion that more women actually suffer from depression. ... It's a cry for help/attention, not a serious effort to end one's life because one has lost all hope.
http://www.manboobz.com/2011/03/sticking-it-to-woman.html?showComment=1300198988339#c6243734075252664783
On the "why are men guilty of physcial abuse if women emotionally abuse them first" topic that TforT brought up, I'm reminded of the Anitole French quote ""The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges"
ReplyDeleteThe law forbids physical abuse. If a wife physically assaults her husband then she'll go to jail. (Yes, it happens. My father's second marriage ended with her in jail for abuse.)
If a man is being emotionally abusive to his wife and she goes and hits him to vent her anger... does that make it acceptable? Of course not. Even if he is better at expressing himself emotionally and she's better physically?
My question for you is: why do you assume that men can only express themselves physically while women are only able to do it emotionally. Isn't it more likely that people are either more prone to physical or emotional outbursts based on their own individual backgrounds instead of their gender?
That's all that feminists want. For people to be recognized as individuals instead of being told that men are one way and women are the other. If any individual physically assaults another individual they should go to jail. If any individual emotionally harms another individual the victim should be empowered to leave them and to take care of themselves. Gender doesn't make a difference.
Dave, want to bet that Cold takes what you say more seriously then what I said?
ReplyDeleteElizabeth -- whoops! I missed your comment quoting the same bit from him.
ReplyDelete@ Missy,
ReplyDeleteYou're right, I kind of fell into the trap of assumptions there.
Dave-you were way more polite then I was.
ReplyDeleteThe law forbids physical abuse. If a wife physically assaults her husband then she'll go to jail.(Missy)
ReplyDeleteReally?My question for you is: why do you assume that men can only express themselves physically while women are only able to do it emotionally. Isn't it more likely that people are either more prone to physical or emotional outbursts based on their own individual backgrounds instead of their gender?(Missy)
Answers:
1. I dont.
2. Partially, Hormones play a big role in our behaviours. To overlook this fact is naive.
I would agree men are more physically abusive on average. I would agree men cause more physical damage when they abuse, on average. I would say that women are emotional abusive as much if not more than men are. As a society how are we to measure this? As we now know, emotional abuse can be just as damaging as physical in many instances. There does seem to be a disconnect in regards to equality. Wouldnt you agree?
In re: #2:
ReplyDeleteSo if a man can blame his hormones for making him hit someone, I should be totally free to be a cranky bitch when I'm PMSing.
Or maybe I can realize that even though I *feel* like a cranky bitch, acting like one is not going to help anything. And Hypothetical Dude can realize that even though he really, really wants to hit someone, it's not going to help anything and is wrong.
T4T, I think your distinction between emotional and physical abuse is a false dichotomy.
ReplyDeleteBoth type of abuse can be EMOTIONALLY damaging and even debilitating. However, emotional abuse does not do any PHYSICAL damage, by definition. And if you think that physical abuse often comes without emotional abuse then you not thinking very hard. Emotionally abusive relationships are awful for anyone who's in one, but what would you propose the law should do about that? I propose that education would be a better tactic, as suggested by Elizabeth.
I notice that you attribute the gender difference in expression of emotion to hormones but not socialization. I think you are probably overestimating the effect of biological differences, which are real, but generally slight, when it comes to mental attributes.
Sallystrange
ReplyDeleteThanks for being civil this time. I have boys and girls, before any major socialization the differences were obvious(at least in their case, there are exceptions).
I have been on the receiving end of both physical and emotional abuse. Let me tell you this, the physical was a breeze compared to the emotional.
I am trying education from a certain perspective. It may not be the school you want to learn from.
However, emotional abuse does not do any PHYSICAL damage, by definition.(Sally)
This statement is so out of touch its hard to discuss. I work in the health field, most of our physical damage, health wise, is born of emotional distress. Can you say STRESS.
Thanks for your response.
I should be totally free to be a cranky bitch when I'm PMSing.(Lady Vic)
ReplyDeleteMany are, and then proceed to be emotionally abusive. You know that though.
I concur about the WRONG part of abuse. I am wondering how we equalize the accountability part?
Physical abuse is easy - prosecute, and if the DA doesn't want to prosecute, sue.
ReplyDeleteEmotional abuse is a bit trickier - you can't file a lawsuit because someone doesn't love you. Nor, I think, should you be able to file that kind of a suit.
I think it mostly boils down to being more willing to be alone than to be with an abuser. You also need to know how to recognize the signs of abuse - like I said, it took me five years after a breakup to realize that the relationship wasn't just "bad," it was actually abusive. It was very hard for me to come to terms with the idea that someone I cared for, and someone who said they cared for me, could still treat me so poorly. And then it was hard to admit to myself (and to others) that I had been one of "those" people. I *am* one of those people, and it doesn't make me weak or a bad person to have been in abusive relationship.
I realize now that there was no way for my ex to reform. The only thing I could do was leave. So I did, and maybe he learned that it's not okay to treat your girlfriend like shit - or at least, that she will dump you if you do. Sometimes that's the best thing you can do for yourself, and the only way to drive the point home to the other person. Leave.
Also, I have another complicated response to the inherent/socialization part.
ReplyDeleteI think it's been proven that, on a biological level, cismale bodies are different from cisfemale bodies. People who are transsexual prove to me that there is something inherent about having an identity as a female or having an identity as a male, and that they are not interchangeable.
But now the question becomes, how is society going to teach us to express or perform our gender? If a woman is taught that a good woman is demure, chaste and nurturing, you'll find women who strive to embody those qualities. If a man is taught that manhood is stoic, resilient and emotionless, you will find men who aspire to those values. A genderless example: someone can be born into a culture who has a naturally gregarious personality, but the culture is reserved and quiet. Amongst that culture, this person will be perceived as gregarious and outgoing - but if that person takes a trip to a culture which tends to the gregarious, they might still come across as shy and reserved. The quality of personality has still expressed itself, but within a wider cultural context.
So, yes, women have more estrogen and men have more testosterone. Each gender has certain things they are better at - but even if a man reads a map better, that still means that there will be some men who are terrible at reading maps and any given individual woman might be quite capable with a map.
The goal, then, is finding ways to teach people to express their gender identity in ways which are non-destructive, of benefit to the individual and of benefit to society at large. Teaching women that they should not be angry, and teaching men that anger is one of their only legitimate reactions to being hurt, does none of these things.
@T4T
ReplyDeleteFuck civility. You know what's uncivil? A culture in which an 11-year-old is blamed for getting gang-raped, and the richest country in the world drops $3 trillion on an unprovoked war that kills hundreds of thousands of innocents. Using the word "fuck" a few times, or making fun of you for not bothering to google the definition of a couple of words that are absolutely key to a discussion you're trying to participate in, that's just part of civil society.
WRT physical vs. emotional abuse.
It's great that your experience with physical abuse was "a breeze." What is it that leads to act as if your experience is universal to all people who experience physical abuse? That's insulting, that is. One might even say uncivil.
Obviously, prolonged emotional abuse can lead to physical manifestations of stress. But as I said before, do you really think that prolonged physical abuse is going to be unaccompanied by emotional abuse? That it is not going to have the same effect on stress hormone levels, blood pressure, etc., as prolonged emotional abuse?
Frankly it sounds like you're trying to minimize the severity of physical abuse, just because you experienced it as a "breeze". That's really fucking uncivil, you know?
Probably you're just trying to draw attention to the potential severity of emotional abuse.
If my supposition is right, and you're not trying to minimize physical abuse, then you need to do a better job communicating.
Also, WRT to socializing young children and babies - you don't actually think babies aren't socialized from the moment they take a breath, do you? I mean, just because they don't yet have language doesn't mean that everything they hear, see, touch, taste, and smell isn't making an impression.
ReplyDeleteSally
ReplyDeleteI like the fact that if I flip your ideas around we pretty much end up with the same outcomes. As we know, men and women are pretty much the same when it comes to mental abilities, so technically we are just as violent. How it is expressed is where the difference shows up. Reading your words tells me you have a somewhat violent aspect to your personality. In my case I remember words of violence much more frequently than the actual physical blows. In fact reading your words triggers many feelings of threat that I had and have around certain individuals. I can imagine this is exactly what goes on in most abused people's brain(women included). You may not physically hit them but you are without a doubt being violent with individuals when you come across in the manner that you do. For many, your actions would have physical affects on their health. Increased blood pressure, anxiety, sense of dread..........and so on.
The goal, then, is finding ways to teach people to express their gender identity in ways which are non-destructive, of benefit to the individual and of benefit to society at large. Teaching women that they should not be angry, and teaching men that anger is one of their only legitimate reactions to being hurt, does none of these things.(Lady Vic)
ReplyDeleteExactly, very well said. My issue is not that we shouldnt prosecute and educate men on the fact that they physically assault people more frequently, that is a given. My issue is that we dont look closely enough at the violence that women perpetrate. The issue is if we are to be equal we need to be equally accountable for our violent tendency. These are the things I try to teach my son and daughter.
I have always wondered is the violence we do to each other a human thing or a gender thing. From my experience were pretty equal in that department however differently we express it.
If my supposition is right, and you're not trying to minimize physical abuse, then you need to do a better job communicating.(Sally)
ReplyDeleteI think you miss my point. Were supposed to minimize ABUSE however it is expressed. You on the other hand seem to be a little one dimensional(biased).
No, you misunderstood my objection. My impression of you is that you are attempting to minimize THE SEVERITY OF THE EFFECTS of physical abuse. Not the abuse itself. I presume this is not your goal, hence my admonition to communicate better.
ReplyDeleteWhat about my communication seems violent to you? I used the word "fuck," yes. And I've been a bit brusque. I've mocked you for being intellectually lazy. But I have also based my mocking of you on FACTUAL things you yourself have said. I haven't offered any personal insults. I have nowhere issued any threats, physical or otherwise, or expressed any interest in seeing you suffer. I sincerely apologize if you genuinely feel threatened because of something I said, but I also cannot for the life of me understand why you're having that response to my words.
This blog is, unlike Shakesville and other feminist forums on the web, not a "Safe Space." When people talk about their personal experiences, sometimes other people say horrible, awful things in response to that, and we just deal with it. It kind of has to be that way, otherwise there'd be very little input from actual self-proclaimed MRAs. Personal insults are about the only thing that are off limits, and that's not enforced with any sort of iron fist. If you find this sort of communication style too rough-and-tumble for your taste then perhaps you should seek out one of those Safe Spaces.
You can't equate emotional abuse with battering, though. Women are battered and emotionally abused to the point where they fear for lives (and sometimes, sadly, that fear is entirely justified, as too many murdered women die at the hands of an intimate partner). You can't say 'just as bad,' because they're not. Even though emotional abuse *is* bad, you won't win any points by comparing it with battering. Emotional abuse is it's own separate issue, and should be treated that way.
ReplyDeleteAnd if you can't handle someone being snarky at you, perhaps you ought to avoid the Internet for awhile.
To add to what Sally says above about "safe spaces." Yes, this is not a "safe space." My inclination is to have a very hands-off approach to moderation and to let people say what they want to say however they want to say it.
ReplyDeleteWithin reason: really nasty personal attacks will be deleted, as will some nasty slurs. Generally speaking it is the MRAs/MGTOWers and the like who tend to make the most obnoxious comments here, but I almost never censor.
Were I to try to make this a "safe space" I would have to moderate all comments, which would really put a damper on discussion; I would also have to delete a very large number of MRA/MGTOW comments, and a smaller but still significant number of feminist comments.
What this means is that anyone commenting here needs to be ready to hear some pretty impolite stuff from other commenters. I know a number of feminists who won't comment here because of that, and there may be MRAs who also don't comment becuase of that. That's unfortunate, but there's no way to have the sort of freewheeling discussion I encourage here without this happening.
All this said, while Sally has been blunt, she has NOT been threatening; her comments are well within my comment guidelines. This is what truly threatening comments look like:
http://www.manboobz.com/2011/03/if-you-dont-agree-with-me-angry-dudes.html
Tit for Tat, if Sally's comments are triggering for you, I'm not sure you should be reading the comments here. That's what I would tell anyone of any ideological persuasion who is triggered by blunt talk in comments.
Or the posts either; they're full of pretty harsh language -- mostly in the comments from misogynists that I quote.
I should probably put a trigger warning on this whole blog.
Although I cannot dispute someone's personal experience of physical abuse being a "breeze", I must point out that the distinction between physical and emotional abuse is generally a false one. Physical abuse has an undeniable emotional component. The deliberate infliction of physical pain by someone who is supposed to be your friend and partner has devastating emotional consequences. Physical abuse generates feelings of fear, helplessness and humiliation. It is a breach of one's bodily autonomy -- something that's valued so highly in our culture, that violating it in this manner is one of the most intense forms of dehumanization. Moreover, physical abuse is almost always a part of a much larger pattern of abusive behavior, and begins to be manifested after a lengthy period of verbal and social mistreatment. In other words, physical abuse is emotional abuse, too.
ReplyDeleteWhat irks people, I think, is that this distinction is often made in defense of a wife-beater. Any wife-beater you ask will validate his actions by claiming that his wife "provoked" him by hurting his feelings in one way or another. Most likely, he will also claim that his hurt feelings hurt more than her busted face, so HE is the real victim here. The problem with treating emotional abuse as an alternative to physical abuse is that its definition is extremely vague. Arguably, anything that hurts your emotions can be characterized as emotional abuse. But is it? Can you fairly say that your spouse is "abusing" you every time he or she says ANYTHING that you perceive as erroneous, misguided or unfair? Any time he or she says something you don't like? Some degree of disagreement is inevitable in the happiest of marriages, and many otherwise solid marriages go through periods of conflict. Is it always abuse just because there IS conflict? If there is a disagreement and an argument between spouses (without any physical violence), who is abusing whom? Since they both feel emotionally hurt or vulnerable, are they both simultaneously the abuser and the victim?
I like to ask those questions as a way of cutting through all the bullshit that's lurking under the surface of most physical vs. emotional abuse discussions. I am not denying that one spouse can demolish the other's self-esteem and feeling of safety without getting physically violent, and that this is properly termed abuse, but alas, too often these discussions lead us to a place where a woman who doesn't submit to her husband, do as she's told and meet his every demand and desire without ever making any of her own, deserves to be treated like a punching bag.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThanks, Amused. That was elucidating. I was also trying to get at the false dichotomy between emotional and physical abuse that T4T was trying to set up. Is it even possible to have physical abuse, that is, an ongoing and persistent pattern of physical assaults, without also having an emotional and mental component to the pattern? In fact, isn't the fact that it is ongoing and accompanied by mental and emotional abuse a major factor in distinguishing an isolated physical assault from what we would call physical abuse?
ReplyDeleteI am trying to imagine creating a situation where physical abuse is occurring without a mental/emotional component and I can't do it. Maybe T4T can elaborate, but it seems to me that physical abuse wouldn't even be possible without concurrent emotional/mental abuse; unless the person being assaulted is already broken down mentally and emotionally, convinced by the words and actions of hir partner that ze is worthless and deserves to be beaten, ze simply won't stick around for the 2nd/3rd instance of assault.
You can't equate emotional abuse with battering, though.(Lady Vic)
ReplyDeleteOf course you can, people kill themselves from being emotionally bullied. You dont think that is violent?
David
ReplyDeleteIm ok. Harsh language is a form of violence. Its meant to intimidate. You dont think its violent when someone is in your face telling you to "FUCK OFF", come on, youre not suggesting that are ya?
Sally
ReplyDeleteYou keep suggesting that I dont think that physical abuse has an emotional component to it. That is patently false, I have never made that statement. That is just you reading into my comments what you see, not what I say. You obviously are biased.
You claim that women are not more depressed then men because there is "no evidence" despite there being evidence and then say when "I had something bad happen to me...feminists were mean! Be nice to me because I was hurting!"
ReplyDeleteAn article which simply states X is not evidence of X being true. Evidence of X being true would be an independently verified study with sound methodology, some kind of photo/videographic evidence, etc. That an engineer has to explain simple concepts of evidence to someone who who claims to work in the judicial system ought to be a reality check to anyone who still has faith in said system.
Expressing skepticism of the amount of female depression due to a lack of evidence is not the same as belittling depressed women, and you only demonstrate your foolishness or deliberate intellectual dishonesty by making such an argument. My own experience with feminists while I was depressed predates my becoming an MRA(although it certainly played a contributing role) and so is really of no relevance to your libelous assertion.
*cue claims of strawman, logical fallacy and whatever other claims you make to satisfy your need to always be right and never be wrong.*
Oh so now your ignorance of logic is part of my scheme to always be right, rather than a personal failing on your part? Typical feminist.
But that does not give you the right to claim women are not depressed in greater numbers then men when it is shown that women are more likely to be depressed then men are (and my link shows that it is probably more due to hormonal fluctuations that men simply do not have.)
I never said women were definitely not depressed in greater numbers, just that I have been shown no evidence that this is the case. Once again you commit the strawman fallacy but oh wait, that's not your fault for being ignorant, I somehow forced you to do it as part of my nefarious scheme to always be right and never be wrong. Mwahahahaha!
The threat(emotional) of violence is much more powerful than the actual act. This is why torturers rotate the times that they physically beat their captives. They need to break them psychologically(emotional) first. Captives can learn to take the beatdown physically if it is consistent, but have much harder time with the mental aspect(the not knowing). Do you think its possible for a woman to break a man psychologically(emotional) without ever having to hit him?
ReplyDeleteCold, also, here (from earlier in this thread) are a couple of your comments that belittle women suffering from depression:
ReplyDeleteYeah women's lives are so much harder that they commit suicide 1/4th as often as men
How is pointing out the fact that men kill themselves four times as often belittling anyone? If you go to the emergency room with a broken hand and are told to wait while they attend to someone with a broken ribcage, is that belittling your injury? Actually that's not even a suitable comparison to the reaction to what I said; a suitable comparison would be if, upon being told to wait, you insisted that you were in more pain and that your life was in more danger and then, after receiving some much-deserved harsh words from them and told to sit your ass down in the waiting room, you cried about how they were belittling your broken hand.
Cold: on the study I mentioned, the source I gave is a site that summarizes the results of scientific research that has no reason to distort the findings of the study in question. The article also gave enough information to locate the actual study in approximately one google search.
But here is the study itself, if you care to read it:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/6163700x51t5r169/fulltext.pdf
You said before that if it didn't LINK to the original source then it was spam. Of course, one has to wonder why they wouldn't bother linking to it if it was so readily available. One possible clue as to why they didn't link to it is contained right in the methodology of the study, where they reveal that all of the participants were students of an introductory psychology course. That's hardly a representative sample; would you take seriously a study in which a bunch of engineering students were asked their opinion about whether or not there was enough government funding for the arts, and then concluded that the general population overwhelmingly regards the arts as being overfunded?
It also appears that they asked extremely general questions about feminism. I doubt that most of the participants who expressed agreement with "I am a feminist" would have expressed agreement with "I currently live under a patriarchy" or "Men accused of rape should have their names made public while their accusers remain anonymous". This is really a shitty methodology and I can't take such a study seriously at all.
Seriously? I mean, seriously?
ReplyDeleteNo, someone committing suicide because they were emotionally abused is not the same thing as being battered by an intimate partner. It's still a tragedy, particularly when it's a teenager, but it is NOT the same thing. You're arguing in bad faith with that claim, or being purposefully obtuse, or dramatically discounting the effect that battery has on women. Stop it.
Emotional abuse is bad. Full stop. There should be programs so that men and women in abusive relationships can recognize what they are and get out of them. Full stop. I will even grant that there should be some programs geared towards the experience of an abused man in a heterosexual relationship (as well there should also be programs for abused gays and lesbians - abuse isn't solely a hetero thing).
But you CANNOT equate an emotionally abusive relationship with battery or physical abuse. Especially because, as Sally pointed out above, it's damn near impossible to be in a physically abusive relationship without a paired component of emotional abuse.
If you really want to focus on men's experience with emotionally abusive relationships, you will lose ground every time you try and compare it to a woman's experience with battery. Focus on the experience itself, how damaging it is and leave battered and abused women out of it. Otherwise, you come across as just another selfish misogynist who sees every resource going towards abused women as something being taken away from men.
"The threat(emotional) of violence is much more powerful than the actual act. This is why torturers rotate the times that they physically beat their captives. They need to break them psychologically(emotional) first. Captives can learn to take the beatdown physically if it is consistent, but have much harder time with the mental aspect(the not knowing)."
ReplyDeleteTorturers nevertheless DO apply physical torture, do they not? If the threat of violence was always more effective than the violence itself, then torture would never involve physical violence -- would it? Torturers would just stand in front of the tortured and tell them to go fuck themselves -- and then, the tortured, completely broken down by being told to go fuck themselves, would break down completely and sign those confessions, right?
But that's not what happens. Physical violence is an integral part of classic torture. First there are threats, and the victim is shown the instruments of torture. Then there is physical torture, then the victim is left alone for a while, then there are more threats, then more torture, another reprieve, more threats, more torture, and so forth and so on. This is EXACTLY what happens in cases of physical abuse: first come the threats and swinging, then the blows, then some cooling off, then tension-building, more blows, etc. It's a well-known fact that physical abuse is cyclical. In both the case of torture and that of physical abuse, the degree of violence is escalated over time. You mischaracterize both physical abuse and torture when you attempt to separate physical violence from its role in inflicting emotional damage.
"Do you think its possible for a woman to break a man psychologically(emotional) without ever having to hit him?"
Yes, I do think it's possible -- but the problem is, you appear to define emotional abuse through highly subjective criteria which make the ostensible victim the sole arbiter of whether or not he is being abused; and ultimately, anything he doesn't like is "abuse" worthy of physical retaliation. Once again, answer this question: in an argument between a man and a woman, that makes both of them upset, who is abusing whom? I really want to hear your answer to this.
You keep suggesting that I dont think that physical abuse has an emotional component to it. That is patently false, I have never made that statement. That is just you reading into my comments what you see, not what I say. You obviously are biased.
ReplyDeleteNo, I really don't think I am, because I said REPEATEDLY that although you were giving me that impression, it was somewhat ambiguous and I doubted that that was what you were trying to do. Which is why I was urging you to improve your communication skills. I still am, because apparently you still can't read my comments for comprehension.
Told you he would be more serious with yours then mine Dave.
ReplyDeleteHe also claims to be right despite both plenty of evidence showing (including a later link explaining why men have less instances of depression then women do) that women are depressed in greater numbers then men and his complaints about his being treated poorly by "feminists" which I am starting to think matches what Nick thinks are feminists-a woman with a pulse.
Although, upon reflection, it seems that the ambiguity sprang less from any lack of clarity on your part than from my inclination to give you the benefit of the doubt. You say, "I'm not trying to say that physical abuse has no component of emotional abuse," but then you go right ahead and make arguments that are simply nonsensical unless you assume that the two are somehow separable.
ReplyDeleteNo, someone committing suicide because they were emotionally abused is not the same thing as being battered by an intimate partner(Lady Vic)
ReplyDeleteExplain to me why physical abuse is worse than emotional abuse that causes someone to take their own life? How is the pain worse?
Once again, answer this question: in an argument between a man and a woman, that makes both of them upset, who is abusing whom? I really want to hear your answer to this.(amused)
ReplyDeleteIf they are both are demeaning, nasty, intimidating and such, then obviously they both are.
amused
ReplyDeleteI was wondering if you could point out where I made any reference to how the physical or emotional abuse was delivered.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteNo, you're doing it again.
ReplyDeleteI told you to stop comparing them, and you're still at it. Asking 'which one is worse' is comparing, which is an argument made in bad faith. They're both bad. Abuse is bad. Many people are victims of abuse. I wholly support programs which focus on helping abuse victims. But if I went into a domestic violence support center because I needed assistance getting out of a battering relationship, and all I hear about is how bad it is when men emotionally abuse women, that's not going to help - either me, or the abused men. And that's precisely what you're doing here.
If you want to talk about men being abused, talk about men being abused. But knock off the comparisons, they aren't helping your argument and are making you appear mean-spirited.
Explain to me why physical abuse is worse than emotional abuse that causes someone to take their own life? How is the pain worse?
ReplyDeleteAt least with suicide, you get to choose the time and manner of the physical pain you experience.
With physical abuse, you experience the pain over and over and over again. At times which are not of your choosing, and which are unpredictable. Plus, on top of the emotional humiliation that comes from feeling as if other people consider you worthless, you have the additional humiliation of having someone demonstrate exactly how worthless they think you are by invading your bodily autonomy to hurt you.
I mean, that's how it seems to me. Not having experienced either suicide or prolonged physical abuse, I really don't know for sure. I suppose only people who have both experienced abuse and attempted suicide but survived the attempt would be able to say for sure. Perhaps we should organize a survey of these people? I'm sure they'd be happy to take time out of their life to satisfy our curiosity. <-- A little bit of reductio ad absurdum there
But look: this is pointless. Both are awful. As Lady Victoria says, comparing them makes you look incredibly callous. Like a child playing "tit for tat," only with real people's suffering as the subject of your petty games.
"Don't compare! All suffering is intolerable!" Elie Wiesel said that. It's one of my favorite quotes.
If people are suffering and nobody wants to hear of their suffering then they will try to compare. The problem comes when one side doesnt think the others is comparable. And that it seems is where the MRAs and Feminists are at. "Hear me, hear of my pain"
ReplyDeleteSo I guess you want me to say a womans experience of pain is worse than a man's, right? If not, then maybe acknowledgement of the bonafide suffering of some in the men's movement is warranted. From what I read, I think that is what many of them are looking for. So far very few(that I have seen) are willing to.
With physical abuse, you experience the pain over and over and over again. At times which are not of your choosing, and which are unpredictable.(Sally)
ReplyDeleteAnd this doesnt happen with emotional abuse?
I don't really want you to say any experience is worse. It comes down to: people are suffering. The worst kind of pain is the kind one experiences personally.
ReplyDeleteAnd the problem with the MRA movement is that they don't want to relate their suffering in a way that doesn't blame *all* women for their pain. When an MRA finds himself in abusive relationship, he's likelier than not going to extrapolate and conclude that all women are abusers. The other problem is that they, like you, try and get into dick-measuring contests over whose scars are worse.
If you want to talk about your pain, get a blog or a website. Wordpress blogs are free, a basic website has a minimal cost. Create a safe space where other men with similar experiences can share them without being judged. And if that website existed, and a battered woman came there and started talking about how her pain was worse (or just trying to get the people there to compare the pain), she'd be out of place. Her pain would not be any less real, but she'd be in the wrong place to be heard.
So I guess you want me to say a womans experience of pain is worse than a man's, right?
ReplyDeleteNo, you fucking idiot. Project much? Sorry to result to personal results, but when I encounter this sort of density, I just lose patience.
If not, then maybe acknowledgement of the bonafide suffering of some in the men's movement is warranted. From what I read, I think that is what many of them are looking for. So far very few(that I have seen) are willing to.
Utter, unsubstantiated, purely fabricated bullshit.
That is, if you had bothered to read a bit (there's that intellectual laziness again!) you'd have seen that the CONSISTENT response of feminists to MRA complaints is, "We hear you. We've been saying this all along: rigid gender roles aren't helping! They're oppressive to everyone. PATRIARCHY HURTS MEN TOO. So let's get together and break down these absurd gender binaries that are causing both of us so much pain."
No, you fucking idiot. Project much? Sorry to result to personal results, but when I encounter this sort of density, I just lose patience.(sally)
ReplyDeleteExactly the same response I got on avoiceformen.com when I had similar ideas from the female perspective.
Lady Vic
ReplyDeleteI think when the average man hears Patriarchy they feel that it is an attack on all men. Maybe that is why they go on the offensive. Just thinking...........you know, how words affect.
Sally
ReplyDeleteThis is what many "Dense" men might read when looking the word up.
Patriarchy
noun, plural -ies.
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
patriarchy (ˈpeɪtrɪˌɑːkɪ)
— n , pl -chies
1. a form of social organization in which a male is the head of the family and descent, kinship, and title are traced through the male line
2. any society governed by such a system
But it isnt about gender or sex, right?
It is not an attack on all men. Can you please pay some attention to what these people are saying or are you just here to get us to say "FINE, EMOTIONAL ABUSE SUFFERED BY MEN IS A GAZILLION TIMES WORSE THEN ANY WOMAN BEING BEATEN BY A MAN."
ReplyDeleteBecause there, someone said it even if I do not mean it in any way. Now you can wander off happy that men have it worse and women have it better and feminists are ebil.
I rarely say this but: troll.
Elizabeth
ReplyDeleteLol, a troll on a web site designed to show how ignorant and nasty, ignorant and nasty people are. Priceless. Of course its not an attack on all men, but it sure seems that way for some. Do you honestly think that just because you say pariarchy is not about men but about a system, that most men are going to believe you?
But you have problems with understanding why women and fair-minded men might, just might, be put off by a system in which the men are in charge, solely by virtue of gender? Where a woman's children are considered as belonging to her husband, and she isn't given consideration when it comes to inheritance and kinship?
ReplyDeleteA less than dense man will also be able to pick stuff up from context - you know, if the debate is on how patriarchy influences the pornography industry, an intelligent and fair-minded man, operating solely from that definition, might indeed be confused. But that intelligent and fair minded man will know how to phrase his question without seeming like an asshole or a dude JAQing off. Or, even better, will realize that it's not other people's jobs to educate him, and will spend some quality time with Google.
Also, didn't we clear this up about eleventy million comments ago? If you've run out of arguments as to why we should pay attention to men's pain in abusive relationships as worse than women's pain, and are just trying to drum up more discussion by bringing up an issue that was resolved awhile ago, you might as well just say "I own a horse" or ask how magnets work, and get it over with. At least those trolls are polite and will make themselves known within a few minutes or so.
Where a woman's children are considered as belonging to her husband(Lady Vic)
ReplyDeleteOk, I own a horse. I rode the horse for the last 10yrs. I could talk custody stuff with you, but hey, you already know its a patriarchy.
Goodnight
I see you have made zero progress, T4T. You are back to making the same arguments you did at the beginning, using the same wrong definitions, as if nothing has been said. I refer you to my post to you, WAAAAAY back, among the very first things I said to you was:
ReplyDeleteObviously, as has been explained approximately 3,072,482,391 times before, "the patriarchal system" is a non-human system (hint: non-human means it does not possess gender attributes) which holds men as superior and women as inferior. It is enforced by BOTH WOMEN AND MEN. It is also opposed by BOTH WOMEN AND MEN. The women and men who oppose it and seek to supplant it with a more egalitarian system are called "feminists."
Since you have revealed that you are unwilling to use accurate basic definitions of words that are absolutely key to this discussion, we can conclude that you're not arguing in good faith.
Do you honestly think that just because you say pariarchy is not about men but about a system, that most men are going to believe you?
ReplyDeleteWell, yes... that is, if they're not already invested in preserving the status quo, or if they're not exceptionally stupid. That's because men are just as capable as women of understanding the conceptual distinction between a system that affects a group of people, and the group of people that are being affected by that system.
Cold, you do realize that the news article on that study that I linked to also mentioned very clearly that it involved polling undergrads (not a perfect methodology, to be sure, but the study offers at the very least a suggestive result, and based on my experience I am inclined to think it's probably true). I'm guessing you didn't notice because you didn't read it, and simply wanted to shout "oh you're a hypocrite you didn't link to the source."
ReplyDeleteHere's the deal: I don't demand sources for everything. For example, I'm not going to demand you provide a source for your assertion earlier in the thread that "The one thing that almost all male feminists have in common is that they will get the opposite of what they are hoping to get, whatever that may be." Why? PArtly because I'm not sure how you can footnote something that you've pulled out of your ass.
Anyway, what I want is for people to cite sources for alleged quotes from feminists, because when an MRA "quotes" a feminist there's a pretty good chance that feminist didn't actually say that or anything like that. I link to the sources of the things I quote. It's really not an onerous requirement.
As for my comment about spam, yes, long lists of supposed feminist quotes copied and pasted from MRA sites (without bothering to check their accuracy or relevance to the topic at hand)... that's spam.
How, exactly, would I notice that there was no link to the source if I didn't read the article? I realize it mentions polling undergrad students, but it doesn't disclose the fact that they were all students of an introductory psychology course rather than a representative cross-section of the entire undergrad student body.
ReplyDeleteObviously you don't demand sources for everything, otherwise you would be on Triplanetary's case constantly. The fact is, however, that I have never once seen you harp on any feminist for using as evidence an article which itself never does anything to prove the claim. You have a rather selective idea of what constitutes spam.
As for male feminists getting the opposite of what they want, there is substantial evidence that feminists do not care about equality for men and that therefore any man who supports feminism for that end isn't going to get it. Hell, Elizabeth provided supporting evidence of this in this very comment section.
I think Cold is complaining that he has to, horror of horrors, actually copy and past rather then clicking on a hyperlink.
ReplyDeleteSpam would be people repeatedly copying and pasting something they found elsewhere into the comments section here, as MRAs/MGTOWers were doing with those lists.
ReplyDeleteIt didn't help that they tended to do so regardless of whether it was relevant and without checking the accuracy of the quotes in question.