When you believe that we live in a female-dominated world where straight men are the most oppressed class, it tends to make you wrong about pretty much everything.
Men’s rights activists—a loose coalition mostly comprised of men embittered that they’re not getting as much tail as they believe they’re due and men embittered after having their wives up and leave against their wishes—irritate feminist bloggers for many reasons, from blaming feminists for problems they clearly brought on themselves, to the Russian bride weirdness, to their dogged trolling and grudge-holding of feminists that criticize them.
But, honestly, all that pales in comparison to the most irritating thing of all about MRAs: they’re just so wrong.
When you believe that we live in a female-dominated world where straight men are the most oppressed class, it tends to make you wrong about pretty much everything. Wrong about the little things, like labeling every woman who displeases them a “feminist,” even if she does something highly traditional, like demands that men pay for every date. And wrong about big things, like writing off high rates of domestic violence and rape as matters of women lying, when all reputable sources agree that there’s simply a lot of violence against women.
They’re so wrong about everything, they’re wrong even when they’re right. Some of their observations of the world correspond with reality, but when they attempt to analyze it through the “blame feminism” lens, they get all turned around. Usually what annoys them stems not from feminism, but from sexism, especially when it comes to inflexible gender roles. Ironically, then, the solution to the problems they manage to correctly identify is … more feminism. I pulled together a sampling of examples to show how this works.
♦◊♦
Problem: Men are more often the primary or even sole breadwinners of nuclear-family households.
MRA explanation: A matriarchy of spoiled women have managed to get men to pay for it while they sit around on their butts eating bon bons all day, while the children scamper angelically past them, requiring little to no work.
Reality-based explanation: Women still make less than men in the workplace, but still do more free labor at home, even when they work full time. Plus, many men feel scaling back or quitting their jobs is emasculating. So, when someone in a couple decides to scale back or quit a job to maintain the household, it’s usually the wife. But, for many families, women just simply do more for less pay. Being at home is no picnic for women, since it reduces future earning potential. Plus, being around kids all day can be a little maddening.
MRA solution: Women en masse should demonstrate our gratitude for this financial support of some of us by giving up on fighting for equality, especially equal pay. Also, no more child support.
Reality-based solution: More feminism. Women should get paid the same as men, men should do as much housework as women, and men should treat domestic labor as real work, instead of as emasculating. Workplaces should be more flexible for parents of both genders. If that happened, more women would work outside the home, and more men would cut back work hours for family.
♦◊♦
Problem: Men have to do all the work asking women out, and women are often hostile to men’s overtures, which hurts men’s feelings.
MRA explanation: Women are lazy princesses, who enjoy forcing men to dance for the pussy, and then enjoy shutting them down, because it strokes petty female egos.
Reality-based explanation: These are two separate issues. Women reject men forcefully because 1) a lot of overtures are actually just harassment, and 2) even men who are sincerely hitting on you sometimes are really rude and entitled about it, requiring a forceful response. (Plus, some MRAs experience all rejections as women being too big for their britches, making it impossible for a woman to say no without being labeled a bitch.) Women don’t approach men very often, because doing so often gets you labeled slutty, bitchy, or desperate, or sometimes all three.
MRA solution: Pay a lot of money to creepy men who label themselves “pickup artists” and who promise to teach you how to get any woman you want in bed. The method usually involves taking an abusive posture to women, and learning to identify insecure women, extracting sex from them through bullying. You know, instead of doing something as quaint as sleeping with women who actually want to have sex with you.
Reality-based solution: More feminism. A world where rape victims weren’t denounced because they were overly flirty, where women weren’t mocked because they acted “like men,” and where the word “slut” had no meaning is one where women would feel freer to hit on men. Plus, a world where women weren’t harassed on the street, or where they could tell men “no” and be heard the first time, would be one where women weren’t immediately suspicious of every man who approached them.
Next: Workplace Inequality, Ladies Night
Pages: 1 2
About Amanda Marcotte
Vocalyze
More of this, less of that other thing. Thanks.
Hahah YES.
lol I remember Marcotte from when she was fired by Edwards…an angry airhead then, and I see little has changed…still has that grim look of “can’t get laid” by the looks of recent photos
The trouble with prescribing “more feminism” is that it will, by an inescapable iron law, generate both more MRA “problems”, and more MRAs. Is that what Amanda wants? In some perverse way, I think perhaps that it IS.
Ahhh…..she’s a feminist gadfly, is Amanda. Well, I should rather say horse-fly. And you know exactly which part of the horse they buzz around……
Honestly, most of what Amanda says in this article is just common sense. The world needs to learn it eventually. Feminism has got a bad rap, but really, its not feminism that has been given a bad rap, its all the ladies out there, and the sooner we realize that inequality and gender violence are prevalent in our society, the sooner we can stop arguing over these simple solutions that Amanda points out.
“Honestly, most of what Amanda says in this article is just common sense. The world needs to learn it eventually. Feminism has got a bad rap, but really, its not feminism that has been given a bad rap, its all the ladies out there, and the sooner we realize that inequality and gender violence are prevalent in our society, the sooner we can stop arguing over these simple solutions that Amanda points out.”
It is impossible to take Amanda seriously when she insults and smears the very same people she needs to be persuading, and tells whopping lies about them.
If she had any “common sense”, she wouldn’t do that.
So take this entire article and flush it.
And spare me your vapid drivel.
When I woke up this morning & saw another MRA article on Good Men Project I thought to myself “ugh, is today the day I take Good Men Project off my google reader?” Luckily it was followed up by Schwyzer saying reasonable things, & THIS article, which is dead on the money. It is hard to take MRA people seriously because, as you put it, they are just so wrong. So too do I agree with your thesis; more feminism is the answer. Equality helps everybody, even the straight cis males at the top of the hegemony. That is why egalitarianism is so neat– it isn’t a zero sum game.
Whatever, Hermes….
Well, at least SOMEONE’S not a moron in this comment thread… hey.
and it’s not Factory…
Aw, whatsamatter Princess, do I say stuff you don’t like?
You’re REALLY going to hate the future then. I’m just sayin’.
“Equality helps everybody, even the straight cis males at the top of the hegemony. That is why egalitarianism is so neat– it isn’t a zero sum game.”
Pfffffft! Semantic garbage.
Please explain what the hell you mean by “equality”. You a mathematician?
Operationalize it!
Oh, and please don’t use femspeak gobble-de-gook like “straight cis males at the top of the hegemony”.
You are not in a feminist echo chamber now, so talk regular English like regular people. You wanna mingle with the plebes, ya gotta talk like the plebes, bucko!
I mean, reeeeaaaallly! Feminism is NOT THE WORLD — as much as I know you would like it to be!
Straight = I am a heterosexual. I realize that queer people exist, & I realize that since I belong to the dominant paradigm, I have a lot of easy privileges that they don’t.
Cis = My assigned & assumed gender matched up with my self-identified gender. I realize that this isn’t true for everyone, & that since I belong to the dominant paradigm, I have a lot of easy privileges that they don’t.
Male = I am a member of the dominant gender in society. I realize this affords me easy privileges, & that not everyone has them.
Hegemony = Take a look at your dollar bill? See all those white dudes? Take a look at your congress, or at a list of the richest people in America. See all those white men? Take a look at your pay check, or at your Viagra pills, or at your television. This culture assumes “straight white cis male” is the default. This does not reflect reality. It is a social construct, & it gives straight white men undue & unequal power.
Yes. I do wish feminism was the world. I oppose bigotry & intolerance. You are correct.
Mordicai: WORD
Mordecai, I consider myself a ‘non-feminist’.
Is there anything you wish to say about me?
And if so, on what authority do you presume to say it?
———————————————–
Oh, and thanks for the definitions, but I’ve already heard that stuff. I only look like a hayseed, but really, I’m not..
Well it can’t be reproductive rights, because you don’t have any.
It can’t be preferential treatment in court and by law enforcement..
Its definitely not preferential treatment in education and employment law….
Oh I remember now, you have the privilege of choosing how you become a woman’s indentured servant, either marriage, divorce or taxation. And if you don’t like it, you have the privilege of shutting your mouth and “taking it like a man”..
Hey, and let’s not forget the privilege of walking the streets at night free of trepidation. That’s quite a privilege, you know.
I’ve always felt that the best way to level the differential for that particular . . . privilege….would be to have the cops randomly administer beatings to male pedestrians after dark.
(That was sarcasm in case anybody missed it.
Men walk the streets at night free of trepidation? Really? Men don’t get assaulted, mugged, beaten, murdered? Really?
Yes, but you know, ze wimminz have it worse in that regard.
And so we menz ought to feel guilty.
Oh, and I like the way Mordecai, just upthread, throws a bunch of red herrings into the discussion.
Yes, there are lots of white dudes on American money, but there are far more white dudes who have died for this country. If you go to Asia, you’re gonna see lots of Asian faces on Asian money. This was and is still somewhat of a white society, so you’re gonna see lots of white faces-duh!!! So you think that males are the only ones who’ve had priveleges. Females have had priveleges, but narrow-minded people like you only want to hear what the one-sided feminists have to say.
“I realize this affords me easy privileges, & that not everyone has them.”
You seem to be under the impression that having any perceived privilege at all means you have no problems or discriminations to overcome. You seem to think that because you are male, you get everything you want. You are mistaken.
“Yes. I do wish feminism was the world. I oppose bigotry & intolerance. You are correct.”
Contradictions. You oppose bigotry and then back a sexist, bigoted movement. I have shown time and again how feminism is not about equality, but instead it is about female empowerment. Some feminists may believe that empowerment should only go so far as equality, a very few agree men need to be empowered in other area’s as well, in order to establish equality, but the vast majority of feminists in positions to change things not only don’t support equality, they actively oppose it by opposing things like shared parenting and paternity leave. By advocating for more affirmative action, for gender quota’s (but only for the good jobs) and for more opportunities for women in education, despite having not only reversed the gender gap that was originally unacceptable, but widening it even further.
I’ve told you this repeatedly, and you have yet to rebut it, because you can’t. you instead choose to run and remain ignorant. Well, that only exposes your own failings and the failings of your beliefs and unable to withstand criticism.
Equality would probably help everybody, the basic problem is, that feminism never was equality. Not at all.
Do they want 50% women in the congress? Of course. 50% of directors of big companies? Sure. 50% of homelesses? 50% of workplace deaths? …….
Oh wait, they only want half of the GOOD things.
Equality? Come on…
That’s why feminists never will be humanists, does not matter how hard they try consider themselves to be one. Cherry picking injustices by sex…that makes more injustices.
I wrote a post in response to this.
The MRA’s are so wrong, and also so fucking WHINY. The fact that a man can feel deeply offended by ladies’ night at bars, just blows my mind. It is so fucking whiny.
So why are MRA wrong and whiny? I’d hate to hear what you have to write about feminists being wrong and whiny. Now that is going to be a lot of noise.
I’m an MRA and I could care less about Lady’s Night. Whoever wrote that was simply using as one tiny example to illustrate society’s attitudes. It blows your mind? You are more hung up on it than any MRA.
At this time, every honest and thoughtful person knows feminism is not about equality. Never was. What has feminism done for men??? Oh yes, it has done one good thing for men: MGTOW, ghosting, and boycotting marriage. Men are waking up and deciding we no longer are going to be the protectors and defenders of society.
BOYCOTT CHIVALRY!
BOYCOTT CHIVALRY!
Oh my God Aharon that is even better than ladies’ night! Yes, by all means, please do boycott chivalry. Refrain from chivalrous behavior of any sort. THAT’LL SHOW ‘EM!!!
Did you guys design an entire movement purely for the purpose of making me laugh my ass off?
You obviously can’t think through consequences.
Consequences? You mean like a man making wierd threats to boycott chivalry, and as a consequence I start giggling at the absurdity?
Or maybe you mean, a man decides, for reasons that make sense to him, to treat women like dirt. The consequence is that women avoid him like that plague?
Atheist, for what it’s worth, this non-feminist here doesn’t make a huge issue out of “ladies night”. This non-feminist here is occupied with more weighty matters than that. Don’t believe everything that people like Amanda Marcotte say, I think you are too intelligent for that!
Oh, and guess what, I too am an atheist!
So, put ‘er there, BRO!
Heh heh…!
What do you mean by “boycotting chivalry”?
I’m guessing you mean things like men opening doors or paying for dates. Yes, those are nice gestures, but I am perfectly willing to open my own doors and pay for my own meals. I would gladly do those things in exchange for equal pay and less risk of being raped at the end of the date.
I would gladly do those things in exchange for equal pay and less risk of being raped at the end of the date.
Good and I’m willing give up the beliefs like I’m not allowed to hit a woman in self defense and that when disaster strikes my life is worth less then a woman’s redering me expendable.
Except that if you were to be attacked in an attempted rape, it would be chivalry that would inspire a man to help. If someone see’s a man being attacked by an armed assailant in the street, very few people would come to his aid. If the person attacked was a woman, she would have several people (largely men) come to her aid. The willingness of ,em to come to the aid of women when they would not offer that same assistance to men, THAT is chivalry. And that is what you so casually and callously seek to throw away in order to demean the MRM and ignore their issues.
Now I am not an MRA, but personally I would be dead silent about Ladie’s Nights, if I didn’t at the same time hear female feminists complain without cease about how they are not allowed in to certain wow guilds and so on.
So, do you consider yourself a feminist, or a non-feminist?
“So too do I agree with your thesis; more feminism is the answer. Equality helps everybody,..”
Yet, there is Not equality, is there? Politics and laws have made men unequal to women.
“That is why egalitarianism is so neat– it isn’t a zero sum game,” said Mordecai.
Actually, Mordecai, egalitarianism IS a zero-sum game: each participants’ losses and gains is balanced by by the losses and gains of the other participants. In other words, in an egalitarian society, men and women share equal rights and equal responsibilities; hence, the sum of privileges and obligations held by one gender, when subtracted from the sum of privileges and obligations of the other gender, equals exactly zero.
I’m still waiting for feminists to step up to the plate and be honest about helping male victims of domestic violence and eliminating gender bias from family law. Feminists are obstructing true equality.
Ad hominem is arguing that a person’s arguments should be dismissed due to irrelevant (and often untrue!) information about the person. If I argued, “Don’t listen to MRAs; they’re all fat and ugly”—an argument I see used frequently on MRA boards about feminists—then I would be arguing ad hominem. What i did was address actual complaints. Cracking jokes =/ ad hominem, but I sure do see conservatives make that assumption a lot! I guess it’s just fun to drop fancy-sounding phrases.
hehe
Ok, in all seriousness
Lol….so Amanda, when you said this:
“Ad hominem is arguing that a person’s arguments should be dismissed due to irrelevant (and often untrue!) information about the person….What i did was address actual complaints.”
You clearly weren’t referencing what you said here then…right?
“Men’s rights activists—a loose coalition mostly comprised of men embittered that they’re not getting as much tail as they believe they’re due and men embittered after having their wives up and leave against their wishes—irritate feminist bloggers for many reasons, from blaming feminists for problems they clearly brought on themselves, to the Russian bride weirdness to their dogged trolling and grudge-holding of feminists that criticize them.”
yeah, *thats* not ad hominem at all, is it?
Your argument fails by your own definition.
No, that’s not an ad hominem. It’s an unflattering description of MRAs, and an explanation of why they annoy feminists. With particular issue she discusses, she gives specific reasons they are wrong that are independent of this unflattering description.
Any person could also dismiss all feminists by comparing them to the most radical man-haters out there and there are many. It is an Ad hominen attack intended to diminish credibility of the MRM.
Denis: you can make unfair, unflattering comparisons with awful people. It’s only an ad hominem if that characterization substitutes for an argument on actual positions. Reread this piece, with each issue area Marcotte brings up, she gives reasons for her position that are independent of her unflattering characterization of MRAs. Therefore: not an ad hominem.
Example:
“Denis smells bad, therefore he can’t be trusted”
That’s an ad hominem
However, this:
“Denis smells bad; furthermore, Denis has made a common error about the definition of ad hominem”
That is NOT an ad hominem, even if you smell fantastic.
Wrong.
Ad homini are personal attacks designed not to replace the person making the attack (though often that is done as well) but to discredit the person being attacked. The above excerpt is clearly an example of an ad hominem – a bad one too without any subtlety. By calling all MRAs bitter and vengeful, she is automatically discrediting any argument they might have because if she’s right, then they have no objectivity and therefore can’t understand the truth.
At least have the honesty and decency to admit when you got personal. Any idiot can see it so denying it is just being dishonest.
And then people wonder why MRAs hate feminists.
““Men’s rights activists—a loose coalition mostly comprised of men embittered that they’re not getting as much tail as they believe they’re due and men embittered after having their wives up and leave against their wishes. . .”
Amanda is correct about the “loose coalition” part. She is wrong about the “tail” part.
As for the part about their wives leaving them… maybe Amanda can explain why the hell they shouldn’t feel “bitter” about something like that? Eh?
Why should they NOT be “bitter” about that?
Can Amanda make clear to us, based upon her complex, nuanced understanding of these men and what they have suffered in their lives, why they either should or should not feel “bitter” about spousal desertion?
Does Amanda possibly feel it is a GOOD thing to be deserted by one’s spouse? Is it the sort of thing that a person ought to enjoy? Is that what Amanda Marcotte means to imply?
Hey, feminists sure do use that word “bitter” a LOT. It is one of their favorite vocabulary items. Has anybody noticed this?
We ought to call their attention to it every chance we get, so that they will start feeling self-conscious about it.
Amynda, your ayrticle has convynced me to bycome a fymynyst!
Sluts….they deserve to be spanked.
Wait… is that a rape joke?
That depends….am I driving an Astin Martin?
To be fair to Amanda, she has a point. What she does isn’t mostly “ad hominem” but “straw man” arguments. Meaning she twists the arguments of her opponents into unrecognizable caricatures that she then destroys. She is thus satisfied to have defeated these arguments… too bad that they are not her actual opponent’s arguments. However, pretending that people do hold these arguments can be seen as an “ad hominem” because she clearly attributes misogynistic and monstrous motives to the arguments she claims all MRAs have.
Now, to be even fairer, you CAN find people on the ‘net making the kind of argument that Amanda blasts in this piece. However, you can also find feminists making arguments that all men are rapists and that men should be exterminated or limited to a small portion of the population because they are inherently evil and unfortunately necessary to natural reproduction. Hell, some respected feminist figures said the same thing, Mary Daly anyone? However, I’m pretty sure Amanda would scream bloody murder if anyone were to portray all feminists as man-hating evil assholes based on these cases, and she’d be right to do so… too bad that she then sees nothing wrong on doing the same thing to MRAs.
For the record, I’m neither MRA nor feminist. I recognize that the two movements have some good points to make but at the same time reject some of their other points.
“For the record, I’m neither MRA nor feminist. I recognize that the two movements have some good points to make but at the same time reject some of their other points.”
My friend, there may come a day when you will find it to your advantage to quit sitting on the fence. Hopefully, that day will arrive sooner rather than later.
But how if we replaced the term MRA with “non-feminist”?
Would you then be willing to make the following statement:
“..I’m neither non-feminist nor feminist…” ?
Or would you feel more comfortable choosing sides if it were phrased that way?
“My friend, there may come a day when you will find it to your advantage to quit sitting on the fence. “
I disagree. I think there is room, even need, for people on the fence on this issue in order to maintain an objective view. And I think it behooves us to pay attention. Once I see some progress for men’s rights, I hope that I will be able to climb back o that fence myself. But for the time being, while things for men continue to get worst, feminists continue to demand all the attention and claim a monopoly on equality, and attack anyone who speaks up for men, and so long as men are not being heard, I will continue to add my voice to the choir. I just hope it doesn’t take so long that I am unable to return to an objective viewpoint once the time comes.
Actually, I find myself agreeing with Kratch, here.
While I’m not a big fan of MRAs, I’m glad they are out there because they bring up issues no one else will touch or, in many cases, is even allowed to touch.
I got dragged into this whole debate, somewhat against my will, because I was recently slandered on a famous athiest blog for saying that men have issues with gender, too. It’s gotten to the point where if you even hint that men might be something other than potential rapists and privileged patriarchs, you yourself will be accused of promoting violence against women and children.
I find this quite ironic, because the last time I became involved with “men’s issues” in the U.S. (the mid-1980s), it was pretty well recognized among feminists that men had gender-related problems. Apparently that view has become anathema to many women.
So I’m glad MRAs are kicking up a fuss out there, even though I personally disagree with a lot of what they say.
“it was pretty well recognized among feminists that men had gender-related problems.”
Yeah…yeah…yeah. But that’s just the feminists talking. And whatever comes out of their mouths is, well… feminism.
And they have zero authority to address men’s issues.
So take everything they say, and wad it up, and flush it.
@Amanda:
“Cracking jokes =/ ad hominem, but I sure do see conservatives make that assumption a lot!”
Is that your definition of “conservative” then?
“A person who makes assumptions about the meaning of “ad hominem” “?
Frankly, Amanda Marcotte, I doubt that you even understand what the word “conservative” means at all.
Define “conservative” for us please. Are you up to it?
Cuz, when you say “conservative”, I think you are just dropping fancy-sounding phrases like a fourteen-year-old intellectual poseur (who is now circa 30).
Honestly, I think there is a conservative “archetype” in your head, corresponding to certain people you knew in the shithole part of Texas you originate from, whom you did not like.
Just answer the question. I have not encountered male or female feminists that are sympathetic to male victimization.
Uh, what? The point of the article was to address the fact that there are solutions to a number of popular MRA complains…& that solution is feminism. That directly addresses that. That being said, the ONLY people I know who address sexual assault among men are feminists– take for instance prison rape. In main stream culture, prison rape is a joke, or a threat to use in a cop show to get people to confess. I only see feminists addressing the rape culture of prisons.
Does that count?
I haven’t seen feminists addressing the rape culture in prisons or any issue of male disposability, but I would be very interested to learn more about what they are doing.
If proposal is that feminism is the answer to men’s issues, I would really like to see some substance to support that. In my experience, feminists have been very opposed to many men’s issues.
I haven’t seen an Mens Right activist having sex. Does that mean all MRA activists are sexless?
I AM GOOD AT LOGICS!
I have not viewed my own demise.
Therefore I am immortal.
THANK YOU SUBJECTIVISM!!!!!
“I haven’t seen feminists addressing the rape culture in prisons”
well then apparently you haven’t encountered many feminists. i’ve seen this addressed on feministing several times. and a few other feminist blogs.
If feminists truly care about men getting raped in prison (I’m assuming that’s what we’re talking about), then they ought to be concerned not to put innocent men in prison in the first place (where they would get raped).
“If proposal is that feminism is the answer to men’s issues, I would really like to see some substance to support that. In my experience, feminists have been very opposed to many men’s issues.”
then do some goddamn research, lazy ass. are we supposed to provide you with the information you need?? are we supposed to give you links to every website where feminists discuss things that affect men?? have you ever heard of google? you can’t claim that feminists hate men and/or dont care about things that hurt men just because you are too stupid/lazy/stubborn to actually find out how feminists feel about men and the things that affect them.
Megan, poster girl for feminism. You go girl!
“National socialism was all about improving the lives of all people and spreading piece.”
If you want evidence of that, then look it up yourself.
Sorry but the burden of proof lies with those who make the assertion not those who doubt it.
NOW (national Organization for Women is the leading feminist organization out there actively participating in reform.
NOW actively opposes Shared Parenting
NOW actively opposes Child support reform that would protect fathers from being financially destroyed and made homeless by the draconian and heavy-handed zeal of collectors.
NOW openly opposes efforts to enforce custody agreements so that fathers can’t be forced out of their children’s lives.
NOW actively supports the elimination of due process with regards to domestic abuse, particularly in the cases of custody.
NOW opposes male reproductive rights
NOW opposes any kind of Alimony reform (apparently women do need men to provide for them)
NOW opposes any kind of Fault in Divorce
NOW supports Domestic Violence perpetrated by women (I know this one will get some opposition, so I will back this up right here and now. Senator Bundgaard’s former girlfriend assaulted him and tried to steal his car. When she was arrested for abuse, NOW campaigned to have him ejected from the Senate).
And this is just one prominent feminist organization…Imagine if I was willing to examine even more
That is disingenuous, because on another thread, “Is talking about beauty scarring your daughter,” I directed you to resources on both the enthusiastic consent model and the rape culture model which explicitly address prison rape, specifically the “cavernous need for men’s prison reform.” I also directed you to resources from black feminist though on male disposability. You said “thanks for the links.”
Here’s a post I did on the issue of prison rape:
http://www.manboobz.com/2010/11/further-reading-prison-rape.html
It contains about a dozen links to feminist blog posts on the issue.
Looking around online for substantive discussions of the subject, I found far more of them on feminist blogs than on MRA blogs. MRAs bring up the subject a lot, but mostly, it seems, to score rhetorical points; generally they don’t do much beyond mentioning the topic.
“MRAs bring up the subject a lot, but mostly, it seems, to score rhetorical points; generally they don’t do much beyond mentioning the topic.”
And the objection to “scoring rhetorical points” is . . . what, again?
You seem to put a lot of faith in blogging, as if a handful of people saying something are somehow representative of those actually doing stuff. I prefer to look at the actions of those doing stuff in the name of their movement.
Seeing women fret over prison rape on Lifetime doesn’t count, mordicai.
Watching OZ isn’t ‘fretting over prison rape’…no matter how many orgasms it gets ya.
You’re right. It’s not even something as basic as fretting over prison rape. It’s a television drama (which I’ve never seen, by the way). Your point?
“You’re right. It’s not even something as basic as fretting over prison rape. . . Your point?.”
Well, in theory, it might pass for that in the minds of certain people.
I think that might have been Factory’s point.
How about this, from the seminal online publication on rape culture?:
“Rape Culture 101″ on Shakesville, one of the most widely read resources on the subject. Look it up.
“Rape culture is ignoring the cavernous need for men’s prison reform in part because the threat of being raped in prison is considered an acceptable deterrent to committing crime, and the threat only works if actual men are actually being raped.”
“Rape culture is 1 in 33 men being sexually assaulted in their lifetimes. Rape culture is encouraging men to use the language of rape to establish dominance over one another (“I’ll make you my bitch”). ”
“Rape culture is a minister blaming his child victims. Rape culture is accusing a child of enjoying being held hostage, raped, and tortured. Rape culture is spending enormous amounts of time finding any reason at all that a victim can be blamed for hir own rape.”
“Rape culture is the idea that only certain people rape—and only certain people get raped. Rape culture is ignoring that the thing about rapists is that they rape people. They rape people who are strong and people who are weak, people who are smart and people who are dumb, people who fight back and people who submit just to get it over with, people who are sluts and people who are prudes, people who rich and people who are poor, people who are tall and people who are short, people who are fat and people who are thin, people who are blind and people who are sighted, people who are deaf and people who can hear, people of every race and shape and size and ability and circumstance.”
“Rape culture is rape jokes. Rape culture is rape jokes on t-shirts, rape jokes in college newspapers, rape jokes in soldiers’ home videos, rape jokes on the radio, rape jokes on news broadcasts, rape jokes in magazines, rape jokes in viral videos, rape jokes in promotions for children’s movies, rape jokes on Page Six (and again!), rape jokes on the funny pages, rape jokes on TV shows, rape jokes on the campaign trail, rape jokes on Halloween, rape jokes in online content by famous people, rape jokes in online content by non-famous people, rape jokes in headlines, rape jokes onstage at clubs, rape jokes in politics, rape jokes in one-woman shows, rape jokes in print campaigns, rape jokes in movies, rape jokes in cartoons, rape jokes in nightclubs, rape jokes on MTV, rape jokes on late-night chat shows, rape jokes in tattoos, rape jokes in stand-up comedy, rape jokes on websites, rape jokes at awards shows, rape jokes in online contests, rape jokes in movie trailers, rape jokes on the sides of buses, rape jokes on cultural institutions…”
“Rape culture is ignoring the cavernous need for men’s prison reform in part because the threat of being raped in prison is considered an acceptable deterrent to committing crime, and the threat only works if actual men are actually being raped.””
Does this Shakesville article anywhere address the issue of False Accusation in its summary of rape culture? Do they feel it is acceptable (in principle) for actual men who did not actually rape anybody to actually get raped in prison?
Their silence on that subject would (in theory) speak large.
“That being said, the ONLY people I know who address sexual assault among men are feminists– take for instance prison rape. In main stream culture, prison rape is a joke, or a threat to use in a cop show to get people to confess. I only see feminists addressing the rape culture of prisons.
Does that count?”
No, that doesn’t count. If feminists truly gave a crap about men getting raped in prison, they would lean toward prevention rather than cure.
That is, they would show some remorse for the false rape industry which they created, which is railroading so many innocent men into prison in the first place.
Instead, they will tell us things like “men who are falsely accused of rape can possibly benefit from the experience.” I presume this means that such men will “benefit” from getting boinked by the booty bandits in the big house. Right?
You have no idea what you’re talking about. Majority of rapists see no prison time.
The majority of inmates are there because of the drug war, violence, and petty crimes accumulations.
Your statement has no bearing upon my original comment. You are “shifting the frame”.
Fidelbogen: I think Gary’s point is that feminists really bear no responsibility for men being raped in prison. In addition, there are plenty of feminists who actually do talk about prison rape and even help organize against it.
My fellow atheist: you are ducking the point as well as certain people (well known to us atheists) will duck various points when they are conversing with us atheists. You know the people I mean.
If feminists truly cared about prison rape, I should think they’d logically gravitate toward more “upstream” solutions, by showing some compassion for men, who never raped anybody, getting sent to prison to get raped.
(Feminism bears many similarities to a cult religion. Have you ever noticed that?)
“Majority of rapists see no prison time.”
“ACCUSED” rapist. and there may very well be a good reason for that that you refuse to acknowledge and, thus, place the blame where it belongs. I’ll let you think about that.
Haven’t you ever read the work of Angela Davis? One of the most important feminists of the 20th century who talks extensively about prison abolition in favour of community based solutions? Or does that not fit in to the feminism in your head?
Angela Davis is not germane here. Nor does it impress me that she is a big mucky-muck feminist from the 20th century. I am a non-feminist, myself.
Um, she is an important feminist who addresses the idea of prison rape. Not sure how much more germane I could be.
What are you talking about Angela Davis is not germane? You asked for an example of a feminist who acts against prison rape. She is one example.
What does Angela Davis have to say about False Accusation?
Does AD concur with the thesis that “only 2% of rape accusations are false”?
She supports prison abolition and community based solutions, so that question is not germane if you understand that in that sort of system, false accusations wouldn’t have the impact they do now.
Again I would favor the upstream solution. False accusations would have even LESS impact if they did not happen in the first place, full stop.
Whatta we gotta do, resort to jury nullification in ALL rape trials?
“You asked for an example of a feminist who acts against prison rape. She is one example.”
Actually no. I did not, in fact, ask for such a thing. But please accept my apology if I gave that impression.
@Atheist:
My comment immediately prior was addressed to an earlier comment by Switch2glide, but alas, I got my threads mixed up. Please accept my apology for that also.
“The point of the article was to address the fact that there are solutions to a number of popular MRA complains… & that solution is feminism.”
Several problems with this comment:
1: She doesn’t address a single “actual” MRA complaint, let alone a popular one. The closest she gets is addressing examples of complaints.
2: Not a single one of her solutions addresses the actual problems as she describes them, let alone the MRM.
3: Every single one of her solutions is to help women’s issues in the hope that, maybe, as a side effect, it might somehow nudge into the issue she’s addressing, but she would be wrong on most accounts. And that is hardly a reasonable stance to addressing men’s issues IE, to make it about women instead. That is simply selfish, arrogant and overall sexist and bigoted.
I go into a great deal more detail in my posts near the bottom of the comment section.
You don’t understand the definition of ad hominem. If I happen to insult you whilst clearly explaining the factual reasons why your argument is wrong, that’s not ad hominem. Common mistake.
Sally, are you trolling again?
No, just correcting MRA ignorance.
ad homini are for the purpose of discrediting the other so any argument they may have loses weight, and recognition.
Example:
“Sally you are just bitter and got dumped and cheated on too many times so your feminism is just an expression of your anger towards men and heterosexual relationships. ”
For the record, that is NOT my opinion but just a hypothetical example. After stating that, anyone who believes it, would not take responses by you as seriously because they don’t believe you’re being objective. That is the purpose of the ad hominem and that is why it is used.
I prefer to just stay away from insults entirely but I guess I’m in the minority.
That’s a logical fallacy right there. Confusing the whole with the part.
It is not “MRA” ignorance that is being corrected.
Just ignorance, full stop.
Okay. I’m a feminist.
I’m against gender discrimination in family court–I think the assumption that women are “naturally” better parents than men is sexist, damaging and insulting to both men and women.
I think that men who are physically assaulted by their domestic partners should be taken seriously. I think that rigid gender roles that teach men that they are less “manly” should they complain about being hit or shoved by their partner are very damaging to men. As a feminist, I’d like to see these gender roles destroyed and forgotten, so any man can feel empowered and confident about bringing a complaint about domestic violence to the police.
So now you’ve met that feminist you wanted to meet. Now what?
So you would support gender equality (Title IX) in VAWA and all government funded services for DV?
What about equal shared parenting and mandatory mediation?
Absolutely, but your strawfeminist wouldn’t.
what’s a strawfeminist?
The monolithic feminism that you have constructed that actively opposes men’s rights is the strawfeminist, whereas I have provided numerous references and scads of evidence for you on other threads that feminism is:
a: a loose coalition of different groups fighting in different ways towards the goal of women’s equality (ie. NOT a monolith)
b: not represented by the white privileged feminists who dominate the boards of NOW
c: not, for the most part, opposed to men’s rights in any way. I have given you a lot of information, for example, on black feminist thought–a lot of which focusses on men’s issues. Also I have provided links that show that the rape culture model discusses the “cavernous need for men’s prison reform.” and also, that feminists have often led the push for the dismantling on the military industrial complex, on the basis that it is a form of gender-based-violence (GBV) against men. You have been pushing this DV thing like it is representative of the whole of feminism, and not engaging with any of the comments I have left which show the ways in which feminists actively work for men’s liberation.
d: who is strongly allied with the gay right’s movement? Feminism, or MR? Who is allied with Social Justice groups which address class and race issues? Feminism or MR? Who has produced an extensive corpus of academic work on how boys and girls are forced into gender boxes which unfairly constrain both of their potential (see Julia Serano’s discussion of “oppositional sexism”)? Feminism or MR?
I just haven’t encountered many of these other feminists and I guess what you refer to as strawfeminists are the majority.
MRM is mainly focused on men’s rights. They don’t have the funding or the organizations that feminism has to tackle other societal issues. While feminists do address some class and race issues, they still fail to recognize that the majority of men are powerless and the essential discrimination of equity programs. They deal with these issues, just not honestly.
Sounds like you haven’t encountered many feminists, period. My experience is that my views are not at all uncommon, at least not in my particular little feminist bubble. I can provide you with links if you like.
How about action instead? Ever do that?
I’ve encountered hundreds of feminists and the few that I consider to be intellectually honest I can count on one hand.
Amanda Marcotte is not one of them because she has completely misconstrued the MRM agenda and motivations.
Warren Farrell did an excellent piece for a proposal for a Council on Men and Boys. Note that Warren Farrell has been widely criticized and ejected from the sisterhood since he decided to bravely speak the truth.
http://bsaweekly.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/white-house-boys-to-men-program.pdf
So you want feminists to focus on men’s issues, but you don’t think MRAs should focus on anything but men’s issues?
Did you read the article? It’s claiming that feminism is the solution to MRM problems. It’s not, feminists do not care about men’s issues.
How many times will we have to link you to resources, explain out perspectives, and do work for men’s rights until you believe that isn’t true? Your statement is a direct contradiction of the work I wake up every morning to do.
How many times will we have to link you to resources, explain out perspectives, and do work for men’s rights until you believe that isn’t true?”
If the various do-gooder feminists in this world really gave a snap about “men’s issues” then they would need to confer with a delegation of MRAs, and accept a list of very specific MRA grievances and agree to speak out very publicly and loudly in support of this inherently MRA platform, in their publicly stated capacity AS FEMINISTS.
The thing we need to get away from, is this business of feminists controlling the frame and controlling the discourse, as if feminism was the world.
Feminism is NOT the world. It is merely a world-view.
One of many.
Actually April, I’m not asking anything of feminism. My interest resides in family law. Equal access to my children, period. I was quite happy to see my partner go her own way. No hurt no foul. Life is long, enjoy! The fact that tactics of fear were employed to limit my access, compels me to change the outcome. I love my children and see no reason why I can’t participate in their lives. We can write articles and comments for the next thousand years to no avail. The law has perverted the outcome of the family. The experience on the ground for many men simply disenfranchises them from their children. In fact I accept the demise of the family construct against current laws. Marriage is a power structure that does not and can not evolve. For those that can’t smell the rotten meat, have at it the law still provides it.
I am interested in the lives of my children, period. I pay my taxes and I expect and demand equal representation. I ask nothing of feminism or feminists. I demand representation from my government.
“a: a loose coalition of different groups fighting in different ways towards the goal of women’s equality (ie. NOT a monolith)”
And yet, you ARE monolithic when an accomplishment needs touting. Buffet Feminism is bullshit. If you take credit for feminist ‘accomplishments’, then you ALSO take ‘credit’ for their failings.
It comes with the jersey.
“b: not represented by the white privileged feminists who dominate the boards of NOW”
You mean like the Academic and Establishment Feminists who are “not, for the most part, opposed to men’s rights in any way”, yet populate places like the AAUW (boy problems in Education? No way! Girls are just doing better is all.) and violently oppose reforms (like a stimulus package that gives jobs to those who are, you know, out of work, as opposed to raises for government workers) that help men and boys.
“d: who is strongly allied with the gay right’s movement? Feminism, or MR? Who is allied with Social Justice groups which address class and race issues? Feminism or MR? Who has produced an extensive corpus of academic work on how boys and girls are forced into gender boxes which unfairly constrain both of their potential (see Julia Serano’s discussion of “oppositional sexism”)? Feminism or MR?”
I think you will find that your assumptions are quite wrong.
Assuming Gay Men are your friend would be a mistake. I’m just sayin’.
“The monolithic feminism that you have constructed that actively opposes men’s rights is the strawfeminist, whereas…etc.”,
If feminism has any “core minima” whatsoever, then in that sense you could call it monolithic. I guess it all comes down the the way you parse things. MRAs in general lean toward a kind of “facts on the ground” pragmatism, in my observation….
“a: a loose coalition of different groups fighting in different ways towards the goal of women’s equality (ie. NOT a monolith)”
Women’s equality is an oxymoron. Equality can not be restricted to a single gender. One is ether about equality, or one if about women’s empowerment.
“b: not represented by the white privileged feminists who dominate the boards of NOW”
You can not discount the largest acting organization functioning in the name of feminism as “not representative” of the movement. If anything, they are the most representative of the movement, as they are actually doing something. Some nobody sitting behind a computer writing on a comment section can not be said to be more representative of an ideology then an organization that shapes that ideology, and act’s in it’s name. If you don’t like it, then expose NOW and all other organizations like it as the frauds you claim them to be. Otherwise, quit your whinning and accept the consequences of associating yourself with their… yes, it is theirs now, ideology.
“not, for the most part, opposed to men’s rights in any way.”
I very much disagree. Most feminists I have spoken with DO oppose men’s rights, even the reasonable ones like having a men’s minister as an egalitarian counterpart to the women’s minister that exists in virtually every western nation.
“on black feminist thought”
Sorry, I’m not privy to your past conversations. Perhaps you can provide me with an example of a black feminist organization that opposes the policies of NOW with regards to men’s rights.
“who is strongly allied with the gay right’s movement? Feminism”
That’s why NOW and the feminist influences in the UN failed to even speak up when the UN voted to remove sexual orientation from a resolution condemning summary and arbitrary executions. (The resolution admonishes member nations to protect the right to life of all people, and calls on states to investigate killings based on discriminatory grounds.)
“Okay. I’m a feminist.”
I’m sorry. Get help.
“I’m against gender discrimination in family court–I think the assumption that women are “naturally” better parents than men is sexist, damaging and insulting to both men and women.”
If you actually believe that, then why in god’s name do you call yourself a feminist? You are describing something which feminists have rampantly promoted. Feminism THRIVES on gender discrimination in the family courts, and feminism has waged a vicious hate war against fathers, families and marriages for years. And if you don’t know this, you are either willfully obtuse or living under a rock. Which, come to think of it, describes the majority of feminists.
I think that men who are physically assaulted by their domestic partners should be taken seriously.
If you believe that, then you are not much of a feminist, because you are undermining everything that feminism has worked so very hard to promote. The whole point of feminism is to give women a monopoly on violence, in order to keep men under the control of the state.
So why in god’s name do you call yourself such a shameful thing as a “feminist”???
I think that rigid gender roles that teach men that they are less “manly” should they complain about being hit or shoved by their partner are very damaging to men. As a feminist, I’d like to see these gender roles destroyed and forgotten, so any man can feel empowered and confident about bringing a complaint about domestic violence to the police.
I have a much better idea. Why don’t you start “liking to see” all of those feminist laws and lies annihilated, which started all this trouble in the first place???? Don’t insult me with feminist claptrap about “rigid gender roles” and “feeling empowered”. No: take responsibility for what feminism has done! DENOUNCE it!
And if you plan to do THAT, then you might as well stop calling yourself a ‘feminist’.
It is a filthy word. Why do wish to call yourself that?
People aren’t going to cut you any slack. When they hear “feminist”, they will NOT ask “what kind of feminist?”
But you can steer clear of all that trouble by simply announcing that you are NOT A FEMINIST.
You will be a better person for it. That’s a promise.
“So now you’ve met that feminist you wanted to meet. Now what?”
What now? I am not impressed. I have met FAR too many feminists like you! And no, I never “wanted” to meet you.
As a feminist, what have you done about any of that? because, as a feminist, those acting in your name IE< NOW are actually doing things contradictory to what you claim you believe. And as they are bigger then you, and have more ability to claim feminism as theirs (as they actually do something in it's name), most people will identify feminism based on their actions, and you can ether accept the consequences of being associated with them, you can stand up against them, or you can acknowledge that perhaps your beliefs are no longer in line with those of modern feminism and move on to a more egalitarian belief.
I’m still waiting for MRAs to step up to the plate and build their own domestic violence shelters and advocacy organizations, just like women have had to do. Then you all can sit back and watch those shelters fill up with gay men and trans folks who come there to escape violence from other men,.
Yeah, its called government grants. You know, money collected from men to pay for women who could not produce a dime themselves.
Women pay taxes.
Apply for the f*cking grants yourself you whiny ass.
Until then… STFU.
Seriously. You realize the work force is 50/50 with both sexes, right? Do you seriously think women are not paying taxes at the jobs they work at? Get real!
Do you realize that you are, by implication, upholding an adversarial political model of relations between the sexes?
“I’m still waiting for MRAs to step up to the plate and build their own domestic violence shelters and advocacy organizations, just like women have had to do. “
Can you recommended a good book on “How to Build a Domestic Violence Shelter”, so that tired, isolated, impoverished, MRAs can read all about it in their precious spare time and figure out how it’s done? Then maybe they can scrape together the money and go to the hardware store and buy the tools they will need to “build a domestic violence shelter”? But, what about the land? Don’t they need a lot to build it on? Real estate is mighty spendy nowadays: what if they can’t afford this?
And so on and so on …….
You seem to be a feminist. Aren’t feminists supposed to be “liberals”? And aren’t liberals supposed to be hip, cool, benevolent people….?
“Then you all can sit back and watch those shelters fill up with gay men and trans folks who come there to escape violence from other men,.”
You are a vile, filthy ignoramus. Please wash your mouth out with merde.
How exactly do you think that feminists built the first DV shelters? Do you think they just magically conjured them up? They actually, you know, raised money themselves, and set them up, against a great deal of opposition. Even today most shelters get most of their money from private donors.
And why on earth do you consider it “vile” to bring up gay and transgender victims of violence?
Are you stating, categorically, (or just hinting) that so-called “MRAs” (whoever they are) ought to do exactly what the upthread commenter said they ought to do, merely at that person’s behest? Are you dictating terms to these unspecified “MRA” people?
“And why on earth do you consider it “vile” to bring up gay and transgender victims of violence?”
But DO i “consider” any such thing? Is that what I said? Was I even thinking about that at all?
“How exactly do you think that feminists built the first DV shelters?”
By usurping the work already done by Erin Pizzey, claiming it was gender unidirectional and preying on the guilt and chivalry of men to fund their efforts based on the unidirectional lies. men do not gain the benefit of the chivalry so many feminists are eager to condemn or reject.
I actually think men’s shelters might be a good idea and I DO think that MRAs are the people who should go about building them.
But riddle me this, David Futrelle: what will your reaction be when the first one opens its doors with an all-male staff and restrictions on women entering the place?
What happens the first time there’s a domestic dispute and the woman who got punched in the eye and goes to HER shelter and the man who got stabbed goes to HIS and both accuse the other of starting the fight?
Will you demand that those MRAs hand the man over to the cops on the presumption that a woman is never violent unless it’s in self-defence?
In other words, will those MRAs running that shelter be allowed to stand up for the guy who went looking to them for aid without being called “men who protect the male privledge of violence against women” by people like yourself?
And as for you MRAs, are you truly willing and able to deal with gay, trans and alternate sexuality men in a non-judgemental fashion? Because those men are going to be the ones who need shelter the most and yes, many of their aggressors will be male.
I mean, I’m curious how far this “brotherhood” thing goes. Some MRAs I know of would defend gay and trans men to the death. Others, however,…
You seem to have a pretty low opinion of men. If a man is humanitartian enough to open, run and participate in a shelter, he is likely also open minded enough to be able to “handle” non traditional men.
Actually there was at least one battered men’s shelter that had to close down due to lack of funding. Apparently all of it was going exclusively to women’s shelters.
http://www.batteredmen.com/bathelpnatl.htm
In Canada, Domestic abuse shelters are funded solely by the women’s ministries. If we can’t even get women to admit that violence is gender neutral, we certainly can’t get them to part with their money
I guess feminism isn’t the solution after all, is it? If men want something done for men’s rights, they can do it themselves or stop whining. thank you for being one of many examples of just how wrong Marcotte is.
This particular feminist clearly favours ad hominem over discussion of the actual issues.”
This particular feminist wishes to avoid discussion of the actual issues altogether, and her way of accomplishing this is not by ad hominem, but “controlling the frame.” All feminists do this, more or less.
If Amanda ever accepted an invitation to the MRA Grill, she would get frame-broiled right proper, with no escape hatch.
Well. . . the whole world is becoming the MRA Grill now, and people are becoming MRAs by truckloads. So, soon there will be no escape hatch — not even into the echo chambers.
As Adam Kostakis would say, feminism is not sustainable.
Grills, escape hatches, truckloads,echo chambers. You’re going to have to draw me a diagram here. Do grills normally have escape hatches that lead into echo chambers? Mine just has a couple of holes to let the air in and and the smoke out.
They never will support anything that ‘shares’ money (takes money from) women… They would rather see 50 men commit suicide that help 1 man escape a violent relationship. This is why VAWA teaches police to always arrest men only and ignore female violence.
I 100% speak out against intimate partner violence – against any person, under any circumstance.
However, most women’s shelters do not allow men for several reasons, including
The Privacy, safety and security of the women and children. Men seeking shelter are not often perpetrators of violence, however – some abusers know where the shelters are in their communities – and follow their victims there, threatening their security and safety. Furthermore, If I had just been battered by my partner – I probably wouldn’t want to be around a man – even another victim.
Shelters, though, can and do pay for men (as well as LGBTQ individuals) to stay in hotels/motels because they don’t have the capacity, resources, or ability to serve that population in house.
More like, “Feminist activists donate money to Planned Parenthood and don’t think rape jokes are funny.”
No, it’s just ridiculous generalization designed to paint feminism as the saviour of all mankind….but preferably just womankind
Excuse me, you mean “wymynkind”. Misogynist pig.
So you’re a big supporter of Eugenics, and killing off the ‘undesireables’, or breeding them out of existence? Gonna join the WKKK and give speeches like Margaret Sanger did (the founder of planned parenthood)?
Why not, you’re of the same moral fibre after all…
Do you realize how much of a ridiculous logical leap it is to connect support for contemporary practices by Planned Parenthood and the belief system of a woman who served as the organization’s president half a century ago?
What, you mean that being a patriotic American doesn’t automatically mean that we want to murder all Native Americans like our forefather Andrew Jackson? I’ve been doing it wrong…
Thomas Jefferson owned slaves, but that doesn’t mean everybody in America loves slavery.
yeah yeah…NAWALT and all that.
boring.
ARE rape jokes funny? I have heard ABOUT rape jokes, but I have never actually heard one (or not to my knowledge), so I am in no position to know if they are funny or not.
But then again, looking at this in a philosophical way, “funny” is entirely subjective. The only test of “funny” is if it makes somebody laugh.
So, if you say “rape jokes are not funny”, all you are really saying is “rape jokes do not make me, personally, laugh.”
Rape jokes were funny for a while
but then they got played out
much like the racist jokes
and dead baby jokes
The reason feminists get a bad rap is because they operate with a pole up their ass
if a joke is funny, then it’s funny – laugh at it!
It’s ok to laugh at a funny joke
You mean dead baby jokes aren’t funny anymore?
When your best friend/sibling/parent/cousin/roommate is raped – get back to me and let me know if you still think it is funny.
Rape is not funny. Not Ever.
Well…I guess you’re wrong, and I’m right…
That’s cool.
I’ll say it again, doggone it! If it makes a person laugh, it is funny TO that person.
Even if it is not funny to you.
“Funny” is not universal.
“The reason feminists get a bad rap is because they operate with a pole up their ass”
That’s not true, they find man bashing extremely funny. Some feminists even make a decent living off of misandry humor
post a blog about it when you get divorced and settle down with a gay man
when you get divorced and settle down with a gay man
Ha ha gay faggortz LOLOLOL
Oh, but they are funny when they’re about men in prison?
No, they’re appalling under any circumstances.
Mainstream media would disagree.
That men should share in the housework is “female entitlement”? Why? Because it’s women’s work?
Sopt being a coward and answer her question.
Tough guy eh? Whatcha gonna do big man?
This post is one uncited “fact” after another, FYI. The one kernel of truth that you’ve uncovered is that men and women work the same hours, but men receive more pay:
Women receive 75 cents on the dollar for working the same amount of time? Well, you’ve certainly convinced me that there is absolutely no pay discrepancy!
Oh no. Not the pay gap myth again. There are so many ways to dismantle it. Here’s one you might like:
http://hubpages.com/hub/Why-the-gender-pay-gap-is-a-myth
Oh please, spare us the sexist drama. I had a partner that would spend 15 minutes cleaning the floor and expect some reward for it. I would spent 8 hours cleaning the rest of the kitchen and the effort was ignored.
Women at home have no accountability for the work that is done. I go to work and account to my boss.
I come home and account for the size of my paycheck. She’s at home with absolutely no pressure to perform. I’m happy to wave goodbye to this crap. Spare me the innocent, nurturing entitlement crap. All lives don’t fit into the same little ideological bubble.
Don’t generalize all women, thank you very much, you sexist jerk. There are men who do not hold themselves accountable for things at all, just as there are women.
So is name-calling your first response to everything you don’t like to hear, or do you go with shaming language part of the time too?
It is typical of a twit to form such a view, fact is to hold a woman accountable for anything in the home will get you thrown out or in jail. It has nothing to do with women and everything to do with the law. It’s not a generalization about women its a reference to the law.
Again spare us the sexist drama
In theory, how far would you be willing to extend the power of the state in order to create and maintain the situation that you describe? How much bureaucracy and enforcement apparatus would you be willing to establish? How would you propose to fund all of this?
Wow. Thanks for proving that feminists can be just as angry, insulting and misguided as the MRA folks. I think both sides have more in common than either of them would like to admit.
What about this post was “misguided” to you?
How about this for starters:
“Men’s rights activists—a loose coalition mostly comprised of men embittered that they’re not getting as much tail as they believe they’re due and men embittered after having their wives up and leave against their wishes—…”
As much as I might disagree with MRA folks (and believe me I do on a number of issues), this kind of vitriol in a blanket statement doesn’t help anybody.
Then there’s her MRA solution that reads:
“Women en masse should demonstrate our gratitude for this financial support of some of us by giving up on fighting for equality, especially equal pay.”
I don’t think that’s what the MRA people are saying at all. From what I gather they advocate for closing the pay gap as long as women are putting in equal hours in the workplace. Not just because they’re women. And I think that’s reasonable.
And finally this:
“A world where rape victims weren’t denounced because they were overly flirty, where women weren’t mocked because they acted “like men,” and where the word “slut” had no meaning is one where women would feel freer to hit on men. Plus, a world where women weren’t harassed on the street, or where they could tell men “no” and be heard the first time, would be one where women weren’t immediately suspicious of every man who approached them.”
So because some women have felt threatened by some man in her past, it’s perfectly legitimate for her to treat all men who approach her with contempt just because there’s a possibility they might end up being aggressive?? That’s just stupid. If a woman is really suspicious of every man who approaches her, then that woman has far deeper issues than the behavior of men.
All in all I just thought it was ironic the author is condemning the MRA guys for being over the top and angry, by penning an equally bitter over the top response.
You should read the archives of this then:
http://www.manboobz.com/
Exactly
So manboobz cherry picks comments from other websites and then attempts to portray it as representative of all MRM. He could have very easily planted all of those comments himself.
Why doesn’t he just address the issues raised by the articles, rather than focus on a small amount of random misogyny?
It’s not very hard to find many, many examples of misandry on feminist sites..even on this one.
Dude, have you ever been on the Spearhead–a mainstream MR site? Go through one commenting thread and then honestly tell me that those comments are “cherry-picked.” I could go in there and randomly pick 5 and with 60% accuracy end up with misogyny.
IE. Dutch Send Women to do Men’s Job, Rescue Bungled
“http://www.the-spearhead.com/2011/03/06/dutch-send-women-to-do-mens-job-rescue-bungled/”
Here are the first five comments available when scrolling down on that article:
1. MGTOW says
Waste of space? I am sure the women serve their country feel great about that.
2. Hidden due to low comment rating: Velocity says
Singular: woman
Plural: women
C’mon now.
3. Incoherent: Continent says
4. Malestrom says:
5. Dirk Johanson says:
Three comments indicate women should be kept out of the military even if they want to and are capable of serving, and one indicates that women should be shot.
Cherry-picked indeed.
The spearhead is a very rough crowd with a lot of warrior class / manly men / paleo-aholes. Many of the commenters on the spearhead are not MRAs and are actually opposed to MRAs because they consider them to be the same as feminists. If you want to see worse than that, go to manhoodacademy, again, NOT MRAs.
Denis, that’s crap and you know it. MGTOW is very well known, and I’ve seen Dirk post quite a bit too. No one gets anywhere when we deny the rot in our own wood, so to speak. There most definitely IS misogyny in the mens movement.
Nowhere NEAR as much as people say, and many statements that aren’t woman-bashing are taken as such…which is what this tool is doing, but to say The Spearhead is a ‘rough and tumble’ site is ludicrous.
People are simply unused to women receiving harsh criticism.
That’s their issue to deal with, not ours. Let them make the accusations they would make even if butter didn’t melt in our mouths. You see it all over these comments.
Don’t fight it. Own the label, wear it with pride, suck the sting right out of it.
Someday feminists and women will realize that misogynists are not born, they are made.
I understand their anger, frustrations and need to vent. I just don’t like their interference in the creation of a MRM.
“Someday feminists and women will realize that misogynists are not born, they are made.”
Sigh…
I think you’ll find that the vast, VAST majority of self-identified feminists say that misogyny is a product of culture.
*sigh*…
I think you will also find that they are not looking ANYWHERE NEAR the source of it….(hint: their own behaviour…)
Feminism itself bears a very great share of responsibility for whatever growth of “misogyny” might be occurring in our contemporary world. You introduce moral/psychic poison into the social ecology, and the consequences are bound to be quirky, erratic, unpredictable.
The only statement of the lot that I can see any objection to, is the one about women getting shot.
That one is over the top — the best you could possibly say about it is, that it is in poor taste.
As for the rest, those commenters are simply expressing their opinions, and their only “sin”, if you will, is that they disagree with feminist orthodoxy.
It is not their problem, if you happen to disagree with them.
SHOULD women be in the military? It’s an honest question, an open question, and people have a perfect right to converse about it.
If they honestly feel that women should not be in the military, then that is their considered opinion and they are entitled to it.
There is nothing you can legitimately “hold against them”.
So what the hell is the problem here….?
I can’t speak to the rest of it, but this:
because some women have felt threatened by some man in her past, it’s perfectly legitimate for her to treat all men who approach her with contempt just because there’s a possibility they might end up being aggressive?? That’s just stupid. If a woman is really suspicious of every man who approaches her, then that woman has far deeper issues than the behavior of men.
is a just basically a huge misunderstanding of what it’s like to be a woman. Women are taught from girlhood to react this way towards men. Their parents, teachers, boyfriends, and husbands encourage it. “Don’t walk downtown alone.” “Don’t go out with a guy without letting someone know your whereabouts.” “Don’t talk to men on the subway.” Etc. I personally didn’t get a LOT of that training from my parents growing up (mostly because we lived in the sticks) but that only led to corrective training from friends and boyfriends when I reached adulthood. “What are you thinking! You can’t go out jogging NOW, it’s past 8 pm!”
I encourage you to read this post, called “Schrodinger’s Rapist.” It explains the situation more clearly than I could. http://kateharding.net/2009/10/08/guest-blogger-starling-schrodinger%E2%80%99s-rapist-or-a-guy%E2%80%99s-guide-to-approaching-strange-women-without-being-maced/
“Women are taught from girlhood to react this way towards men. ”
As you say, they are indoctrinated into this. And it fits the traditional gender role and supports it. And this is supposed to excuse this paranoia? And anyway, what does it have to do with the objective realities of thier lives? Want to compare statistics on vitis of phyiscial violence in this society? Guess what – it isn’t women. Not by a long shot.
It’s not paranoia. Women not only get told men will attack them. THEY EXPERIENCE IT.
And it’s not just the bad ugly scary guys in the shadows of the bad neighborhoods. Men they thought they could trust: relatives, friends, teachers, coaches, neighbors, ministers, community leaders.
You remember the old saying, “you can’t judge a book by its cover”? There is no way for a woman to know for sure who’s the type to assault her.
Men at least usually know who the physical bullies are, and it’s generally agreed that it is wrong to bully someone else.
Women are assaulted by men they thought they could trust, men they admire, men who have power over them. It isn’t limited to a few assholes that you can categorize as assholes.
Yes, men are such horrible, evil creatures aren’t we. Glad to see feminists show their true colors.
The vast majority of women who report rape – are raped by someone they know.
My take on the matter is this:
If I’m on the bus, reading a book with headphones in – it means I probably don’t want to talk to you. If If I’m doing work on my computer at a cafe, and you come up to me to start chatting and I tell you – thanks but no thanks – I’m busy – it means leave me alone. For you to continue to approach or talk to me is harassment.
You aren’t entitled to my conversation because I have a vagina and you have a penis. I try to be polite – until I feel like you aren’t hearing me. When you don’t listen to me – it makes me angry. When someone tells you no, I’m not interested, or thanks but no thanks – that means back the fuck off. I don’t want to be rude or curt with you – but there are many times where I have been left with no choice – because I am not any more interested in talking to you than I was 5 minutes ago.
Daddyfiles lays a complete and thorough smackdown of Sally “the troll” Strange.
DaddyFiles:
I gather that you are not a feminist AND not an “MRA”.
May I ask, then, what you are?
Or could it be, that you are sitting on the fence?
“Reality-based explanation: Women still make less than men in the workplace, but still do more free labor at home, even when they work full time.”
Really, and this is a “reality based explanation” ? I’m sure you have evidence for this claim, for the last time I looked, this is only true is you discount all the time men spend doing work “around” the house. If you include all non-paid labor working for the abode, and not just confine the definition to specific work done in the house, then men and women do an equal amount of non-paid labor outside of their paying jobs.
But this should be an obvious anyway – and only not obvious if you beleive women continue to work after arriving home from their job while men lie on the couch, sleepand continue to oppress women in their dream state.
What a foolish, foolish analysis.
Most foolish of all, is the original analysis which says that women were somehow being “oppressed” in their historical role of doing housework. But then, I reckon the feminists had to lay it on thick, retrojectively speaking, in order to gain any traction for their politics.
Wait, I don’t even follow your FAKE logic. “Men & Women should make the same amount of money.” Check. “Men & Women should do the same amount of housework.” Check. Then your conclusion is…actually I don’t even understand your conclusion.
Would you support a man’s right to choose whether or not he’s a parent in the EXACT SAME timeframe women have a choice (ie, including AFTER the baby is born (adoption type scenarios), even if it means walking away from a pregnant girlfriend?
Would you support the wholesale revision of the education system to make it more ‘boy friendly’, even if that means the destruction of several programs for girls (who, everyone but feminists admit, are vastly outstripping boys and men in education)?
Would you support the criminalization of Male Genital Mutilation – regardless of religious beliefs – as FGM is today?
Would you support presumptive joint physical custody?
Would you give up half your DV shelters to accommodate men should finances dictate?
Would you see the removal of the ability for a woman to have a man arrested and dragged through the mud on her word alone as a bad thing? Do you oppose prosecuting those who maliciously accuse men of rape (and anyone who says this doesn’t happen is also, concurrently, denying that lynch mobs existed…since false accusations of rape were commonly employed for a ‘reason’ to kill some “nigras”)?
Will you support the creation of an equal number of ‘councils for men and boys’ as there are councils for women and girls, and failing that, would you support the reduction of the feminist bereaucracy to mirror the size of the ‘male focused’ bureaucracy?
….
1. men can already choose to do this. don’t want to be a father? don’t have sex, or use BC [if you say "but women mess up their BC" i'm gonna say "Then buy your OWN condoms and spermicide, and USE THEM EVERYTIME" or "get a vasectomy." it is NOT only a woman's job to do the BC.] if a pregnancy happens, it’s a woman’s right to CHOOSE whether or not to abort, because it’s in HER body, she’s the one taking the risks [and it *IS* risky. pregnancy can, and DOES, kill, maim, multilate, make ill, and etc]. if she doesn’t abort, and doesn’t give it up for adoption [if she does want to give for adoption, but you don't, YOU can take custody of the child], then both parents have a RESPONSIBILITY to care for the child. you can choose to not be a father; you still have the responsibility, which means you can choose to never even SEE said child, but you still need to pay child support. child support is for TAKING CARE OF THE CHILD YOU HELPED CREATE.
2. no. i WOULD support an EXPANSION of the education, to add programs for boys that help them, as it helped girls, after all those decades of GIRLS struggling because they were treated unequally.these programs have fixed THAT problem – now, the “problem” appears to be that boys were ONLY outperforming girls, historically, because everthing was slanted in their favor, and without that slanting, they aren’t doing what GIRLS used to have to do to excel [i.e. doing all the extra work that girls do]. another problem is that being “smart” [i.e. doing well academically] is seen as making one a “nerd”, uncool, and to a large extent unmasculine. this social perception needs to CHANGE. in countries where the sexes are treated MUCH closer to equal in schools, boys and girls do almost exactly the same. the current programs were instituted to help girls overcome the inherent biases extent in our society, and while i won’t get behind removing them, i have NO problem adding other programs for boys. these things are NOT zero-sum equations – girls doing better doesn’t mean BOYS have to do worse [girls outperforming boys isn't because boys started doing WORSE, either - it's just girls are doing better now. boys could ALSO be doing better; the reasons they aren't include what i've already mentioned and many other problems, starting with the general, shameful underfunding of education] we can, and SHOULD, be doing more for EVERYONE educationally
3. absolutely. it’s wrong to circumsize ANYONE who can’t consent. the focus on FGM is because it’s so much physically worse, but ethically they are the same. if there’s a religious “need” for circumcision, that can happen when the person becomes an ADULT and makes the choice to do so.
4. so long as there is no abuse, absolutely.
5. no. we worked HARD to create those shelters, and most of them were created by US with NO government help or support. even now, most operate without any government help or funding, and fuction solely off of charitable contributions. you guys want DV shelters for men, do what we did and MAKE them – you’re even in a better place to do so. there aren’t enough shelters for women AS IT IS, and “giving” many of them up for men is counter-productive [especially because few men over all would use them. and we can't "share" because that makes it easier for abuse - on BOTH sides - to continue in the spaces that are supposed to be safe] but i guarantee, if you start building them, feminists will HELP.
6. it already *IS* a crime – it is a crime to file a false report of ANY crime. aside from that, the RATE of false reports of rape are HALF the rate of false reports of other crimes.
what you don’t seem to realize is HOW HARD it is to get ANYTHING done with a rape report. despite the fact that false reporting of rape makes up less than 2% of all rape reports [which are about HALF, or even less, of all rapes] the perception that there is a HUGE percentage of false reports means that, even if a rape is reported, there’s only about a 50% chance it will be investigated at ALL – and then, only about a 50% chance anything will come of said investigation – and THEN, even if it goes to court, the person whose name will be “dragged thru the mud” is the WOMAN’S – she was wearing this, she drank that, she’s had sex before, she’s went to this place, she was polite to the rapist when she first met him – the implication is ALWAYS that the victim “asked for it” by sheer virtue of the fact that she had a vagina.
YES, in the past, rape was used against non-white men – if they had sex with a white woman, white MEN [angry, because those were THEIR women] would say it was rape. or the woman would say it was rape in an effort to protect herself, because they were going to lynch him anyway [and NO, it wasn't right, but it was VERY fucked up all around] – but this is a total red herring – for instance, you’re bringing up that, historically, non-white men were persecuting for having sex with white women, while IGNORING that, historically, white men were RAPING non-white women, and were NEVER punished for it; it was ALLOWED and permisable.
7. yes, i would support the creation of “councils for men and boys”. i would NOT support getting rid of current ones.
Ok, anyone want to take a whack at this wall of text?
Screw it, I’m tired.
1. Men have no reproductive rights. Condom use is NOT a “reproductive Right”, it is a “Contraceptive Right” at best. Directly analogous advice to women: “Keep your legs closed if you don’t want a kid.” Vile sexism when said to women, but perfectly OK when said to men. Yet another example of sexist feminist double standars. Add it to that massive heap in the corner, I’ll get the forklift….
2. You assume, like many Feminists, a bottomless public coffer. Which is demonstrably not the case, with many States on the verge of Bankruptcy right now. An EXPANSION of the services already available is not possible right now, if ever.
3. Actually, MGM removes 25,000 or so nerve endings from the penis (almost all of the fine-touch receptors). The male foreskin is identical in every way except shape to the female clitoral hood. And we do this to infant boys because it “looks better’ every bit as much as we do for ‘religious reasons’. Wanna guess who thinks it “looks better’ to?
5. Tell that to Erin Pizzey, the woman who opened the first shelter (which was for women AND men) – who had to leave England for fear of Feminist death threats (for saying men deserve equal space in these shelters). Want proof? Watch nearly ANY of her YouTube videos, or interviews. It’s also prominently featured in her book.
Feminists didn’t BUILD a damn thing. They appropriated it.
6. “it already *IS* a crime – it is a crime to file a false report of ANY crime. aside from that, the RATE of false reports of rape are HALF the rate of false reports of other crimes.”
No it is NOT ‘a crime’, in most cases. The overwhelming majority of false accusations result in no punishment AT ALL. Those that are, are usually punished as a misdemeanour. (Crystal Gayle Magnum is a great example of the ‘consequences’ of a false accusation….free school, an appearance on Oprah, and a Book Deal….tough life.
When false accusers are spending the sentence the accused would have gotten in Jail, then and ONLY then can you say it’s punished on anything close to the same level.
7. Again, you seem to have no idea how to balance a checkbook. Either that, or you’re being disingenuous… “Hey, I told you we support it, there’s just no money yet. But don’t use the money women get,…that’s just wrong.”
Yeah, feminist ‘concern’ warms my heart.
Why is saying that men should do as much housework as women “female entitlement”?
It’s not, but women also need to work more hours outside the home to catch up to men.
Most social surveys have shown that the total work between men and women is equal. So, you can’t insist that men do more housework without also insisting that women do more work outside the home.
I’ve never come across a single social survey that has said that.
Try looking somewhere other than the Women’s Centre….
Gary, this is a matter of drilling into what questions are asked on which surveys. Most of the studies that show women spend more time doing household work than men do not ask about the kind of work that working class guys do themselves all the time — painting, plumbing, home repair, landscaping and lawn mowing, and the like. When studies do include those questions, the household work levels of men and women turn out to be approximately equal. It will also be interesting to see what the various studies show when a bit more of this 17% unemployment / underemployment world appears in the rear view mirror.
Arguing, not arguing.
this isn’t actually true – TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE FEWER HOURS WORKED BY SOME WOMEN, there is still a wage gap of 80cents to the dollar – NOT taking that into account, it’s about 70cents to the dollar.
it also ignores the fact that many women work those “fewer” hours because the majority [if not entirety] of childcare is placed on their shoulders – most couples with children, it’s ONLY the mother who takes time off to take care of children – because the father WON’T [and i know a couple where it was the HUSBAND who is the stay at home parent, which is awesome - except now he's having trouble finding a job, because every employer is asking "why didn't your WIFE do this, it was HER job" and he keeps saying "she had the better job with better benefits and it made MORE SENSE for me to stay home" and they don't CARE, he's the MAN, *HE* should have worked, despite losing more income that way and etc. it's assinine, really - and would be fixed, or at least alleviated, with more feminism]
so… the fact that BC is hard to get, and getting harder, doesn’t matter? the fact that abortions are even HARDER to get, and for many women impossible, doesn’t matter? the fact that women think they’re going to have a baby and child-care is going to be split equally, and then isn’t, doesn’t matter?
further, there *IS* evidence – if you look at a man and woman, right after college education , same degree and grades and everything, the man starts off making about 5% MORE for the EXACT SAME JOB.
ten years down the road, presuming neither has married, if the continue the EXACT SAME, that man will be making at least 10%, and possible been promoted further, for the EXACT SAME PERFORMANCE.
or, when a woman gets married, she has a harder time getting promotions, even if she doesn’t have children [and even if she will never have them] because of the assumption that married women WILL breed and WILL do the bulk of childcare?
that women with children are automatically “mommy-tracked”, sometimes even if the FATHER is acting as stay-at-home-parent?
yeah, nuthin’ there, all right.
Thats right “nuthin’ there”
First, BC isn’t getting harder to obtain. This is a flat out lie. Second, women have been granted many other means of preventing pregnancy so this is also a moot point. But it is a moot point for a third reason explained below.
Abortion IS BABY KILLING. Not an acceptable way of shirking the responsibilities you’ve agreed to shoulder.
PREGNANCY IS A CHOICE, NOT AN AFFLICTION.
Men (on the whole) earn more for logical reasons. And as usual. it isnt because of a fictional male dominated society keeping women down.
*If you’re bitching about the $0.70 stat, then this is explained first of all by the reality that men on the whole take on more hazardous and therefore HIGHER PAYING jobs than do women on the whole (PERSONAL CHOICES). Here is a shocker for you; Working construction in all weathers pays more than that secretarial position in the climate controlled office building. GO FIGURE!
That refutes you, but I’ll compound and further solidify the MRA position of truth.
Here are some other factors that GREATLY IMPACT the job market for men and women;
*It is proven fact that the average man negotiates his salary far better than the average woman.
*Men agree to work less desirable hours.
*Men are more likely to move and/or travel for their jobs.
*Men statistically work more hours, take fewer vacations, and shorter vacations.
*Men take far fewer sick days and take little or no “personal days”.
*Men do not bring with them the constant threat of litigation and sexual harassment complaints.
*Men are far more likely to remain at the same job for a long time. (thats male commitment for you!)
*Men (for the vastly most part) are not…….”catty”.
*Men are statistically MORE PRODUCTIVE with their time than women are.
*Men have no “pussy pass” which renders them exempt from physically strenuous tasks (should they crop up).
And here is the final nail in the already buried coffin;
*MEN CAN NOT AND WILL NOT EVER BECOME PREGNANT. So men are guaranteed to not require 6 months paid maternity leave. and will not require their position be left open to them indefinitely should they chose to not return after the child is born. You want to claim this is not fair, well it is just the reality. It is not the employers fault if they choose to negate a colossal risk. It is not discrimination, it is the reality of the situation. Simply irrefutable fact is, men were BUILT for this role. Women simply weren’t. I’m sure your PC radar just exploded. You can’t force a round peg into a square hole and cry discrimination whenever somebody points out why this just doesn’t work. I fully support women who choose careers, but women who choose to occupy a position that caters to THEIR strengths (homemakers) should not be shamed for making a logical choice.
HOWEVER, if you looked into any actual facts, you would learn that IT IS WOMEN WHO WRONGFULLY EARN MORE THAN MEN when number of hours worked, and education are accounted for. And by the way, women with MALE BOSSES tend to earn up to 5% MORE than women with female bosses.
You haven’t explained anything.
Assuming that women WANT to work more outside the home — why does asking for men to do their fair share IN the home equivalent to female entitlement?
If men and women shared the housework more equally, men would HAVE to work less in the workplace (or at least sleep less–the capitalist solution) and women would end up working more.
So again, how is this female entitlement?
Also @ Sally Strange;
Work done inside the home is not equal to work done outside the home. Thanks to labour saving inventions, what used to take all day now only takes 1-2 hours. (No wonder women watch more TV than men in EVERY time slot).
“If men and women shared the housework more equally, men would HAVE to work less in the workplace (or at least sleep less–the capitalist solution) and women would end up working more.
So again, how is this female entitlement?”
Because work at home is so easy. I would love to work more at home than at work but what can I do. Maybe woman have so easy jobs that working at home feels hard.
“Men are more likely to get killed at work.”
Don’t forget how dangerous sex work is, especially the lower-paid forms.
Then legalize prostitution, give them safe working conditions and benefits, and stop demonizing and criminalizing male sexuality.
Yes, I know, legalizing prostitution reduces the value of your vagina to get the things you want…
Yes, I know feminism has tried to preserve this power.
You’re still hypocrites for wanting to keep it though.
Thank you, “factory”, for making it clear you’ve never actually talked to a feminist about anything. If you had, you’d know that the people on the forefront of the decriminalization/legalization and safe work conditions movement are feminists. For ALL sex workers, be they male of female.
It’s time to grow up and stop being so mad at strawfeminists.
Actually, there seems to be huge divide among feminists regarding prostitutes. Some are active in trying to get these women proper protection and healthcare, while others are only concerned with blaming and criminalizing men.
Once upon a time, there was a big divide. That was in the 80s and 90s. These days, not so much–there’s pretty widespread agreement that sex workers deserve legal protection, rather than prosecution, and women who actively *choose* sex work (rather than being forced into it by lack of economic opportunity) should be respected and supported.
haha, ah yes, the ghost of orwell returns. women (whores) who *choose* sex work (to get ass-pounded by johns for hard currency) should be respected and supported.
Why of course.
The human trafficking misinformation in an attempt to blame and shame the male patrons and participants of the SuperBowl would very much disagree.
y this I refer to your objection that there is not a divide that is trying to criminalize male sexuality
Oyveh, I have been ‘engaging in dialogue’ with feminists nearly every day for the better part of a decade.
And yup, you’re right, they ARE ‘all feminists’. And so are the people on the other side of the divide, only some of them are ‘conservative feminists’. All of them are part of the Pussy Cartel’ (so to speak) and have ‘skin in the game’ (somebody stop me before I get too punny)…
Frankly, that’s an issue MRAs cannot touch yet, obviously.
So yeah, good luck to you on that one.
It doesn’t take away a thing from my argument, though, that prostitution represents a threat to women’s power. “Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free” might turn into “Why buy the cow when you can rent a different horse every day for less money?”…that’s why Prostitution is illegal.
If you want to get it legalized, try attacking it from that angle and see where it gets you. I bet you meet with success…
How is prostitution a threat to women’s power? If some guys wants to pay for sex rather than pestering an uninterested women for it, everybody wins.
Oh right… you actually believe that normal women, feminist or not, regard their vaginas as biological casino chips. Right. If only.
Prostitution is not a threat to women like Sally. The only thing which is threatened by prostitution is women of class. women without class need feel no threat at all.
“Oh right… you actually believe that normal women, feminist or not, regard their vaginas as biological casino chips. Right. If only.”
Since when were feminists “normal women”?
prostitution is illegal, because years ago, during the Suffragist movement, on the of the BIG things women were after was more protections for prostitiutes.
and the liquor lobby was TERRIFIED of women getting the vote, convinced that if they DID, alcohol would be outlawed [and while prohabition DID happen, men voted for it just as much as women, as percentages of voters] so they pushed to make illegal things the suffragists wanted, like birth control, prositution and etc. BEFORE the Suffragist movement, neither prostitution nor drug use were illegal; Suffragists showed up, and wanted protections in place for prostitutions [and a union] and wanted quality control of drugs [especially opium] and – boom, both were outlawed.
TODAY, i don’t know ANY feminists who want prostitution to remain illegal. the “drive” to prosecute johns is a tactic in the battle to legalize prostitution, NOT the end-goal [because we are well aware that, so long as the ONLY people punished for breaking this specific law are the prostitutes, mostly women, there's no LEGISLATIVE drive to do a damned thing - just like, if MEN had to carry pregnancy, we'd see MAJOR differences in how law and medicine treated and thought about pregnancy - but if the CUSTOMERS are being punished - and, LEGALLY, it's as much a crime to hire a prostitute as it is to be paid as a prostitute - then there will be pressure to "fix" it by making prostitution legal]
also, in many ways, feminists in different countries have different goals. feminists in the US are the feminists that i am familiar with, and are the feminists that *I* know what to legalize prostitution.
Strawfeminists? I suppose Cath Elliott who writes anti-prostitution articles for the Guardian on a regular basis is a strawfeminst.. She’s probably a lot more a mainstream feminst than you. At least people have heard of her.
Yeah, because all feminists are soooooooo against decriminalising sex work?
Does every feminist in existence have to agree on a thing, before hey ‘own’ that issue?
Why are there suddenly so many different kinds of feminism when we’re not talking about accomplishments? Could it be yet more feminist hypocrisy?
I think so…
Feminist laws are responsible for decriminalising sex work. Period. It is a labour rights issue.
Oh? Tell me, was Prostitution illegal in Victorian England? How about Opium?
Three guesses as to who it was that aimed to make Prostitution illegal…(hint: the same people who fought for Prohibition later on)…
Oh, you mean the white lady brigade? Come on–there are whole polemics surrounding the problem of upper-class white lady feminism:
http://dearwhitefeminists.wordpress.com/update/
You should take the wrap-arounds off, because wearing them has casued you to go off the deep end. I don’t know how many hokers you patronize, but men who do can tell you legalized sex work doesn’t ‘reduce the value of [a wmoan's] vagina to get the things [she] wants[s].” When men get arrested for picking up hookers, they don’t shrug their shoulders at the police station and non-chalantly say, “go ahead, call my wife.” They cry and beg, ‘please don’t tell my wife.”
Keep exploring what you’re saying there….you’ll eventually get it…
Oh, I get the part about legalizing sex work. I’m all for it. The part **you** don’t and can’t get is the part about how juvenile is the notion of ‘legal prostitution will devalue relationship sex’ and that’s why feminists don’t want it’ . How can you get it, plugging away as you do in the fetid air of Mom’s basement?
Ah, one more juvenile Feminist shaming tactic, and I will be able to call out BINGO.
And I’m not talking the silly “Hey, I’ve got a line” type. Oh no, this is a full-on Blackout BINGO.
But if you can’t see where easy and cheap access to professional level sex with women would cut into the number of guys willing to drop $100 on a date hoping to get a kiss, well, there’s no helping you.
Listen Catullus, that cliche about “living in mom’s basement” is getting really, really old.
Basically, it sticks to the person who says it FAR more than it sticks to the person it gets thrown at.
Really man, it is friggin’ lowbrow as hell. I’m serious.
I have a sneaking hunch that people who make use of that little “trope” are secretly living in mom’s basement themselves.
But from a larger perspective. . . what is wrong with living in mom’s basement, anyway?
I’m a feminist 100% FOR legalized prostitution. Some women (and men) want to sell sex – and I have no problem with that, (if the person is a consenting adult).
Well if you’re going to include illegal work, we may as well talk about the dangers of drug dealing, and drug dealers tend to be men. Illegal activities have an inherent risk to begin with. I’m not sure they’re really the best examples to use.
So does this mean when talking about rape we shouldn’t separate prison rape and outside of prison rape with that ten foot pole that people (including feminsits) like to use?
Feminism cannot possibly solve men’s problems, since feminism caused most of them. The author’s attitude attests to this.
Men make most of the soup themselves. Not that I think much of Amanda Marcotee, who clearly enjoys ascribing the lowest possible motivation to people she dislikes, especially if they’re men. But is she didn’t exist, we’d have invented her.
No Catullus, men make HALF of the “soup” at very most.
Who wants to be equal? I don’t care to be anyones equal. I would like to see white men get a fair shake in the legal system. There is too much gender bias built into the law for any man to think he can get ahead these days. Perhaps if we all just treated each other like the wonderfully varied individuals we are then we would not need laws that force someone to be equal to others. Harrison Bergeron comes to mind.
I would like to see white men get a fair shake in the legal system.
How’s the weather on your planet?
The single biggest factor in sentencing is GENDER then race.
SO White females are given the “easiest” sentence even when they commit the same crime men do.
Female – 18.51 months
Male – 51.52 months
http://www.terry.uga.edu/~mustard/sentencing.pdf
So I guess it must be real nice to be a part of the most privileged group in the west (white female).
Hard to believe that there are still people who do not know that when a man and a woman are convicted of the same crime, the average male incarceration is 3 to 4 times longer than the average female incarceration.
Oh you mean the part where when it comes to sentencing white women for the most part get off the lightest and men of color (namely black and latino men) worst of it?
dry and arid…like your womb.
Rather nice. Sunny and pleasant all the time. Hey you can’t blame a man for dreaming can you?
Back in the real world, women don’t get paid less, in the office and science they get paid more per hour than men do. Men still make more over all, because they work longer, work more stressful and thus high paying jobs, and work jobs that get hazzard pay (and die more often).
And no, there is not a single bit of discrimination going on here, except against men, of course, women simply chose on their very own lower paying jobs and less stressful jobs and jobs with less hours.
Is any feminist demanding less pay for the women that get paid more, and are they demanded by feminists to work longer, and if not enough women are choosing life-risking jobs are they shamed into it by feminists? Well, of course not, feminists just claim it’s all men’s fault for discriminating against them, and demand even more pay.
Funny thing, the most egregious horrors, the Domestic Violence issues, the shaming of men, false rape accusers being punished to the full extent of the law, or extend the law if not punishing them is the full extent of the law, as well as the complete underfunding of male health-care are nowhere to be seen.
I see no feminist clamoring for the change of VAWA into the VAPA, with half of DV shelters for women transformed into DV shelters for men and kids, or demand an equally funded VAMA is put into existence, I see no feminist demand that disgusting shaming campaigns against young men are stopped, in fact, they are applauded, as they are invariable made my feminists in the first place. And where is the feminist Blue Ribbon Campaign for Prostate cancer if feminists are so about equality and pro men? Oh, wait, it doesn’t exist.
“A matriarchy of spoiled women have managed to get men to pay for it while they sit around on their butts eating bon bons all day, while the children scamper angelically past them, requiring little to no work.”
complete strawman, any reasonable person realizes how much effort properly caring for children for much of the day is.
“Women still make less than men in the workplace, ” oh it’s THIS line again. this has been shown numerous times to be a result of working less hours, selecting jobs with more flexible schedules, and going into fields that are less lucrative (on average). when controlling for all of these things, the ‘pay gap’ disappears.
don’t let silly things like facts get in your way though.
“Women en masse should demonstrate our gratitude for this financial support of some of us by giving up on fighting for equality, especially equal pay. Also, no more child support.” More straw man arguments here. i guess keep arguing against things no one is proposing if it makes you feel special.
Funny that you fail to mention the very solid arguments behind scaling back/eliminating child support (and more importantly alimony), instead focusing on your straw man.
“Some of the most dangerous jobs out there are ones where women are either formally barred from entering, or informally discriminated against. This is in part a protection racket, keeping jobs from women who want them, because they’re either good pay for relatively low education, or the only game in town. This includes everything from fire-fighting to coal-mining. The military has formal discrimination that keeps women from the more dangerous but higher-paying combat roles.”
I’ll take this seriously when i see women en masse protesting for access to the exciting fields of mining, oil rig employment, construction, etc. or when i see them marching in the streets to demand a more equal share of combat deaths in war.
again, the author hilariously misses the point by ignoring that in the vast majority of cases, women are flat out inferior workers in these fields due to physical strength limitations. implying that women should have a more active role in military combat is a dangerously stupid assertion- while every branch of the military has much more lenient physical standards for women to sign on, i can 100% guarantee you that any armed enemy will not be going easier on a female soldier due to her sex. not being up to par physically is downright dangerous to both the female soldier and the other soldiers with her.
this is before you get into the very real shift in team dynamics and morale that occurs when female soldiers are present, and the massive problem with female desertion/dereliction of duty via getting pregnant while on active duty/reserve to avoid deployments and not getting punished for it.
“Eventually, you’ll get parity in dangerous jobs, and women will, as a side effect, be killed at the same rate as men.”
you will never get parity in these jobs until the massive physical strength and endurance advantages males naturally have are no longer an issue. it is pretty much certain that at these points the jobs will no longer be so dangerous, defeating the purpose.
fully half of this article details total non issues to the MRM. no one really cares that much about having to make the first move regarding dating on nearly the same level as things like father’s rights or the complete absence of due process regarding DV or rape accusations. an extreme minority of people care about ‘ladies nights’ to the point that mentioning it as some sort of refutation to the entire movement is laughable.
it’s really sad to see feminists resort to blatant straw man arguments, misrepresentations, and ad hominem attacks (“a loose coalition mostly comprised of men embittered that they’re not getting as much tail as they believe they’re due and men embittered after having their wives up and leave against their wishes” is ad hominem, regardless of what anyone might say or whether or not it is true) because dealing with actual facts and data paints such a massively different picture than the one they want to have people believe.
the author fails to discuss anything really of substance past that, and even the arguments she does bring up have been so thoroughly refuted numerous times before that one has to wonder if this article is just a massive joke.
It is interesting to notice the difference in going from articles written by men to one written by a feminist. Everything drops away such as reasoning, facts, logic, and common-sense. What gets pushed are personal attacks and shaming language. Abstract claims are made designed to push the hysteria button.
After 45 years of feminism, increasing numbers of people are just not drinking the feminist cool-aid.
Men, go your own way MGTOW, ghost stop supporting women and society since they don’t care about you. Men, Boycott Chivalry and don’t be a stooge.
I like how you contrasted “Men” vs. “Feminists”. There are no non-feminist women in your world? There are no feminist men? Sounds like a pretty boring place.
Not that *you* needed proof, but one feminist man right here, representin’.
Yuck.
Do you have your “This is what a Feminist looks like T-Shirt, and Fanny Pack on?
The bitchiness of your statements tends to belie your pose of manliness.
Way to not reinforce the gender stereotypes there. Seems a man can’t be bitchy without you calling into question his masculinity. typical feminist hypocracy.
What i did was address actual complaints.
Not exactly. You did not quote any “actual complaint” or provide any basis for the “actual complaints” you addressed. What you did was take four specific issues and presented a bunch of strawmen MRA arguments that you proceeded to knocked down. It is entirely possible and probable that some MRAs agree with the strawmen arguments you presented. However, you would have to demonstrate that those views are the majority views of most or all MRAs. You did not do that, so as far anyone knows you could have based your “critiques” on some random post you read or simply made them up and attributed them to all MRAs.
While a third-rate joke like “Men are more often the primary or even sole breadwinners of nuclear-family households because women are spoiled” might make feminists laugh, it does not address any actual MRA position. Why not actually quote a prominent MRA, making the statements you claim MRAs hold. This way a person could at least check the information for themselves rather than having to rely on a biased source which a reason to misrepresent the MRA position.
Because she’s too lazy, too ignorant, and too settled into a dogma that she has made into a writing career. She’s the Glenn Beck of feminism.
I don’t like Marcotte much myself, but she’s got a few intercontinental plane rides to go before she reaches Beck country. His recycled nefarious-conspiracy-to-screw-America pap outshines by miles Marcotte’s fretting over the Duke lacrosse non-rape case or her discomfort with some of Margaret Sanger’s less-savory views. She’s chickenfeed compared to the Beckster.
Mz. Marcotte’s article simply regurgitates the standard (and disproven) feminist lies/propaganda and is demeaning to men. Move along, move along. There’s nothing to see here….
Honestly, what pisses me off the most is Amynda’s dogged determination to paint any MRA criticism as sexist. Over on her blog she says
“When it comes to addressing MRAs, I get more men scolding me for my tone and my unladylike behavior, or concern trolling me for not taking MRAs bullshit [...] The idea that when a man speaks, women should listen patiently and mind their manners no matter what really comes out in this situation. [...] men [male feminists] don’t get concern trolled, scolded on tone, or talked down to nearly as much. I mean, they do, but it’s muffled to a large degree.”
This is crap, but it perfectly enscapulates the warped victim mentality that so many feminists labor under. Like I said on another blog, she manages to reframe any MRA criticism as having a sexist and/or misogynist basis. Listen to the descriptors: “scold”, “unladylike”. I wonder if she ever considered that just maybe, MRAs aren’t trying to sit her down and wag their finger at her for not being a dainty little lady… but are just calling her out on ad hominem attacks and general rudeness? Hugo and the “Good Men” crew get (or would get, if they were as insulting) the same comments. Actually, Schwyzer, despite highly diplomatic language, gets a huge amount of dislike directed his way from MRAs. Not that it’s undeserved (Schwyzer is noted misandric apologist), but the point is, MRAs DO NOT treat female bloggers any differently from male bloggers. In fact, the MRA movement is quite egalitarian.
As soon as Amynda here can actually point out the specific ways in which the MRAs are treating her any different from, say, Schwyzer in his comments section, I’m interested. Until then, it’s just the immature whining of someone determined to make themselves a victim.
I imagine MRA’s represent a very big tent. Imagine characterizing ALL Baptist Churches based on Westboro Baptist… pretty ridiculous isn’t it? (Remember any church can call themselves a Baptist church; there is no governing body.) How about we characterize ALL feminists by quoting Catherine MacKinnon, Andrea Dworkin and Valerie Solanas? Equally ridiculous? I wouldn’t describe myself as a Men’s Rights Advocate but as a guy who was told “All I have to do is call the police and tell them you hit me… Just remember that the next time you piss me off!” I can definitely identify with some MRA’s… By the way, I’ve never done anything remotely violent in a relationship.
This article is intellectually lazy and blindingly contemptuous. There is nothing that qualifies as analysis here. There is nothing even remotely thought provoking here. Mr. Schwyzer and Mr. Elam obviously don’t agree on much but both of their articles contain nuggets of material that would make an unbiased reader think. Did someone review this for publication or was it blindly posted once submitted?
Feminist credentials = blindly posted
Paul Elam’s article is somewhere on the back pages, not accessible on the home page.
Westboro Baptist Church is neither Baptist nor a church – it’s just a name they picked for themselves to sound legitimate (sort of like how the store Banana Republic has nothing to do with banana republics). Are you saying that some Men’s Rights organizations are not actually Mens Right’s organizations? Which ones? This is starting to devolve into a No True Scotsman fallacy.
The manosphere has various factions and some are opposed to the MRM, some are sympathetic and some are allies. I’m sure feminism has the same schisms.
Actually Westboro Baptist IS a church. It’s an independent Baptist church that had its first public service back in 1955. They didn’t start the insane public anti-homosexual demonstration crap until the 90’s. Regardless- I’m sure you don’t want me characterizing all feminists by the equally insane rantings of Valerie Solanas.
Every day guys are concerned about things like bias in the family court system, the dearth of young men attending college, and potential abuse of domestic violence laws (it nearly happened to me a long time ago- “All I have to do is call the cops and tell them you hit me. Remember that the next time you piss me off!”). These concerns do fall within the men’s rights umbrella. Ms. Marcotte’s silly caricatures shows an amazing lack of empathy for men.
I try to judge causes individually and support them based on their own merit. A simple example- last week I helped my wife get ready for a demonstration in favor of midwife licensing in the state of North Carolina. I created her posters, took a day off work so she could go to the march without a thought, and helped her prep for her meeting with legislators. Restriction of birth options is something that concerns many women. It certainly doesn’t impact men as much as it does women. I would consider many of the protestors who also attended the march to be absolute moonbats based on their stances on other issues but it didn’t stop me from seeing the logic in their arguments about THIS issue.
Men doing more of the unpaid work in the home will free women to do more work outside the home. It seems a simple concept to me.
I think many men would appreciate it if women helped out more outside the home.