Hugo Schwyzer wants us to have a good-faith discussion, and points out a place he thinks we could have done better.
The Twitter discussion in response to Tom Matlack’s Being a Dude is a Good Thing has been fascinating. Much of it is archived here, summarized in the unhelpfully titled “The Wrath of the Feminists.”
As a regular writer for Good Men Project (as well as editor of the Sex & Gender section), I’m in the difficult position of disagreeing profoundly with the founder of this site. That’s not new; I disagreed with Tom about his views on feminism before, even before I joined GMP. But this Twitter latest exchange he’s had with some great feminist writers (Jennifer Pozner and Amanda Marcotte) troubled me a great deal.
Even before this discussion, there’s been a lot of writing here (and elsewhere) about a “gender war.” The idea that men are “under attack” by women, feminists in particular, has been repeated uncritically. Even the title “the wrath of the feminists” reinforces the tired old trope of women’s rights activists as humorless harridans attacking well-meaning men. A familiar tack develops: man says something patently offensive, woman pushes back, man throws up his hands and feigns dismay at her “tone”, wondering what he did wrong “this time.”
I joined GMP knowing that it was not an explicitly feminist site. From the start, the writing here has reflected a wide variety of ideological views, some of which border on the reactionary and many on the overtly anti-feminist. That’s fine; I’m genuinely proud of what Tom Matlack and publisher Lisa Hickey have done to foster an open platform for a variety of views about masculinity. That willingness to present so many divergent voices is one of our greatest strengths.
But I don’t think there’s any room for dismissing or belittling one’s interlocutors, which is what I think has been done quite explicitly with the title “The Wrath of the Feminists.” There’s a long tradition in men’s writing of trying to defuse women’s anger. Legitimate criticism is called “man-bashing”, even though in real life there are no incidences of feminists physically assaulting anti-feminist men. The goal, intentional or not, seems to be to marginalize anyone who dares take what men say seriously enough to push back against it. You don’t want to be one of those scary feminists, do you?
I’m angry that a serious discussion got framed as “the wrath of the feminists,” a convenient way of absolving Tom of any responsibility for stoking this conflict. Obviously, in this discussion, I’m with Jenn Pozner, Shira Tarrant and Amanda Marcotte, long-time friends and allies in the struggle for gender justice. But even if I weren’t, I’d be frustrated at the way in which their thoughtful criticisms get dismissed as typical feminist overreaction.
We can and should disagree about what makes a “good man.” But I think we all have an obligation to take criticism seriously. One of the most pernicious aspects of the “myth of male weakness” is that men can’t handle being confronted with women’s anger. We either run away literally or figuratively, disconnecting with the television, the bottle, the computer screen. But we’re not little boys who will physically lash out in rage when challenged, nor can we be so fearful that we avoid the discussion by mocking those with whom we disagree.
“The Wrath of the Feminists” is a deeply unfair framing of good-faith discussion, and as a writer and editor for GMP, I want to publicly disassociate myself from it.
–
Image: uniraneal / Flickr
About Hugo Schwyzer
Hey Hugo,
I’m going to start with where we agree — that we are all here to “foster an open platform for a variety of views about masculinity. That willingness to present so many divergent voices is one of our greatest strengths.”
And then, I just want to make it crystal clear to everyone that I was the one who ran the post of the Twitter discussion with that title. Tom had originally tweeted that phrase, Jenn Pozner had posted the entire discussion here: http://chirpstory.com/li/3470. Tom and I had agreed it was worth reposting the Twitter but it was completely my idea to keep the title — that Jenn had chosen — so that the entire conversation remained as is. If you would like to accuse me, personally, of “absolving Tom of any responsibility”, you can do so, but don’t imply it was Tom’s decision. It wasn’t.
Obviously the whole goal is to get the conversation out in the open — first the Twitter conversation, then Amanda Marcotte’s in-depth response, and now your commentary here. In between those times, I had conversations with you, Amanda and Tom — as we as many other ardent supporters of our site, writers and commenters and tweeters, as to how to best handle it all. It was a thoughtful, conscious, community-involved way of dealing with that and I stand by my decision.
Finally, I want to close with an email someone sent to me when I was asking for help figuring this out:
“I’m so busy being a husband and a dad, I don’t have time for thinking and writing about feminism today.”
Yeah. That’s why we’re here. Because at the same time that we here discussing these issues, we’re actually out there making it all happen.
Hugo – you mention that there is a perceived gender war and that is has been repeated uncritically.
There is a great deal of concern around the repeated use of the Term Rape Culture is repeated and used in a most uncritical fashion.
So many even ask the people using the term if they can explain it – and they can’t. They are just so uncritical in even checking if they know what they mean.
It gets lobbed at people repeatedly – and then when matters are being queried people are shammed for asking and querying.
Even concerns over the findings of the recent CDC report get dismissed by people who haven’t even read it. You point to the figures – get dismissed – treated with contempt and – treated shamefully!
You have to forgive me If I have to point out that there is conduct which does attract the term warfare – who coined the term gender war and linked it to the weapon of shaming?
I also disagree with you as to a certain twitter dialogue – which is being presented for consideration and It is not complete. Only presenting edited highlights is a known propaganda tool that is also part of warfare.
I can actually understand Tom’s Frustration and so can many others.
I also do not like people who jump on a band wagon of convenience to throw in their two cents. That smacks of mob and even bullying! Rabble rousing is also a feature of warfare.
I noted Tom’s use of Irony on twitter – odd how so many quickly turned that into iron to forge weapons. That is the pattern of subjugation.
Sorry if you see things through eyes that are Uncritical – but others see things quite differently and they see much to Criticize, especially in the conduct of people who really should know better!
But Hugo, *you* were one of the feminists Tom described as bringing the wrath, so while I suspect Tom might re-phrase if he had the word to choose over again in the heat of Twitter battle, it’s not like he was choosing a sexist word to use against women. He chose a word synonymous with “anger” (you and the other feminists are angry, right?) and applied it to the feminists who were giving him hell, which included you – a man. I’m sort of dismayed at how much controversy there seems to be over the word “wrath”, as if it has some legacy of gender oppression. In the tweetstream, someone (Marcotte, I think?) said it was a word reserved for gods and kings. Really? What about grapes and Khan? It’s a word for strong anger, not for “keeping women in their place”.
Having read most of the discussion and comments relating to this (at least as contained at GMP and today’s ongoing tweetstream), it seems to me like “Wrath of the Feminists” is an apt description – not as a catch-all description of all that is feminism, but for the reaction to Tom’s “Being a Dude” piece, which is the only thing I thoutgh Tom was referring to when he tweeted it. I agree it’s not a great summation of serious discussion, but that exercise in alienation and misunderstanding 140 characters at a time was not “serious discussion”. Now that real writing has started, it’s getting better, but still…a wee bit wrathful.
Tom, if you’re looking to get away from “wrath”, you might want to avoid “fierce”, too. I’ve watched Project Runway, and I don’t think it means what it used to.
Marcus
I have to agree with your acute observations. I am most unhappy with the Opportunism that I am seeing.
I find this funny “I’m angry that a serious discussion got framed as “the wrath of the feminists,””
Well if Twits and Tweets is to be defined as serious discussion – and considered a suitable medium for serious discussion, it does bring into question a great deal.
All I see is Opportunism in making comment and lots of Blogging and Blagging away from Twitter. So I haver To ASK A MOST SERIOUS QUESTION.
If Twitter is the place to have a Serious Discussion why has all the commentary and diatribe about one Tweet moved from Twitter to so many other places?
Could the TWITS not handle the Format?
Fantastic response Hugo. It seems many that post and comment here are perfectly fine applying their stinging critical lens to all matters outward. Seeing yourself through the lens of a Feminist (of any gender) is a difficult pill to swallow for most Men (this man included) but it is the only way to fully evolve to be the kind of man the world needs. My hope is that the folks betraying their base nature will be challenged by this discourse to reach beyond the sources they’ve always relied on. Thanks for being one of those.
No. seeing myself through the lens of feminists who dismiss men’s concerns like mine with “It’s not as bad as what women go through”, and “You’re priviledged even though you were hurt” is a difficult pill to swallow.
The only way to evolve is not belittle nor invalidate men’s hurt.
I think feeling something is one thing. That same thing existing in reality is another. I’m sorry for whatever concerns you have and of the hurt you feel. I know for a fact that Feminism does not exist to belittle men or cause you to feel the way you do. It exists to remove glass ceilings and structures built to propel Men forward and hold Women back. It feels personal because you’re standing atop the structure built for Men by Men. As that structure is challenged and disassembled the world around you literally begins to crumble. This can be alarming at first. Have faith, it’s not about you.
That’s a very offensive statement.
This guy you’re talking to isn’t standing atop anything. You’re completely dismissing his life experience and his pain with a pack of lies. Where do you get off doing that?
I know for a fact that feminism *does* exist to belittle men.
Prime example? what you just did.
Knock it off.
David,
In my most polite way possible I would encourage you to read about [White] male privilege before continuing to believe what you have written. I haven’t dismissed a single thing about his life or pain. The gentleman I responded to is most certainly standing atop a structure; as are you; as am I. Facts are facts and you’re entitled to your opinion but not your own facts.
He has already said he has attempted suicide because of people like you saying stuff like you just said.
So KNOCK IT OFF.
Correction, David, I had SUICIDAL THOUGHTS at times. I never attempted suicide. Just thought I’d let you know.
Andrew
I was struck by this “Facts are facts and you’re entitled to your opinion but not your own facts.”
It is very interesting – and also quite alarming. It is what is known as a “Thought Terminating Cliché”.
You say facts are facts. It seems to be common sense. I also know of so many occasions where supposed facts, assumed to be correct on a Global Basis, have been proved false and anything but factual. I have even commented on it here in GMP. I even joke how it cost my Brother a Nobel prize.
It is also interesting because you have not stated what the supposed facts are that are supposedly facts – so you leave no room for your position and view to be challenged or its validity checked.
“Facts Are Facts” is the same as saying all “Feminists Are Right” or “All Men Are Wrong”.
It is a gross sweeping generalization that is wrong and easily shown to be!
You state a Formal Fallacy – Facts Are Facts – a pattern of reasoning that is always wrong. This is due to a flaw in the logical structure of the argument which renders the argument invalid.
Since you have such a polarized view of facts, should anything else you state be taken as equally rigid and prone to fallacy?
You state that people are entitled to their own opinion – so you are entitled to your Opinion That Facts Are Facts – but you will have to prove the assertion that Facts Are Facts to prove that your opinion of facts is in fact factually correct.
So first you will have to define the term fact – and even ensure that it is not based upon opinion.
You see – there are no facts that prove Feminism – It is a Theory – A social construct – and some are involved in the Reification (fallacy) – concretism – seeing the model and construct as real – it is the error of treating as a “real thing” something which is not a real thing, but merely an idea.
So you speak from a personal view about the construct called feminism ( concretism ) talk about facts derived from feminism (Reification) and then back it up with a fallacy claiming that facts are facts – without even defining the facts.
Hmmm? And then you tell others that they need to consider other points of view and make reference to people standing on crumbling buildings and being uncomfortable.
It would be fascinating to have a real face to face debate so some of the points can be thrashed out!
With male privilege, where does the expectation and high levels of male violence victims, male workplace accidents, military and police deaths, homelessness and prison population, etc fit in? The male privileges also come with a huge responsibility and burden, to the point male life is considered disposable to protect the women and children. Whilst it’s sexist in saying women aren’t as strong, it’s also sexist in saying the male life is worth less than that of a woman or child. For all of those powerful people/”winners”, there are a lot of “losers” so naturally many will question just what privilege do men get when so many suffer for this society?
I’d then like to know how many men actually had power in dictating what their country would do, conscription doesn’t exactly give a choice if your leader throws you into a war. And if voting gives power, well I’ve heard women now makeup the majority of voters in America, and here in Australia we voted in a leader who promised not to bring in the carbon tax, she brought it in anyway regardless of the majority of surveys/polls having 90% AGAINST IT.
The average man’s privilege, is probably not as high as most seem to think. Judging the 1% on the 99% of men for example, is likely to annoy them and have them fight against this idea of patriarchy and sure as hell isn’t going to help with the men at the bottom who are probably less privileged than the middle class women. Or is that the intentionality that is talked about? which pretty much should disqualify the majority of men from being assumed to have power.
We could talk about female privilege but people bury their head in the sand extremely quick on that matter so there is no point, if you want to phrase it as rich white man privilege you might get more support. I don’t doubt racial privilege, but I do doubt the LEVEL of male privilege and female privilege, times have changed a lot and we need to reassess privilege.
Also Andrew I ask you to read up on how the privilege debate is used as a silencing term and the harm it does, usually on male victims.
Archy,
I appreciate that you are trying to bring nuance to the discussion of privilege. I agree, there is nuance to it. However, I have continued, and will continue, to emphasize privilege as Men over Women because I do not yet feel that the existence of privilege favoring Men has been accepted by any/many of the commenters here (yourself included). There are examples where yes, Women enjoy a higher state of privilege – your example of economic standing is a good one. However, I think the MRA Illuminati on this page need to accept that it is ok to acknowledge [White] Male privilege exists. With that as a starting point, we can then begin to unpack the multifaceted nature of privilege and make some real strides in a positive direction, IMHO. But to provide a litany of anecdotal references to say “we (middle – lower middle – working poor White males) have it hard” without first accepting that Women and POC have suffered tremendously under the strain of White Male privilege is a bad place to begin a positive conversation about privilege. But that’s just my opinion.
OMG. Andrew, just because you state something does NOT make it a fact. And you can’t even respond to Media Hounds comment. Typical feminist arrogance.
Andrew, I’m going to make this as polite as possible towards you.
I’m not standing atop of ANYTHING OF THE KIND!
Instead, I’m standing below the dungheap. And if you read my article that I posted here, you would understand WHY I find your notion of male priveledge offensive and invalidating and why I’m below that dungheap.
To make it short: I was abused by girls and women along with boys and men. I found NO ARTICLES on girls bullying boys, NO SUPPORT for that half of my trauma. I had to get off my rear end and MAKE ONE because no one else would! So much for priveledge, eh?
I also found a society that isn’t reluctant to address the harms of girls and women on boys and men. No place for my narrative of abuse.
I’ve also had points where I considered suicide again while still freshly dealing with my pain at the age of thirty-two.
For TWO YEARS thus far, I’ve been struggling with this pain on my own, by myself, with only a handful of people who care.
And you have the audicity to say that I’m still standing at the top?
You are disgusting.
Edit: Sorry, it should read “A society that IS reluctant to address the harms of girls and women on boys and men”.
My bad.
Eagle33,
Your situation saddens me. No person should ever be abused. Again, you have my full sympathy. Again though you must see that my point is about systemic oppression. You personally were abused by a few Women/girls but the United States of America has never written laws to ensure that you were abused. The Supreme Court has never argued for the removal of your rights. No church has met to discuss how best to diminish you and every member of your gender. Your personal example is traumatic and hits me in a place that I feel for you but the oppression of Men as a whole does not exist. The system has been set up to favor Men at the expense of Women. You personally may feel that you are underneath the pile you referenced above but even in that place you have more access and power than a Woman in our society. I’m sorry for your abuse.
I feel that the gentlemen that have a problem with me describing the systemic nature of oppression continue to use individual examples to correct me. Individual examples to the contrary do not negate the existence of systemic oppression but they do earn my sincere sympathy.
Actually the supreme court has many times argued for the removal of mens rights. Do men have any reproductive whatsoever. NO actually they don’t.
If a man is raped by a woman and a baby results from it, too bad, he is still responsible for that baby. This has been a supreme court decision.
The system has not been set up to benefit men at the expense of women. It benefits some men. Are you seriously telling me that the system as you call it benefits black men MORE than white women. Hardly, not even close.
Janet,
I definitely do not agree with you. The system has been set up to benefit Men at the expense of Women. I’ll leave the proving of that point to the volumes and volumes of scholarly work on the subject. In terms of privilege, yes, there is stratification. Atop the structure are White males, then White women, Men of color that are not Black, Black men, and (sadly) Black women. Again, however, the point that White women have more privilege than Black males does not erase the fact that White males sit atop the structure that they have built and which ascribes to them the power to dominate and oppress at will.
You’re just parroting gibberish. Name one way that men are better off than women. From the way you talk it’s clear you’ve had it pretty good your whole life. You need a lesson in human compassion.
I’ve seen studies that found girls in schools exhibiting twenty (20) times more violence than the boys. Schools in America have been targeted to become feminized — boys blamed for everything, girls given all the opportunities. The result is that girls go to college now 60% more often than boys do. These things happened because of the influence of feminism on people in power. This stuff that happened to him was made to happen because of people like you.
I bet you don’t have a clue what the Supreme Court has said about gender. Have you studied it? Have you read the decisions? I have.
Andrew, Conscription, VAWA, male reproductive rights to name a few. Then the other problems which correct me if I am wrong as systematic is funding a lot of female abuse shelters, without much if any funding for men to access those services with clear evidence of significant levels of DV against men, and RAPE against men by women even if what I have read is correct.
In my country we have gov supported campaigns of violence against women, Australia says no yet none that I’ve found on violence against men. Infact finding any help for domestic violence as a male seems to be very hard. It also supports a gendered view of violence which with the lack of support for men leaves men the worse, and thus is a female privilege (Privilege of access to support services, government funded).
Andrew: “You personally may feel that you are underneath the pile you referenced above but even in that place you have more access and power than a Woman in our society. I’m sorry for your abuse. ”
No, you clearly are not. You don’t give a damn about what happened to me.
Because you continue to lump me with those at the top of the heap when I have clearly stated I’m not one of them. It’s like you refuse to listen whatsoever.
You and others of your “Ilk” don’t give a damn about men like me. All you care about is your ideology and “Male Priveledge” or “Male Power” or whatever.
So no, you don’t care one bit.
Maybe you should specify what power it is that I have since you’re so adament about tarring and feathering me with those who do have power.
I’ve had it up to hear with people like you who continue to insist to men like me who have been seriously hurt that they share the power those at the top do due to what’s between their legs.
It’s like a narcissistic broken record .
Since Eagle33 has elected to answer you himself I guess you’re off the hook though.
Andrew:
It exists to remove glass ceilings and structures built to propel Men forward and hold Women back.
So nothing about structures that hold men back and propel women eh?
It feels personal because you’re standing atop the structure built for Men by Men. As that structure is challenged and disassembled the world around you literally begins to crumble. This can be alarming at first. Have faith, it’s not about you.
And as usual. A man’s own experience goes against by what feminist ideology says a man’s experience is like and he’s just taking it personal. Yeah that’s nothing like gas lighting women right?
Look I sense good faith from some feminists but I’m growing real bored of how its because taboo to even point out what you disagree with without it being accused of bad faith.
Where did anyone belittle or invalidate men’s hurt, in that twitter conversation?
“but it is the only way to fully evolve to be the kind of man the world needs”
Is it now? How do you know this? Which “lens of a Feminist” are you talking about?
It is. The lens I’m referring to is the lens from outside yourself. You cannot know yourself fully until you examine your impact and role in the world around you. By seeing your role in these issues you are extending beyond yourself and growing as an individual. You don’t have to agree. The exercise of respectfully considering alternatives is enough.
“It is.”
Bare assertion isn’t evidence at all. Sorry if I sound like I’m nitpicking but well I am a skeptic first and foremost.
“The lens I’m referring to is the lens from outside yourself. You cannot know yourself fully until you examine your impact and role in the world around you. By seeing your role in these issues you are extending beyond yourself and growing as an individual. You don’t have to agree. The exercise of respectfully considering alternatives is enough.”
It’s funny sometimes I actually find myself agreeing with those who purport to be feminists on somethings and I often do consider other people’s opinion which is why I asked the questions I do of people. I already do consider my impact and role on the world around me and have made some changes, though I haven’t made every change I could, to affect the greater world at large even just a tiny bit. However I guess what I was asking was that given that there are so many Feminisms out there which one should anyone use to view themselves through?
I appreciate your response. You’re right. It is bare assertion. I guess it’s more a philosophical point I’m making rather than anything empirical. I too am and have been on the journey of seeing the world through other people’s eyes. It’s tremendously revealing and rewarding I feel. I suppose I would say that there may not be any one branch/school of Feminism with which to view oneself reflexively. I think take whatever resonates with you and pursue it until it no longer resonates with you. I think the fact that you find yourself agreeing with certain Feminists is a sign that something about their view is consonant with your view. Pursue their line of thought and continue questioning it. The exchange between respectful pursuers of truth and understanding is worthwhile for every person involved I think. I hope I’ve answered your question? It’s my own attempt at the answer at least.
“Seeing yourself through the lens of a Feminist (of any gender) is a difficult pill to swallow for most Men (this man included) but it is the only way to fully evolve to be the kind of man the world needs.”
But it is the only way?
You seem to take the view that your opinion is valid for all humans. can you prove that such an assertion is factually correct?
Evolution is an interesting subject. It deals with such matters as extinction and also environmental pressures which force and drive biological changes and even physical structural changes on the micro and macro level. The thing is – evolution is a Chaotic process not a linear one. So if there is to be evolution, why is Feminism considered the only environmental driver in that process?
That seems rather flawed to me – and many others. Is it that some believe they control evolution – or is it that they hold such views from long iteration of language that has been suborned in such a way as to cause error and fallacy?
More men to evolve men must embrace feminism? How can you embrace something that does not Physically exist?
MediaHound,
I’m not sure how you took my advice for the gentleman to see the world through other’s eyes to better know it and himself as some sort of Feminists are intrinsically better view? In order to be a fully formed, self-actualized human a person needs to look beyond their person. Unless of course we’re talking about a sociopath or disassociated personality. In that case yeah, they can do whatever they like. But for a fully formed person to emerge one must take in all of the world and, upon reflection, see themselves seeing themselves in it. A meta-meta view of oneself. Relevant to this discussion was for Fortis to examine what it is about several Feminist writers he resonates with. I didn’t describe the entire universe of meaningful experiences to examine because I assumed we would all know that Feminism isn’t the sole guiding light to leading a better life; it’s one way of examining gender dynamics. Were this a blog about the martial arts I would have advised Fortis to learn certain forms from all styles to make himself a more complete martial artist.
In terms of becoming a better Man though, yes, I stand by my point that understanding Feminism is an important part of that process. To not understand the power we wield as Men, the history of oppression, and various concerns Feminists address can leave a Man feeling exactly what I read in the comments from several Men here: 1) Feminists are men bashers 2) I too have pain 3) No one cares that I too have pain 4) My maleness brings me no privilege 5) It’s just as hard to be a Man as it is to be a Woman; harder even probably …
These notions are all incorrect but one can only learn that through having been brought up a certain way, intense inner reflection, or through a direct study of Feminism.
Ah some clarity!
I am interested in your bullet points in particular.
1) Feminists are men bashers.
I do agree that such a Stereotypical view is wrong. It;s as bad a racial, sexuality and disability stereotypes.
However – I do get the bashing. I have always found it amusing, but then again I would. It occurs in many forms and one form I do take great exception to is the abuse of “Thought Terminating Cliché” such as “you are only talking to me like that because I’m a woman” or ” Get away from me rapist”. Those are not extreme examples – they do occur very often.
Some examples – The first one was used when I was adjudicating an employment discipline case. The lady who was being disciplined refused to take responsibility her conduct at work. There were a number of set questions that had to be addressed, and she did not like the probing questions. The process also made clear that refusal to answer could be construed negatively. Her response…
The second one I saw used in a bar against a man who approached a woman. Her response was not motivated by him being male – it was because he was disabled. She found out just how quickly such abuse was dealt with, and complained all the time that she was being mistreated.
There is what I see as a meme operating across society and that meme is feminism. It causes people to act and react in many ways that are feminist. However, it is possible to activate that meme in negative ways and abuse it. That is Man bashing.
There is an issue wit the meme as it is self protecting – so the term Man bashing is seen as negative and pro women, even when the meme is being manipulated to malfunction and abuse the man.
I call it meme blackmail.
2) I too have pain
There is a simple point that has to be addressed there. Do women have on average higher or lower levels of pain ( however that is defined ) than men? Is there a gender disparity?
From studying the meme it does appear that the term pain is defined as applying to psychological distress as apposed to physical. That does make assessment of distress harder with either gender.
I have noted from work with abuse survivors and sexual assault victims that there are gender differences in how such pain is expressed. Some argue that it’s social programming (big boys don’t cry etc) but that is not what I have personally observed. I do believe that there is of a biological element linked to Sexual dimorphism – there is evidence of this from FMRI studies.
This seems to cause differences in reaction and also how emotions are expressed, assessed and communicated. This causes a fixed gender difference.
I have dealt with many people who have PTSD ( and don’t get me started on the abuse of PTSD and triggers under the Rape Culture meme) and with that I have noted distinct differences.
On the street it gets translated as your pain is not equal to, equivalent too and the same as mine. I have had to deal with it all too often, and then go into the we have to educate mode. Simply put when it comes to comprehension of the others emotional state your mates of the same gender find it easier to see and grasp where you are coming from. There is the old adage to balance that which states that Romantic love is a psychiatric disorder due to the fundamental changes in thinking and behavior of both sexes.
Again the feminist meme supports the view that all things are equal – and is self defending, so a male who says he is in distress is dismissed or not viewed as being as distressed as a woman. The intrinsic differences are denied.
The I too have pain issue is real and I’m afraid all too real in how it is abused and even actively used against men.
3) No one cares that I too have pain
Do I need to explain that one? It’s an imbalance caused by the meme which insists there is equality is all areas. When men start to talk about and articulate they are met with the my or ours is greater and it operates as a “Thought Terminating Cliché”.
I can give you one example on Physical Pain that was most egregious and led to one hell of a disciplinary action. I witnessed it. A male patient taken to A&E after an injury at home. He had fallen badly and it was suspected he had a fractured pelvis. However his reported levels of pain were far higher than expected. He complained about the pain and was dismissed. A female doctor on duty in the emergency room was dismissive and stated he did not know what pain was – she did she had given birth.
After I had finished and she was removed on a gurney suffering from the lacerations of my equality edged tongue, it was found that he did not have a fracture to his pelvis – but he did have multiple dislocations of his spine – including A subluxation of the coccyx and arterial occlusion. After 14hours of surgery he did feel better.
4) My maleness brings me no privilege
I have heard that said – and it all revolves around how the term Privilege is being defined and used. I have found that most men who are confused by the usage do get it once they have been walked through the model.
The point that is picked up so often ad which is a bone of contention is that the model does actually show that there is female privilege too. Then there is the issue that privilege is about oppression – the meme states that only women are oppressed QED only males have privilege.
Many try to take the short cut in explaining the model and use race as an analogy. I can’t tell you the number of times I have been dealing with “Junior League Feminists” using that short cut who actually refuse to accept that the short cut shows they too have race privilege and not just men.
When the Privilege Model meets the meme, it filters out female and makes it solely male.
I have also sen the opposite in relation to race. At University I became obliged to share a flat with a man of color. He was from a particular ethnic minority and 2nd generation in the country. he had two social references One the Country and two his ethnic heritage. I have to say It was a period of real revelation as I was racially abused by him daily. He had learned what some call the Race Card and he used it abusively on every occasion. It was what some would call Inverse Privilege and even Privilege abuse. No matter what was said or done it was made by him a race issue so he could play the race card.
The most comical event was when I had written to him – my flat mate – made it clear that I was unhappy and unwilling to be abused – I notified him that I had recorded all events for 4 weeks and any further abuse by him would be met with relevant statutory action. The next morning I entered the kitchen and made myself coffee which I take with or without milk. Most often in the mornings I take it without milk. That morning I fancied milk and was accused of not drinking black coffee as a racial statement ans slur against him.
I find it fascinating how the Privilege model works, is made to work and subverted to be abusive. That unfortunately is the issue with humans – they will extend boundaries to fit their own world view – even if those boundaries go well outside any rational limits of the privilege model. Then when trespass is questioned – the meme kicks in.
5) It’s just as hard to be a Man as it is to be a Woman; harder even probably …
To “BE” is simple! You simply have to have sentience – and I can think of a hundred sexist jokes to go with that one!
To live is different!
I keep dealing with men and women who are being limited by the meme. When that meme causes polarity and discord and imbalance in perceptions it affects both equally. It can even affect loves so much that they stop living and “BE”come……
I am presently fascinated by the very US based rape Culture meme which has exploded. People can’t define it, explain it and yet for some every where they go everything is Rape Culture. It is a meme gone mad. That does make it hard for both sides equally because a meme is self referential and even self propagating – it will literally act to protect itself.
A meme is like a virus – it is insentient – it requires hosts to carry it and spread it – and the rape culture meme is affecting both sexes and is them mixed with the feminist meme which makes it harder to address.
I wonder if any of that may further dialogue?
MediaHound,
You’ve written a lot. I appreciate the time and consideration you’ve put into your response. I’ve read it all and considered each point you’ve made. In the interest of parsimony, I’ll pick one or two ideas and concentrate on those. However, I’m starting to feel like you were a linguistics major or something along those lines. Your interest in the meaning of the word as a word and not as a social construct is interesting to me.
Ok, so the race card. That’s a big one for me. I don’t like when people pull out that tired old trope. Racism is structural and thus there is no inverse operation of it. There can be no reverse racism, inverse privilege, or any of that. It is not possible. It seems like an easy exercise in logic but the reality of it is one side has the power and the other does not. One without power cannot turn the power back on the holder of the power while still having no power of their own. Again, impossible. It’s unfortunate that the one individual was disrespectful to you and made you feel that way. Again, that is an anecdotal example, not a symptom of a society crafted specifically to diminish your value as a member of an entire race. Race itself is a social construct – but that’s a topic for another post.
In terms of the gender stuff (and really ALL of this discussion) I feel that systemic issues cannot be addressed or beaten back by anecdotal stories. You have experienced troubling things on a personal level, know of someone that has, etc … but, again, society was not constructed around the idea of making that happen to you continually and forever.
First – I’m very used to dealing with both legal and scientific definitions – words do matter and how they are used and interpreted. Just sit in a court room with two attorneys and h judge and 2 days of hair splitting over what the term “man” means.
As i say often – language is a very poor tool for communication. Once a word or term has been defined it’s boundaries start to shift and change. I even know of examples where meaning has been shifted through 180 degrees in the process.
I’m glad you got my point when you said;
“Racism is structural and thus there is no inverse operation of it.”
So what is the name of the Inverse? Structures by their very nature have an analog – a mirror. I do know a few mathematicians who would argue against that – but in normal space and time as we know it and live it is correct.
It has simple names – Bullying – Abuse – even harassment, but that causes so many problems due to the thinking involved.
I know in the USA race is a very polarized issue. In Eureope, under European law and many national laws equality has been addressed – so what I described had no name at the time, It is in fact now recognized as racism. It would in fact be Racial Harassment.
You make an interesting argument around activity that “happen to you continually and forever.”.
I do find it interesting that there are such differences in how terms of reference are expressed. To me you indicate an impossibility – in that equality is impossible if no matter what is done it will always happen and be continually.
There are many levels to that issue.
Is Equality a legal concept – enforceable by law.
Is it a social construct and even a Utopian ideal – that can’t be achieved.
If you imagine a structure as the model, does that make the issue concrete or open to change?
For me the way I imagine and deal with issues if to fuse the model with it’s obverse – it’s reflection. For me that makes all privilege equal and applying to all.
What “power” we wield as men?
Do you mean being told to do all the heavy lifting ‘cos women won’t?
“In terms of becoming a better Man though, yes, I stand by my point that understanding Feminism is an important part of that process.”
I have been happily married for 20 years, have two happy, healthy daughters who respect themselves and others. As a family we volunteer to work with those less privileged, and have very good relationships with literally hundreds of people who love and respect us.
We have bear no animsoity toward men, women, children, or people of other races. The feminist movement certainly cannot say the same.
I have not heard a single balanced, reasonable view offered by the feminism movement that would offer any benefit/advantage to me, my family, those we work with, or anyone else.
Implicit in Hugo’s observation is the premise that all complaints, criticisms, and remarks by feminists are valid, always correct, and any pushback is, by definition, invalid, angry, defensive, and misogynist.
Especially misogynist.
I don’t see that Andrew James excluded feminists from his folks who are betraying their base nature. Andrew. Feminists can be pretty base, too, right? I mean, it is what you meant, right?
Or not?
Richard,
You’ve just read a well written and thoughtful post in response to a complex subject and your response was to refuse to use the mirror for self reflection; interesting. My point was indeed that. It is the baser nature of all of us that when confronted we resort to defensive measures rather than consider our own role. I omitted feminists from this quality because it is irrelevant given the flow of the conversation. But yes, feminists can exhibit this behavior as can, I assume, any living creature.
Many of the Men that have chosen to comment on this ongoing discussion have opted out of advancing thought and simply attacked either the presenter of the information or the manner in which it was delivered. It’s a fairly typical political tactic. If you can’t win the debate attack the debater. Let’s save time and energy though by thoughtfully considering what Hugo and others have written. Their aim (I believe) is not as a challenge to your right to exist but instead as a call for you to see that you exist not on an island but as a dynamic part of an expansive ecosystem of opinions and structures of power. You (by virtue of being a male) have a higher amount of control and access than persons that are not male. I apologize for having to guess but I would guess that you are also White. If so, you occupy an even higher level of privilege. Because you occupy this heightened level of privilege you are rarely challenged for possessing this privilege as a birthright.
It makes sense that you might see challenges to this structure of privilege as direct challenges to you. This is not the case. I’m pretty sure there isn’t a single feminist that means you (or anyone) any personal harm. I can assure you, however, that we’d all love to see this flawed system forever dismantled.
Control and access of what?
The men’s bathroom at McDonalds?
I would guess that you are also White. If so, you occupy an even higher level of privilege.”
If you look at the facts, the numbers, the data, this is true of white women – which most US feminists are. Ironically, a group that talks about privilege is dominated by the most privileged demographic of all, with white men being a possible exception.
I would be happy to post links to the government data sources if this is news to you.
That reminds me. I try to keep an eye out for any new popular feminist issues type books. They don’t come out much at all these days. Jennifer Baumgardner came out with one that looks like just a collection of essays called “F’em”.
In it she goes over a list of feminist books that are as-it-were “must read”s.
One of them is the ever popular feminist book by Valerie Solanas called “The Society For Cutting Up Men”. Still a classic read for feminists after all these years.
Of course in real life no feminists ever assault men. Shoot them, yes. Assault no. But at least Andy Warhol did eventually pull through and not actually die.
Examples of feminists brutally assaulting men and then being lauded for it could be added here. Maybe that would make a fun game?
Here’s a challenge for Hugo (or any other feminist). Name a men’s rights activist who has assaulted a feminist and been lauded for it by other MRAs.
I’ve felt recently with a few articles that there was no forward movement or discussion; just chest-and-drum-pounding, & tired attacks on feminism & what it’s done to men. Dudes & “manly” wrestlers don’t inspire me. As you wish, of course, but I say: How very 80s of you. I’m off to find other men who want to be more than their fathers.
Well said!
Thaniel: tired attacks on feminism & what it’s done to men…
———–
It is said, this is a platform for MEN to talk about THEIR problems. –
If you are tired of attacks on feminism and tired about reading why men are complaining… why are you here? Honestly, what kind of postings do you expect to find here?
Most men do not have privileges in their daily life, even if they are ‘white’, many are or were badly treated by women, the majority of homeless people are men, the majority of successful suicide are men, and men are more subject to accidents on the workplace, are sent to die in combat overseas, men die earlier than women due to less healthcare and the list continues and continues… and now tell me why men should not complain?
Yohan,
You make interesting points but the fact of the matter is that [White] Men have created a system that benefits [White] Men to the detriment of Women and Persons of Color. I see a pattern of discussion on these comment boards: I make the point about something being systemic and then people reply with a personal example to the contrary. I’ll say it again: a personal example does not negate systemic forms of oppression. It shows that Men are also victims of harm – but it is personally dealt out; not made a part of our legal or judicial systems or as a fabric of basic governance. There is no government agency trying to take away the rights of White males.
What benefits?
What benefits have men given to men?
And btw? Quit with the racism. When you attempt to co-opt the legitimate grievances of black people to bolster your own grab for power over men that is racist. You’re trying to steal the sympathy people have for racial victims and use it for your own power. it’s racist. Quit doing it.
This is wrong.
The system wasn’t set up by “white” men, it was set up by rich men- Who happened to be white. If it were white men, then my current inability to get a job even AT FREAKING MCDONALD’S wouldn’t exist.
Has my white maleness helped me get a job? Nope
Has it stopped the gradual draining of my savings as I attempt to keep myself out of debt? Nope.
Has it helped me pay for my (third-rate community online) college education? Nope.Eventual debt and enslavement to the banks has.
Has it even stopped me from being hassled by cops and security personel? NO! Because I’m MALE (and therefore guilty) and I LOOK POOR!
But hey, you go ahead and look down your nose at “poor unevolved me” I’m used to it from rich boys like you. Too bad I’m not a woman though, because then I could get a journalism degree and a nice cushy job writing columns about how much my life sucks in my NYC apartment.
YAY FEMINISM!
Seriously???
This guy is angry because Lisa chose a funny little title for a twitter conversation? A title that she just copied from a _feminist_ who used that title? Well gosh this guy Hugo must be just SUPER SENSITIVE to causing anyone any sort of offense with his own choice of titles right?
Oh by the way, what was the title of Hugo’s last article here?
Now maybe Hugo didn’t get to chose the title for that piece (it certainly was 100% in line with the text) but he sure didn’t complain about it. Sorry but I’m gonna have to call BULLSHIT on this complaint.
http://goodmenproject.com/featured-content/poor-poor-pitiful-men-the-martyr-complex-of-the-american-husband/
Poor, Poor, Pitiful Men: The Martyr Complex of the American Husband
The picture of this article by Hugo speaks for itself.
Hugo: Serious Discussion is Not “Wrath of Feminists”
…..
I’m with Jenn Pozner, Shira Tarrant and Amanda Marcotte, long-time friends and allies in the struggle for gender justice. But even if I weren’t, I’d be frustrated at the way in which their thoughtful criticisms get dismissed as typical feminist overreaction.
———————–
@HUGO
OK, so you are with Amanda Marcotte and some others, Pozner (? who is that btw) or whoever all these people might be, but you MUST accept that MANY others using this GMP do NOT agree with you.
If you cannot accept that, go back to your own blog where you are free to delete frequently comments and ban users you don’t like.
You might consider your own writings and those of Amanda Marcotte as ‘thoughtful criticism’ of the Men’s Rights Movement – I consider your writings to be far away from ‘gender justice’ and as nothing else but hateful feminist propaganda and ridiculous ‘men bad, women good’ drivel which scornfully belittles and makes fun out of the suffering of many men who were badly treated by women in the past.
“Legitimate criticism is called “man-bashing”, even though in real life there are no incidences of feminists physically assaulting anti-feminist men.”
http://tiny.pl/hjm5x
Or how about Lorena Bobbit?
She made a vicious sexual assault on her husband and was praised for it by feminists.
Andrew. You missed the point. When Hugo’s around, there is no valid objection to anything a woman says. By definition, the man is wrong if he disagrees with a woman because a woman is always right in her criticisms of men and The Patriarchy and whatever else is the subject. Objecting is wrong and misogynist and repessive and several other things I could think of if I had another moment.
Richard,
I appreciate your response. With respect, I do not believe I have missed the point. The point is that male readers and commentators of this blog (in my experience with it) echo the practice of pointing out personal experiences to demonstrate that they too have suffered abuse – but at the hands of a woman. This personal revelation is used as a way to prove the assertion of the existence of systemic oppression and a “the world is better for Men than Women view” is moot. When an individual suffers individual abuse it is unfortunate. When a gender is abused by a government and society it is oppression. Feminists are merely trying to highlight this point which continues to go un-understood.
Andrew
The gov and society do oppress men to, and alwats have, and male victims of female abuse, are excluded and often punished as part of gov policy. VAWA for example.
Your feminist belief, that all oppression is stereo-typically female, and all privilege is stereo-typically male, is ideological and demonstrably false.
Give me just one example where men have been given rights that women lack in the US.
I’ve seen three examples given on this board in the last 24 hours where women have more rights. But I’m only asking you for one.
donch’ya know….
males have the “privilege” to sign up for selective service….
males had the “right” to be drafted in the Vietnam war even if they thought it was immoral….
alright, women aren’t allowed to walk around with their shirts off and men are….
I do support topfreedom BTW
In NYC they are….
http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2011/06/topless_bowery.php
““Legitimate criticism is called “man-bashing”, even though in real life there are no incidences of feminists physically assaulting anti-feminist men.”
I’m going to explain how the violence that is inside feminism, has created most of what feminists call anti-feminism.
The egalitarian domestic violence/shelters movement was co-opted by feminists in the 1970s, they used violence and intimidation to take the movement from its founder Erin Pizzy.
They used the movement to lie about the domestic violence, they painted it as a gendered problem and set up services that excluded male victims and their children, its no a multi-billion dollar international industry that continues to misinform the public and gov., discriminate against men and children that are victimized by women and protect female abusers by minimizing and denying their agency and impact.
The lies about DV were used to justify anti-male laws like VAWA, that allows women to access state applied violence with no evidence needed against the male.
Feminism continues to sweep female perpetrated abuse under the carpet, and so continues to indirectly advocate for that violence. The more people that are hurt by these lies and excluded from servives, the more so called “anti-feminists” there are.
The more people like Hugo, and Marcotte that enjoy privileged postions here on TGMP lie about abuse being gendered, the more people are victimized, the more so called “anti-feminists” there are.
As a poster above has linked to, a fathers rights activist has recently been assaulted by a VAWA feminist, while he was reporting on the VAWA lobbys lies to congress about gendered abuse, she has been charged with assault.
AVfM as doing an expose on the private area of a site called RADHUB, where influential feminists, openly talk about coercive eugenics, mass murder, male specific child abuse and murder. This press release will being going out to 35,000 media outlets internationally, this exposure of that violence will generate more so called “anti-feminism”.
So claims that feminists don’t physically assault so called “anti-feminists” are the opposite of the truth, most so called “anti-feminism” is created by the violence and victimization of others that exists underneath the surface of feminism.
Most feminists are unaware of this history, but when shown how feminism systematically, denies and covers up abuse, will then start covering for it. There are fundamental problems with feminism, the violence inside it is one of them.
Legitimate sources available on polite request.
Alan.
Andrew D. S. James says:
December 18, 2011 at 9:17 am
….a personal example does not negate systemic forms of oppression. It shows that Men are also victims of harm – but it is personally dealt out; not made a part of our legal or judicial systems or as a fabric of basic governance. There is no government agency trying to take away the rights of White males
——————-
I have indeed a problem to understand what you mean with this sentence. – There is no government agency trying to take away the rights of White women either.
I could agree if you say for example, there is no government agency trying to take away the rights of rich people. – But I see nothing which is gender-specific. A rich white woman for sure has more rights than a poor white man…. so where are his privileges to be ‘male and white’?
What means, men are ALSO victims of harm? Why is a man considered to be an ‘also-ran’? Less worth than a woman? Less worth for consideration?
And who can deny that men as victims are not a part of the legal system? There are plenty of examples of systemic biased treatment of men in family courts regarding divorce and children.
Women are frequently protected by politicians and feminist organizations, as a man of color you might play still the race card, which is not very nice, but sometimes it works. Being gay sometimes works too.
But who is protecting the straight ordinary white man? The only which comes to my mind and might protect him is money – if he really has money, but in most cases he has not.
Did you seriously just ask, “..who is protecting the straight ordinary white man?” There are 519 years of history in the way of me providing you a serious answer to that question.
Andrew — the men I know — to borrow a line from Amanda Marcotte — the men I know are trying to figure out how they will make their daughter’s next tuition payment. The men I know are figuring out where to move their entire family now that the bank has foreclosed on their house. The men I know are working 5 part time jobs, because if they only worked 4, they wouldn’t be able to make their child support payments. The men I know are asking me what the f*ck are they supposed to do because they just got laid off of their job at age 58 and feel themselves running out of options. The men I know have never ever heard a friend, a colleague or an acquaintance say that rape is anywhere close to being acceptable.
To tell any of of those actual real human beings that they are at the “top of the heap” is disrespectful. And not listening. And not in the least helpful.
I get that you think it is important to advocate on behalf of those who have been oppressed for “519 years of history.” But I’m ALSO going to advocate on behalf of the guys I know.
Thanks for listening.
Lisa,
With respect, I’m not here to make these Men feel good about refusing to see the systemic nature of gender and racial oppression. I’m sorry, I’m not. I have all the sympathy in the world for their personal travails (believe me I do); but their personal struggle does not excuse their denial or refusal to acknowledge that as Men they (and I) occupy a place of privilege. Until we can confront the real third rail of American society (White male privilege) we will never make progress. I’m here to make progress; to help Men become better Men, to continue to evolve into a better Man myself, and to address what really is at play here. Anecdotal stories are powerful but do not diminish the importance of a system wildly off balance. My Mother works the same job as Man “A” and yet makes $0.76 to his $1 for that same exact job. That’s anecdotal. My Black Aunt works the same job as Man “B” and makes $0.55 to his $1 for that same exact job. My Black Male family members were never offered the job the 58 year old Male you referenced was recently laid off from. We can soothe the pain of individual struggle or we can address the systemic problems that effect all of us … White Men included … the system is broken.
I’m sorry that my words are painful to some (or most perhaps). It hurts to have a bone set but until you go through that pain the bone will never fully heal. Let’s heal. Together.
I’m not saying that the system should not be fixed Andrew. I’m saying that the way you are going about doing that is not the way I am going about doing that.
I think that’s fair. I think our unique perspectives naturally engender a certain form of response to the issues at hand. I’m all for your approach. I’m all for my approach. Together, and with a whole lot of other folks’ approaches, we’ll be alright.
Thank you Lisa for calling out Andrew on his nonsense. He has a bad case of the “blinders” when it comes to feminism and all of it mythical assumptions.
Can you give me an example of this “systematic gender oppression” please? Against women that is. There’s plenty of obvious examples of it against men.
Also: again it is racist to try and link black oppression to feminism ok? It is racist to try and steal the legitimate sympathy feel for a legitimately oppressed minority group to appeal for more power to be given to a powerful majority group like women. Please quit doing that. It is racist.
Make your case honestly, or not at all. Don’t make bogus links to genuinely oppressed people.
David,
It fascinates me that you continue to admonish me for connecting the discourse of race and gender. You are willing to acknowledge that persons of color have been “genuinely oppressed” and yet unable to acknowledge or notice that Women also have been (and continue to be) genuinely oppressed in some ways similar and in some ways dissimilar than persons of color.
I’m going to go ahead and continue to connect the two because they are interwoven and share several intersecting points.
The gender wage gap is a known myth. That is to say a lie put about by feminists. Women are NOT paid less than men for the same work.
You are not talking to an uneducated audience here. People KNOW this stuff.
I’d very much like to point out that individuals may experience wildly varying ranges of what “privilege” is. It would help if we are going to talk about systems that we focus on actual systems, not my pain your pain. Otherwise it becomes a pissing match of who had it worse, rather than, how does the system at hand work for me or against me, for her or against her, and how can we find more collaborative ways of working together to make the system better for everyone.
I agree Julie. The system effects us all. It’s all about collaboration. I completely agree.
So would either of you two feminists like to give an example of how the system favours men over women?
Andrew – your understanding of human history is superficial.
Elissa – teach me.
I’d be happy to.
The main point to understand is that the way the English law developed from the Romans up, the main purpose was to control and punish men, not women. Men and not women were targeted by the law and so it is no surprise that today the law still is incredibly biased against men and as a result something like ten times more men are incarcerated than women. In Victorian times the phrase used to refer to this aspect of sexual bias was “femme couvert”. Women were “hidden” from the law. The law saw male misdeeds and punished men. Even today in this latest survey on gender violence we see that men who are forced to have sex cannot be called rape victims — so ingrained is the tendency to never call women criminals for doing the exact same crimes as men.
This was just one aspect of biological male competition as applied to societies led by men. Men in charge means other men get kicked down while women are given special protections.
Did you know that on the Titanic you were more likely to survive if you were a third class woman than if you were a first class male? Women were considered the “first class” gender. Similar attitudes and laws can be traced back to the code of Hammurabi and the law in the Old Testament.
Of course your own understanding (feminist ideology) says exactly the opposite happened. I suggest you look it up.
You’ve just framed “human history” as a discussion of English laws. Are there no other people and/or nations that have had a role in human history?
“privilege”
this is what I found on an online dictionary:
: a right or immunity granted as a peculiar benefit, advantage, or favor : prerogative; especially : such a right or immunity attached specifically to a position or an office
if men are so “privileged”-how come funding for prostate cancer is nowhere near similar to that of breast cancer?
http://dailycaller.com/2010/10/05/breast-cancer-receives-much-more-research-funding-publicity-than-prostate-cancer-despite-similar-number-of-victims/
We are sick of what society is telling us, and we aren’t MRA’s….
We are sick of being disposable and unimportant.
Vague statement, but look at the fact that more males successfully complete sucicde then females, they work more dangerous jobs, they live shorter lives. Surely the Feminist Critique is not giving the full story on gender and to present it as something that is is disingenoius/dishonest.
This.
http://stonerwithaboner.wordpress.com/2011/12/15/famous-hillary-clinton-quote/
I agree with stoner’s post there – men’s lives and opinions just don’t seem to be valued as much as women’s when it comes to issues around gender.
I have recently been in a discussion on a MRA site which has ‘exposed’ a feminist blog and the private conversations women have there, which basically boil down to wanting to exterminate men from the planet. I am not linking to it because the MRAs give names of the feminists involved and I don’t really approve of ‘outing’ people.
But it really is depressing reading.
The thing I don’t understand about Hugo is he is basically saying women’s opinions are more valid than men, but he, a man, expects his opinion to be listened to, whilst devaluing men in general!
Extermination of men has long been a theme in feminist circles. The book “The Society For Cutting Up Men” by Valerie Solanas is one of the most popular feminist texts even decades after it was written. Of course it advocates the extermination of all men. Similarly many feminist utopias feature all men dead or dying or else all women segregated from men somehow. Again the domestic violence movement (one of feminism biggest money makers) is explicitly sex segregationist.
Most feminists are not themselves sex segregationist or wanting to kill off all men. However many are, and those who are not accept the segregationist position as a legitimate form of feminist “equality’. In fact often the idea of killing all men is treated more like a harmless joke. The sex segregation is very real however. As I said before feminists successfully lobbied for gender discrimination against male victims of DV to keep their segregationist ideology funded.
Extermination rhetoric, tolerance of violence and segregationism are all characteristics of hate movements. They are not characteristics of equality movements.
Andrew D. S. James says:
December 18, 2011 at 12:12 pm
Did you seriously just ask, “..who is protecting the straight ordinary white man?” There are 519 years of history in the way of me providing you a serious answer to that question.
———–
Your reply is very evasive. 519 years ago? What can I buy with this argument in a supermarket as a white male?
To be ‘white and male’ means nothing – I am talking about today.
There are plenty of people who are ‘white and male’ everywhere, but they own nothing and I wonder where are all their privileges.
Also to be ‘Asian and male’ means nothing…etc.
Men – if they don’t have a lot of money – are simply said 2nd class citizens in Western countries.
QuietRiot.
Hugo’s opinions count because he is evolved to a level above the rest of us guys, but still short of the wonderfulness of women.
Andrew. You still missed the point. Your interest in the entire system needing to be fixed, mostly by going upstream against physical laws and human nature, is not my point. My point is that it is difficult discussing anything of this nature under what could be called Hugo’s Rules. Which are, agree with women or be wrong, etc. Women, when they complain, criticize, point out men’s badness, are never wrong. Never generalize, never demonize, are never inappropriately harsh.
Men who object to such are wrong.
Well Richard I’m a woman and Hugo never listens to me. Damn!
As the masterful Oscar Wilde once said: “the only thing that sustains one through life is the consciousness of the immense inferiority of everyone else, and this is a feeling that I’ve always cultivated.”
Truer crazy words have yet to be heard or spoken.
very good elissa. But Oscar Wilde’s superiority complex was entirely justified…
Ha ha yes indeed and agreed.
What we need is a reliable superiority meter that separates out the effects of personal ego amplification. Would we really be ready for such a device!
Most politicians would be crushed…..
If you do not agree with him, you are out – it does not matter if you are a woman or a man.
Hugo wants to be the leader of the club and is angry and deeply offended when people do not agree with him. He is telling the ultimate truth. Only cheerleaders are welcome. Any opinion different from his own one is plainly wrong and not appreciated in his narrow mindset.
It’s not only particularly about the MRAs he hates so much.
Is it really wrong if you object to his opinion? Regardless if you are a man or a woman, but not everybody is in favor of late abortions, accepts paternity fraud or is supportive to slutwalk out of various reasons.
@Yohan,
People like Schwyzer and Marcotte know their outrageous falsehoods do not stand up to honest debate. Also, with DavidByron, I’m waiting for the examples of society’s systemic discrimination against women. I think we’ll be waiting a long time.
You’re a gender traitor.
QuietRiot. I’m not sure who Hugo listens to.
here ya go….
http://stonerwithaboner.wordpress.com/2011/09/02/lets-have-some-fun/
I’m enough of an “ev-psych” to believe that “patriarchy” is co-constructed by both man and women. From a cynical point of view, it can be said to serve female reproductive interests. True, we are poised to move to something else (at least in developed countries.) I see no advantage to using “oppression” or “privilege” discourses. Both genders receive different privileges under patriarchy.
Feminism is essentially an interest of educated women who are interested in enhancing their labor market chances. Nothing wrong with that, but I regard the usual feminist analyses as less than objective.
Sometimes the maso-moralism proffered by the men here strikes me as too much.
One man at the top means all the others kicked down.
One man at the top means women get special protection.