If you can’t get past the anger, Megan Rosker writes, nothing will change.
I know I’m coming late to the party on the discussion of feminism that has recently transpired on the Good Men Project. In fact I have been so wrapped up in preparing for the holidays that the news that Hugo Schwyzer had resigned didn’t reach me until a friend passed on his recent post. In her email to me she simply wrote, “Thoughts?”
I clicked on the link and immediately dove into the deep depths of this discussion. After a few minutes of reading and ranting to my husband, I sat head in hands, deflated. Once again, here we are in the 21st century talking about Stone Age feminism. I found it hard to believe that this group of intelligent people could be reduced so quickly to a pack of squabbling ninnies—like hens in the hen house pecking furiously at the ground, vying for the better roost until, finally, one hen storms out in a huff.
Yes, I am well aware of the blatant use of feminine stereotypes in that last paragraph, because this argument has personified each and every one of them. Many of those in this discussion have acted exactly like the hysterical stereotype that Mr. Schywzer is trying so hard to defend women against!
♦◊♦
Now, are men really putting women down or are women doing it to themselves? Have women now taken up the torch of systematically betraying themselves over and over and over again? It is this constant betrayal that causes the aggression and frustration that leads to the verbal lashing out that Mr. Matlack veers away from in conversations with feminists. Why should Mr. Matlack or any man have to listen to such abuse and put up with being attacked?
We learn as children that two wrongs don’t make a right. There is no denying that women have been belittled in the past and in many ways still are, but does that mean we have a right to do the same to men? If Mr. Schwyzer somehow misunderstood and thought that Mr. Matlack was fearful of getting physically beaten by a pack of feminist in a back alley in Boston, I think he is tragically less informed about the habitual rhythms of gender relations than he has led us all to believe. But I don’t think that is actually the case. In fact, this sort of mockery of Mr. Matlack’s distaste for feminist anger is a way of painting Mr. Matlack as simply not tough enough to take a little rough dialogue.
What I think we have seen unfold here is what happens when the resentment, frustration, and repression of women is allowed to dominate the collective discussion. It has lead to the two male stereotypes that Mr. Matlack tries to walk between on GMP. On one side is the metrosexual man, the man that has been feminized to the point of being acceptable to angry feminists, and on the other side the man who sits on the couch, belching and treating his spouse like Alice on The Honeymooners.
I love the term gaslighting that Yashir Ali coined in his piece that set off this whole chain of discussions. With this term he is referring back to an old Ingrid Bergman movie, Gaslight, in which Bergman is tricked by her husband into believing she is nuts so he can steal her money. The premise Ali is working with is that woman have been tricked into believing they are crazy so that men can steal their power, but are men really stealing anyone’s power at this point? Or are women undermining themselves?
Who is betraying women more: ignorant men supporting an ignorant, out-dated chauvinist culture or the women who, every day, choose to do things the way a man would? We don’t take a job or stay home with our kids without consulting the bible of patriarchy. We don’t buy a house, get married, shop, parent, or vote outside of the strict guidelines of patriarchy. If we think we can move past the patriarchal system by being angry with it, we are kidding ourselves. The only way to move past it is through the expression of the feminine.
As a woman, I know for fact that I have more to express than anger and resentment toward men, and my time is better spent being true to my nature, leading as a woman and as a mother, rather than arguing outdated gender philosophy with women—and men—who prefer to carry a torch of repression and resentment. It is this repression that leads to the anger that causes men like Mr. Schwyzer to leave GMP in a huff.
Mr. Schwyzer, I dare say you are acting a bit like the hysterical women you are so vehemently looking to defend.
What makes me smile just a little devilishly is this: Mr. Schywzer, you have just been gaslighted. Your power was stolen away from you. Your identity as a feminist is just what those angry clucking hens want you to be. Now you haven’t been tricked into being crazy. Rather, you have simply been manipulated into doing the bidding for repressed, resentful feminist. They want you to be their knight, to defend their anger and their repression, their rebellion and their war against the patriarchy. They want you to justify what they cannot completely justify by themselves. With a few male feminists that represent their voice, however, their plan is complete.
They will have their final revenge on the male population, slowly eradicating and undermining the masculine, and yet never having to expose all the inherent weakness they feel about being female. They never have to uncover the true nature of being feminine because, god forbid … what if they really are hysterical and crazy under their feminist armor? See, these “feminists” all drank the Kool Aid too. Their principles are still set firmly within a patriarchal structure. Male feminists who defend the female anger and resentment and don’t encourage women to express themselves naturally are their unknowing spies, their puppets. They are the final step in a decades-long plan to seek revenge on the male species, to slowly manipulate the male population into feeling the guilt they deserve to feel for the centuries of abuse women suffered and lacked any voice to express.
♦◊♦
Somewhere, high above the clouds, I picture a big fat, white man, the God of Gender Wars, smoking a cigar, sitting behind a large oak desk, and looking down on us. He leans back, laughing hysterically as we run about clucking like chickens, roaring insults and storming off when we think our feelings are hurt. With tears of laughter rolling down his bloated face, he stutters to say, “How stupid could they be? I can’t believe it worked! I never thought it would work and yet look at them! Look at them! They are destroying each other!” Then he sits back and cackles and his laugh bellows through history.
He understands that women will never find an ounce of power this way. He sleeps easy at night knowing that his precious patriarchy is in good hands and won’t be destroyed any time soon.
—Photo paul (dex)/Flickr
About Megan Rosker
“Patriarchy is a social system in which the role of the male as the primary authority figure is central to social organization, and where fathers hold authority over women, children, and property. It implies the institutions of male rule and privilege, and entails female subordination” from Wikipedia, of course.
And now: where do you see patriarchy in any Western society ? As to rape: it was always penalized and considered a VERY serious crime, to say the least.
Patriarchy is a feminist theory, a part of the movement’s ideology. It’s like beginning discussion with a statement “God exists and loves everyone”, or “Moon is made of cheese”. As I and Tone pointed out rape is not a gender problem, so please don’t use a meme “patriarchy hurts men too” or something.
Feminism is just a knocked down version of Marxism in which class struggle has been replaced by gender struggle. According to feminism, men are source of all evil and women are full of virtues. If any man is virtuous it is due to good influence of women. On the other hand if a woman does anything wrong it was due to bad effect of male oppression. It claims that women have to free themselves from influence of men and control the men who are oppressing them. “Patriarchy” is a term that fits in the feminist narrative. Patriarchy literally means rule of father. Father is the head of household and represents the interest of family to the world. Attack on patriarchy means degrading the status of father in the family. It intends to break the traditional family structure by making fathers dispensable leading to female led families aka matriarchy, which is already evident. Matriarchy is the feminist utopia. Men in this matriarchal system will lose motivation, become drifters and be no role models for others. The stage next to matriarchy is the great ANARCHY. Fatherless children can be great nuisance to the society has been proved by recent London riots.
So if Patriarchy is not a good model and Matriarchy is not a good model and the Great Anarchy is not a remotely good model – which is the best model and where or what is it?
Collaborationarchy
Never heard of it
So if you have never heard of it – does that mean it should be explored or ignored?
No harm in trying to explore it.
I don’t like swear words – especially three letter one’s like “Try”! P^)
You either do it or you don’t – try is a middling word that can never be 100%!
It gets explored, even the dark hidden bits, or it’s only a sort of exploration!
Well I think that our perceptions differ a bit. When I say try, it means that we should do it but should remain objective about the outcome so as not to self delude our self.
Agreed – but I still think that when most people use “Try” it is as a swear word! P^)
It’s because I coined it. I’m refusing to accept that the ” archy” has to be a gender binary or chaos. People can work collaboratively, taking turns with leadership . It doesn’t always have to be a domination model.
Congratulations for your creative success.
Julie – how does it work?
Can we start with the foundations and get them sorted out before anyone starts to build, and we end up with yet another piece of modern architecture that just causes controversy?
I do like the Guggenheim Museum NY – and Bilbao is quite nifty too – but there is no way I would want to live in either! It would drive anyone nuts!
Would collaborationarchy be something like “I am the boss in my house. I have got the permission of my wife to say so.
Heh, more like…Hey’ we are in this together and we are going to hammer out some common goals, realize we each are better at certain things than the other, and play to our strengths as a team. Sometimes I’ll lead, sometimes you’ll lead, but we won’t get pissy about taking turns.
We’ll provide a great example of leadership, collaboration and mutual respect (as well as problem solving and conflict resolution) for the kids.
Really don’t see what’s so hard about that particular model.
I suspect such models work best in small groups. I’m a bit at a loss with how to translate it to large corporate structures, but since those are dominance and monetarily focused anyway, they may be a loss. I do think the more “flat” of a system you can get and the smaller consensus building groups you can create (kind of like hives connected to hives) the better, but that’s just me.
Most feminists attack patriarchy without even knowing the basic understanding of the word. The word literally includes the term father which in my opinion is very respectful. Every social group, including family, needs a leader which in patriarchy is father. He is the leaders who guides supports and protects his family, at least that is what he supposed to do. There is no real gender divide, every family supports it member man or women. Its absurd even to think that a father would oppress his daughter to benefits others son. Why father is being portrayed as enemy by several feminists?
I suppose people have found that in various versions of that model sometimes things are more oppressive than in the model. I was just at a funeral and the community at the funeral is quite patriarchal in nature. I know of several cases of spousal abuse, lack of support from the church elders when that abuse is brought forward and so forth. Not to mention the whole, womans place is behind the man thing.
I believe that leadership can be situational.
There are times when I have superior leadership skills or the situation requires my skills more than my husbands. There are times when the reverse is true.
If we were in a situation where my skills were called for and he insisted that I defer to him, how is that helping the situation? If we are in a situation to the reverse and I insisted on dominating the decision, how would that be helpful?
Fathers are not enemies nor are mothers.
Nor are marriages between two men. In a case with two patriarchal figures who leads? In a lesbian marriage who follows?
Fathers, like mothers, don’t always know best. Systems that insist one sex take dominance over another sex, well, I think their are problems with that no matter who is considered “in charge.”
You never answered me about gay families. Who has to be in charge in a lesbian or gay relationship? Why does democracy and collaboration in a family lead to anarchy?
Democracy? Anyone?
Does it work? I have heard it can have a few drawbacks! P^)
We are discussing -archy, not -cracy. How can anyone have democracy in family, it would lead to anarchy.
Julie, that’s not a “new” model at all! In fact, that sounds like the household I grew up in!(A LONG time ago)
Yep. Me too! My mother’s family as well back in the 30′s.
Julie, sounds a lot like the house I grew up in.
In my observation leadership does not need to equate to domination. I preach to my daughters to be leaders, not followers. Does that mean they should dominate others? No. That’s not it. The point is not to dominate but to provide direction and guidance for others. How? The most powerful way to lead is by example, by showing the way, not by forcing the way. By being the one or one of the few willing to sacrifice for the sake of others. By contrast, most are exclusively focused on their own personal benefits.
That is the fundamental message that can be heard in many of these debates – overwhelming concern and interest in one’s own welfare and none or virtually none in that of others. That is exactly what I teach my kids to avoid.
So is debate an issue, cos it seems to only deal in self interest?
It usually does but should not. That’s my point. Self-interest totally dominates most debates, including here.
That is why I have great respect for the good number of relatively unappreciated but selfless and courageous white people who marched with Dr. King, and others who fight for causes for people different than themselves. Included in that group are men who fought for and won equal rights for women; however, a man today who fights feminists causes is out of touch with reality or simply doesn’t care, for whatever reason.
Nobody knows his interest better than the person himself. Therefore in the discussion usually are dominated by self interest. Self preservation is the first law of nature.
“Self preservation is the first law of nature.”
Not only is that not univerally true, it’s a poor excuse for being totally sefl-centered.
However, let’s assume you are correct. Then, why are most parents willin to put themselves at risk, including their own survival, to protect that of their offspring? In order for our species to survive, let alone thrive, we must see beyond ourselves, and consider the interests of others. We aren’t in this alone, even if we want to be.
It runs in direct opposition to human nature.
Which? Collaboration? Or homosexuality? Because both are found in nature. And in humans!
Let the society pass through all these phases, then it will be clear which is the best model or the least bad among them. BTW, I would prefer patriarchy. Father being head of household.
But – forgive me – if you just need to let the models play out and let evolutionary processes take effect – doesn’t your preference and bias simply act as an evolutionary driver and run the risk of skewing the outcome – or rather driving evolution in your desired direction?
If you have three competing evolutionary drivers “Feminism” + “Mascualism” + “Anarchy” how do you end up with “Father being head of household” as the best outcome by naturally allowing the process to play out?
Have you ever Read The Descent Of Women by Elaine Morgan? It has some fascinating insights into Gender and “Gender Parity” where evolution is involved – and what is best for the survival of a species!
When I stated that letting the society pass through all these stages, I mean the people at large would come to realize themselves which model was best suited for them. As the one conducting the thought experiment, I have compared various combination and permutations to form my opinion that patriarch is the most practical. But it is what it is, just my humble opinion, please feel free to consider it seriously or just trash it.
Rapses – if I just wanted to trash it I would not asked you to explain it.
I have great regard for thought experiments – a personal hero called Einstein used them all the time and look where it got him!
Really? How exactly do you envision a beneficial patriarchy? How would that work for dominant women, or submissive men?
I see huge problems with any system involving monolithic and unchangeable roles assigned based on genitalia or skin colour or what have you. Humans are individuals, what works for one family is disaster for the next.
So Peter – what do you see as the drawbacks of patriarchy, and are there any possible advantages? That is a serious question.
You also say “I see huge problems with any system involving monolithic and unchangeable roles…. ”
If we don’t have Monolithic Systems and Structures what do we replace them with?
Patriarchy simply means that father is the leader of the social group, i.e, family. He represents the interest of the family to the outer world. Like every country needs a head of state, every family also has a leadership. Head of states range from nominal constitutional monarch, who have little real power, to duly elected presidents who have the real power. I am just referring to free democratic societies. Like every country, every family finds it won level of authority for the head. Trust me, I have seen many henpecked patriarchs.
thats the article/ opinion piece about patriarchy from the mra perspective right there.
question is, is Rapses an egalitarian mra or a patriarchal mra?
I am no activist of any kind and have never been part of any kind of activism. I am just an ordinary man who is keenly observant, have some ideas about the world around and always likes to call a spade a spade without beating around the bush. Anything else you want to know, please feel free to ask.
Rapses – thanks for clarifying you are not an activist and just expressing your own observations and not a political or ideological line. It does help to keep comments in context and see the Forest For The Trees. P^)
And I do have to agree, as an avid gardener, that beating about bushes is not a good thing! Hail Spades! … and Shovels too!
jameseq – for some who are wondering about divergent Jargon caused by some being USA based and others not, could you clarify what you see as the differences between egalitarian mra Vs patriarchal mra?
patriarchal / male supremacist mra’s believe that men are innately superior to women. they want the world returned to the dominant middle class gender roles of the 1950s woman in the home, man in the workplace
egalitarian mra’s do not believe that men are inherently superior to women. they believe in the equal social and legal worth of men and women. they fight for the rights of men, in areas where they see discrimination against men. they believe in equality across the board for men and women eg, if a man wants to be a sahd, they either fine with that or indifferent(as long as they dont have to do it)
Ok – that is the same set of Jargons for all sides of relevant ponds!
So in a nutshell it would seem that Feminism that has Patriarchy as it’s core model and patriarchal / male supremacist mra’s who also use the same model will always be in dispute?
Where does the dispute come from when it’s the cusp between either form of feminism and egalitarian mra’s?
Where does the dispute come from when it’s the cusp between either form of feminism and egalitarian mra’s?
I could see where egalitarian/ egalitarianish feminists and egalitarian mra’s could disagree markedly. We’ve seen an example in this thread, of whether male privilege exists, or the degree to which it exists – Different perspectives from different lived vantage points, and yet both sides believe in the equal legal and social worth of men and of women
So it’s shared goals and outcomes but language and ideals trip everyone up at the start of the race!
What happens if there is not race?
Its called prisoner’s dilemma in game theory. Everybody wants to be equal but fears that other will gain advantage by cheating. Thus starting to cheat themselves to be more equal leading to break down of co-operative spirit.
Oh shit – we need a beautiful mind – If John Nash is not available what do we do? P^)
So how do you avoid Prisoners Dilemma?
Which is better to Run the race or not Run?
The only solution to prisoner’s dilemma is cooperation, but in order for prisoner’s dilemma to be in effect communication is impossible. Blind trust isn’t possible in this case: its not a simple case of expecting your partner to stay quiet, they have to speak out *and* say the right things. The only out, as I see it, is to break prisoner’s dilemma and establish effective communication. Which seems to be night impossible when it comes to gender.
Tit-for-tat with random forgiveness is a fairly effective strategy to the iterated prisoners dilemma problem.
Well I think that it is impossible for the society to return to the dominant middle class gender roles of the 1950s or stay in the present state, something better has to evolve overtime which works for all.
As they say while riding a bike you move forward or fall down; or you are a great acrobat.
So if I understand you correctly – and bash me over the head with a spade if I am wrong – you see the future as we pass through all the combinations and emerge with people having choice as to which model ( patriarchy – matriarchy – chaos ) is best for them and their lives?
It’s more about personal choice and opportunity, than we all have to dance to a single tune?
Let people run out of choices. You know the value of something when you lose it.
Very interesting view and perspective – which has much common sense to it.
What issues have you found in getting others to take it seriously? That is a very serious question!
Because “equality feminists” are nothing but patsies for the supremacist feminists. In fact, often enough those feminists who claim “equality” quickly reveal they have more in common with supremacist feminists than anyone actually caring about equality.
It’s not feminists with desires for aborting boys and have men enforce (of course) the incarceration of the rest of the men, then the murdering of a large chunk of them until men make up only 10% of the population, reducing them to beasts of burden and sperm donors when a woman wants him, so he can be brought to her in chains, and have the audacity to call it equal and so much better than the “patriarchy” that’s around now, that make up and hang up posters depicting boys as rapists unless they’re properly raised.
It’s feminists who claim they are about equality that spend their time claiming that all men should be considering themselves guilty until proven innocent, like no longer resident Hugo Schwyzer.
It is feminists who claim equality that happily support the sexist horror that is VAWA or Obamacare without a single critical thought, let alone voice of criticism.
It is feminists who claim equality who continue to spout the bullshit of the eternal victim female and the evil male demonic domestic abuser; who continue to claim men are the vast majority of abusers, while every single study ever done on the subject so the perpetrators are roughly equally both genders.
It is feminists that claim equality that continue to lobby for more women-only scholarships despite the fact that 60% of college students are women; while back in the seventies the same figure in favor of men was supposedly a call to arms to make changes; and are now gleefully claiming the end of men and how women are better in schools now; as not bothering anymore that they have achieved their goals of equality and beyond, let alone lend a voice in support of men and boys.
Hell, now that we’re on female students, despite that since the early 80s women students went from 50% to 60%, and the number 1 in 4 female students get raped got sucked out of an equality feminist thumb back then, the feminists claiming equality are still spouting the myth of 1 in 4; while at the same time claiming the only perpetrators of rape are men – you know the (only) group (of potential perpetrators) that decreased while the group of potential victims increased; yet apparently the relative number of women raped remained the same. To anyone with a little understanding of relative numbers, they should know that means the number of rapes had to have increased. This does not compute!
I have read an article on GMP by a female equality feminist that said that men should not be MRAs instead are feminists because feminism would benefit the men. Then a man pointed out how feminism never does anything for men, in fact they pointed out among others the above problem with scholarships, and the responds of an equality feminist, which I’m pretty sure was even the author of the article, was the question how that was a problem; feminism didn’t have to help men as well, in fact it was never intended to help men and their issues, but only women and their issues.
Two completely conflicting ideas in the article and the comments, and they don’t notice it. Either they’re trolling and deliberately lying, or more likely they care for their feelings, not reality, not logic and not rationality. They feel feminism will help men to and thus that men should be feminists and not MRAs, and they feel that feminism is and is only supposed to help women, and since their feelings are paramount, logic is out the door – they are completely incapable of seeing that the two are entirely conflicting statements!
These are just the tip of the iceberg of why equality MRAs consider feminism including those claiming equality, as nothing but a vile, evil, women-supreme ideology seated on feelings, not reality.
So JG – which camp do you fall into? Just need to check so that we can all make some sense of how you relate to what you said above!
Some may wish to see it and call it extreme – but that’s not relevant or even remotely appropriate until we can understand where you are actually coming from.
Why do you need to ask? Have I spilled even a single moment of male superiority? Have I not said that those who espouse male superiority I don’t even consider to be MRAs? Have I not said that they are garmented into the ground?
“Why do you need to ask?”
So that I have it clear in my own mind!
I did ask for a reason – a rational one – and I understand from your comments that you have some affinity with Reason and Rational Thought.
That’s why answering a question with questions is a Rhetorical device that does not always work! P^)
Expecting feminists to care for men is like expecting the lawyer of the person suing you to take care of your best interests. They are there to get their clients the judgment most favorable to their clients, i.e. women, at your cost. If you believe that they should help men then you are deluding yourself.
Thats a disturbingly accurate analogy.
So does that mean an adversarial approach is bad?
Feminism is not communism. Feminism is a right wing movement.
Feminism is genetically closer to Marxism. The two genetic markers are the frequent use of oppression and class/gender struggle.
So which one has to go first – oppression or struggle?
There is neither systemic gender oppression nor any gender struggle in free democratic societies. Men and women live together in families. Any kind of oppressive behavior is just an individual event of social deviance.
Borrowing the dialogue form the movie “Matrix Reloaded”
The Problem is Choice.
“The Problem is Choice.”
Now I do like that! It sounds almost Prophetic! P^)
But of the problem is choice, what is the solution? Is to have not choices or to make choices a different way?
The first thing is to realize that everyone has power to choose. With the choice comes the consequences. One should be ready to own the consequences of one’s actions rather than blaming society, media, government or even God.
But what can be done if people exercise choices, and then refuse to accept consequences that they don’t want – and then blame others?
They have nobody else but themselves to blame.
Feminism was around before Marx. So how did it get caused by Marx?
Then maybe feminism caused Marxism.
Or maybe you are just arbitrarily joining two groups because you disagree with them?
Feminism is antithetical to communism as it undermines class as the fundamental way of understanding society. As such feminism enjoys support from reactionary forces.
David – you are asking the right question, but possibly of the wrong people! P^)
Some do seek to link Feminism to Communism as part of a McCarthyesque conspiracy to allow public floggings and indefinite detention without due process of law – even in the court of public opinion.
On the other hand some just can’t be bothered with facts and rely on bad media and headlines of less than 140 characters – a sort of National Tattler approach to all subjects!
I actually find the comments here quite “Heartening”
It started with concern such as:
“Somewhere, high above the clouds, I picture a big fat, white man, the God of Gender Wars, smoking a cigar, sitting behind a large oak desk, and looking down on us. He leans back, laughing hysterically as we run about clucking like chickens, roaring insults and storming off when we think our feelings are hurt. With tears of laughter rolling down his bloated face, he stutters to say, “How stupid could they be? I can’t believe it worked!”
I can now see him spluttering on his glass of whisky as he reads what is going on here! P^)
Here’s one in the eye for the old god of “Gender Wars”!
Cheers.
Just wondering aloud what it means that the “Gender Wars” deity is white and male in this author’s view. Somehow I doubt those are randomly selected traits. Perhaps that itself is evidence of the centuries-old process whereby female deities were replaced by male ones. Congratulations – your imaginary pantheon is reinforcing patriarchy quite nicely.
(Leaving aside the body image issues involved with imagining him fat….)
Seriously, though, I think it would be more productive to talk about a gender wars “industry” and not a metaphorical god. Imagine if (theoretically) all the genders got along very well and there was very little animosity among the genders. That would mean a sharp decline in all sorts of industries, the end of all kinds of careers. That would mean entire sections of the bookstore gone, fewer Hollywood rom coms, half as many stand-up comedians, and smaller academic departments, just to name a few. If we looked around and discovered there wasn’t really much of a war going on, that would put a lot of people out of work.
It would mean a seriously decline in readership for many websites like this one. Do you think the Good Men Project sponsors would prefer more viewership or less? Would a gender war produce more viewers or less?
“a gender wars “industry””
Hmmm – I can see many similarities between how the Gender Wars have been playing out and the ideas of Political and Industrial complexes defending their dominant position and incomes. Do you think we should all just give up and admit defeat as so often happens?
In a war both sides suffer casualties. Winning a war is just a bit less bad than losing it. The only ones gaining something are weapon manufacturers.
So in that case it’s logical and even moral to not fight the war – and leave the arms dealers to watch their stock prices plummet?
Well I would have preferred an ugly old witch surrounded with cats and bats looking in her magic globe with the magic book of feminist spells laughing at her success in fomenting gender war.
… and I bet if that had appeared in print written by the OP ….. It does not bear thinking about! P^)
I’m an overweight white guy who likes cigars once in a while, so I’m a little offended at the association.
Though, on second thought, I guess that means I’m already the spitting image of a god, so good news about skipping my new years resolutions….
@ MediaHound
“So how do you avoid Prisoners Dilemma?”
By avoiding the prison of your own prejudices.
“Which is better to Run the race or not Run?”
There is no race, just stampede
“There is no race, just stampede” – oh that did make me laugh! P^)
I have to say though, Game Theory has been applied to so many areas and is seen to work both positively and negatively. Are there any aspects of Game Theory that can be used to address The Great Gender Wars and have a positive influence/outcome on all players?
If running a race is not a good metaphor, is there a better one – say poker? There does seem to be an issue with many players of conflicting goals in the same game, so a metaphor that allowed those conflicts to be reasonably discussed would be potentially helpful.
Peter Houlihan says:
“The only solution to prisoner’s dilemma is cooperation, but in order for prisoner’s dilemma to be in effect communication is impossible. Blind trust isn’t possible in this case: its not a simple case of expecting your partner to stay quiet, they have to speak out *and* say the right things. The only out, as I see it, is to break prisoner’s dilemma and establish effective communication. Which seems to be night impossible when it comes to gender.”
I take it that the last line was “Nigh On Impossible” – in which case it seems that It’s not Totally Impossible. P^)
If it’s not totally impossible, where and even what are the possibilities?
I totally agree with Peter that it is best to avoid prisoner’s dilemma, i.e break up of trust and co-operation between the actors. There are only two ways of controlling others behavior i.e. rewards and punishment. When two actors are involved in any long term association as in the case of genders, the tit-for-tat strategy (equivalent retaliation ) coined by Anataol Rapoport holds good. It can be summarized in three lines.
1. Actors initially cooperates.
2. If other side violates, the actor retaliates.
3. The actor forgive on resumption of co-operation.
“There are only two ways of controlling others behavior i.e. rewards and punishment.”
Are really only two options?
Maybe hypnosis is another option, but I seriously doubt whether it will get desired results.
I think the idea of people running about with imaginary dogs and eating onions believing them to be apples may be a good sideshow, but maybe not ideal for the main event! P^)
But the question is what would be desired results? I do like the word “desire” – it sort of fits! It’s bigger than “I want”.
The desired result would be that the actors act as a team to optimize the positive outcomes and minimize the negative outcomes.
…and the positive outcomes are?
It seems to me that some sort of shared goal would been to be set or looked for so that outcomes could be checked against the word positive.
The positive outcome depends on the context of the problem. For example, in the classic case, two crime partners are arrested and kept in separate cells. Both are asked to testified against other for some concession. If only A gives evidence he gets 4 years and B gets 20 years and vice versa. If both A and B testify against each other, both get 14 years. If none testifies, then they would go for contested trial and if proved guilt get 20 years or might get acquitted if there is no sufficient evidence. The best outcome for both of them would be to keep quite and go to trial and they might get acquitted. But the fear of being betrayed by other coupled with incentive to betray to get lesser sentence might encourage to work against their own best interest.
So we need a feminist on one cell – a masculist in another – and what would the charges be? P^)
It seems that Game Theory requires either that both sides give evidence about the other – or both shut up and take their chances!
Is that really the best option? What if we dump Game Theory, what happens then?
Nothing helps better in dispute resolution than free and frank communication.
@MediaHound
“So does that mean an adversarial approach is bad?”
When you take an adversarial approach, you lose the trust of the other party. If you take sides you cannot be an impartial judge. The problem with feminist is that they want to be both prosecutor and judge which leads to the presumption of male guilt.
Oh – I have top flip that one over to see if it scans the other way round – and in the mirror!
“The problem with Mascualist and Mascualism is that they want to be both prosecutor and judge which leads to the presumption of feminist/female guilt.”
Is that also true?
In comparison to the feminist giant with plethora of legal services and legislative clout, the MRAs are poor guys seeking public defenders. They are in no position of even filing their case, being prosecutor and judge is a distant dream.
So we should all give up then and not waste any more time! P^)
Why does there need to be a Judge in the first place?
The situation is not that hopeless. Men and women need each other, they are complementary. We should not have judge in gender relations because all problems need to be sorted out by negotiation. It was feminists who made “personal is political.” Things are changing and feminism is certainly becoming another dirty “f” word. Young women do not want to be associated with it. It has become too uncool to be feminist.
So if it’s not “that” hopeless, where is it hopeful from your POV?
Everybody has to negotiate his/her place in the gender equilibrium. Personal is personal and political is political and they shall never meet.
Is that correct?
How about someone who needs a personal need but can’t achieve it on their own – so they join a political group to gains support and pressure to get that personal need fulfilled.
Example – disabled person wants a day centre – can’t achieve end alone – becomes politically active with others – pressure forces powers to provide day centre.
Facilities for the disabled in not a personal need, it is for the common good of the society. For example, I am able bodied person, but I am all for facilities for children, elderly and disabled because who knows someday I myself, my parents, friends or an acquaintance might need those facilities.
I agree. Problems with feminism have to be established with evidence and argument the same way they would for any group and anyone can do it if they have a mind for it.
David – what would you choose as an issue which could or even can be easily addressed?
Sort of a nut to crack the hammer!
Oh there are many depending on what you are seeking to show of course. For example on the question of whether feminists seek equality I tend to use the VAWA and feminist reaction to domestic violence, including the sex segregation. If the question is integrity I go with the gender wage gap myth.
Because a movement is made of many different individuals with different opinions, you need to consider cases where there’s a broad agreement across the movement.
I have to say that I do find American Politics and In Particular Legislation very odd and open to gender polarisation. It is so markedly different to other countries and governments, It does make so many wonder if Equality and Democracy have even met in the USA – even with a 14th amendment.
That is not to say that other countries, governments and legislatures are perfect, but there is no way that the equivalent of the VAWA act could have been passed in Europe in 1994 – it would have violated all Human Rights Requirements under law. It would have been struck down by either The European Court On Human Rights or a nation’s own equivalent of The Supreme Court.
There really does seem to be endemic issues of Institutional Discrimination across the USA – and it makes many have to wonder how the US can be seen as an example of freedom and democracy to the rest of the world?
Worse laws have passed in Europe and Canada. Jurists generally agree that equality guarantees do not prevent people from treating women better than men. I believe men’s rights groups did challenge the law under the 14th although it didn’t get to the supreme court and the law was changed to include male victims.
Sweden for example is often said to be very pro-gender equality but that means only “for women” as it does elsewhere. It’s one of the worst offenders of real equality.
A common example of positive discrimination for women being allowed are all the various quotas for women.
This is all very sad! One would think that there would be enough empathy to go around, but apparently some of our hearts aren’t very big or are very prejudiced!
Despite this being the feminism section, MRAs are relentlessly trying to redirect any ounce of empathy for women/feminism and throw it all out the window. From what I see on this thread and other “feminist” threads, MRAs are very narcissistic; every topic, every post has to be about THEM (I thought there was a Men’s Right Issues section for that???). They demand the spotlight shine on them at all times, their problems – must be your problems, there’s no room for female empathy in their hearts, not even the feminism section. MRAs deny feminists’ issues outright, by turning right around and shoving MRA stats and issues in your face. All of this to me indicates hidden anger and shows that they issues with women in their lives which have not been resolved. Hmm…actually this sounds all very sociopathic to me, they show no empathy or support for women at all on here AND strangely GMP supports this irrational and sexist behavior? Someone on here mentioned about this site becoming a boys club….
This is not exclusive feminism section, this section is called “Men and Feminism.” Most often men do not like feminism and it should not be surprising when their comment on feminism is negative. Nobody gives you anything you just take it. If supporters of feminism have anything to offer the should present their case and arguments. Simply complaining that others are not empathizing with feminism does not cut ice.
@Wilma, probably the same treatment that happens on other sites and male issues. I guess there are a few of each that wanna be ME ME ME. Probably also to do with the perceived lack of male issues and this site being one of the only to speak up on them, in a sea of feminism they don’t want to be drowned in feminism.
Wilma – if find your post both comical and ironic.
Perhaps you should look at some of the threads and posts here on GMP.
A male writes about rape and abuse of males, and because the focus is rape of males he is attacked, false claims are made, there is a distinct lack of empathy shown by some people responding, people are told they don’t understand statistics and it’s even implied they can’t read – if you post in response correcting errors, misunderstandings, you clarify points you are called names “#WomenCallMeThings” and”#FeministsCallMeThings”….. I have been called Both Feminist and MRA equally – so where does that place me when the Empathy Abuse Stick is being used to “tag” people with labels for convenience and instant dismissal by other?
I have even joked how some have Industrial Labelling Guns that they just can’t stop using, even whilst complaining that other people are using labels they don’t like! It’s Bizarre To Watch!
Using terms such as Narcissistic and even Sociopath do have their place, but to use them correctly you do have to carefully analyse many factors, behaviours and instances of these behaviours against the environment they occur within, the context and even the deliberate avoidance of behaviours that would not occur if the person was not a Narcissistic or Sociopath.
Your use of those terms is both inaccurate and unpleasant. It is a gross generalisation, which if a man did it to women or feminists would be met “Opprobrium”, and even incite the posting patterns which you write to decry. .
As for your comment that GMP is a boys club, it is very odd that it welcomes so many women to take part, contribute, comment and even argue! Not much of an issue over segregation there?
I have had to deal over the years with many organisations, groups and individuals who have demanded Women Only Space, even when such demands would have caused groups and people to be breaking The Law. I have also found it so very odd that then I have deliberately raised the issue of “Men Only Space” as an equality issue and to allow laws to be complied with there has been such a chorus of Disapproval, Shock and even accusations of Sexism, Women Hating, Misogyny and even Insanity!
Odd how the supposed boys club is not following well known past practices by some that has caused so much unhappiness to so many – and so little advance in Equality for all whilst supposedly promoting supposed equality for only some!
Some very good points. Absolutely. We should all be able to live our lives genuinely.
But.
Would anyone ever tell a black person “if you would just stop blaming white people and talking about racism, you’d realize you don’t actually experience it?”
Anyone not understand why me (a white person) telling someone who isn’t white “I don’t see race” is a significantly wrong, not to mention ignorant statement for me to make?
Does that mean some black people don’t experience racism? Or that the movement (much better than “fight” right?) against racism doesn’t also hurt white people and damage race relations?
Are some feminist detrimental to the cause? Absolutely. Do some arguments over feminism get us nowhere? You betcha. Is there something very very key in simply living our lives? Damn straight.
But does that mean sexism is dead? Nope. Does it mean the patriarchy is over or there aren’t men out there enforcing misogyny? Nah. How about men AND women perpetuating narratives that also, whether they know it or not, continue sexism (even if they themselves are not sexist)? Oh, yeah.
Can we just say “hey, let’s all be humanitarians here and go on about our lives” and have everything be fine? The answer is we all just decide not see gender? Really?
Furthermore, we are still just stuck in our own little bubble here. Because, as white, middle-upper class women, we (and by “we” I mean “you and I, Megan [the author]” no one else because I don’t know about anyone else) have our own privilege that allows us to say “hey, let’s just live our lives, and we’re all equal” because we CAN do that. Our privilege allows this, and we are surrounded by men who want that, too.
But what about the rest of the freakin’ world?
“But what about the rest of the freakin’ world?”
They can always join in here! P^)
I love that the race analogies are flying again. How about we try a few others occasionally, such a disability, sexuality, age even. A seasoning and spiciness of comparison, rather than salt with everything?
The Race Comparison Trope has been flogged to death – so maybe it’s time to give it a rest and try some new perspectives that people may engage with and even think about, and not be turned off by.
People read to line “Three”, and it’s switch off and standby mode! P^)
I don’t get why Dominance gets such a bad rap. Why don’t we just agree that maturity, intelligence pragmatism, individualism and compassion are the ideals worth fighting for in any relationship.
Wouldn’t that be better then collectivized guilt or chauvinism?
Er?? Sorry?
What do you mean by “Dominance”?
The sum of those abilities that grant a person authority over his/her own life and when called to action can assume rational authority from some one in their care.
Ex. Mother to child
Police officer to motorist or state vs the individual.
In this case, productive spouse vs nonproductive spouse.
Any gender applies
> Are some feminists detrimental to the cause?
No, just about all of them are. Every single feminist that refuses to acknowledge the damage feminism has done to women and especially men; who do not stand up against the posters depicting boys as rapists and abusers unless raised right by parents, not the single mom where rapists and abusers actually come from, all those who do not stand up against the vile hatred that is VAWA,, all those who do not stand up against quotas for for example fire fighters that endanger people’s lives, including the women allowed to serve as a fire fighters without being able to do the job, etc. etc. etc. are detrimental to the cause… of equality, the supremacy of women that feminism is after, that’s going great.
> Do some arguments over feminism get us nowhere? You betcha.
Every argument over feminism that shows it for the hate movement it is, is one step closer to getting people behind actual equality. I’m sure for the female supremacy feminism is after it would indeed get you nowhere.
> But does that mean sexism is dead? Nope.
You’re right. It’s mainly directed against men, and any sexism against women actually comes from feminism, but still, it’s sexism.
> Does it mean the patriarchy is over
Patriarchy never existed; at least not your bullshit “the evil menz are oppressing us everywhere” concept of patriarchy. Gynocentrism, the system of female centric thinking, and reducing men as disposable appliances in service of women; has in recent times been pushed to ever new heights; a system as ancient humanity is old – and it’s being done by feminism.
> or there aren’t men out there enforcing misogyny?
You’re right. Every man that attacked a man for slugging a woman in self-defense after the woman attacked him first is enforcing misogyny. All the men in mainstream media who happily went to drag Rayon Mcintosh over the coals for defending himself against two attackers that jumped the counter at the McDonald’s he worked at, are enforcing misogyny. All the abuse activists who claim that women are so stupid that they are so unable to use and handle logic that when a men uses logic to win an argument with one the resulting emotional distress must be classified as domestic violence, is enforcing misogyny. All the DV judges, lawyers and advocates that work on the assumption that women are so pathetic they get frightened and are being abused by a man raising his voice, are enforcing misogyny. All the men enacting quotas so women can get hired in physically demanding jobs despite not being able to pass the requirement tests, are enforcing misogyny – in fact every man that lowered physical standards and physical tests for women before the quotas were enacted wee also enforcing misogyny. They’re doing the same for misandry but that’s another matter.
> How about men AND women perpetuating narratives that also, whether they know it or not, continue
> sexism (even if they themselves are not sexist)? Oh, yeah.
You’re right; they are around. You know, like you implying that those who fight both misandry and misogyny and are thus by definition against feminism are the equivalent of racists and sexists; you’re one of them. Hey, you can even have people who perpetuate sexist narratives by not saying anything whenever the so-called small minority of radicals enact the umpteenth sexist, misandrist and misogynist law!
You ever try that?
“Because, as white, middle-upper class women, we (and by “we” I mean “you and I, Megan [the author]” no one else because I don’t know about anyone else) have our own privilege that allows us to say “hey, let’s just live our lives, and we’re all equal” because we CAN do that. Our privilege allows this, and we are surrounded by men who want that, too.”
Nikki, congratulations. I have made this point numerous times, and am happy to see someone else mention it as well. Feminists are generally loathe to acknowledge the privilege enjoyed by white women (on average), as compared to other demographics.
Eric – I wonder at the uttering of “Her”esy?
“His”tory is littered with so many stories of those who have been Put To The Flames and burned at the stake.
Thankfully, today the flames and bonfires of the vanities seem to be confined to flame wars and twits! P^)
“Would anyone ever tell a black person “if you would just stop blaming white people and talking about racism, you’d realize you don’t actually experience it?”
Sure but since racism works in a different way to sexism this isn’t really worth talking about.
“Anyone not understand why me (a white person) telling someone who isn’t white “I don’t see race” is a significantly wrong, not to mention ignorant statement for me to make?”
You are assuming women are more oppressed than men. That is simply not a position i agree with. Stop equating women with black. Its stupid. Sexism does not work that way.
“Are some feminist detrimental to the cause? Absolutely. Do some arguments over feminism get us nowhere? You betcha. Is there something very very key in simply living our lives? Damn straight.
“But does that mean sexism is dead? Nope. Does it mean the patriarchy is over or there aren’t men out there enforcing misogyny? Nah. How about men AND women perpetuating narratives that also, whether they know it or not, continue sexism (even if they themselves are not sexist)? Oh, yeah.”
Since sexism isn’t one sided like other forms of oppression this don’t mean anything to me.
“Can we just say “hey, let’s all be humanitarians here and go on about our lives” and have everything be fine? The answer is we all just decide not see gender? Really?”
Since you seem to be not including male victims of sexism here this idea does seem strange to you but you are a woman so you don’t know the experiences of men stop assuming men have it better than women. They have it different. In some areas women have it worse in others men. It isn’t like race or sexuality where discrimination is one way.
“Furthermore, we are still just stuck in our own little bubble here. Because, as white, middle-upper class women, we (and by “we” I mean “you and I, Megan [the author]” no one else because I don’t know about anyone else) have our own privilege that allows us to say “hey, let’s just live our lives, and we’re all equal” because we CAN do that. Our privilege allows this, and we are surrounded by men who want that, too.
But what about the rest of the freakin’ world?”
You are right about the rest of the world. But in the west the idea that women have it so infinitely worse than men is bollocks. You are simply measuring bad things that happen to women and not even looking at how bad it is for men. You are asking for empathy without actually being empathic.
Lisa, is there a way to “uncheck” the box I checked for receiving email notifications of comments on this thread? My inbox blitzed with what is essentially an email conversation between a couple of people going on forever, and I’m losing track of real work-related emails that are in the mix! Thanks.
Lori, at the bottom of the email, there is a sentence that says: “To manage your subscriptions or to block all notifications from this site, click the link below:” One click, and it will allow you to unsubsribe from any post you are getting notifications from. Again, this will be the type of thing that will be moved to a forum as soon as it is set up.
Rapses says:
January 2, 2012 at 1:13 pm
Nothing helps better in dispute resolution than free and frank communication.
_____________________________________________________________
So following on from where we were – does that men putting the two of them in just the one cell – with no charges? P^)
Wouldn’t that be unconstitutional?
… but what do you mean by “free and frank communication”. Many people round here have been both free and frank, but it only seems to engender conflict, not resolve anything!
By free and frank communication, I means to putting all the issues related to the interests of all the parties on the discussion table with no hidden agendas. The best of way discussing a matter is to start from the point where all parties agree.
Does that also mean getting people to agree to disagree and leave those issues out of the discussion?
The first requirement for a successful negotiation is to identify the common grounds on which everybody agrees and then focus on the disagreements, followed by give and take to reach an amicable solution.
So you’re advocating compromise or some other outcome?
I don’t advocate anything. I am more into describing how things are and to make the optimum solutions than prescribing how things should be. Common grounds are something which are most important in successful negotiation. Let me give you an example:
There are two individuals A and B in a serious dispute over the issues
u, v, w, x, y, z
Preference of A: x > z > y >u >w >v
Preference of B: u> x> z > v> w>y
Here both parties have same set of issues but different preferences
A would not have much problems conceding on y for gaining on v. So the different preferences can lead to give and take. Other than that there is deterrence factor like the cost of litigation or even going for war, which will force the parties to settle.
Rapses – I have to admit I get the theory, and I can even decipher and understand the mathematical notation used. But….
There is always a But! …. Theory can only take us so far. I know all the theory of putting a man on the moon, but It still took a lot more than theory before the immortal words were said – “One mall step for a man, one giant leap for mankind”.
Do you have any practical examples that other readers may find more accessible?
well all great things start with a great idea.
It’s important to note that in a compromise there are no sacrifices made. Instead, the parties in a negotiation exchange mutually beneficial values and discuss how they both could come to an ideal existence.
One example would be if group A wants to eradicate group B while group is petitioning for peace. There can be no compromise in such a stalemate. The only choices left for group B is to be dominant in a war like environment or to be submissive and embrace a slow genocide.
Another example would be If I agreed with the premiss That “Women should be protected from street harassment” and I accepted a law that makes approaching an uninterested women a crime, I would be sacrificing my civil liberties and my right to free speech.
No compromises should be made that impugns the civil liberties of an individual or group. Civil liberties are the highest value for both the individual and the state.
According to dictionary, compromise means:
“A settlement of differences by mutual concessions; an agreement reached by adjustment of conflicting or opposing claims, principles, etc., by reciprocal modification of demands.”
Sacrifices are to be made by all sides to reach a compromise.
Allowing another group to eradicate one’s group another can by no stretch of imagination be considered compromise, it is cowardice.
Harassing uninterested women is not a part of civil rights or right to free speech.
Infringement of civil rights is not compromise, it is coercion by state.
> No compromises should be made that impugns the civil liberties of an
> individual or group. Civil liberties are the highest value for both the
> individual and the state.
The Obama administration seems to disagree: http://www.roundtree7.com/2011/12/obama-betrays-america-us-fascism-ndaa/
Look around further and you find that the indefinite incarceration bit comes from Obama himself, it wasn’t in there before he added it.
Eric M. says:
January 2, 2012 at 1:21 pm
“Self preservation is the first law of nature.”
Not only is that not univerally true, it’s a poor excuse for being totally sefl-centered.
However, let’s assume you are correct. Then, why are most parents willin to put themselves at risk, including their own survival, to protect that of their offspring? In order for our species to survive, let alone thrive, we must see beyond ourselves, and consider the interests of others. We aren’t in this alone, even if we want to be.
________________________________________________
Eric – I can see some readers looking at what you have written and saying “In that case its best for men to be treated like children” P^)
We aren’t in this alone, even if we want to be – now that is interesting! The “WE”.
But what are we “IN”?
“Eric – I can see some readers looking at what you have written and saying “In that case its best for men to be treated like children” P^)”
My point had noting to do with men exclusively. Note I never mentioned men or women. So, I don’t follow your logic; please elaborate.
We are IN a co-dependant society, where we rely on each other for services needed for survival.
or on planet earth. We live amongst others and are co-dependent. A simple example, I live in a home and pay for electricity but have no involvement in its production or delivery. I rely on others to do that for me, and pay them for their service. However, I help to keep their power grid safe from terrorists who would love nothing more than to cut off electricity to a large part of the country.
“So, I don’t follow your logic; please elaborate.”
I thought I had – I did punctuate with. P^)
As I often say “Don’t mistake Whimsy for Warfare”.
I do agree that we are in so many ways in a society that is co-dependent. So if it’s that simple – just co-dependency – why do we have so muck discord around gender?
“why do we have so muck discord around gender?”
In general, “we” don’t. That’s a feminist thing. Most women seldom if ever mention gender, male privilege, patriarchy, rape culture, and other topics feminists are obsessed with and want to disucss about constantly.
want to disucss constantly.
Actually Eric – you do have a point there.P^)
It is a relative observation about Discord – just as it’s relative when there is supposed discord and supposed constant discussion about sexuality, disability, age… and so many other characteristics.
On the other hand, there are those who do make a living from the subject and are even played to be political, so I do wonder if the Discord Round Here is relative to the Combatants involved – or symptomatic of a snow flake on the bit of the Ice-berg above water?
Rapses says:
January 2, 2012 at 1:46 pm
Facilities for the disabled in not a personal need, it is for the common good of the society. For example, I am able bodied person, but I am all for facilities for children, elderly and disabled because who knows someday I myself, my parents, friends or an acquaintance might need those facilities.
_______________________________________________________________________
So you said ” Personal is personal and political is political and they shall never meet. ” – so where and what does the social meet – or the common good?
When you mix the chemical “personal” with chemical “political” the byproduct is corruption.
You still have not accounted for the social!
Can you please elaborate the point? Don’t want to misunderstand it.
Sorry Rapses I ran out of respons space-
Inregardes to a previous statment….
In an academic sense, you are absolutely right.
But lets remember that those examples are drawn from actual legislation being debated in my state as well as what many see as the current Arab-Israeli conflict.
What I’m saying is that true compromise has 2 winners. If someone is asked to sacrifices something or trade for something of lesser value then what he started with, then reality dictates that you have 1 winner and 1 loser.
Sadly There is hardly ever a true compromise. Someone usually gets screwed.
I recommend that both parties identify defeat before they enter the negotiating table.
Oh BTW, if we make “street harassment” a crime we remove the right of men to challenge their accusers as well as sacrificing our right to equal protection under the law.
Compromise is all about settling the claims with mutual concessions. In compromise, there is no clear cut winner or loser, each party gains somethings and has to give up something. There are no real solutions in only life, there are only trade offs. Still it is better than going through litigation or war.
Street harassment is a nuisance. If any law provides a fair clear cut definition of what constitutes harassment, how is it going to remove the right of men to challenge the accusers? We still have the presumption of innocent till proven guilty, despite best efforts of feminists. You have to prove it as well.
I guess I’ll surrender to your optimism (although I remain skeptical)
And I guess the improbability of street harasser laws ever being passed is sufficient for me to drop the subject,
but let the record show, we live in a world filled with state sanctioned paternity fraud, VAWA supporters and misallocation of resources towards currying the favor of women voters. I don’t plan on grabbing my ankles for feminist anymore then what has already been achieved.
I assure you that both the state and feminist supporters will ultimately suffer for their sins against men. These sins attack and feed on the virtues of the civilized society and eventually come to eat up their originators, when all virtues in society end. Men have to be a bit more careful about the legal and political minefields laid for them. Ones who bite the hand that feeds eventually starve to death.
Improbable?
Yes, I suppose. But then again, I don’t think it was too long ago that laws that cause you to lose your children forever because you raised your voice one time was considered improbable if not outright impossible.
Yet, here we are.
Completely agree with you. In the good old days, physically punishing a child for wrongdoing was considered disciplining and now even raising your voice to reprimand child for doing something terrible is child abuse. Are we getting any better with this abuse industry?
Not just raising your voice against your child, which may be explainable. But raise your voice against your adult human spouse, and bye-bye children when she decides on a divorce.
@Rapses – You wrote:
“Facilities for the disabled in not a personal need, it is for the common good of the society.”
Before that you also wrote:
“Everybody has to negotiate his/her place in the gender equilibrium. Personal is personal and political is political and they shall never meet.”
So I was enquiring after information as to how The Personal, the Political and the Social/Common Good interact and interrelate from your POV.
Are there three distinct entities, or do they flow one into the other?
Personal-social-political for a social continuum. Its starts with needs of individuals which might well be unique. When several people in the same community have somewhat similar needs, then it becomes a social need. For it to move into the political zone, the issue has to be clearly defined, more formalized and advocated for the powers to be.
For example, if A desires some special service x which is not available in his community. He is stuck with the problem which is personal. Now he tries to find something similar to x and comes across B, C, D,E and F who also need the services.
The issues becomes social the moment these people are not alone and form maybe a loose interest group, helping one another with the issue. When this group comes to know about other groups like them say beta group, delta group and omega group and are able to form some kind of consensus about service x, It pushes service x into political zone where its political value makes the government to act on it. Personal has to was through the filter of social becoming political.
The facebook groups on feminist, etc are a real battleground. You get the whataboutthemenz insults, the privilege fights, mra’s vs feminists oppression olympics, the few young feminists and mras who really do seem like they are there just to antagonize each other and fight, neither seeing the pain the other faces or the suffering. Then there are the ones casting privilege around like it’s the space bar, who belittle the idea of misandry whilst bemoaning the suffering they face as women. I see the guys desperate to get their voice heard, feeling ignored and left out assuming feminism = equalism and being turned off and bitter because they were shut down horribly by some feisty and angry young radfems with a chip to grind (who can’t see their own hipocrisy I might add).
It’s a great place to have arguments, but totally fails in many respects to bring in good and decent discussion, the moral superiority battles are funny to watch though as each try to be victor. But saddens sets in when you realize if this is any indication of the majority of both groups then quite frankly humans are doooomed. Ok, a tad over dramatic but you get the point. It’s sad to see “feminists” laugh off misandry as if it’s nothing, and mra’s laugh off misogyny as if it’s nothing. Vitriol is king on internet debates atm it seems. Wake me up when people calm down…
@Julie Gillis
“You never answered me about gay families. Who has to be in charge in a lesbian or gay relationship? Why does democracy and collaboration in a family lead to anarchy?”
Well I would like to offer my opinion about gay and lesbian families which is politically super incorrect. I would rather take the accusation of being homophobic than be a coward. Gay and lesbian families are not real families. These relations are sterile. It is about two people enjoying themselves sexually with each other. However, I don’t think anybody has any right to interfere in the private matters of others or hate anybody for their sexual preferences.
In democracy majority rules, if their are two adults in the family who differ on some issue. Voting will always lead to a tie. Both co-operation and competition are part of any social group that includes families. If there is no clear cut leader than everybody starts behaving like one, leading to anarchy. I have personally observed it in in-laws issues.
What would be wrong with submitting to the more mature adult even if that adult is …A Women!..(ominous music fade to black)
Behind every successful man is a successful woman, but behind every successful women there is a sore loser.
Did you get your answer or should I be more direct.
Not really.
It sounds like something a gender policeman would say. It’s a rather troublesome dipiction of your view of successful women in marriages that their spouce makes less then they do.
The view might be troublesome but it is what it is.
“It is what it is” according to who it’s being observed by. There is no objective proof that female run homes with 2 productive adults are any less benificial to society than a traditional hetero normative union.
Most of the problems with female run homes is the inherent stigma that others choose to attach to the Men is said relationships. It’s another negative value judgment from outsiders in the same vain as Homophobia that serves nothing but to placate the narcissism of on self righteous on-lookers.
On the micro level there is no conclusive evidence that female run homes with 2 productive adults are any less benificial to society than a traditional hetero normative union, but if you care to look around tell me how many great civilizations where based on matriarchal societies. Why women-led societies failed to five rise to great civilization? Because men in those societies lose their vigor and fail to rise to the occasion. In simple American slang, the man is pussified. It is okay for the family to be led by wife is a polite way of saying that the man is good for nothing chump living off her. Everything that glitters is not gold. Do not go by false appearances in the politically correct media,which fails to spread the truth.
If we are to grade the productivity and Survivability rates of it’s people then I would gladly state that the greatest civilizations is the one we have now. We are not returning to the days of swords and shields even if they offer a romanticized notion of classic Manhood.
Well I completely agree that the present civilization is the greatest civilization of all times, but remember that this civilization was built on men’s shoulder. The men who made discoveries, built buildings, fought wars and took risks are the real builders of this civilization. The men whose full time job is changing diapers, cooking and cleaning make minimal, almost zero, contribution to the society. Lastly, no civilization is infallible, even the present one. If the society keeps mistreats its productive elements i.e. men, rest assured this society will eventually regress to the days of swords and shields.
“The men whose full time job is changing diapers, cooking and cleaning make minimal, almost zero, contribution to the society. Lastly, no civilization is infallible, even the present one.”
Bullshit. Education and raising children is one of the KEY parts of a society, or do you think those men who built society hit 18 and their testicles released a datastore of education to enable them to build such a great society.
Women played a vital role, men played a vital role, mothers, fathers, child carers, educators, play a vital role. Hell even just good manners and the ability to socialize is an extremely vital trait to be in a society and much of that is taught by the parents. I learned as much from my mother n father as I did from school. How many great discoveries were made from scientists who were given a chemistry set, etc as children by their parents and taught to use it?
Cooking, cleaning, EXTREMELY VITAL to society. Cooking and food production is one of the highest needs of all humans, sanitation and safe, nutritious food is a major requirement to civilization. “An army marches on its stomach.”
You need to really start opening your mind a bit more and showing appreciation for the “little” things. The fact I’m not sick because my environment is cleaned regularly is a major productivity booster.
Right on Archy! Budmin, when you say this, ““The men whose full time job is changing diapers, cooking and cleaning make minimal, almost zero, contribution to the society.” Do you mean that when they do it it isn’t a contribution but when women do it it is? If so why is it any different? Because men are built for “better” things? Because women’s work is not good enough for men? Why is raising children a low occupation if that’s what you mean.
Incorrect. Your point is just one more instance of gynocentrism, and the flawed concept from it that women are better nurturers, and feminist demonization of men, especially in the home.
Every statistic on father(-figure-)less children tells you a father (figure) is vital to a child growing up:
http://www.liamsdad.org/topics/fatherless_children.shtml
http://fatherhood.about.com/od/fathersrights/a/fatherless_children.htm
“Every statistic on father(-figure-)less children tells you a father (figure) is vital to a child growing up”
False equivalence. I said specifically “2 productive adults” not single motherhood. Better yet, I was really talking about stay at home fathers who cook, clean, and teach. Where are they on the scale of Manlyness?
Are stay at home fathers the new blasphemers in the church of Man?
I, and the statistics, do not talk about single-parent children, they talk about FATHERLESS children. You could have a hundred women raising a child, but if child doesn’t have a father, it misses something vital.
Neither have I anything against stay-at-home fathers, quite the contrary, I spoke about the myth that women are better nurturers than men; this is false. The statistics strongly suggest that men are better nurtures than women, at the very least they are the better nurturers on average right now.
“Manly” does not equal going out to do a job – a man is not a function as society and women look upon them, as Neely’s little list handily shows. Manly is something you’re born with as a man, something that is intrinsic to your existence as a human being; something one instinctively instills in both their daughters and sons. For this children desperately need contact with father(figure)s; that means a man needs to be present in children’s lives. That is the exact opposite of considering stay-at-home fathers to be blasphemers.
Talk about misandry.
I missed your point. Would you please elaborate.
Do you mean that because they don’t produce children with each other they aren’t real? What about heterosexual couples who cannot produce children or will not produce children. They are sterile, so is their relationship not real? Are children the only measure of a family? That’s not just homophobic it’s telling millions of childless/childfree couples they don’t count. Or do they count because they “could” have a child?
Homosexuality aside, families are a lot more than get a penis in a vagina. But that is another argument.
The concept is the same. You have two people living together in committed relationship sharing resources in a household. Some have or adopt children. Who is in charge if it’s two men or two women?
In your model, patriarchy, who gets to be or has to be the patriarch?
With due respect, I wish to remind you that penis-in-vagina is the main reason for the existence of entire humanity. Procreation forms the core of family. Marriage was institutionalized to social and legally bind men and women into a single unit. i.e. family, to work together in procreation and raising the offspring to adulthood. Homosexual unions fail to on this front. It is just mutual commitment of exclusivity for sexual activities. Again, I do not deny that there cannot be love and relationship between homosexual people. As for childless/childfree couples, I would say they are more of exception than rule. Childless couples spend hundreds of thousand of dollars at fertility clinic for the procedures that have not-so-good success rate. Are they insane or deluded? To propagate one’s progeny is an innate human desire. Blood is thicker than water. Childless couple adopt children and raise them, but still at many instances those children try to look for their biological parents. In my opinion sharing resources is a household does not make family. How they are different than two friends living together in same apartment. Since they are outside the definition of family, they can select for among them a leader by toss of coin or whatever other dicey games homosexuals play.
I’ll be sure to pass on your thoughts to the many long term families with children that I know and that are part of America and other countries. My godparents for example.
And I’ll not even bother linking to other forms of relationships in other cultures during the past 10K we’ve experienced.
We have approximately 7 billion people on the planet, we are losing access to clean water, food and fuel. I’d say some alternative family structures are possibly just what we need.
Then again, I am not religious, catholic etc and don’t believe that procreation is any particular end all. People have animal drives and do wish to procreate sure.
I personally believe that commitment and shared goals form the core of the family, especially in this day and age.
We disagree and I don’t believe there will be much fruitful dialogue here. Normally I’d engage in more dialogue, but I don’t think we’d ever see eye to eye.
Well trust me, I am not a misanthrope. I respect all relations based on love, commitment, shared goals and camaraderie, but sometimes have to draw boundaries to define what is what. Commitment and shared goals are abstract, blood is real. Reality is something that does not go away when you stop believing in it. I hope that you are not depriving me of participation in dialogue with you for any other topic.
No, not at all, other discussions will come. I just know so many people not related by blood. I also know families who are abusive who are related by blood. A family, of blood, that abuses it’s children is far far less of a family to me than one, where the two men or women adopted children and have not abused them (though I suspect you might say (as I’ve argued with others who have said it) that the family structure there is abuse, which I would wholeheartedly reject).
Blood is just….blood.
My husband was adopted. He has a bio father that is a father in genetics only yes? But a father who raised him, not by blood, is more the family. My blood family?
It makes no sense to me Rapses, what you are positing.
You look at a story like Collin’s about the abuse he suffered by people of blood. Is that family? Technically, sure. But that’s not what a family is meant to be. My god parents are two gay men, together happily for 40 years. No abuse. no anger. No lack of commitment. That’s what family looks like to me. Family, to me, is what you make it. Commitment is work. That’s the reality I don’t deny. That’s what reality looks like to me.
Pregnancy can be done outside a family, anyone can deposit sperm and leave. In cases such as that blood means nothing.
People build all kinds of families. History has had all kinds of models.
So we disagree here. I’m an atheist so I suppose my position is quite different. Feel free to hold your opinion, Rapses and if there are other topics we can discuss, we will. This one is too personal for me.
Julie, your emotional response forced me to ponder over my own life story. My mother died when I was just eight years old, my father with the help of our extended family took good care of me. For years later, he married my aunt (mother’s sister) who was extremely good mother to me. During this period I developed somewhat fierce loyalty to my father, who has been really good father on all standards, loving, caring, providing, teaching and even disciplining. Six years later I had a baby brother making it a almost perfect happy family Really no issues in my family or even extended family. I think that due to loyalty towards my father, I am extremely sensitive towards any attack on father or fatherhood. I know that there are lousy fathers, lousy mothers, lousy siblings, lousy doctors and lawyers…………..and almost lousy everything. Why do we focus lousy fathers who abuse and abandon their own children. Are divorced dads who are trying to remain in the life of their children good fathers. Why GMP does not post stories about god father and good mothers working as a team to work for the better future of their children despite any hardship. We should focus on good people doing right things instead of making accusations about some imaginary grievances. I would like to apologize if I hurt your feelings on homosexuals, but that was only a clinical approach. I have only bookish knowledge about them.
“Homosexual unions fail to on this front. It is just mutual commitment of exclusivity for sexual activities.”
Well that’s me put in my place then! P^)
So when you are the one who is actively engaged in dealing with say – civil rights – human rights – fighting injustice – and your partner supports you 100%, even to the point of sacrificing at different times part of and even parts of the relationship – I have to see all that as Sexual Activities.
Hmmmm – I better check with the judge next time I’m in court if Representing an abused child with the full support of my partner is in some way seen by the judge as me being inappropriately Sexual. I would hate to be in contempt of court! P^)
AS for;
“How they are different than two friends living together in same apartment. Since they are outside the definition of family, they can select for among them a leader by toss of coin or whatever other dicey games homosexuals play.|”
It’s a “”dicey”" game to speak in that way!
I am happy to call it homophobia, and the game is rigged in my favour!
Maybe it is best to ask people how they manage their families rather than just disparage with your own dicey presumption and Assumptions? It could even be seen as courteous way to communicate and not a communication pattern built upon prejudice.
When some do choose to play certain “”dicey”" games – I role the dice, and it’s never snake eyes, only wining roles all the way – “Boxcars” – and all bets are off!
Ever seen what the house has to pay out, when it’s a whole train of Boxcars one after the other, because someone was not aware of the rules and played a very “”dicey”" game?
Thank you! This.
Julie – I just go back to Natural Justice – something I am “overly” familiar with.
Fitzpatrick v. Sterling Housing Association Ltd [1999]
The Law May Be An Ass – but when some old guys in wigs ruled on that one, they made it clear that to say a Gay man who had looked after his disabled partner for 25 years, and when his partner dies was told to get out of the only home he had known for some 30 years – and all because a piece of legislations said “spouse” – well The Old Guys in Wigs said to not recognise the care, love and companionship to not mean family would be a Manifest Breach of natural justice….. and so the family on man just got bigger!
Then there was The Medoza case.
http://tinyurl.com/7rg8hnm
It was odd that within 3 months after Fitzpatrick all co-habiting gay males and females were being taxed as married couples – but it took until 19 Dec 2005 before they could be joined in law. It was a great party! P^)
I saw not one flipping coins or playing “”dicey”" games, and anyone who is so flippant over the real damage that has been done, and which others have fought at such cost to have addressed …. well need I say more!
How about adoption? Does that not count?
How about when our technology has reached the point where we can get to sperm cells to merge like a sperm and egg does, and safely implant the embryo in a man’s abominable pouch, and extract safely from it? Is that enough for them to be married? You know we’ll do it one day… actually we could probably plant an embryo in there now. The man’s chances to survive the extraction process are extremely slim if not outright zero; but we could make a baby grow in a man’s body. Fusing two sperm cells together is still a little beyond our abilities, but give us time, man, give us time. In the mean time, two donor eggs and one load of sperm from the men, one for each egg, and a surrogate mother, and off we go!
Or a completely artificial womb? Does that count?
Ex definitio homosexual relationships cannot have children. Marriage- a relationship between a man and a woman is given a special treatment (at least in my country) because it is essential in preserving our culture and the whole nation. This treatment covers many things, from having paid maternity and paternity leave to being given free days during school holidays (e.g 2,3 weeks during July, so that you can have some free time with the kids).
Are children the only measure of the family ? No, but they are a crucial part of it. Without children any society is doomed to collapse in every aspect, and finally- it ceases to exist.
How about adoption? Does that not count?
How about when our technology has reached the point where we can get to sperm cells to merge like a sperm and egg does, and safely implant the embryo in a man’s abominable pouch, and extract safely from it? Is that enough for them to be married? You know we’ll do it one day… actually we could probably plant an embryo in there now. The man’s chances to survive the extraction process are extremely slim if not outright zero; but we could make a baby grow in a man’s body. Fusing two sperm cells together is still a little beyond our abilities, but give us time, man, give us time. In the mean time, two donor eggs and one load of sperm from the men, one for each egg, and a surrogate mother, and off we go!
Or a completely artificial womb? Does that count?
“Ex definitio homosexual relationships cannot have children.”
Why?
I once got into a long long argument on a Catholic site about this point. The two gay men adopting a baby are ‘stealing” it from it’s rightful mother/father. Or, the mother (if she’s a surrogate) and the gay donor are the parents not the other man. In the case of lesbians, the surrogate (even if an anonymous donor) was the parent, not the non bearing woman. He was apparently denied his right to fatherhood (even though he left his deposit at the bank).
It got down to a concept of natural law. Even when pressed about sterile couples or childfree couples (then we got into birth control which was difficult), it was that the man and woman COULD have a baby that made it aok.
I always find it odd that some think even a Kinsey 6 is biologically incapable of being a biological parent.
Some just don’t seem to grasp basic biology!
They confuse Biology with Sexuality.
What the hell is going in the school system? P^)
Dunno! Nothing good!
I’m worried by the lack of a smiley! P^)
And I’m still wondering when Wirbelwind will reply!
@ MediaHound
“Ex definitio homosexual relationships cannot have children.”
Why?
Making a child requires fusion of ovum and sperm. Since homosexual partners have either ovum or sperm. If they want to have children, they would have to outsource some family services.
And if they do outsource, are they then a family?
Because sterile couples outsource, and you consider that a family, yes?
May be they can create a facade of family. .
Why? Why is love, commitment, kindness, protection, dedication, staying up all night with sick kids, growing old together, holiday cards, birthdays, bank accounts, mortgages and so forth “facade.” Because the penis didn’t go in a vagina? That is the most straight up damn ridiculous thing I have ever heard. Is the straight couple who adopts creating a facade?
Anyway, so far as it goes, you don’t get to tell them they have a family or not. Your opinion doesn’t change their life. You can believe the moon is made from green cheese. It isn’t. The families I know? Are families. And you just go on believing they aren’t. I find that position to be so limiting.
Would you please give me your definition of family:
No, yours would be so much more interesting and illuminating !
Please define how consanguinity applies, and also how those who do not have consanguinity fit within the definition.
All cases defined please!
The literal meaning of consanguinity is the state of being related by blood. Consanguineous kins have some common ancestors. The consanguineous kins include parent, siblings, grandparent, cousins etc. The kins related by marriage are called affinal kins. They include husband, wife, in-laws, step-children etc. A nuclear family consists of husband, wife and their children. Joint families are composed of several nuclear family units where all men and unmarried women are consanguineous kins (patriarchal sytem) or vice versa (matriarchy). A family adds new member by birth (consanguineous), marriage (affinal) and adoption. Adoption can be referred to as the process by which a person assumes the parenting rights and duties for another by law or custom. Most laws and customs prevent marriages among the consanguineous kins, which seriously increases the chances of genetic defect among the offspring. Traditionally, adopted children are also forbidden from marrying consanguineous kins of their foster parent. Usually, people adopted orphans from their own consanguineous kins or the orphans of friends and allies whose genetic heritage they knew to prevent incest. Adoption and the use of reproductive technology such as artificial insemination with donor sperm and ovum disassociates the genetic heritage with kinship and thus makes preventing incest almost impossible. In a recent case, the sperm of a single sperm donor was used to conceive around 100 children. Disassociating kinship with genetic inheritance would lead to social and moral chaos. Another example is Woody Allen marrying Soon Ye-Previn, foster daughter of his ex-girlfriend Mia Farrow.
Oh so it’s outsourcing that is the issue?
In that case General Motors don’t make real cars! Do you have any idea how many components in a GM car are outsourced from other suppliers?
I’m just thinking of a few brands – Mc Donalds – Wendy’s – errr…. Apple…. in fact there are very few brands that don’t outsource these days! P^)
If outsourcing is the issue it does make for some very odd families. What happens if there is infidelity and an Outsourcing Accident?
By the Outsourcing argument, the child would not be part of the family and left on some Outsourcing Scrap Heap – and they are faultless in the nature of the outsourcing and manufacturing defect! P^)
Outsourcing leads to layoffs.
Oh is that the latest US centric jargon for Divorce on grounds of infidelity?
You Honour, I want to lay them off ?
I have to say this gets more like a “Troll” line the more it progresses!
It is much easier and cheaper to layoff employees than divorce your wife.
Last time I checked two women in a relationship cannot have children; the same is true for two men. If you want to involve a third party, then you can simply create a family with one woman going for a ONS.
I am simply stating that a FULL family consists of a father, mother and a child (or children). It’s the best way to bring up future generations, providing children with the optimal emotional and financial support.
This is why families enjoy certain privileges here.
Straight privilege you mean. See! Privilege does exist!!! Nope. A full family consists of people who pair together to live life, stay committed, work on problems and make their way in the world. And going by your theory, the moment a father dies, the mother should immediately remarry (maybe his brother like they did in Old Testament days). If the wife dies, the husband should remarry!
No divorce allowed no matter the circumstances!
You must have kids or you are NOT REAL! (don’t adopt, doesn’t count!)
Good grief. A full family can be two people who don’t want kids. Are you actually saying that child free people are failing somehow in a world of 7 billion people?
You see, the problem lies in this little truth: some societies have WAY more children that they can support (check how many Africans lived in 1920 and in 2005 for example). On the other hand, some societies (here in Europe, for example) are slowly aging and are facing serious problems when it comes to the whole social systems (since the number of people relying on this system, like elderly or disabled, is growing larger than the system (thanks to the taxes from working people) can support. The balance is off and only with more children it can work.
As for the childless people: I don’t have a problem with them (here people don’t have children because they can’t afford them, even with the help of the state, or because they have medical problems). I did not bring religious beliefs into account, and I have no idea why you did so.
As for the privilege: I was not clear enough, perhaps. It is more of a package of rights given to a family, at the same time expecting that they fulfill their obligations towards society, which seems fair.
Divorce: unless people are in an abusive relationship, or in an otherwise dysfunctional family I see no reason as to why they should do so. Divorcing because “it doesn’t feel right” or “I want to explore myself more” are a… childish thing to do. Adoption is much more problematic than some people realize… there are less children up for adoption than there are potential adoptive parents.
And, if you don’t want kids, why marry at all ? To have a nice wedding ?
Family is both a social structure and functional unit. Marriage and family were instituted in the society for a definite purpose. The purpose was to bring a man and woman in a state of union for procreation and raising the children to adulthood. In primitive societies manpower was very important. Homosexual activities aka sodomy was viewed as recreational activity in ancient civilization including,Greece, Persia and Rome. It was well tolerated among soldiers away from home. But these activities were not allowed to be the basis of family because they did not serve their purpose. Even Alexander the Great was allegedly gay.
And now? Purposes change. Women used to to literally be given away by fathers too, but we’ve mostly gotten rid of that tradition, at least in western countries.
Bashing fathers never goes out of fashion in feminism. Fathers married off their daughters to the most suitable grooms they could find. Sometimes papa knows best the best interest of his daughters. BTW, may I know the new purposes of family?
“Homosexual activities aka sodomy was viewed as recreational activity in ancient civilization including,Greece, Persia and Rome. It was well tolerated among soldiers away from home. But these activities were not allowed to be the basis of family because they did not serve their purpose. Even Alexander the Great was allegedly gay.”
Oh some one does seem to be out of time! Since when has it been “Homosexual activities aka sodomy “? So is the the definition of being gay?
Maybe you need to read Kinsey 1947/8, because in that case there are some real issues with 47% of US males who all meet the definition!
So if a gay man is celibate and has never been near a sodomite, does that make him heterosexual?
What about Female homosexuals? I hate to break this too you, but … well…. Sodomy sort of doesn’t feature there – so does that make them heterosexual too?
Hephaestion – Friend, nobleman and a general in the army of Alexander the Great. Odd the murals showing their marriage with the general in a frock to Alexander! If you know anything about history and in particular ancient Greek society – Alexander was more than an allegation on many fronts! P^)
You may need to have a look at some ancient Roman Too – “The Union Of Two Men In Love”, Roman Legal marriage between two men!
Two of them were even martyred together, St Barnabas and St Barrabas – canonised by the early catholic church and still revered in the Eastern Orthodox Tradition, but now hardly mentioned in polite Christian Society since a certain pope passed a papal bull around 1000 years ago which suddenly changed all gay men into sodomites and biblical plague! Bit of a problem having a couple of happily married gay saints!
Odd how Lesbians have always been left out of the equations. Is that Patriarchy at work?
You do seem to have some very muddled ideas which do not do justice in any way to the arguments you put forward!
May I ask if you have a specific Religious affiliation or faith?
I know that such questions are frowned upon given the American Constitution – but whilst I can claim US Citizenship, I’m more a citizen of The World!
Buddhist here by the way!
1) “May be you need to read Kinsey 1947/8, because in that case there are some real issues with 47% of US males who meet that definition.”
Well I am not a great fan of Alfred Kinsey’s book “Sexual Behaviour in the Human Male.” The study has some deep flaws which make his conclusions rather unreliable. The representative sample which he used for studying sexual behaviour overwhelmingly comprised of college students and prisoners with leads to sample bias. If you go to a gay bar for studying sexual behaviour of males and project it on U.S. males, you will find all U.S. male are gay. Kinsey himself said there are no homosexual people, only homosexual acts, to which I completely agree.
2) “So if a gay is celibate and has never been near a sodomite, does that make him heterosexual?”
If you consider homosexuality to be a choice, then his default state is heterosexual. If homosexual identity is his destiny, then he can definitely be called “non-practising gay.” The choice is all yours.
3) “What about Female homosexuals?”
Since females have different tools than males, their version of sodomy is called tribadism. Everything else is same as gay males.
4) “Roman legal Marriage between two men”
There are few recorded instances of legal marriage of two men, which include two emperors and some members of nobility. These men were also married to women, therefore there marrying men was just a vulgar display of their homosexual activity rather than any effort to form a family.
5) Two of them were even martyred together, St Barnabas and St Barrabas – canonised by the early catholic church and still revered in the Eastern Orthodox Tradition.
Do you mean to say Christian martyrs St. Sergius and St. Bacchus? Historian John Boswell had claimed that they were united in the ritual adelphopoiesis, which he called an early form of religious same sex union marriage. The claim is seriously disputed by Eastern Orthodox Church and theology scholars.
6) Odd how Lesbians have always been left out of the equations. Is that Patriarchy at work?
Lesbians are very much in the equation with a slightly different version. Papa can take care of his naughty girl.
7) May I ask if you have a specific Religious affiliation or faith?
Trust me I am not a Christian fundamentalist or Muslim.
“Lesbians are very much in the equation with a slightly different version. Papa can take care of his naughty girl.” What in bloody hell does this mean Rapses?
You have really poor sense of humor. Me and MediaHound are discussing about homosexuality and family. Due to some memory lapse, I was focusing only on gay males which prompted MH to accuse me of patriarchal bias. I just reminded him that the differences between issues related to gays and lesbians are only slightly difference. Patriarchy (papa) would also deal fairly with lesbians (naughty girl). What do you think homosexuality is choice or destiny?
I don’t have much of a sense of humor about bigotry, tis true. Lesbians aren’t naughty girls. They are human beings who are attracted to the same sex partner. Papa can step right off.
I’m heretic enough to believe that both options exist in a world where such variety of genetic adaptation is more complex then we are capable of seeing. I believe there are people who know from the time they are quite small that their attraction will be same sex. I also think there are moments in a person’s life where they find themselves attracted to someone of the same sex and don’t understand why. I also believe that aging and hormones may play a role in how men and women shift their attractions, but that’s conjecture on my part. I know a great many post menopause lesbian shifts. Don’t know why that’s occurred. Could be choice, could be an awakening. Could be a a combination.
All that is beside the point to me. I don’t care if you choose to marry a man, marry a group or marry a woman. What I think is important is how that man or woman or group is treated, committed to, loved. A family is more than genetics, more than blood. You place arbitrary limits on family and happiness.
Sort of, kind of, not really.
Alexander the Great had sex with men and women, as many Greek/Macedonian men of a certain age did. They didn’t really use “gay” as a category, and he was by no means outside the norm, except his advisors hoped he would get married eventually so he would have some heirs, so he needed to spare some time for sex with a wife and not just men.
“Homosexual” as a word and as a category is only a century or two old, and most people in the U.S. had never heard of the word before the peacetime draft of 1940, when the U.S. military introduced the term to every draftee and enlistee for WWII. (In a way, the War Department and Navy Department helped create gay identity in America. Oops.)
Among Greek and Roman men of a certain age and class, it was not just recreational, but for all kinds of other reasons people have sex besides reproduction. They did it when they were close to home as well as far from home – it wasn’t just “deprivation homosexuality,” but also by choice. In fact, it was often connected to misogyny: since men are superior to women, love between men is obviously a higher form of love than that between a man and a woman.
Finally, sodomy is defined differently in different contexts, most commonly as male-male anal sex, but obviously that’s just one of many aspects of male homosexuality. Historically, some legal systems, like that of Henry VIII, made anal sex between men a capital offense but oral sex was a much lesser crime, if it was punished at all. In some parts of Latin America in some periods of history, in cases of male-male anal sex, only one of the two partners was legally guilty of sodomy, the other was not.
“The past is a foreign country. They do things differently there.”
Id say the full family is the extended family – with uncles, aunts, cousins sticking their nose in, and all those lower in the age hierarchy having to listen.
It is the extended family structure that provides ‘optimal emotional and financial support’ as the many hands available help provide time freedom, emotional support, healthcare, pension money for the looking after of elderly parents, grandparents, the sick and children. the western nuclear family currently can only compete if the nuclear family income is upper-middle class and above. thats why so many nuclear families are struggling, they simply no longer have the income to replicate the range of support that the extended family gives.
[also, why is it that this iteration of a market economy has destroyed the extended family in the west and japan(from what i read, so flay me if im wrong), when other market economies in history did not. shows how bloody thirsty this form of a market economy is]
If the economy in the west declines severely and over the long term, i expect to see the extended family structure return in the West.
Some will be multiple-adult occupancy homes/compounds again. Others not.
With some extended families being related by blood, but others related only by friendship or by circumstance.
I expect to see a return to more communal living in the west
And if my prediction is accurate, I would expect to see a good number of same-sex extended families
I know that in USA there are less and less marriages every year; fortunately, this institution is still in favor here.
Because marriage in the U.S. is the weakest legal contract which can be broken at will without any consequence.
Yes, I know this. Avoiceformen and Spearhead put some light on it, and I ran into some pieces concerning “marriage strike”. Even media in my country noted (as a curiosity) that only about 52% of people over 18 are married in United States. Your future does not look good…
Really?
Only one man and one woman gives optimal economic and emotional support?
Especially in today economy?
I think two couples “marrying each other” producing a two couple family with their children (a third would work as well, I think with a fourth the logistics get too complicated) produces a family that has far better equipped economically and emotionally to support a child. Given that it pretty much takes two full-time jobs these days to support children and get them through college, and you need at minimum three people to support a child economically. It also allows couples some time off from their children, a vacation, without having to worry about where the children go; they remain at home, by the other parents. Then there’s the additional emotional and rational and physical support and refereeing of a second couple that is capable of offering an outside perspective to arguments within a couple that is not a corrupt family court system and their goons the cops, who are economically invested in destroying families, and you have another strong powerful reason why multi-couple families would economically and emotionally far more stable.
What is true, is that statistics of derailed individuals both male and female, show that a father (figure) is absolutely vital for a child growing up. Whether women can’t or won’t give things to children they desperately need that men do; father’s are necessary. A lesbian couple should have a close male friend that is around for the children enough they get that the influence of a father (figure).
Interestingly, multi-couple families would help in this regard as well; one female and one male homosexual couple anyone?
What’s the point of marrying with another couple when you can simply cohabit with some members of your family ? Grandparents, or uncles, or cousins ?
I can’t stand my brother. My late mother’s family is two hours driving away, because she married my father that’s on the other side of the country. My late father’s family, except for one aunt, I have no contact with, because they basically denies my existence when my father and mother divorced – because my father was having his second affair.
I’m pretty certain that my family situation is benign in comparison to many others. Family by blood, doesn’t make good family, or even family that has similar goals and believes that allows for a functional cohesive family unit.
Getting with other people not related to yo by blood; allows one to choose a group of people that is compatible enough with you to allow for a functional, cohesive, family unit.
Sorry to know that there is “bad blood” between you and your relatives. Do you seriously consider that multiple couple family is a viable option.
Yes.
I usually never agree with you J.G., but I love this particular comment. In your multi couple family are the couples all sexually bonded together or is it marriage for the structure and the traditional pairbonds occur.
However they want it. Some probably will have sexual relations between the couples, others don’t. Sex, passionate sex – not a quick lustful fuck – is known to strengthen emotional bonds, so the strongest multi-couple families are probably those who have sex across all four people.
What I find challenging here is not the concept of polyamory, but the lack of narrative story structures to support those multifamily units. They go against the tide (I know several!) and there are no legal protections for them. Still, I think it’s a grand idea.
The only way to get narrative story structures, is to do it first and then write them down. That’s the way every narrative story structure formed.
Yep. Agreed! And doing that while supporting others too. Enjoyed your posts.
That’s entirely up to the couples. Some will, some won’t. There’s no reason to enforce anything.
How can the big green monster jealousy be kept out of its equation
Who says there’s going be one?
Plus, ask existing polyamorous groups of people. Or were you really under the impression they don’t exist?
Well it is strange big world where everything is possible. I know they exist but was wondering how it works out.
I mostly write about the changing man/woman paradigm, and what I’ve discovered is that the extremes at both ends of the gender dialogue are overly sensitive to the point of not being willing to hear each other. The noise level and passions run so high that many seem to miss the point.
I’ve known Tom since he began the Good Men Project, and a more open, honest guy doesn’t exist.
“The noise level and passions run so high that many seem to miss the point.”
Sir, Could you enlighten us about the points which we have missed.
man, this website sucks and so does this hoity toity author who obviously is blinded by her NY times yuppie white privilege. but i’m glad there’s a space on the internet where men can post about how awful feminism is, how to dress properly, and oh yeah, sex advice. oh wait. that already exists. it’s every other mainstream men’s website/magazine/locker room/sports bar.
go to bed, everyone.
Did you bother reading any of the experiences posted by the men? This site is vastly different to askmen and other male sites….you just need to look. If you have valid criticisms of the author, write them down, take the article apart piece by piece and show us what you mean. I feel you’re missing the point of this site entirely, it’s not meant to be a sportsbar style mens group.