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
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.
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.
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
“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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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.
“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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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.
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… Read 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… Read more »
@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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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.… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
“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… Read more »
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… Read 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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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.… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
“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… Read more »
“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 1:13 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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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.
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.
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… Read more »
“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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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),… Read more »
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… Read more »
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,… Read more »
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… Read more »
@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… Read more »
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.
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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 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… Read more »
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… Read more »
“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….
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… Read more »
“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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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.… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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!
There is no such thing, patriarchy does not exist. There are simply countries, politicians struggling for control and power; it’s been like that since humans created tribes big enough to wage war on other tribes.
You mentioned USA above: they behave that way because they are the strongest kid playing in the sandbox at the moment, so they can get away with a lot and many officials pretend not to notice anything. It’s always been like that and always will be, at least until humanity exists.
And there’s no such thing as rape either, it is simply two or more people having rough sex and it’s been like that since Jurassic Park era…it’s always been like that and always will be, at least until humanity exists. So we are not evolving is that what you’re saying? We want to live in cave men days?
I love your logic.
This assumption that patriarchy exists and behaves as you describe and anyone who disagrees hates women etc.. Is not going to get you many supporters who haven’t already made up their mind.
And your point is ? I simply pointed out that violence is not a gender problem, but of the whole humanity: all are victims during conflict: men, women and children. Non-combatants always were most of the casualties and were abused the most for a simple reason: they could not defend themselves against a whole goddamn army. Bringing up male casualties of war or catastrophe does not mean erasing others’ suffering. What is so strange in pointing out that DIE DURING THE WAR, ARE CRIPPLED OR RAPED ? Remember, when you say a woman suffers because she is widowed it means… Read more »
Point is that…all of this shit lends itself to patriarchy. yes the dreaded P word. patriarchy is about absolute domination…the black wolf.
@ Zorro
Well we have read enough feminist hysterics. Can you answer the following questions honestly:
1. Would you kindly explain what do you mean by the term “patriarchy”?
2. How is it responsible for all the great misdeeds you have mentioned?
3. Which system in you opinion should replace it?
.”..a former trafficker who now works as an undercover researcher for a women’s support group in Iraq, detailed a visit to “a house in Baghdad’s Al-Jihad district, where girls as young as 16 were held to cater exclusively to the U.S. military. ” http://www.alternet.org/news/153455/8_stories_buried_by_the_corporate_media_that_you_need_to_know_about 2) Widespread Trafficking Of Iraqi Women And Girls Thanks To The Iraq War Since the 2003 US invasion of Iraq, over 100,000 Iraqis have been killed and another 4.4 million displaced, leaving many women and girls widowed or orphaned. As a result of the conflict more than 50,000 Iraqi women find themselves trapped in sexual servitude… Read more »
Sarcasm is not a sign of intelligence and is usually used when people run out of arguments.
And again, you are talking about only females. You see, civilians are raped by soldiers equally, it’s just that the UN or press are not interested in the mens’ plight.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/jul/17/the-rape-of-men
http://www.anesi.com/titanic.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_and_children_first_(saying)
And about exlusion of male victims during war
http://adamjones.freeservers.com/effacing.htm
To your last link acknowledging male victims I’d like to add. h tt p://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/ID45-PR45.pdf Almost 3% of men reported forced sex and 22% reported verbal coercion. … 2.3% of [women] reported sustaining forced sex from their current or most recent romantic partner, and close to 25% of the female sample sustained verbal sexual coercion h tt p://www.nursing.ubc.ca/PDFs/ItsNotWhatYouThink.pdf Males were just as likely to be sexually exploited as females. Among younger street-involved youth (ages 12-18), a greater percentage of males were exploited (34% vs. 27% of females in 2006). Among older street-involved youth (ages 19-25), a higher percentage of females reported… Read more »
Rape is not a gendered problem! Men rape men…women rape men, men rape babies…blah blah…why are we so bloody barbaric and dumb pieces of shit that exploit humanity?
Oh that’s great news! Female soldiers aren’t the only ones raped by their male comrades, apparently “civilians are raped by soldiers equally” — now that makes me feel much better about our military forces. Thanks.
Stop crying rape Zorro.
This is not a space for feminist hysterics and mass accusations relating to rape.
Zorro, when women are angry, they are called feminists and government helps them, gives them funds etc. When men are angry, they are called criminals, creeps, “afraid of losing privilege”, when he is angry or complaining his wife can call police because he is “abusive” and “she feels threatened”. When women are angry towards men (or even hit them) men are told to suck it up, man up, take it like a man. When it comes to war: hello, heard anything about the CONSCRIPTS ? DRAFT ? Being forced to fight or face charges of cowardice that resulted in death… Read more »
It is well known that when women go to war alongside men, they fall prey to their military comrades. If there are not mass rape against women and children in other countries, there is raping of female soldiers within their armed forces or raping of vulnerable girls and women on their turf. In the WW wars, women were collected like cattle into places called “comfort stations” which soldiers frequented and raped women who were brought there to serve their sexual needs during time of war. Here are a couple examples of hundreds on the web: Photos Show Rape of Iraqi… Read more »
No, women raped by their own comrades turn out to be false accusations.
What is less well known, because nobody wants to know it, or doesn’t think it’s possible, is that the enemy rapes men as much, in fact, more so, than women, as a form of punishment, shame and torture to break them.
Oh wonderful, wonderful “…the enemy rapes men as much, in fact more so, than women…”
“No, women raped by their own comrades turn out to be false accusations.” How so? Because the women asked for it? They were wearing sexy combat uniforms? Who put you in charge of PR for these female raped victims?
No, they were false accusations, that means no rape occurred, hell, in most cases no sex occurred either.
It’s funny how you keep parroting “rape this and that in armed forces” when we only just got out of a scandal and court cases finding the accusation of wide spread sexism to be completely unfounded, and the accusations of rape false.
Once more illustrating MRAs deal in reality, while those who aren’t MRAs spend their time with generalizations and fantasy.
Zorro, I posted this above too, in answer to the wrong comment. The days of hysterical feminists manipulating and silencing debate by making mass accusations or rape and violence are over, you are a throw back to a bygone era of the gender debate. And we know that women commit most child abuse and half of the partner abuse, and that women are more likely to rape a man, than the other way round. Electronic Journal of Human Sexuality, Volume 5, October 23, 2002 http://www.ejhs.org From Deviance to Normalcy: Women as Sexual Aggressors Peter B. Anderson, Ph.D. Dyan T. Melson,… Read more »
EDIT.
I forgot to link the study – ht tp://www.ejhs.org/volume5/deviancetonormal.htm
It is sick that in time of war…sex is still on the minds of men. It is a major priority for some or a lot of soldiers. You’re fighting a war…don’t you have better things to think about? About how you’re going to win the battle, fight the enemy, survive…think about home, family and friends? Don’t the military honchos provide soldiers with porn magazines or access to Internet porn? Many MRAs argue that access to porn decreases rapes. If we’re going to be supporting our soldiers fighting for our freedom, I hope that we are supplying them with enough porn… Read more »
MRA stats prove that porn decreases rape…what is sarcastic about providing porn for soldiers??? Why are we denying soldiers their sexual needs? It is obvious from these latest threads, that the reality is a lot of soldiers rape…and we need to acknowledge this fact and combat the problem!
Well masturbation and orgasm does have quite a good increase in various hormones to help combat stress, so you might be on a good idea not just for preventing rape, if it does. Would be great to have high speed, cheap and common contact with your loved ones if you have one and have cyber sex too as a way for destressing.
There is quite a lot of rape by both sides in the military from what I’ve heard, the military needs to do a lot more in helping survivors seek treatment as both male and females are raped by their comrades. I’d like to see what the physical abuse stats are like as well in the military, given the nature of the place I have a feeling there would be immense amounts of abuse for discipline and control, but that is purely a guess. Either way, war is hell for everyone involved, and the military could learn from compassion…No one should… Read more »