Quantcast

«

»

Jul 12 2013

I Get Male – Background Information

Hi firstly thanks for an interesting post, containing much info about life in Afghanistan that may be unknown , especially to us in the west. I would like to make some points.

I think this is an important point here. 

We do know this is going on.

We chose to not read the voices of people who write about these things or we chose to plain forget. It pricks our eyes between bath and pre-lunch beers but since we have nothing in common we can scarcely imagine the kind of treatment that women in Afghanistan are exposed to.

Or indeed in India which was where my first “taste” of how stupid the MRA movement was. That rather than realise that there is a major problem, AVfM tried to white wash the issue. Indian men were behaving badly and Indian culture showed it’s ugly side. To fight back? Rather than say “You are right! This is bullshit! We must hold ourselves to a higher standard!”, we saw the complete opposite.

MRAs seem to have stumbled over each other to try and see how low they caan go.

These people have explicitly made a stupid stand in a fight that I am personally involved in. It’s not just the fact it’s a stupid argument being made by people who have more freedom in preventing others from gaining the same but it’s also an unwilllingness to realise just HOW MUCH freedom people really have. These are my patients we are discussing.

Girl Who Writes is just another one in this long line of idiot voices.

1. GWW is bisexual and currently living with a man. She has a few children (daughters I think). I know this because I watched several, but by no means all of her videos.

2. Her politics tend to be of the libertarian flavor although she does not identify as a libertarian. She has no love for authoritarianism! (This is in response to comment no 3 above). Another commentator seems to believe the is a Christian. I have seen no evidence for that, but I may have missed it. I hope this isn’t just an attempt to slur?

Yet here she is defending a system under the guise of “talking to an expert” who literally has given information that flies in the face of all known  convention.

3. She often takes the devil’s advocate position and points out issues that effect men which are constantly suppressed by Feminists. I, like her see Feminists as a special interest group with no care for men’s issues. That is fine by me, I am egalitarian and Women are usually in the best place to point out where they have issues in society, so that society can adjust as needed. (Please though, don’t tell me to shut up and listen…that ain’t ever gonna work..)

There is Devil’s Advocacy and there is Taliban Supporting. This  was the latter.

Women are not suppressing men in Afghanistan mate, women have absolutely no power. They had even less power before. Most of what they have is due to the fragile peace and the presence of the eyes of the world. She did not point out issues that affect men.

If she did then she would be demanding we disarm Afghanistan due to the constant feudal violence and do something about the addition rates in men to heroin there.

Instead we see her just bashing women and claiming that women getting jobs will somehow take them away from men (wrong) and the same thing for education (wrong) and that women have it easy since they get to stay at home.

Her echo chamber comes up with plenty of LadyMRA showing up including the aforementioned Judgybitch who forgets that women in Afghanistan are virtual prisoners in their own homes. To defend this she throws up a Islamic apologist who conveniently forgets all the bits about violence towards women to “discipline” them.

This is ignoring the terrible plight of women in Afghanistan and the empirical statistics. Afghanistan is THE worst place in the world to be a woman. To claim that somehow women have it good there is fucking nonsense.

It’s simple. GWW would not have had the opportunity to make such an insane comment had she been in Afghanistan.

4. People like GWW Johntheother and others feel the need to point out that men have some grievances in their communities. That’s fine by me also. I am not an MRA and have very occasionally read AVFM. I personally think Paul Elam is an odious creep.

Men have problems too.

However we didn’t see GWW go “We should try and get better care for Afghani men facing addiction to drugs” and instead we saw her go “LOL women have it easy in Afghanistan! Ignore all reality! Massage MRA Ego”. Did you even read the comments? Not one person had the decency to say “I think you are wrong. You are harming women in Afghanistan solely to make a point and score acceptance by reducing the apparent severity of the plight of women in Afghanistan and downplaying the seriousness so that you can make it seem like women embellished the reality.

5. GWW does not defend the Taliban. That’s just silly. She points out that the regime is absolutely terrible for most men under those rules, and more dangerous than for women. Men have more freedom than women but also increased risks. Strangely, the average Feminist commentator doesn’t mention this. I notice that you note the issue of male sexual abuse victims. Well done for that. It’s quite unusual for a Feminist blogger.

And the Taliban kept stats? Are you seriously trying to make this argument? An argument I pointed out was fucking stupid?

Until the fall of the Taliban women had a lower life expectancy than men in Afghanistan. The ONLY reason it has risen now is the improvement of midwifery in Afghanistan dropping the maternal mortality rate and providing women with control over reproduction that doesn’t fucking kill them  and also the provision of actual healthcare facilities aimed at them.

This is without all the women who just “die” in the countryside to honour crime and the like.

And I am sorry? Would you fucking trade with an Afghani woman? I repeat. A system of life where you have absolutely no agency. No rights. You are property. You don’t have a childhood. You don’t have an education. You don’t have a future. You cannot even go outside on your own. You still have to do work around the house without any of the time saving devices that the modern housewife relies on to make her life simpler. You have no choice in when and where you have your babies, instead you will have them as soon and as many as possible. Chances are you will be a child bride and this means child birth will take place around 14 to 15 years of age which means an increased mortality rate. You are more likely to die giving birth.

But you are safe. No man will shoot you. No. Bullets are expensive. You get knifed. Or stoned. Or strangled. If you are lucky that is.

If you are unlucky? There is always scarring and mutilation. Acid and blade. You may not be photogenic enough for TIme Magazine to get you a nice new face.

You are property. You have no more rights than my medical textbook. If I chose to write my name on my book it has no more say in the matter than you would if you were a woman in Afghanistan.

Now things are changing for the better. But there are women and  a lot of them who still live like this.

No man would trade for that. Not even an Afghan one.

What is this marvellous thing that no man wants any part of!

6. GWW and others sometimes point out those occasions where Feminist organizations have been seen to clearly misinform, fiddle statistics or deny some men’s issues exist altogether. Trying to get a Feminist to admit that a significant proportion of domestic violence in the west is “women on men” is like pulling teeth, even as more and more studies come out and more and more men overcome the stigma and report these incidents to the police.
http://www.parity-uk.org/male_dom_abuse.php
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epidemiology_of_domestic_violence

Which has nothing to do with the price of Fish.

And even if we are to accept that the the report rate of men is a sixth that of the women we have to remember that the severity of domestic violence is higher against women.

Pay now and you get to see my long johns…

And I Repeat. MRA have done precious little to help the men they claim to represent. All I see is handwringing and finger pointing and slut shaming.

You cannot excuse the claims that Girl Who Writes made by pointing out that she has done many great things for men by pointing out that men are subject to assault too.

That’s like saying “well! Avicenna does help people in India. So he is totally allowed to beat homeless people while dress in long johns and wearing a bowler hat and a cane while roaming around in a Thatcherian dystopia.

There are a variety of “battles” to fight and if anything MRA would probably get along well with feminists IF they were genuine about what they wanted.

Instead we see that MRA are more interested in being bitter. Their association with the Pick Up Artist community and MGTOW and other distasteful parts of the Internet is just the icing on the cake.

7. AVFM and the MRM has it’s fair share of crackpots as far as I can see, some of whom are misogynistic. Lets not forget though, that there are some people who identify as Feminist who wish to see the mass extermination of men on a global scale! We have to sort the wheat from the chaff (spelling?) so to speak.

You mean Radfems? They are a tiny tiny minority. And most aren’t “liked”.

And they don’t have any influence in society. Their views are not the mainstream.

The views repeated by AVfM were the same as those repeated by the politicians of India. Who quickly  had to eat humble pie.

The views repeated by Judgybitch were the same as those of the people of Steubenville who orchestrated a campaign of harassment at the  people who wanted justice and who defended two young men not because they didn’t rape anyone but because they wanted their football team to win.

And lastly we just saw GWW defend a malicious ethic of misogyny that is pervasive not just in Afghanistan but in Pakistan and across the Muslim world.

If we are to get rid of those who are chaff then I am afraid your movement is very short handed.

8. You state that modern society needs both parents to work if it is to succeed. Children clearly benefit from having extra time with one or both parents. As long as men and women are treated equally by the law, there is absolutely nothing wrong with one of the parents staying home to care for the children. ( I use the example of straight men-woman relationships. For same sex couples, they are by default equally able to decide which one of them might stay home. Single parents don’t get to make the choice, of course unless they live in a society with a generous welfare system.)

Except this is Afghanistan we are talking about. Women don’t have the freedom to make this choice to stay at home. And while I am sure your LadyMRA will make  some argument along the lines of “monetary decisions and economics forced us to stay at home”, I am pretty sure that monetary decisions and economics aren’t forcing you to remain ignorant and beating you if you don’t get food on the table in time or killing you if you so much as look at another man or seem to have fun.

None of what I wrote above should be interpreted as me not caring about women’s rights, it’s just that women’s rights are not the only rights that matter.

In this case, more has been done to protect men’s rights than women’s in Afghanistan.

And I repeat. GWW did not try and make a case for men’s rights. She tried to make a case for NOT giving women rights.

There is a difference.

45 comments

Skip to comment form

  1. 1
    thascius

    “GWW did not try and make a case for men’s rights. She tried to make a case for NOT giving women rights.” And that sums up the problem with the so-called “Men’s Rights Movement” very well. It’s all about bashing feminists, not doing anything positive for men.

  2. 2
    Ace of Sevens

    The writer says that GWW is a libertarian, not an authoritarian as if these are mutually exclusive. Many US Libertarians are authoritarians at heart, they just tend to be the might-makes-right variety rather than the kind who want a strong central government. In fact, one of the cheap complaints abotu strong central government is that it keeps people who have gathered wealth and social power from using ti however they choose to exploit people with less, which they have the alleged right to do. It sure sounds authoritarian to me. GWW falls into this category.

  3. 3
    blorf

    Thascius, I really think the MRM* is entirely based on zero sum logic. For anyone else to gain, I personally must lose. Over in Ally’s blog they assert endlessly that opening shelters for men requires closing some for women, and that feminism is no longer interested in equality. Of course they also blame feminism for men being relegated to the role of breadwinner because obviously no-one important to the movement has pushed for women to go out and get careers to support themselves…

    *Is the mens rights movement rougly allegorical to a bowel movement?

  4. 4
    Raging Bee

    Is the mens rights movement rougly allegorical to a bowel movement?

    No, the latter gives us something that can, at least in some instances, be used as fertilizer. The former has yet to produce anything quite as useful.

  5. 5
    Firsttimereader

    Hi and thanks for a full reply.

    I’m gonna go and study that video ever so carefully again because you make some damning accusations and I must admit I really did not interpret the video as you did.

    One thing, it is not “my movement”. I never have been or ever will be a member or follower of AVFM or any other such organization, and I never have and never will identify as an MRA. Just to set the record super straight!!

    I am grateful that you took the time to reply and allowed my comment through moderation, and I will probably read some more of your blog and register to comment later on.

    Oh, and I liked your point about the price of fish, it is a phrase I often use myself.

  6. 6
    smrnda

    @2AceOfSevens

    Yeah, I find the claim that libertarians aren’t authoritarians to be laughable. They just don’t like *government* authority and end up doing a lot of hand-waving to argue that a government law that prevents discrimination against minority groups in the private sector is ‘tyranny’ and a private business choosing not to hire minorities is “freedom.”

    On the whole ‘breadwinner’ thing – MRAs argue that it’s anti-male that men are expected to earn the money, but then they complain about women’s employment either taking away jobs from men or upsetting the balance of economic power between men and women and leaving too many men without women since women don’t need them financially. It’s a lose both ways scenario – if women work, it’s bad for men, but it’s horrible that women expect men to work. (What option is left? That women don’t get jobs and accept the right of men to control all the money, which negates any claim that the should be appreciative of the treatment?) It’s not about presenting solutions, just complaining.

  7. 7
    diablo 3 cd key

    Why visitors still use to read news papers when in this technological
    world everything is available on web?

  8. 8
    oolon

    @Firsttimereader, where do you get the some feminists want to kill all men from? I’ve been told this myself and I pointed out the obvious flaw there – end of the human race. They backed down to 80% and rest in breeding camps, which was weird as they supposedly knew there are feminists that want to kill all men… I’ve seen plenty on Twitter who tweet to #killallmen, some even follow me on Twitter, this seems a damning indictment on their level of seriousness.

    I’d really like to talk to someone that wants to exterminate me because of my winky, I think it would be an interesting experience. Preferably over a pint but online will do.

  9. 9
    SallyStrange

    She often takes the devil’s advocate position

    This is just a fancy way of saying, “She often says shit she does not mean for sake of stirring the pot,” i.e., she’s a despicable troll.

  10. 10
    Raging Bee

    @Firsttimereader, where do you get the some feminists want to kill all men from?

    Someone’s ass, not sure whose it was first pulled from. I’ve asked for a cite for that claim, and so far, there’s no support for it, except for one quote from Mary Daly which was blatantly misrepresented. She never talked of KILLING men, she only mused about an unspecified “evolutionary process” that made men unnecessary. It was a fantasy, not a call for genocide or even apartheid.

  11. 11
    TaylorMaid

    So when do we get to see you dress in long johns and wearing a bowler hat and a cane? You can leave out the beating of homeless people….

  12. 12
    Samsara

    This ‘Gender Warrior’ crap is sooooo 1970′s passe.
    Y’all need to get over yourselves & get a useful & productive life.

  13. 13
    lookatthisguy

    Telling people to get over themselves and get useful and productive lives is so go fuck yourself, you asshole.

  14. 14
    Avicenna

    Samsara – I hope you were not referring to me.

    I don’t live in a western nation. I live in a place where women are burned for dowries.

    This “Gender Warrior” crap is necessary and means life and death. Please don’t tell us that we shouldn’t fight these battles. Battles that were fought to ensure you get to say things like “go get a useful and productive life”.

    I must ask you this.

    What do you define as useful and productive? Education? Can’t get nicer than doctor. Economics? I am poor now but one day I will be making doctor money. Social Life? Well I have none now anyways but I do have friends and am loved.

    If we are discussing productive lives. I don’t have a social life. I am at work tomorrow. I have a “case”. I have to go assist on a breast cancer radical mastectomy. Productive isn’t even the half of it.

    Perhaps you should read who I am before claiming that I need to do something productive.

  15. 15
    Firsttimereader

    This issue of mixing up current women’s issues in different cultures is a tricky one, we don’t seem to have the language (by that I mean words) to make it super simple to show that you are talking about 1st world or 3rd world women’s “struggle”.

    I haven fallen into it myself and not made myself clear, or misunderstood someone else’s position.

    Note to self: Make sure you are clear in this kind of thing from now on.

  16. 16
    B-Lar

    She often takes the devil’s advocate position

    Devils advocacy is where you temporarily assume a position which you don’t normally hold for the benefit of the entire conversation. It is NOT spouting off shit (that you firmly believe) full in the knowledge that it will stir up drama, for the very purpose of stirring up drama.

    I believe the words you were looking for instead are “deluded asshole”.

    Contrarians are really important to any conversation that wants to get at the truth of a matter. However, to the uninitiated, they simply look like argumentative assholes… Then when Hitchens says “”Seek out argument and disputation for its own sake”, we get a bunch of people who say, “Well, how about that! I can be an asshole real easy! That’s how I’ll contribute to the discussion!” and suddenly the herd isn’t moving because a whole bunch of us just started running in the other direction.

  17. 17
    firsttimereader

    Avicenna, I watched the video again. This is a summary of what I think she is saying. (Sorry if the numbers list thing annoys people, but sometimes it helps me to track and separate multiple sub-issues.)

    1. Throughout history, people in many cultures have found themselves “tied in” to strict gender roles for various environmental reasons, including religion.
    2. It’s not true to describe this as the oppression of women by men. It is better to describe it as each gender have a different set of rights and duties. There exists a kind of equilibrium, and therefore it’s not sensible to say men have it better than women. They just have a different kind of bad!
    3. Men usually have more rights, and also more arduous duties. She illustrates this with such things as sending men to get killed in war, or being the last to get on the lifeboat..etc etc.
    4. In order to productively improve the “lot” of women, it isn’t good enough to just throw extra rights at them, you also need to either give them more arduous duties or remove some arduous duties from men. Therefore keeping this “balance”.
    5. She equates the lack of arduous duties for women as a kind of “female privilege”. Maybe she says this just to annoy feminists, who knows?

    The above points are a summary of what seems to be her general approach, and she uses the same arguments when discussing the suffragette movement in Europe in the 1900′s. (and probably others too which I didn’t see yet).

    Specifically with regard to Afghanistan/Islam.
    1. She states a few personal sources to support the idea that Sharia law gives a working woman the flexibility to spend her own money outside the family, while forcing the men to use their income to provide for a family, as a reason that men tend to do everything in their powers to stop women having their own income. This includes doing everything in their power to stop them being educated.
    2. She does not, that I can see, at any point, touch on the subject of domestic violence in Afghanistan, (let alone condoning it) or offer any support for the Taliban. She tries to examine the reasons for the seeming popularity of the Taliban, compared to the Feudal Warlords.
    3. She states that the “freedom” of the men really doesn’t enhance their lives. They don’t have a choice whether to work or not. They and their family may die if they don’t work. It’s a duty, not really best described as a privilege.
    4.With regards to China, she states that the lack of “duty” for women to look after their relatives in old contributes to their lack of perceived value in society. Also, women cannot dig a ditch as quickly as a men, statistically speaking.

    It seems to me she is trying to explain how these strict gender roles come about, and how people behave to each other, gender wise under these rules.

    Of course her pet theory is that “freedom” for men doesn’t do them much good, and there are some benefits to the lack of “duties” for women, and therefore describing it as men oppressing women doesn’t do justice to the situation.

    I’m gonna separately address some of the objections raised in your blog.

    hmm… well please don’t attribute these ideas to me. I just needed to strip out the bare essentials before I did anything else.

  18. 18
    Rutee Katreya

    Y’all need to get over yourselves & get a useful & productive life.

    …Like Samsara, who trolls internet comment sections zie doesn’t like.

  19. 19
    firsttimereader

    @16 B-Lar.

    Point taken, as others have made the same point also.

    I don’t think I was right to use that phrase.

    GWW can be described as reactive maybe, as she does mainly seem to focus on disputing the idea of male privilege as described by Feminists. She constantly argues against some Feminist ideas. This is common among MRA’s. Feminists sometimes state that this means they must hate women. I don’t necessarily buy that.

    I’m thinking that her ideas may be challenged vigorously, but inferring from her actual words that she supports miss-treatment of women isn’t that helpful.

    Actually what seems to be happening is that people are inferring from what she doesn’t say, because she has chosen thus far not to make video’s condemning unfair treatment of women. She gets a lot of hate for that. Well she is still young…there is plenty of time for her to do just that if she wants.

    Also some guilt by association, as she shares a platform with some unsavory characters.

  20. 20
    Rutee Katreya

    2. It’s not true to describe this as the oppression of women by men. It is better to describe it as each gender have a different set of rights and duties. There exists a kind of equilibrium, and therefore it’s not sensible to say men have it better than women. They just have a different kind of bad!

    Only if you’re ignorant, evil, or both. Pretty much every society that is considered patriarchal (which is to say, pretty much every still-extant culture, although there are a very few that were not. And I’ll be shocked if you’ve heard of them, and spoiler alert, it’s not Sweden) not only puts much higher regard on male roles, but it gives those male roles far more agency. Men have it better than women, and we know this because cultures shit on what’s female-coded. FFS, there’s an orthodox jewish prayer that’s up front about it. Classical-Era Greece and Sengoku Jidai Japan made a point of promoting homosexual love for men *Because women were not people or were too inferior (Varied by city state, clan, etc)*. You idiots have confused your utterly inaccurate views on history for reality to say ‘men always have the riskier jobs’. FFS, the riskiest jobs in industrializing countries almost always went to *children*, not men (Yes, 50% of children are male. The other 50% are female though.)

    3. Men usually have more rights, and also more arduous duties. She illustrates this with such things as sending men to get killed in war, or being the last to get on the lifeboat..etc etc.

    The lifeboat thing happened like twice. Again, you idiots distort history – the majority of ocean liner crashes see the men disproportionately return home- after trampling the women and children. Note, I said disproportionately. As in, ‘after accounting for the differences in numbers between men and women who embarked’. Regarding war, not to burst your bubble, but the people most obligated to do it were typically the fucking ruling caste. I defy you to pretend Kshatriya, Samurai, or Knights had it worse than the peasantry (If you stick to Ieniceri or Mamelukes or the like, you might manage to pull out a better argument, but it’s unlikely). And since you idiots always go to medieval Europe, the levies were, albeit by no means strictly voluntary, in a great part there *because they wanted to be*. They needed silver to buy a new cow, or tools, or what have you. And for god’s sakes, the women went with them – Women guarded the supply train, because it’s not like they’d be permitted to farm unmolested, and they wanted to see their husbands home safe.

    And y’know, another fact check – civilians traditionally die more than the military in war. It’s like one of these groups is a hard target, and the other doesn’t have weapons, armor, or training in how to use weapons or armor. Also, that second group is the one that has the fucking food. There aren’t a whole lot of exceptions to this, although WWI is indeed one of them (WWII is not). Pretty much the only way to lose more soldiers than civilians, and even this is no guarantee, is to be projecting imperial power across a god damned continent. And that only works for one side.

    Oh, and a final fact check: Women will fucking participate if you let them. Scandinavian women rarely were permitted to go on the raids, but they did avidly learn the arts of war so they could at least protect themselves. Putting aside the exceptional stories you h ave things like administrative knights in the Holy Orders (Which is about as much of a non-combat role as guarding a base in Afghanistan or Iraq is in the modern era.) And yanno, there’s the aforementioned women guarding the supply train (Which was just straight up a regular thing – at least administrative knights weren’t usually women). It is *feminists* who demand that, f’rex, the US Military stop being sexist asses and let women serve in properly front line MOS (Because really, even most of the Rear-Echelon ones that get stationed in Iraq are still front line MOS) I could go on, but there’s other stupid, and I’ve made my point.

    4. In order to productively improve the “lot” of women, it isn’t good enough to just throw extra rights at them, you also need to either give them more arduous duties or remove some arduous duties from men. Therefore keeping this “balance”.

    This is predicated on no. 3. Which is fucking stupid, see prior.

    5. She equates the lack of arduous duties for women as a kind of “female privilege”. Maybe she says this just to annoy feminists, who knows?

    PRetty much the only women who get to be lazy, historically and currently, are upper class women. And upper class men are just as lazy (And even they had shit they had to do – both men and women, in case you feel like being a wiseass). That you ahistorical nitwits do not give women the credit for what they had to do (Like work in the factories, or the fields, or work your ass off in your own brand of drudgery while pretending Ward Cleaver is making all the money because polite society demands it) does not change that they had to do it. Women being oppressed doesn’t mean we got to sit at home and read books. It means we didn’t get what we deserved for the work we had to do (Such as the factory owners giving the women’s pay directly to the men in those women’s lives). Fucking jackass.

    And no, she says it because she earnestly thinks its true. Because she’s an ahistorical nitwit.

    1. She states a few personal sources to support the idea that Sharia law gives a working woman the flexibility to spend her own money outside the family, while forcing the men to use their income to provide for a family, as a reason that men tend to do everything in their powers to stop women having their own income. This includes doing everything in their power to stop them being educated.

    She gave her fantasy world. But if this fairy song were true, do you know what would actually be ‘men’s rights activism’? Giving the men the right to spend their money outside the family. (Spoiler alert, btw: ‘Men can’t spend money outside the family’ conflicts rather harshly with other facts like ‘Afghani men have incredibly high rates of addiction to Heroin’…)

    Oh, and just so we’re clear, as much work as it is to raise a child, I don’t really mean that. I mean ‘things that sexist society already believes is work’, because anything else is too much trouble.

    2. She does not, that I can see, at any point, touch on the subject of domestic violence in Afghanistan, (let alone condoning it) or offer any support for the Taliban. She tries to examine the reasons for the seeming popularity of the Taliban, compared to the Feudal Warlords.

    If you’re using the word ‘feudal’, you probably don’t understand what the fuck is going on out there to start with.

    3. She states that the “freedom” of the men really doesn’t enhance their lives. They don’t have a choice whether to work or not. They and their family may die if they don’t work. It’s a duty, not really best described as a privilege.

    Nobody has a choice on whether to work outside the rich. All the questions about work are questions of how, and how well you’re treated for it. Pretending this is the province of men is ahistorical jackassery.

    4.With regards to China, she states that the lack of “duty” for women to look after their relatives in old contributes to their lack of perceived value in society. Also, women cannot dig a ditch as quickly as a men, statistically speaking.

    You are aware that sons and husbands are relatives, right? (Also, women still have to work in China, especially now)

    hmm… well please don’t attribute these ideas to me. I just needed to strip out the bare essentials before I did anything else.

    Pull the other one, it plays “Bohemian Rhapsody”.

  21. 21
    Rutee Katreya

    GWW can be described as reactive maybe, as she does mainly seem to focus on disputing the idea of male privilege as described by Feminists. She constantly argues against some Feminist ideas. This is common among MRA’s. Feminists sometimes state that this means they must hate women. I don’t necessarily buy that.

    No, the fact that you spread misogynistic bullshit is why we say you’re misogynists, not the fact that they disagree with us. FYI, misogynist also means “Contributes to the lesser station of women”. I have never once cared what these assholes believe about women in their heart of hearts, only the effects of their actions.

    I’m thinking that her ideas may be challenged vigorously, but inferring from her actual words that she supports miss-treatment of women isn’t that helpful.

    I don’t really care about whether she hasn’t thought through the effects of her positions on women, or has and considers them acceptable. It’s entirely irrelevant because either is harmful and both are morally wrong.

    And I forgot this one, probably because it’s not very important.

    1. Throughout history, people in many cultures have found themselves “tied in” to strict gender roles for various environmental reasons, including religion.

    Religion is symptomatic, and certainly reinforces extant attitudes, but it rarely conjures them out of nowhere.

  22. 22
    mildlymagnificent

    Men usually have more rights, and also more arduous duties.

    Have you ever seen what it’s like to do laundry or cooking where there are absolutely no, none at all, aids to help with the work?

    In Western societies, the heaviest and most dangerous work for women (apart from childbearing) historically was always laundry. You either have to scrub your fingers raw to get things clean or manoeuvre dripping wet heavy loads of boiling linen on a pot stick …. or both. And the strain on the back while doing either or both of these things is not to be laughed at. There are good reasons why many people don’t wash their clothing and linens as often as those of us blessed with washing machines do – they haven’t got servants to do it for them and they can’t spare the time and the extreme effort required to do it themselves.

    And cooking in Afghanistan? With no decent stove or other facilities. (Even if you own a modern stove, the power supply is completely unpredictable and can’t be relied on for meals needed on any regular basis.) No prepared foods ready to be heated. In a smoky room with boiling oil. Not arduous at all. And you’re entirely responsible for the children while you’re doing all this – especially keeping the girl children from going outside.

    Not arduous at all. So would anyone here, man or woman, want to try a fortnight or a month performing these “not at all arduous” tasks of the ordinary Afghani woman? Didn’t think so.

  23. 23
    firsttimereader

    @20 and @21.

    Hi Rutee,

    Well, when I looked at my little summary of her position, my conclusion is that GWW has a dodgy analysis. I will continue to think that way whether you call me a misogynist or not. I’m sure you know that throwing that word around at people has resulted in the watering down of it’s effect.

    I’ve mentally removed the little bits of hate you throw at me, and your insistence that I came to mislead people and spread misogyny , and I read your comments and thank you for your observations. There were some informative points, mostly I agree with.

    I’m not going to research lifeboat statistics to try and prove you wrong, hope you don’t mind?!, it was a reference to different videos made by GWW and it was a while ago that I saw it.

    There are lots of people like me who are fully supportive of improvements to women’s situation within our communities, but just don’t need to buy into an ideology to do it, or throw hate around at people who don’t follow that ideology.

  24. 24
    firsttimereader

    @22 Mildlymagnificent.

    Yep, good point, and you didn’t even need to call me a misogynist or an idiot to make it.

    This is a bit trivial but I might choose to do that rather than push a plough through fields full of ied’s all day (all things being equal -of course we know all things aren’t equal).

  25. 25
    firsttimereader

    @21 Rutee.

    About the definition of the works misogyny, your second definition was new to me so I checked a few dictionaries. I only looked at the first 2 or 3 that come up on google and saw no reference to it, so I assume it’s a meaning that isn’t widely used or accepted. It’s useful to know that some people use it in that way though.

  26. 26
    firsttimereader

    *word misogyny…..

  27. 27
    SallyStrange

    I’ve mentally removed the little bits of hate you throw at me

    Get over yourself. Accurately pointing out where your viewpoints are ahistorical bullshit which have the effect of contributing to misogyny is not hate.

  28. 28
    SallyStrange

    About the definition of the works misogyny, your second definition was new to me so I checked a few dictionaries. I only looked at the first 2 or 3 that come up on google and saw no reference to it, so I assume it’s a meaning that isn’t widely used or accepted. It’s useful to know that some people use it in that way though.

    Misogyny is a phenomenon of complex social interactions between humans. As such, the people who study it and therefore know the most about it are social scientists, or sociologists. Rutee is using the word consistently with the way the experts on the subject use it. Sort of like how, if we were in a discussion about ecology and wildlife conservation, the word “community” would have a specific definition that did not correspond to the first, second, or third definition you’d find in the dictionary. That you haven’t encountered the word “misogyny” used the way Rutee is using it indicates that you’re uninformed on the subject, not that she is incorrect.

  29. 29
    Alyssum

    @ firsttimereader

    Do you really think that women in a third world country who are members of a family who rely on subsistence farming do NOT help plow the fields, grow the garden, haul water, feed livestock, harvest the crops etc? I did a search for farming in Afghanistan and there were lots of pictures of women in the fields.

  30. 30
    firsttimereader

    @10 raging bee.

    Cheeky bugger.

    Well I found a couple of examples, not fitting my description exactly though.

    1.
    http://radicalhubarchives.wordpress.com/2011/10/04/radical-feminism-in-the-21st-century/
    From section 4.
    “We have moved beyond palliation (negotiation, mediation, reform, compromise, engagement with the System) to exploring effective means of extirpating male pathology,”
    There is probably more but penis started hurting before I could read further..

    2.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Daly
    “If life is to survive on this planet, there must be a decontamination of the Earth. I think this will be accompanied by an evolutionary process that will result in a drastic reduction of the population of males.”

    Well thankfully Mary is happy to wait for nature to take it’s course to rid the world of the disease that is man.

    3.
    I also notice that Ally Fog mentioned the woman who shot Andy Wahol, but she was a psychopath is seems who just happened to be a feminist psychopath.

    I knew I had seen references for these folks, but every search seemed to lead me to avfm. They have an “exposure” regarding a super secret forum where such things are discussed. They name names and post screen shots and haven’t been sued, but I’m not gonna quote avfm as a credible source.

    I now realize I choose a bad example to demonstrate the outliers in the Feminist movement, it would have been a whole lot easier just to mention the trans-phobes.

  31. 31
    firsttimereader

    29@Alyssum.

    Yes you are right, there are probably many women in such communities who perform farm work.

  32. 32
    firsttimereader

    @28 Sally.

    Thanks, yes I actually only had to read further down the wikipedia page to find it, in the specific chapter on Feminist Theory.

    For the record, I never suggest anyone was incorrect.

  33. 33
    firsttimereader

    @29 Sally.

    They are not my viewpoints. I have written that they are not my viewpoints.

    “This is a summary of what I think she is saying.” at post 17 above.

  34. 34
    thascius

    @30-The examples you cited do not represent mainstream feminism. At least, none of the acknowledged feminists I know in real life or whose writings I read on FtB and elsewhere embrace those views, and in fact denounce the transphobia and male-bashing of the radical feminists. On the other hand views such as Ms. Tiptree’s (only reversed and directed at women) are mainstream for AVFM and other “men’s rights” groups.

  35. 35
    Rutee Katreya

    Yes you are right, there are probably many women in such communities who perform farm work.

    It’s not just the third world, although mom n’ pop farming has been on the way out for decades.

    I’m not going to research lifeboat statistics to try and prove you wrong, hope you don’t mind?!, it was a reference to different videos made by GWW and it was a while ago that I saw it.

    Good luck with that, since empirical reality says “No”.
    http://www.nek.uu.se/Pdf/wp20128.pdf

    Also, your choice of words is informative. You’re setting out to prove me wrong, not to find out what happened? Really? How important to you is it that men died more (or less, as the case may be) on liner crashes? Especially given that it’s irrelevant in the modern era, as liners are obligated to have more lifeboats than they could need.

    There are lots of people like me who are fully supportive of improvements to women’s situation within our communities, but just don’t need to buy into an ideology to do it, or throw hate around at people who don’t follow that ideology.

    I don’t care about ‘ideology’, I care about effects. That said, for all this bluster, the effect certainly seems to generally be to stand in the way.

    “We have moved beyond palliation (negotiation, mediation, reform, compromise, engagement with the System) to exploring effective means of extirpating male pathology,”
    There is probably more but penis started hurting before I could read further..

    Violent Resistance != Genocide, however misinformed it may be.

    Well thankfully Mary is happy to wait for nature to take it’s course to rid the world of the disease that is man.

    …so you’re saying she isn’t trying to kill all men.

    I also notice that Ally Fog mentioned the woman who shot Andy Wahol, but she was a psychopath is seems who just happened to be a feminist psychopath.

    No, she didn’t want to exterminate all men – SCUM is parody, and matches her other parody works in its syntax (And also she never once published it, a dude at her publishing company thought it’d be hilarious to publish it for her). That aside, she shot andy Warhol because she believed (Probably wrongly, but I don’t really care about celebrity spat bullshit) that he was cheating her, specifically, out of her work.

    I now realize I choose a bad example to demonstrate the outliers in the Feminist movement, it would have been a whole lot easier just to mention the trans-phobes.

    Radfems don’t typically want to kill men either. Although they’re generally quite happy with ruining trans women’s lives (And no, this is not ‘anti-male’ bullshit. Trans-misogyny is still misogyny.)

  36. 36
    Rutee Katreya

    Having not read Vliet Tiptree’s work in particular, and not generally caring about radfems except to despise their cis-sexism, I will go ahead and invite you to look at Radfemhub vs. AVFM’s frontpages. Every single time I’ve done this, radfemhub had far less jackassery (towards dudes, anyway), and far less violent revenge fantasy bullshit. The people they are shit to are the people society has deemed it okay to be shit to – Women of color, the poor, trans people… not dudes. It’s not even remotely equivalent in terms of ‘who’s worse to ‘their enemies’.

  37. 37
    firsttimereader

    Also, your choice of words is informative. You’re setting out to prove me wrong, not to find out what happened? Really? How important to you is it that men died more (or less, as the case may be) on liner crashes? Especially given that it’s irrelevant in the modern era, as liners are obligated to have more lifeboats than they could need.

    I’m happy to admit that I was just trying to move on. Lost of things are important to me, but I am ready for now to accept your position, but made a mental note to look into it a bit more later. The link you provide will help with that.

    Violent Resistance != Genocide, however misinformed it may be.
    Sorry, could you expand, I don’t understand the point you make.

    I care about effects. That said, for all this bluster, the effect certainly seems to generally be to stand in the way.

    Well it’s not my intent to stand in the way. I plan to stick around and hope that over time, people will see this. Maybe this particular blog post was a bad one to choose, and maybe I was not careful enough in my choice of words. That said, some commentators have ignored/failed to noticed some of the things I say and declared my views to be other than what I stated. (See point 33 and 34 above above as an example).

    This can sometimes be explained by the fact blog comments sections can be long and people sometimes just jump in and don’t see the context provided by previous comments. It happens, I’m not complaining.

    …so you’re saying she isn’t trying to kill all men.
    Yes that’s right. I state that as part of post 30 already. She seems just to be happy that men will naturally cease to exist over time.

    No, she didn’t want to exterminate all men – SCUM is parody, and

    I’m gonna take your word for now and make a mental note to look into it later.

    Radfems don’t typically want to kill men either. Although they’re generally quite happy with ruining trans women’s lives (And no, this is not ‘anti-male’ bullshit. Trans-misogyny is still misogyny.)

    Yes. Putting this into my original context, I picked as an example of extremists the people who want to see men dead. I have since observed that it would have been better to point to Radfems as example extremists, NOT that I think they want to kill men.

    I do not attempt to quantify it, and I don’t care much if avfm are a bigger bunch of tossers than Radfems who hate on Trans people. I don’t think either group are very likely to gain mainstream support.

  38. 38
    firsttimereader

    @34 thascius
    I can’t disagree with what you write, although I have not read many FTB blogs regularly. I refer you to my previous posts which add additional context.

    Than you for not calling me an ass, even though you thought I made a stupid point:-)

  39. 39
    Rutee Katreya

    Well it’s not my intent to stand in the way. I plan to stick around and hope that over time, people will see this. Maybe this particular blog post was a bad one to choose, and maybe I was not careful enough in my choice of words. That said, some commentators have ignored/failed to noticed some of the things I say and declared my views to be other than what I stated. (See point 33 and 34 above above as an example).

    If it’s not been immediately obvious, I care about effects, not intent. The effects of playing faux devil’s advocate positions, for shit that not only does not need an advocate, but is also already part of our background radiation, is to irritate and exhaust at its best, even assuming no further harm is done. It’s not that people misunderstand GWW, it’s that she’s shit at thinking and shit at history. The most benevolent thing I can plausibly ascribe to ‘accurately’ laying her words out without then immediately attacking them is a desire not to be accused of straw-manning her, and that’s just about your own appearances over the effects of your actions.

    That isn’t even a remotely reasonable interpretation of the evidence in light of experience, which is why you think you’re miscommunicating – it’s not that we didn’t hear you say “these aren’t my views”, it’s that the number of dissembling assholes who think their intent to argue against feminism is obscured by this sort of jackassery is legion. If you just so happen to be the one person who says this shit and really means it, it sucks to be you. I doubt anyone is sorry for treating something that looks like a decoy, and fails to quack like a decoy, like its a decoy, even if it is, for once, genuinely a duck.

    This can sometimes be explained by the fact blog comments sections can be long and people sometimes just jump in and don’t see the context provided by previous comments. It happens, I’m not complaining.

    Right track, wrong end. See, this whole thing takes place in the context of numerous prior discussions, none of which you seem to know a god damned thing about, if the definition of sexist or sexism as “Contributes to the lower station of women” is novel to you.

    I do not attempt to quantify it, and I don’t care much if avfm are a bigger bunch of tossers than Radfems who hate on Trans people. I don’t think either group are very likely to gain mainstream support.

    AVFM is also shit to trans people, as are MRAs as a whole; they’re just not the sort of shit that insists on doxxing them (Progress, I suppose, in that it matches everyday cis-sexism). And it’s relevant because the amount of STRIP THEIR RIGHTS and Revenge Fantasy Bullshit radfemhub puts out is incredibly low, if not quite zero. People acting like radfems are evil, for reasons that don’t involve actual oppression, is *bad*. In addition to being factually inaccurate, it’s used to pretend feminism in general is about that. The core problem with radical feminism is that it tends to pretend the root of all oppression is patriarchy (Which is the source of most of the other -isms they tend to drip – not cis-sexism though, that’s a different kettle of fish here), not that it wants to exterminate or enslave men, because it doesn’t want that.

  40. 40
    firsttimereader

    It’s not that people misunderstand GWW, it’s that she’s shit at thinking and shit at history.

    Well, one of my issues with the original piece was that GWW describes the Taliban as (paraphrasing) “clever malevolent assholes who cleverly re-enforced the already existing rigid gender roles as part of a strategy”.

    Avi seemed to indicate that GWW supports the Taliban. I can’t follow the link.

    GWW fails to touch on issues such as Domestic violence in Afghanistan. Avi believes that because of this, she is a supporter of Domestic Violence. Again, I do not follow.

    I think she was miss-represented, not that she is right. I didn’t get a lot of chance to immediately attack her before other commentators took issue with me. Time flies by and I tried to respond in turn to people as best I could.

    If it’s not been immediately obvious, I care about effects, not intent. The effects of playing faux devil’s advocate positions, for shit that not only does not need an advocate, but is also already part of our background radiation, is to irritate and exhaust at its best, even assuming no further harm is done.

    Could you expand on what you mean by background radiation. You mean there are MRA’s who support the Taliban or Domestic Violence? I mean express their support?. Or maybe it’s because of what these people don’t say, that they don’t condemn DV often enough or directly enough?

    I guess there are some. I have limited knowledge of MRA’s. I have seen them singly focus themselves on men’s issues, yes, and ignore women’s issues to a large degree. Yes they do seem to do that. They attack Feminism, yes, often. I’ve seen that. They hate it. They blame it for all manner of ills. They blame it for “ignoring the menz” or whatever and they hate that.

    it’s not that we didn’t hear you say “these aren’t my views”, it’s that the number of dissembling assholes who think their intent to argue against feminism is obscured by this sort of jackassery is legion.

    I did not express support for GWW. I don’t think she is right.

    Don’t forget I was commenting of Avi’s take on the video. If I had to do the same again, I think I would do it differently, but that’s with hindsight and a better understanding of this place and this community of commentators. I thank Avi for the insights he provided into Indian and Afghan society and I continue to do to as he produces new content.

    Partly I was trying to explain why people produce such video’s. They feel a need to ignore the shit that happens to women, because they see Feminism as solely focusing on the rights of women and ignoring men’s issues.

    And then they behave like a Defense Lawyer, who knows the prosecution has some good points but tries like hell to stop them being made or to discredit them in the minds of the Jury. Feminists do that very often also. It’s polarized isn’t it? I’m trying not to think about it that way.

    That might frustrate or annoy people, you may think I’m naive cos I’m not battle hardened and I’m standing in no-mans-land naked with a target on my back. Fine.

    I don’t hide my intent to argue against Feminism. I just sometimes argue against it when I see it as polarizing or when feminists lie or hide truths.

    There are possibly lots of words that Feminist have alternate meanings for that I don’t know about. I’m not planning to attend Feminism 101. If not going to go to Bible class either but I feel comfortable in rejecting Jesus.

    When a Feminist makes a point that seems reasonable, I agree. I hope that becomes clear over time if I get the chance to stick around. Avi seems to take a light touch moderation approach and I am certainly not going to resort to name calling and I’ll try to stick to the issues and not derail.

    You last paragraph, I’ll take on as a valid opinion. I have not followed the internal battles of the feminist movement, or indeed how MRA’s behave towards trans people differently to others. I see a whole lotta crazy on both sides that don’t affect me being positive about women’s rights (as a humanist).

    I suspect that if I went to an MRA message board with the same attitude as I have here, I would get the same polarized responses. I haven’t done that yet, I probably can’t manage to fight both sides at once. :-)

    I’m not going to revisit these couple of posts very often from now on, I’ve had a full and open exchange of views but I don’t want this to go on forever. You might catch me on other blogs or on other posts of avi’s.

  41. 41
    SallyStrange

    I’m not planning to attend Feminism 101. If not going to go to Bible class either but I feel comfortable in rejecting Jesus.

    The sentence posits a false equivalency between Christianity and feminism, which is another common anti-feminist dog-whistle advanced by duplicitous atheist misogynists.

    If you are intentionally spreading that damaging and false comparison, then shame on you for cowardly pretending to be something other than an anti-feminist.

    If it was out of ignorance, then consider this your course correction: if you want to contribute helpfully to a discussion about gender relations, patriarchy, and the unequal status of men and women, then feminism 101 is a helpful prerequisite, just like checking out scientific FAQs about climate change would be a helpful prerequisite to participating (in a constructive way) in a conversation about climate change and climate change denialism.

  42. 42
    SallyStrange

    I suspect that if I went to an MRA message board with the same attitude as I have here, I would get the same polarized responses.

    The ability to make everybody mad at you does not, for your information, track perfectly to the ability to make rational, factually correct arguments.

  43. 43
    Denna Farman

    “Hey! I’m at work browsing your blog from my new apple iphone! Just wanted to say I love reading through your blog and look forward to all your posts! Carry on the great work!my web-site: Marguerite”

  44. 44
    Kyle Havermale

    WOW just what I was searching for. Came here by searching
    for pets

  45. 45
    cat games for kids

    I’ve been browsing on-line more than three hours today, but I by no means discovered any fascinating article like yours.
    It is beautiful price sufficient for me. Personally, if all site owners and bloggers
    made good content material as you did, the net shall be much more helpful than ever before.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>