And you should be properly ashamed of that too. Harakiri is probably not called for, although I expect most here would look on you with extra favour if you went out and engaged in some further public self-flagellation as penance ….
May I be presumptuous and suggest that this video be split in two? I like it all, but the second half is directed toward and would be of interest to primarily the skeptical/atheist community, while the first half about how patriarchy severely harms while oppressing women needs to be seen by *everybody*.
I agree with you on MOST of what you’ve said, except for one glaring issue.
Feminism has not helped to end these things.
In many senses, it has exacerbated them. You’ve got VAWA, that even loads of women are saying portrays women as victims and men as aggressors, and yet feminists have pushed… To continue it. Feminists have argued for rules to continue to shift the burden of proof in rape trials to the accused.
Even on these blogs, you will find people who scoff at the -very notions- you’re speaking of, that men are in many ways at the bottom of the barrel when it comes to gender roles. Even saying what you just said can get you the label of “MRA” “troll” “misogynist”. But you’re a woman on FtB so probably not. 😉
Meanwhile, feminists are attempting their best to destroy the MRA movement. Even the so-called “moderate” feminists. This may be due to constant attacks on MRA as a whole rather than the actual crazies, but still.
We have a movement with a -terrible- track record of protecting men’s rights, and in fact a movement which held women like Lorena Bobbett as heroes back in her day, claiming to be the champion of gender rights, but under the often false pretence that oppression and privilege are things that are clearly defined: This is the “oppressed” group. This is the “privileged” group. There is no circumstance where it could be otherwise.
In short: Feminism has done a lot to perpetuate the exact same gender roles where it was advantageous to women. This is why we see pushes for more and more legislation that is written in a gender-centric way (such as VAWA was) from feminists, why they use the “Most rape victims/DV are women” argument, implying the part “so it’s okay if male rape victims are excluded”. Even if the statistics showed that they were right (whether they are or not is completely irrelevant: Justice for the 80% should not come at the cost of Closing the Doors of Justice for the 20%).
In even shorter: Feminism is diverse, and your brand of feminism seems to be in the minority.
I would love to know the reply to this, although I understand if you’re too busy. 🙂
You mentioned the whole “men having sex while drunk” and “women having sex while drunk” issue.
Please look up the new FBI definition of “rape”. It says that it’s penetration of the victim while non-consenting. This not only means that a man can’t be raped unless he’s penetrated in the behind, but also that a woman and man having sex while drunk makes it rape for the woman.
The old definition of rape explicitly said only women can be raped and limited the definition to “carnal knowledge.” The new definition is a huge improvement. I understand that your position is that peopel who are forced to penetrate someone else are victims of rape, not some other form of sexual assault, which is how the FBI would currently count it, but you’ve left our important details of why feminists are happy.
Here’s Feministing’s first article about the subject. Male rape victims are specifically mentioned. I’d give mroe links, but this would get me held in moderation. Short version, there was plenty of discussion,albeit not in every article. I don’t think that would be reasonable to expect, though.
Also, your summation of the new definition of rape is wrong. Here it is verbatim.
penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.
It never actually says the victim has to be the pentratee and the offender the penetrator. It only says that penetration without consent is rape of whichever party didn’t consent.
OtherSidersays
You’re missing my point. I never said ALL feminists are bad. I said that feminists are splintered, and you could find feminists on the wrong side of every issue.
And they’re usually the ones with the money. Need I remind you of the change of teaching language to children, which hurt EVERYONE, but was passed because feminists wanted it, because it hurt boys more?
For every reasonable blogger here, you can find another asking whether it’s the same when women commit pedophilia and saying no, it isn’t:
Or just outright denying what Criss says about gender roles oppressing everybody.
This would be somewhat like someone trying to convince me that Communism will solve all our problems just with their words, while the USSR and China serve as examples of what Communism brought about.
Is Barbara Ellen a monied, influential feminist? I’d never heard of her and Wikipedia has no entry. If you have no problem with feminism per se and think that some people are using the feminism label to support bad ideas, then you agree with about every feminist out there.
If you’ll trust a terribad MRA site like… You know, Fathers and Families 😛
OtherSidersays
Between this and Mel, and people wonder why the MRAs don’t trust feminists to deal with men’s rights issues too. -.-
fmitchellsays
You beat me to the redefinition of rape in the Uniform Crime Statistics. Here’s a press release, dated January 2012. Remember, though, it’s only for the purpose of crime statistics. If a female mounts a helpless or drunk male’s penis the local statutes determine who’s charged with what … but the crime will still be counted as a rape.
Still, we’re making progress. In a hundred years, when we’re all dead, our descendants (or the mutated chimpanzees that replace us) will have sorted this all out.
I don’t think you are very familiar with that story. SCUM is not a real society. It was a manifesto written by Valerie Solanas. The other thing she’s famous for is shooting Andy Warhol. Note that she didn’t shoot him over any feminist ideals. It was a personal grievance because he lost a manuscript. She also shot two guys who had done nothing except for be in the general vicinity of Andy Warhol when she went to shoot him.
Yes, some feminists, including a few prominent ones like Ti-Grace Atkinson, celebrated her because she wrote something they liked. As far as I’m concerned, this is no different than arguing we should ignore than Roman Polanski raped a thirteen-year-old because he made some good movies. However, the idea that Valerie Solanas is a feminist hero is not popular nor if it ever was.
OtherSidersays
Sorry, I got utterly confused there. What I meant to say is that radfem hub promotes SCUM and Eugenics.
You know, it’s funny that you hold up my linking to, what was it? Radhub or something like that? supposedly as evidence that I, and possibly therefore other “mainstream” feminists are down with radfems.
See, I was just googling around looking for a link to the story about the Southern Poverty Law Center classifying MRAs as a hate group. Are the SPLC a bunch of radical feminists trying to destroy MRAs? Hmm? I hope you answer that question.
Anyway, that was the first link that popped up. And to be honest, I didn’t recognize the website because that was literally the first time I had ever seen it. Because as a feminist, I have absolutely zero need to frequent their website, because there is such a wealth of other feminist resources out there, ones with which I agree. Later, when I went back and looked at it, I saw that it was a radfem website and thought, “Ah, shit. I better find a different link to use, otherwise some ASSHOLE is going to use this as evidence that not only I, but feminists in general, approve of radfem philosophy.”
So there you are. Being an asshole.
I don’t agree with “radical feminism” generally, especially not the gender essentialist, anti-porn, and transphobic strains of it.
I think it’s funny that you fit my prediction EXACTLY.
Sally: You seem to like linking to that a lot, and it’s good you actually started linking to the SPLC Intelligence Report. I think it was more evidence that you were sloppy in your citations than anything to do with radical feminism. You take the very nuanced article that tried very hard to narrow down what it was talking about before applying the hate group classification and go places it was never intended to go.
For instance, if you’re going to use it to make a point about someone, make sure that you can demonstrate a clear and continuing connection to the MRM after the period between June 15th and July 22 of last year, in which the report says the movement radicalized (the suicide of Ball and the rampage of Brevik are the two moments in question). Before that, it was the neckbeards hiding in basements like the TFL crowd which were more misogynist than the people in RL support groups (which have also now changed dramatically, both from external and internal pressure), and made the MRM a haven for every kind of stereotypically masculine abusive craziness out there.
Where did I learn all that?
The report. So yes, please keep linking to it, because it’s very informative and explains exactly why not only the MRM is creepy, but very clearly why it had mixed roots, how the creepy won out, and why men should stay the fuck away from it.
OtherSidersays
Again: How about the fact that Radfem Hub apparently -promotes eugenics- but you’re siding with them because of their label?
“Anyone wishing to donate money or other resources to the SPLC can “donate now” through their website, or by mail or telephone.
Please note that you may make charitable contributions to the SPLC and specifically earmark the funds toward individual projects, including the one monitoring the MRAs. Just make a note of the project for which you wish to earmark your contribution at the time you make the donation.”
^ Sounds like proper justice being done to me, what about you?
Andresays
I thought SCUM was still required reading in many feminist study’s?
Andresays
Yah it took little work to confirm SCUM still has a solid place in feminist culture and schools.
Even the popular YES YOU ARE essay by Sarah Bunting talks about SCUM like it is anything other then hate.
I am a feminist, but the feminist culture has its own share of hate and screwed up dogma… but hell who doesn’t.
OtherSidersays
And that’s feminism in a nutshell, and why only 20% of even women call themselves feminist anymore.
Feminism seems to be this from my perspective:
1) Say you’re for equal rights for all
2) Make it seem like feminism is the answer to everything, and without feminism we’d be in the dark ages. Deny any negative influence feminism has had in history (Support for Prohibition, anyone? Feminists were very eager to stand side-by-side with Fundie Christians back then.)
3) Work hard to ensure MRA issues, even the ones that you can’t deny exist, get no attention from the public – Either just keep denying (“Misandry doesn’t exist!”), or just resort to strawmen or ad hominem (“It’s not a zero sum game!” “You just want to go back to oppressing women!”)
4) Turn a blind eye to radical feminists. Barely acknowledge them, or say they’re not doing anything, but never resist their advances, if not make apologies for them. Act like promoting eugenics is less creepy when radfems do it than when the KKK do.
OtherSidersays
From my experience, these are not just my own opinions, but a very common frustration with feminists in general that I’ve heard voiced in many different places.
But, you know. Anecdotal evidence.
Andresays
Hell as a pro-sex feminist I find myself locked in nasty drag out fights full of some of the most retched slurs you could think of, all from other feminists. I have spent months fighting other feminists over those very issues you bring up. However I get the same thing from MRA’s.
So why would I still call myself a feminist? Well I would point out the above video on the subject and tell you that change comes fastest from within an organization then from opposition to an organization.
OtherSidersays
I just wish that both feminists and MRAs, the GOOD ones, realize that they’re not each other’s enemies and start talking about what is good for everyone.
Probably a pipe dream.
Jeff Johnsonsays
I figure this video from Pharyngula pretty much says what needs to be said about MRA (if by that you mean Male Rights Activism). It’s a solution in search of a problem that does not exist (except in trivial insignificant ways).
Oh joy, here it is, the “Men have no real problems” argument. I suppose it’s not a real problem when men are punished with years more than women for the same crime – Even though we’ll be mad that black people are similarly punished more than white people for the same crime.
Also cute considering that puts you right at odds with Criss right in the video. 🙂
Andresays
It took longer for the MRA hate to pop up then I would have thought….. PROGRESS!!!!
I was reading the 2005 one. The old one had problems, but the courts sorted it out. There wasn’t much an an Internet back them, so it’s harder to gauge what feminists in general, rather than a few prominent columnists, thought. Some did do a really bad job of balancing the rights of criminal defendants with the rights of crime victims.
Plenty of feminists had the same objections, though, including the ACLU leadership.
Yes. The section titles talk about preventing violence against women, but the actual wording of the law is stuff like “notifying persons seeking enforcement of protection orders as to what responses will be provided by the relevant law enforcement agency.” Section 101.(13)b. It always refers to persons or victims, not women. If there’s some part that gives additional protections to female victims or says that only women can be victims, what section is it in?
OtherSidersays
The Findings section under each title reports mostly female victims, and under the “Purposes” sections of some of the titles “women” are mentioned specifically.
Sec 40802 (b)
(An Eligible entity is:)
“(4) a nonprofit and nongovernmental victim services
organization with demonstrated experience in assisting elderly
women or demonstrated experience in addressing domestic
violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking”
That’s just from a minute’s look. Again, other than all the titles making it clear who this is about. That’s still Gendered speak.
OtherSidersays
Just to explain something else: I’m not saying they’re representative of feminism. I’m saying feminism is a broad spectrum that includes them.
A bigger problem, I think, is that how even most bloggers and commenters here, who call themselves moderate feminists I’m sure, scoff at the idea of “institutionalized misandry” even while being given examples (like female on male rapists getting away with it or getting pathetically low charges even when the victim is underage. Or the victim, even underage, being made to pay child support!).
Feminists are to proof of institutionalized misandry what creationists are to proof of evolution.
I can’t know whether those are examples unless I know what you think institutionalized misandry is.
OtherSidersays
Uh… Disadvantages stereotypes being applied to men, giving men a disadvantaged position compared to women.
In these particular circumstances, it is the men who are oppressed (in the aforementioned male rapist vs female rapist dichotomy), and the women are the privileged ones.
As I keep trying to say, privilege and oppression are flexible and apply differently to different people. A man is privileged if society takes him more seriously for being a man, but he’s oppressed in other ways.
OtherSidersays
Sorry, should’ve been better at explaining:
I think the worst part of institutionalized misandry is the portrayal of all men as aggressive sex-driven monsters. Therefore, all fights between a man and a woman are the man’s fault regardless of context, men with children are suspected of pedophilia, and while rape of women is serious, rape of men is a joke because “What man wouldn’t want to get laid?”
I think the worst part of institutionalized misandry is the portrayal of all men as aggressive sex-driven monsters.
If you’re blaming feminists for this institutionalized misandry, you’re off your head. That myth has been around far longer than feminism has, and feminists actively work to break it down.
DKendallsays
That myth has been around far longer than feminism has, and feminists actively work to break it down.
I’m sure some of them do, but plenty of other feminists actively work to prop it up.
Doesn’t the idea that “sexualisation” of women causes men to rape depend on the belief that men can barely control their bestial sex drives?
For example, I’ve seen feminists argue that women viewing male strippers is harmless (even if it “objectifies” men) while women stripping must be banned to protect other women from rape. In the absence of evidence that seeing a naked woman actually does make a man more likely to rape, that assumption looks rooted in misandry to me.
Double standards like that are hardly unusual in feminism.
OtherSidersays
“If you’re blaming feminists for this institutionalized misandry, you’re off your head. That myth has been around far longer than feminism has, and feminists actively work to break it down.”
Yet you participate in a blog where many of the posters will utterly refuse the institutionalization of any misandry to the point where you’ll get laughed out of a blog for saying it exists.
You guys have a VERY FUNNY way of showing you care.
If that’s all you mean by institutionalized misandry, then most feminists would agree with you that it exists. They are less likely to agree that institutionalized misandry is a good term because it isn’t equivalent to what’s meant by institutionalized misogyny.
OtherSidersays
It comes in law, backed by feminists most of the time. It comes when Maine police receive anti-male-biased training. It comes when laws like VAWA are worded the way they are.
As someone else said: The only thing I can do that a woman can’t by law is walk around barechested and fight on the front lines.
Not to put too find a point on it, but this “institutionalized misandry” caters right to the classical patriarchal division of gender roles. >.>
So how would feminism be amplifying it unless you’re talking about the separatists like Heart (ex-Quiverfull) who believe that the gender roles exist and are essential, and who are also extremely transphobic?
OtherSidersays
Simple.
Feminists as a whole don’t want those gender roles gone, they want them enforced. Where ARE all the feminists – and please, I want a real push here, not some sort of asking for female pedos to be punished properly, and to institutionalize a system where the child being raped doesn’t then have to pay the rapist child support?
Feminists claim they want “equality”, but with the pre-conceived notion that all men are the problem and all women are oppressed. They actively deny institutionalized misandry is a thing, but rather spin it around so it oppresses women.
For example, it’s obviously oppressive to -women- when men are forced to die in a war, because… I don’t know, it means women are not thought as able to fight. Even though, girlwriteswhat mentions this, there were the White Feather Girls shaming men into going to war in WWI.
Feminism is an upside-down worldview where misogyny is misogyny and misandry doesn’t exist, but is actually misogyny too. How are we supposed to achieve human rights when men are considered a non-entity, other than as an oppressor, by this philosophy?
OtherSidersays
*not some sort of “But that’s what I want and I call myself feminist” response, or a link to a single blogger, … etc etc.
Where ARE all the feminists – and please, I want a real push here, not some sort of asking for female pedos to be punished properly, and to institutionalize a system where the child being raped doesn’t then have to pay the rapist child support?
There’s no need to lobby for equal laws protecting boys and girls for adult predators because we already have them. That means people who want to change them are far more motivated to write about them. Age of consent laws used to apply differently to boys and girls if the applied to boys at all. It was lobbying by the first wave of feminists, along with child rights groups (there were big overlaps) that moved up to the more equitable system we have today. A brief overview can be found here.
True. This discrimination (and the one giving men higher punishment for equal crime, and higher conviction rates) is not on the lawbooks but in practice.
“also because you are inside my computer and I cannot reach you.”
😀
Seriously, beautiful summation of patriarchy and how gender roles screw with everyone, and especially the part about sexual harassment. Also, @3, the first and second halves relate very strongly, because sexual harassment exists both inside and outside the community (and this is pointed out by the example of the hotel worker).
Excellent analysis and explication of the important issues.
Another sign of patriarchy, perhaps the most literal sign of patriarchy, is when men expect women to take their last name in marriage. Why should this be so? If you are male and you can’t imagine taking your wife’s last name, then your mind is embedded within the logic of patriarchy. And vice versa for women.
Life isn’t too complicated if husband and wife both keep their “maiden” name. Others occasionally make false assumptions, but the look of surprise on their faces is sometimes worth it.
True, yet only a little touchy because of culturally determined assumptions people make. Their are many step children whose last name differs from a parent. And it is always possible for the husband to use the wife’s last name. I didn’t want to recommend a policy or practice, but only to reveal the one so taken for granted and assumed to be ” natural” when there is nothing at all natural about it.
Isn’t that something that should be included in the discussion? I mean men can only listen so much before their heads explode and they shift themselves, against their wills, into physically-abusive mode… metaphorically speaking that is….. I actually like women expressing their emotions and feelings with such mastery and with such ease. Maybe this is one reason women are much less physically violent than men.
By the way, good suggestions in the video. But, Men are strong and women are weak sounds too stereotypical and a little biased. Men are simply (physically) stronger than women, and I believe, this is how most men, who truly care about women (feminists or otherwise), would see the situation.
Isn’t that something that should be included in the discussion? I mean men can only listen so much before their heads explode and they shift themselves, against their wills, into physically-abusive mode… metaphorically speaking that is…
Oh it wouldn’t happen to me. I have been living with a woman for the last 5 years. My head has been fortified. Plus, I learned the art of listening from a Japanese Zen master. He said, never ever ask a woman to stop talking. Let her talk to her heart’s content. Be a good listener. Can’t tell you how effective this method is when dating a woman!
@Kahfre, I do have to agree with Sally here on one thing. You aren’t helping anyone unless all you’re doing is trying to make yourself giggle.
Christina nails it: gender sterotypes punish anyone who doesn’t fit the “norms,” and given that they are oversimplified, bullshit standards, that means almost all of us.
Christina nails it: gender sterotypes punish anyone who doesn’t fit the “norms,” and given that they are oversimplified, bullshit standards, that means almost all of us.
Gender Stereotypes, and the like, are all mental constructs — a point I discussed in the previous thread. The only way they have any existence for a person is for the person to give them reality in his or her mind. Do you think gender stereotypes exist for people who are not familiar with the term? For example, the people of a primitive tribe in South America?
If you do believe in gender stereotypes, then at some point in your life, you must have first created that construct in your mind, and then started believing in it, because gender stereotypes have no objective reality or existence. The books we read, the films we watch, the news we listen to, the people we talk to, all condition our minds.
Having said this, the best way, and probably the only way, to get rid of mental constructs is to stop creating them in the mind.
Gender Stereotypes, and the like, are all mental constructs
… duh? Each person has a different idea of what the stereotypes are. No kidding. Yes, they do have stereotypes in different cultures to categorize things in ways which are commonly seen together for whatever reason (even if that “seen together” is only a linguistic construct).
Having said this, the best way, and probably the only way, to get rid of mental constructs is to stop creating them in the mind.
So (assuming you know that the creation of these things is not a conscious act, which is generous on my part), you realize that the only way to avoid this completely is a full-cortex lobotomy, yes, or to be born and raised in a supermax prison (in which case your brain is probably useless for much of anything), right?
… duh? Each person has a different idea of what the stereotypes are. No kidding. Yes, they do have stereotypes in different cultures to categorize things in ways which are commonly seen together for whatever reason (even if that “seen together” is only a linguistic construct).
What I meant was that if you are not familiar with a certain term, as in you had not heard about it before or had not read about it before, then it doesn’t exist for you. So, if a person is not familiar with the term gender stereotype and how it is seen in certain cultures, then it doesn’t exist for the person. You must be familiar with how Indians complain from to time about racism in Western countries? Yep, they themselves have a caste system in India, which officially divides people into upper and lower ranks. That’s racism at its worst when seen from a Western standpoint, but the Indians do not see it as racism within the context of their own culture. They see it as an acceptable part of their culture, and they only experience racism when they are face to face with those who popularized the particular term. Do you see the point? Racism doesn’t exist for the Indians until they are taught what racism is!
So (assuming you know that the creation of these things is not a conscious act, which is generous on my part), you realize that the only way to avoid this completely is a full-cortex lobotomy, yes, or to be born and raised in a supermax prison (in which case your brain is probably useless for much of anything), right?
Oh yes. I agree that most of it happens unconsciously and people have no, or very little, conscious choice in this regard. But I am not really talking about avoiding anything. I am actually talking about exploring the mind to see what’s going on deep inside the mind. Where do you think the concept gender stereotypes exist for you? Right in your mind, doesn’t it? So, if you wanted to change it or eliminate it, where would you go to do this?
If a culture breaks down on rigid gender-based lines, gender stereotypes exist. That’s not a matter of definition, that’s a reality that the term was created to express.
Also, if you think racism didn’t exist before we came over and taught it to the Indians, you need to read up on the relations between the Hopi and the Navajo.
Regarding seeing how to fix these things, let me try an analogy with you. We can no more get an accurate idea of ourselves and our biases then a camera can take a picture of its entire self (or the entirety of another camera, for that matter. I’m not saying that self perception and correction are impossible, just that you seem to be presenting it as a great deal easier than it actually is.
Kahfresays
If a culture breaks down on rigid gender-based lines, gender stereotypes exist. That’s not a matter of definition, that’s a reality that the term was created to express.
The question is, and will always be, where exactly do these gender stereotypes exist if not in a person’s mind? This is just some people’s way of breaking down the world into bits and pieces — and there is no one right way. You said, If a culture breaks down…. This is just one way of breaking down the culture. The popular Western way. This is certainly not the only way.
Suppose you are a native English speaker, and this is the only language you speak. You are on a vacation in China. You know almost nothing, or very little, about the Chinese culture and you don’t speak or understand a word of the Chinese language. You find yourself standing before a native Chinese, who is doing some strange body language, some strange gestures, and shouting some strange words at you. You do not understand what he is doing. At most, he sounds and looks funny to you. But when you ask your Chinese guide, he tells you the Chinese guy was shouting abuse at you in Chinese for some reason. But you still cannot understand the Chinese guy unless you learn his language and his culture. Something similar should happen when the same Chinese guy is transported to the US and exposed to what the average American would call examples of gender stereotypes, racism, misogyny, etc.
Also, if you think racism didn’t exist before we came over and taught it to the Indians, you need to read up on the relations between the Hopi and the Navajo.
Oh I was actually talking about the Indians of India. The real Indians. But I guess the same rule should apply here. Racism and the like are all Western definitions. How could the tribe people be familiar with Western definitions before the arrival of Westerners? Doesn’t make sense. If they were fighting each other, they certainly wouldn’t have called it racism. It must be just how they lived — and acceptable part of their culture. Muslims kill Muslims in Pakistan on a daily basis. Who calls it racism there? But when the American drones kill Muslims, yes, it is racism for sure! Muslims do not like Muslims killing each other, but it certainly is much more acceptable to them than Westerners killing Muslims, isn’t it? I guess the same goes for Westerners too. Millions were killed by the Germans in WW2. But the holocaust somehow gets far too much attention than all those non-Jewish people who were also killed by the Germans!
Regarding seeing how to fix these things, let me try an analogy with you. We can no more get an accurate idea of ourselves and our biases then a camera can take a picture of its entire self (or the entirety of another camera, for that matter. I’m not saying that self perception and correction are impossible, just that you seem to be presenting it as a great deal easier than it actually is.
Maybe yes. It is not easy. But it doesn’t mean it is not possible. And it makes perfect sense too to know and understand one’s own mind before trying to change other peoples’ minds.
Even so, the researchers, based at the University of Texas as well as at Arizona, didn’t expect the verbal output between the sexes to be virtually equal.
Mehl acknowledges that many will have trouble believing the results, since it contradicts their own perceptions.
“This is the way the stereotype has been maintained in the past,” he says. “It is fairly easy to see what you want to see — to jump on the very chatty woman that you certainly find and say, ‘See, women talk a lot’ and to overlook the very talkative man.”
Mehl says the stereotype needs to be debunked. Not only because women are harmed by the “female chatterbox and silent male” stereotype, but because men are disadvantaged by it, too.
“It puts men into the gender box, that in order to be a good male, we’d better not talk — (that) silence is golden,” Mehl says. “The stereotype puts unfortunate constraints on men and women – the idea that you can only happily be a woman if you’re talkative and you can only be happy as a man if you’re reticent. The study relieves those gender constraints.”
Your uncritical acceptance of patriarchal gender stereotypes is doing harm to people of YOUR gender, too, Khafre.
But even that is not quite as harmful as how you propagate the insidious narrative that tells us that physical violence (oh, no, it’s METAPHORICAL physical violence *wink* *wink) is a natural, understandable response to a woman talking too much. The fact that you don’t personally participate in such violence doesn’t make your willingness to spread the meme any less creepy.
Your uncritical acceptance of patriarchal gender stereotypes is doing harm to people of YOUR gender, too, Khafre.
But even that is not quite as harmful as how you propagate the insidious narrative that tells us that physical violence (oh, no, it’s METAPHORICAL physical violence *wink* *wink) is a natural, understandable response to a woman talking too much. The fact that you don’t personally participate in such violence doesn’t make your willingness to spread the meme any less creepy.
See, this is why I refrained from giving citations in the past. With Google and fast internet connections these days, it doesn’t take long to find a counter citation….
But what I said does make sense from a common sense viewpoint. This is not to justify the violence, but to find a cause for why it happens. Women, being not as physically strong as men, CANNOT initiate physical violence. This is why women should do what they can do. They can only verbally and emotionally abuse men in most cases. And in turn, men should do what they can do. They can physical abuse women in most cases. And they do. Now, this is not to say men will never verbally and emotionally abuse women, and women in turn can never physically abuse men. I am talking about generalities here.
The problem is, verbal and emotional violence are not as tangible as physical violence, thus do not attract nowhere near as much attention. But it doesn’t mean verbal and emotional violence are not as destructive as physical violence….
As for speaking metaphorically, I think I was a little vague and ambiguous there. Only the heads exploding part was metaphorical.
“See, this is why I refrained from giving citations in the past. With Google and fast internet connections these days, it doesn’t take long to find a counter citation…”
I am a virgin. Can you empower me by giving me a blog? I am an atheist. I don’t require pay. I want to make informative and creative posts. I don’t want to argue. I only want to make ends meet. I have a few superstitious beliefs.
I think the empowerment of the free thoughters depends on our ability to make interesting graphs, display data in as many ways as possible, and to compile (for starters) only the best things said by the four horsemen.
I’m sorry, I’m unclear on this, how is having sex while drunk considered rape? Provided both parties consented and were conscious? Is it considered rape?
While you will find plenty of people who argue that it’s impossible to consent while drunk, I don’t think this is consistent with drunk people’s experiences or how we treat drunkenness otherwise. The real issue here is that drunk people often don’t so much consent as don’t clearly object or put up a fight. This is one of the main reasons to behind the push to shift from “no means no” to “yes means yes.”
“Provided both parties consented and were conscious? Is it considered rape?”
By law if it was a man and a women then the man raped the women. This is a stupid sexist law. I think the spirit of the law is meant to address someone who is passed out or drugged. I am going to let you in on a secret no one talks about when it comes to rape… Its not black and white. It has shades of grey that just don’t fit in any definition
If not consent is given, then it’s rape, regardless of the respective genders of the attacker and victim. There’s nothing grey about it. All you have to do to not rape somebody is get consent*, enthusiastic consent is best. I really don’t understand why this is difficult or grey in any way. In all other aspects of life, we are able to recognize when somebody means no, even if they don’t outright say it, and we are able to recognize when somebody is enthusiastically consenting to something. Why does this perception suddenly change when sex is involved?
*a coerced yes (either through emotional manipulation or implied physical threats), does not actually mean yes. if a person cannot say “no” then a “yes” is meaningless.
I don’t want to get bogged down in a lot of the detailed arguments here. But I would like to say I get really annoyed when people try to provide limited definitions of feminism, especially when men do it who seem to be threatened by feminism or are expressing some other insecurity, and especially when the definitions of feminism they want to work with are basically overly narrow straw men that are easy to knock down.
Feminism has existed in many forms, been expressed and argued for or against using many different strategies, and been claimed by different people with differing specific goals. It’s not a monolithic absolute, so if a particular individual claiming to be a feminist adopts extreme positions or makes disparaging remarks about men that are simplistic and based on stereotypical generalities or involve absurd hyperbolic rhetoric, it is that person’s fault, not the fault of feminism. No particular person has the right to represent all of feminism, and no bad behavior on the part of particular individuals can be said to be proof that there is something malicious or destructive or otherwise negative about feminism. Such arguments, and I’ve seen many of them, including here, are silly.
I have a generally positive view of feminism (and I’m a male). I don’t agree with everything that has ever been said in the name of feminism, but I like to give feminism the most generous interpretation possible, because fundamentally I think feminism is modern progress for humanity.
If one looks at the plight of women in Saudi Arabia, or the plight of women in ancient or medieval times, or even women in the 20th century, it is not hard to see that feminism is a net good. The empowerment of women is pretty uncontroversially a net economic and social good for societies. The freedom and empowerment of all people, male or female, is a good thing. But it seems to me even a simple minded view of history and of the present array of diverse cultures on earth (including our own culture) makes it fairly obvious that men have enjoyed far more freedom and empowerment than women. I don’t think anyone can make a sound argument against that proposition, yet men try to do it all the time and they sound foolish.
In my view feminism is essentially a very broad and diverse phenomenon that can be described most generally as a striving to balance the liberty and empowerment of all humans so that opportunities and resources are not allocated based on gender but open to everyone who aspires to them. If a woman wants to be a beauty queen and swoon at every chance to acquire more shoes and accessories, that is fine and should be a choice available (just as this role can be played by an effeminate man who wishes to do so). If a woman wants to be a soldier who could kick your ass in 5 seconds, that should be available. And if a woman wants to be a scientist, a pilot, an executive, an athlete, or a housewife, these should all be options that are open and available without artificial restrictions or social pressures against these choices. Women should have the same freedoms and range of options as men. That’s it.
Any view of feminism that tries to rigidly define what the roles of men or women should be or ought to be is barking up the wrong tree. The goal should be that men and women are equally free to choose how they want to live their lives and what roles they want to adopt or not adopt with respect to gender or with respect to the pursuit of career or how they arrange their domestic and family life.
No matter how many times someone can point to instances of women violating men’s rights or freedoms, or men doing the same to women, none of that should tarnish in the slightest the overall goodness of striving for freedom and equality of all humans regardless of gender, and I’m happy to call that feminism because I see it as restoring an obvious historic imbalance.
I was genuinely enjoying this video a great deal, until the concept of “hate speech” was brought up in way that seemed to suggest that we should regard it as taboo. I do not see how free speech and taboo speech can co-exist and, at least when it comes to interactions between adults, I definitely want free speech to exist.
Free speech has limits; yelling “Fire!” in a crowded theater is a canonical example. The dividing line between protected speech and “hate speech” for me is when discussion of facts, policies, and values turns into blanket condemnation or denigration of an entire group of people. It’s a fuzzy line, I admit, but on one side of it lies, say, discussion of health risks of homosexual behavior* — decidable by facts and research — and on the other lies statements like “Kill all the faggots!” or “Here’s a list of baby-killers” which exhorts irrational people to violent action.
Making value judgements on the worth of human beings generally leads to no good. (Something like “hate the sin, love the sinner” except for real.) John Wayne Gacy and Jeffery Dahmer did monstrous things, but they still deserved due process and a minimum of human dignity … things denied to Matthew Shepard, to take one example.
Pulling this back to gender roles and feminism, finding a bright line between free speech and hate speech may well be impossible. Many of these attitudes have existed for recorded history and beyond. Finding the right balance between the rights of women and the responsibilities of men — and vice-versa — won’t happen overnight, and mistakes in both directions will happen.
About the only thing I know is that blaming “feminists” for every mis-step and ill-thought-out law won’t help, any more than blaming “male chauvinist pigs” did.
—
* I’m aware there are health risks to heterosexual behavior too, and I suspect they’re more or less equal.
Cristina, that was awesome, for multiple reasons. For one thing, I think it’s incredibly important for sex positive feminism to be brought to the fore – I believe it’s the best way to break down destructive gender roles, that it’s the only form of feminism which can truly respect the experiences of all LGTB people, and that it acknowledges human nature in way that some varieties of feminism do not.
I also want to say to OtherSider that, while I don’t think you and I would agree on much, it was good to see you shut down Kahfre. I try to do the same when I feel that a feminist is saying something essentialist and/or hateful about men. (I just think that tendency in feminism is not as mainstream as you believe. Kahfre’s attitude doesn’t strike me as mainstream either.)
You know, I think we’d agree on more than you think. My only arguments have been when feminists went beyond seeking ‘equality’.
Such as… I forget her name, that woman trying to push for inverting the burden of proof on rape. If she gets her way, the consequences would be -chilling- on American society.
Or, you know, the US government and feminists groups continuing to pump millions of dollars into helping women in college when they are more advantaged now than men were when Title IX was passed.
Look at Darkmatter2525’s Youtube video called “Fratricide”. It is talking about religious moderates, but I think it applies similarly here. To both moderate feminists and MRAs (yes, they exist, get over it).
Quick! Throw in more charged words and empty accusations!
Don’t forget the lock-step, or people might think you’re not towing the party line.
If you think that men should not be punished higher than women for equal crime (the university of Arizona study shows 3-4 years average higher)? MISOGYNY!
If you think that men shouldn’t be considered pedophiles for spending time with their children, or, as stated in a case in Reddit stories, get called a pedophile for being a lifeguard who saves a kid from drowning? MISOGYNY!
If you think that it’s not right that some feminists want the burden of proof in rape to be on the accused that she DID give consent, AND make it so that he has to prove that she consented to every. Single. Step. Of the Way. Making it nearly impossible for a man to prove his innocence even though he shouldn’t have to in the way our criminal courts work in every other situation? Similarly, if you don’t like that some college campuses and even police officers train their teams to blame the guy from the word “Go”? MISOGYNY!
If you think that it’s not right that it’s socially not acceptable for a man to fight in self-defense against even an armed woman trying to kill or severely wound him? MISOGYNY!
If you’re unhappy about the social standard of the disposable male? MISOGYNY!
It’s okay, you don’t have to talk to the MRAs, or deal with them. None of them want to deal with you, either.
so how exactly can a woman prove she did not consent? By what method. Angle of entry into the orifice, many men will just say she wanted rough sex, by bruising, well I did not do it? How can women prove they did not consent? Aren’t they then being treated like the offender then? If we are all innocent until proven guilty why are women routinely treated like they are making false allegations? I mean like all the time? Again what proof would you accept here? If a person word is not sufficient, and I agree it can not always be, just what do we accept. A hell of a lot of rape and sexual violence occurs and nothing is ever done about p[precisely because people are not believed.
With women getting harassed the mra set ridiculous standards of proof. Not acknowledging that most if not all harassment occurs when there are no witnesses or any way of verifying the occurrence. Also even when women are believed, they are told to get over it or its not harassment.
Its like mra don’t want women to be safe.
MRA have lost no rights through feminism, yet they are so anti-feminism they can not be discussed with and they need to be outlawed as a hate group.
Most men are not in that camp, but to deny that reality of what occurs is at best blind or wilful ignorance and at worst wanting the status to remain the same.
What exactly then is your plan to help the situation. Please post any constructive suggestions on how we can resolve these problems.
You actually just went the Nazi route. You’re not even trying now. You actually just went ahead and said that anyone who disagrees with you should have their views outlawed.
If this is what feminism does to people, turn them into totalitarians who want to see their proponents jailed, then thank whatever powers may be I’m not a feminist. I like my freedom of speech too much to be your brand feminist, apparently.
But I’ll humor you on the rape thing…
I know it’s a problematic issue. But the real problem is that the only difference between sexual intercourse and rape is consent. Robberies often happen in alleys where there are no witnesses, but nobody is saying that anyone accused of a robbery should prove that they didn’t commit it, that would be absolutely insane.
In short: No, I don’t know how to balance the rights of the accused with a better conviction rate of people who have actually committed the crime. This is because there doesn’t need to be a specific physical action that separates sex from rape. But if you reversed the burden of proof, you’re essentially giving women the right to throw anyone who had sex with them in jail on a whim.
But I’m pretty well aware that you don’t care about the well-being of men. You just said you want anyone who speaks for male rights to be silenced using the law.
Now, on whether men lost rights through feminism… How about Title IX constantly causing men to lose their college teams because there’s an enforced equality of proportion between men’s teams and women’s teams?
How about feminists lobbying against male contraceptive research? How about feminists having been part of what caused the Prohibition? How about feminists pumping more and more money, including using government grants, for women to take men’s place in college where they are limited students available?
And if you get your way with the rape legislation thing mentioned above…
And i did not equate feminism with women. I said mra’s hate females and feminism. Meaning in case you did not get that they hate both. MRA’s are consisting hating of feminism, meaning any one who supports it, and they hate females.
And yes I said females, I am well aware many people are gender binary, gender queer, gender indifferent. I myself am gender fluid. I have zero problem with either being called male or female. It was not meant to be denigrating. It fact how you get it to be denigrating is beyond me.
And I am glad the MRA’s don’t want to speak to me, they have nothing worth hearing.
That does not mean most men, in fact 99% of men are like that or should be treated like that. Since sometimes I identify as male, I would not like to be treated like that.
Also by the way any female that was specifically anti male would get a telling off from me as well. I have no time for them either.
I just have no time or tolerance for hate groups and MRA’s are a hate group.
To not stand against recognised and persistent hate or to try and claim it does not occur is dishonest
And by the way, I work very actively for male rights in my area, since I do understand it can be a concern, but it can’t be at the expense of women, nor should female rights be at the expense of men, BUT very few feminists want that, in fact I have yet to see one, although I am sure they do exist, which is bad.
You need to learn more about what MRAs really are instead of lumping them all in the same sort of hivemind group. Yes, there’s a lot of hateful people in the MRA group. However, I think it’s a label that needs to be taken over by the non-crazies instead of the label being banned, which would lead to … Well… Pretty much the banning of speaking about men’s rights for fear of being branded a hate group.
Or is that what you want?
“MRA’s are consisting hating of feminism, meaning any one who supports it, and they hate females.”
This is a baseless assertion. Not all MRAs hate feminism, but to deny that it has had a negative effect on men’s rights is just denial.
“To not stand against recognised and persistent hate or to try and claim it does not occur is dishonest”
Yes it is. So please stop doing it.
“And by the way, I work very actively for male rights in my area, since I do understand it can be a concern, but it can’t be at the expense of women, nor should female rights be at the expense of men, BUT very few feminists want that, in fact I have yet to see one, although I am sure they do exist, which is bad.”
So you’re playing the ‘not all feminists hate men’ card while saying that ‘all MRAs hate women’. And the irony is completely not lost on you.
no i don’t and I have never said that. The crime and the person, regardless of gender needs to be looked at individually. The context of what happened, the background and so on all need to be examined.
Jeffrey G Johnsonsays
Frankly I’m shocked by the idea that people feel strongly that there needs to be an organized movement for men’s rights. I’m a 53 year old white male and I’ve never heard anyone talk about men’s rights before. The whole idea makes me laugh it sounds so absurd. It reminds me of the phony outrage FOX news so often generates about reverse racism, another non issue. As a man I’ve had my feelings hurt a few times when people made false assumptions about me. Big fucking deal. Boo hoo. If people made those errors it was because so many men behave like muscle headed testosterone poisoned louts so frequently. I’m embarrassed by the idea that there are men with the nerve to assert that they are part of a systematically oppressed class that feels it must raise issues and voice demands requiring some kind of broad based social transformation to remedy historical injustices. It’s totally upside down and represents the all too typical egotistical sense of entitlement of childish pampered boys who simply haven’t grown up yet. Meanwhile if you examine history, and if you look at the composition of our legislative bodies, the corporate boardroom, the gender of every single President, the distribution of wealth, and pretty much every other source of power in our world in every country, you will find a disproportionate abundance of persons bearing penises dominating and controlling the resources and the decision making.
Certainly one can point to instances of males being discriminated against. But this is not the same as a pervasive pattern, a widespread systematic denial of rights and denial of control over one’s destiny. There simply is no comparison. To try to place the need to assert and protect men’s rights on an equal footing with the same needs of women is like placing a speck of dust beside a mountain. I agree men and women should have equal rights, but anyone who thinks that the rights of men are seriously under threat is not clear on the concept; they are just nursing some personal private petty grudge, not identifying a real need for broad based social change.
One can assert that men receive longer sentences than women for the same crime, but most of those sentences are being handed down by other men, not women. I haven’t seen the study yet, but I can right off the top of my head several reasons why the result could be skewed, starting with the notion of “equivalent crime”. The outcome of such a study would depend greatly on how that was defined. There can be two men, for example, who can be sentenced differently for the “same crime”, for example first degree murder, because of mitigating circumstances. So any such comparison would have to take all possible sets of mitigating circumstances into account when building up classes of equivalent crimes for statistical comparison, or else a misleading result is likely. I seriously doubt there is a real problem here. The day there is a predominantly female judiciary making blatant gender based discriminatory assumptions about male defendants and using these superficial judgement to unfairly punish, then there will be a real problem. Until then I suspect the most likely explanation for longer sentences for men is that they commit far more crimes, and crimes that are more violent, more extreme, and more harmful than women do. Men are probably more likely to be repeat offenders too, though I’d have to check that one to be sure.
Certainly sexual harassment can go both ways, but again men are more frequent perpetrators by far, and especially the type of harassment that involves using a position of power, such as in the work place or during a police action, to extort or encourage an unwanted sexual transaction, is more likely to be initiated by a man if only because men are far more frequently in such positions of power. Still just because it is possible for a woman to sexually harrass a man, and I’ve experienced this once or twice, is no justification to assert an MRA movement to pretend there is a widespread need to correct pervasive patterns of injustice. Men may suffer some injustices, but men are empowered to stand up for themselves and take action to correct such injustices on a case by case basis. Women can also be so empowered, but historically and still presently are less so, and in a more limited range of circumstances with more complicating barriers, restrictions, and caveats.
Then I realized you completely ignored most of what I said, didn’t bother to read the University of Arizona research on male imprisonment, and apparently live on another planet.
I did make some arguments as to why drawing conclusions from comparing sentence length could be misleading, which you didn’t rebut. Since you have read the report and didn’t rebut my points, I’ll take that to mean you don’t have anything to counter my points.
All human beings experience embarrassment, awkwardness, insults, and denial of dignity at various times and in various situations. Men are included in this, whether a mother in a park glares at you suspiciously when you walk near a playground, or when your maleness causes you to be excluded from a social clique or event, or whether you may be molested or assaulted by a woman or because you are male.
None of that means there needs to be an organized movement to call attention to the inconvenient sufferings of poor boys with hurt feelings. It simply is not the same magnitude of problem as the deeply embedded cultural biases that have for millennia systematically limited the opportunities for women to control their own destinies and have equal access to opportunities and resources. To assert the need for a male rights movement as a coequal counterbalancing flip side to feminism strikes me as perverse and laughably absurd when comparing the scope of problems faced by women to problems faced by men. Yes we men face difficulties, but they are most certainly not because of women dominating public and private institutions and most decision making and systematically excluding or limiting men’s access to opportunities for fulfillment.
Because of these considerations it seems fairly obvious that stubborn insistence on MRA is based on something smaller and more personal, some private and relatively trivial grievances compared to the rather global historic culturally embedded forces that feminism has fought and still is fighting to overturn. Yes it is possible for feminists to adopt radical or extreme positions in over compensating attempts to shock or play out feelings of anger or revenge. These things can be addressed by intelligent dialogue. It’s not a cause to raise a banner to rally behind in order to organize collective action to reverse the massive tides of injustice and oppression suffered by poor little pathetic men. I can’t stop laughing at the idea, and I’m also playing the world’s smallest violin in solidarity with your tiny complaints.
“I did make some arguments as to why drawing conclusions from comparing sentence length could be misleading, which you didn’t rebut. Since you have read the report and didn’t rebut my points, I’ll take that to mean you don’t have anything to counter my points.”
Or maybe that I shouldn’t take it upon myself to point out what is in a report that you refuse to read. Probably because you’re afraid of bursting your feminist bubble.
“All human beings experience embarrassment, awkwardness, insults, and denial of dignity at various times and in various situations. Men are included in this, whether a mother in a park glares at you suspiciously when you walk near a playground, or when your maleness causes you to be excluded from a social clique or event, or whether you may be molested or assaulted by a woman or because you are male.”
Feminists are all too eager to blame the male gaze, tell men about how to act because women are feeling uncomfortable around them because of Schroedinger’s Rapist, tell men to stop having their sexuality because women don’t like to be objectified, et cetera.
This rhetoric of yours stands in complete contrast of how you act when women’s rights come. Why is it a social problem when a guy stares at a woman’s breasts, but when “a mother in a park glares at you suspiciously” it’s not really relevant?
“None of that means there needs to be an organized movement to call attention … but they are most certainly not because of women dominating public and private institutions and most decision making and systematically excluding or limiting men’s access to opportunities for fulfillment.”
Except, you know, the laws stating exactly that, for example Title IX limiting men’s sports teams.
Except the feminists pushing for the burden of proof on rape to be inverted.
Except the feminists lobbying against male contraception so that they can prevent the male from having a choice on whether or not he wants to be a father, which I sourced.
Except that nowadays, more and more money is being given for women to go to college, even though the difference in favor of women is now bigger than it was in favor of men when Title IX passed.
You know the creationists saying “There is no evidence for evolution!”? This is you. Right now.
“Because of these considerations it seems fairly obvious that stubborn insistence on MRA … your tiny complaints.”
You must really feel threatened by feminism. I don’t feel that way. You see problems where I see none. You sound like chicken little to me. You dish out a tiny handful of instances and claim that amounts to the overwhelming evidence for evolution.
I’m not saying you have no valid complaints. I’m not saying that no feminists go too far on some issues. I’m saying that any such issues can be easily addressed in normal modes of dialogue, dispute resolution, or policy debate. The factors you cite are tiny in comparison to what feminism has had to grapple with. There is no comparability. There is no need for alarm or outrage or an organized defense of downtrodden males. We can deal with problems and stupidity on a case by case basis, whether it comes from a minority fringe of extreme feminists or from elsewhere. That is the nature of what it means to be empowered. There is no need to pretend that the few problems you mentioned are equivalent to a complete reversal of the gender power equation, and that the very notion of gender equality is under threat unless men rise to the occasion and join the MRA to defend male honor. I simply don’t feel threatened as you seem to as women assert rights and share power and control with men, based on ability and not on gender. I don’t perceive a menace growing out of control. I see a few kinks that must be ironed out as women step into their rightful place in human society.
OtherSidersays
You need to understand one thing. The MRA movement only has a reason to exist in the light of the feminist movement, as a counter-balance.
It doesn’t matter who’s the most oppressed. I seem to recall many feminists telling men that it’s not a zero-sum game. So why does it need to be here?
Furthermore, can you mention a single law on the books that discriminates against women? I mentioned a number that discriminate against men, as well as institutionalization via other methods (like the usual classes in college which amounts to scaring women shitless of men and making men feel like they need to be told not to rape women).
For example, you might want to look at the marriage numbers as a sign of it. If you ask men and women, you’ll find that it’s men who don’t want to get married anymore, amongst other reasons increasingly being concerned about it being a legal trap where the woman can, with a no-fault divorce, leave them without their children, half their assets, and paying child support if not also alimony.
This is leading to, surprise surprise, most men not marrying. MRAs are constantly pointing to the situation in Japan with the grass-eaters now numbering around 75% of young men, and the same trends are coming out in the west.
But you’ll stick your head in the sand and say that the problem is just in our heads, or that it isn’t serious enough?
OtherSidersays
Girlwriteswhat , that darn misogynist … woman, made the marriage argument better than I did, now I think about it. Might want to look her up.
Jeffrey G Johnsonsays
I looked at the intro to your paper. I don’t feel the need to read all 53 pages. I assume you mean the one by Sarniker, Sorensen, and Oaxaca in June of 2007. It appears they made a good attempt to control for the factors I mentioned, though they admit that different sample size for men and women (because men commit so many more crimes than women) problemetizes their analysis. But for the sake of argument let’s assume they did everything correctly and made no major errors.
The study is to determine if there is sentencing bias, not why there is sentencing bias. The ostensible purpose of deciding if this bias exists (and they conclude it does) is that this knowledge could subjectively impact future sentencing decisions in a way that hopefully begins to compensate for the imbalance.
The whole question of gender equality in sentencing ignores the question of whether men are being sentenced too harshly or women too leniently. I would say it’s important to find appropriate sentencing levels as well as just making them equal. If they were equally too harsh that is not necessarily an improvement of any kind.
Thinking about why this alleged inequality exists leads us to consider factors that aren’t necessarily the fault of women or feminism. In fact we could probably blame it on the opposite of feminism, a tendency for male judges to feel protective of women. I can’t really see a basis to argue that feminism is at fault, or that discrimination by women against men is at fault. My guess would be that there is a larger number of male than female judges (I can’t state any figures here, I’m just assuming), and that males are prone to be punitive of other males, while males are prone to be protective of females. I believe a feminist perspective, or a gender equality perspective would incline one to advocate a better mix of male and female judges, and sentencing guidelines that advise judges against gender bias in sentencing decisions (against for example decisions that give more leniency to a woman with children, but not to a father with children). I don’t like mandatory sentencing rules. I think the system works best when judges have discretion. Perhaps also there are ways to analyze this by considering the social cost of greater rates of male crime, and therefore the greater need for stronger deterrence of males, thus perhaps it would not be fair or beneficial to society to sentence men at the same rate as women until male rates of crime drop to the level of female crime.
Is an MRA perspective different from a mainstream feminist/gender equality approach? What intellectual freshness can MRA add to this, or is it all just undue complaint over perceived male grievances?
OtherSidersays
Yes, that’s the one. Sorry, I thought I linked it elsewhere on the block. Anyways.
The MRA perspective?
It’s exactly what you said about “gender roles” being the cause due to an idea that women can’t do wrong or that men are the primary aggressors or something ridiculous like that… with the added soberness of realizing that feminists have had a terrible run of fighting against this sort of thing and in fact, they have a history of fighting for laws which promote women as victims and men as aggessors -cough VAWA cough- and promoting this exact same line of thought of women as victims and men as aggressors.
And therefore, the movement that poisoned us is now saying it’s the path towards curing it.
OtherSidersays
Except that part about “Males commit crimes more so it might make sense to punish them heavily as a deterrent” part. Would you say the same about punishing black people more, or would you say it’s racist?
I’d say it’s racist. Just as I say that argument fails.
Andresays
“I’ve never heard anyone talk about men’s rights before.”
Maybe that’s the problem. Go watch the above video one more time will you?
Meh. After a bit more research, I realized I’m barking up the wrong tree by using the MRA label.
I used to think that the label should be reclaimed, but it does seem like there’s way too much hate coming from that side to really reclaim it at the moment. Perhaps in the future when more of them do it.
I still think there’s plenty of male rights issues to argue for, and that feminism has its own issues, but it’s pointless to try to defend a label that’s so full of assholes and honestly hateful people.
When a label stops helping I dump it. However I find the MRA label to be useful in feminist blogs and the feminist label useful in MRA blogs. Out in the real world I wont use ether of them so I am not lumped in with anyone bullshit, but can still make the same points.
You say there’s plenty of men’s rights’ issues to argue for. Okay then, kiddo…. Do it!
Why *are* men getting longer sentences if they’re convicted of crimes? Why *are* men more likely to die in industrial accidents? Start talking about those real issues instead of obsessing about, gee, somebody, somewhere is a feminist with a chip on her shoulder.
Yes, for what it’s worth, you’re completely right. Somebody, somewhere is a feminist with a chip on her shoulder. And I’m saying that as a genuine, card-carrying feminist. I’ve even sat on a panel with Betty Friedan and Ti-Grace Atkinson. I thought, based on actually meeting her, that Atkinson was seriously loopy. It didn’t make me stop trying to get the ERA ratified, though.
Why do you let similar concerns about modern feminists keep you focussed on straightening out their heads instead of going after issues that you think are important? Try addressing real issues like the two I mentioned above, and see, then, if feminists are working for you or against you.
Kinda hard when MRA’s get lumped in with hate groups don’t you think?
I got a much better idea anyway.
You see there is this political movement already in place and funded that has lots of history dealing with this sort of thing, hell they are even in our schools. If we could get them to ease up on the man hate and and point out bullshit no matter who it is effecting we can build a much more effective movement.
Yeah, it’s kinda hard to get a political movement going when the mean ol’ opposition says nasty things about it all the time. But them’s the breaks, kid.
Take a look at what the atheist movement handles every day, and you’ll see that what the MRAs face is a walk in the park. But you don’t see PZ Myers or Greta Christina sitting around wringing their hands, moaning, “Oh, if only we could convince the pope there is no god. Then we’d have a well financed organization that’s not only in the schools, but in many cases actually owns the schools.” No, the atheists are going out and making their own, grassroots organizations.
And that’s the way social movements work. They tend to be messy and sloppy, with a lots of internal debate (gnus vs accomodationists, anyone?) And I’ll let you in on a secret– the feminist movement is no different. Do you think there’s some lock-step organization that includes both radical marxist lesbians who think women won’t be free until the end of marriage and capitalism; and happily-married MBAs who are hitting the glass ceiling? If you do, I’ve got news for you– if you want a lockstep organization to take over, you’d be better off trying to coopt the American Square Dance Association. Now, *there’s* an organization that really does expect lock-step obedience.
Of course, if all you really want to do is whine about feminism, proceed to whine. If you don’t actually care whether convicted male felons are getting longer sentences than convicted female felons, then don’t bother addressing the issue. But if you want to pursue a totally negative agenda, don’t be surprised if people say your movement is totally negative.
So much anger… You do know I am a feminist and an atheist right?
When you get right down to it MRA’s are just another flavor of feminism.
Men’s/Women’s right all fall under the umbrella of looking for equality. So yah as a feminist I feel it is important to point out when another feminist is talking out his ass. Criticism is how we build a better argument don’t you think?
“Yeah, it’s kinda hard to get a political movement going when the mean ol’ opposition says nasty things about it all the time. But them’s the breaks, kid.
Take a look at what the atheist movement handles every day, and you’ll see that what the MRAs face is a walk in the park. But you don’t see PZ Myers or Greta Christina sitting around wringing their hands, moaning, “Oh, if only we could convince the pope there is no god. Then we’d have a well financed organization that’s not only in the schools, but in many cases actually owns the schools.””
lol you might want to read this one more time and ask yourself who the opposition is in your little fun time story.
Here is a hint….. It’s sexist people.
Michaelsays
Great post, I think most of your subscibers would actually agree with you, you dont blame anyone group for something that is beyond their control, you showed how this affects all of us and why we should all be femenists – this is a useful approach – this works
Cristina, finding someone(anyone!) who is actually open-minded, intelligent and who isn’t just rearranging their prejudices is extremely rare. Period. Finding someone like that who is also good looking is even rarer. I would like to suggest that openly noticing that a woman who is intelligent is also really good looking as if that’s unusual may not be quite as sexist as you seem to think because it really is unusual.
When you raised the issue of patriarchy I noticed that you didn’t say whether there is or is not a patriarchy but instead criticized what you called patriarchal attitudes (and what I like to call leftover sexist bullshit). Lots and lots of mainstream/non-rad feminists, such as Gloria Steinem (whom I used to admire as both an author and a thinker until the day I made the mistake of actually reading her) thinks there’s one by which I mean that there are all these men who are out to disempower women. I think it’s crazy horseshit. For one thing, if men wanted to keep women perpetually disempowered, why on earth did they give them the vote? Why did Republicans nominate–Big Spook With A Hammer In The Sky, help us–Sarah Palin of all beings to be next in line for President? That sure doesn’t look like a patriarchy to me.
Finally, I would like to point out the amazing batshit crazy brand of feminist that has found a comfy home in the so-called skeptical community. There is a well-known feminist blogger by the name of Amanda Marcotte who has written tons of crazy shit but is perhaps most notorious for her incredibly hateful and bigoted behavior during the infamous Duke lacrosse false rape accusation scandal. In order to sustain that hate she had to ignore vast piles of evidence that called the accuser’s story into question including conclusive DNA evidence that not only could the players not possibly have raped her but her insistence that she hadn’t had sex prior to the non-rape was untrue as the DNA of several men who were not on the lacrosse team was found inside her. Marcotte called commentators at CNN “evil” for expressing sympathy for the players after they had been exonerated by the state attorney general and went on to reaccuse them all over again by writing, “Can’t a few white boys sexually assault a black woman anymore without people getting all wound up about it? So unfair.”
Marcotte has yet to apologize or acknowledge error. Despite this she has been repeatedly touted since by PZ Myers as one of our nation’s best critical thinkers and was even invited to be a featured speaker at Skepticon. Isn’t there a problem here?
You have a natural desire to think well of feminism and treat feminists who behave badly as an abusive minority who really do not represent the movement. I believe that this attitude is understandable but mistaken and that you may want to reconsider your point of view. I stopped calling myself a feminist years ago and prefer to be called a gender equalitarian. Maybe you too?
Oh, one other thing. I have been called a troll on multiple occasions not for threatening to rape or murder or anything like that but for the apparently seedy act of disagreeing with the ambient consensus. Indeed, my experience has been that calling someone a troll is a cheap and easy way of trying to discredit a counter argument without going through all the trouble of using facts and logic or any of that bullshit. And while it’s OK for the majority to insult you, insulting the same assholes back is totally out of bounds. Therefore, I encourage you to beware of people who use the term troll w/o specifying what a troll is as its overly-promiscuous use tends to muddy reality to the benefit of the mud throwers rather than clarify it.
Whatever Amanda Marcotte said, it isn’t the fault of feminism. The self-righteous anger over perceived injustice is a deeply human moral characteristic of both males and females, and it is exactly for this reason that we have a justice system founded upon the wisdom of presuming innocence until guilt is proven. In the Duke case justice was served, in spite of anything Marcotte may have written or said.
Marcotte’s decisions are her personal decisions, not feminism’s; to attack Marcotte is not to attack feminism. Given the long history of racist and sexist injustice and the typical arrogant attitudes of entitlement so preeminently on display among many frat boys and jocks, her anger and presumption was at least understandable even though premature and misguided. Her suspicions were unfounded in fact, but based on an awareness of prevailing culture and attitudes, not invented from nothing. I think she should publicly apologize; I don’t know if the claim that she has never apologized is accurate, but if she hasn’t she should.
Nonetheless I see this individual instance as irrelevant to the question of how important or justifiable the cause of feminism is. Personally I can not see any reason to object to the term feminism or the ideas associated with it, and every insistent objection I’ve ever seen has come either from very conservative submissive religious females, who see it as some kind of satanic corruption of society’s natural order, or males who appear in some way to feel threatened by equality or else who have some personal grudge against a woman or women.
In an attempt to claim that there is no need for feminism, or that no general oppression of women exists, you asked “why did [men] give women the vote?” You claim that there is no intention among men to disempower women, and you are mostly right, there is not necessarily a conscious organized plan. What you should ask is “why is it that women did not have the vote in the first place?” The right to vote for women was hard won and against stiff resistance. If you look at how Hillary Clinton was treated as first lady, you can pretty much see that any claim that patriarchal attitudes are non-existent or a thing of the past is an empty claim. Yes progress is happening, and largely because of feminism, not despite feminism. Yes you can point to many instances of empowered women who do not face anywhere near the discrimination their mothers did. This is not the same as proving feminism is not needed or important.
Even if there is not an intentional orchestrated conspiracy to oppress women, there is clearly a de facto one, one that limits and excludes women in many practical ways, easily visible to anyone looking. It is deeply embedded in (many or most) men’s attitudes, and it shows in the distribution of wealth and power between men and women in our society.
One could try to argue that the disproportionate distribution of resources between sexes is due to a natural inferiority of one sex, but you would have a very steep burden of proof to make such an argument. There is ample evidence that there are few things men can do that women can’t. There are certainly physical tasks that men are better suited for, and physical tasks that women are better suited for biologically. But there are also a lot of women that are stronger than a lot of men. The strong/weak dichotomy is not a binary disjunction, but rather an overlap in which many women are as strong or stronger than many men. The strongest humans tend to be men, but this does not justify making any type of work exclusive to males or females. Work, career, political office, and other opportunities to lead a fulfilling life should be available to either sex based on ability. As I observe society there is still too much condescension and still too many males who feel threatened by competition from women. The balance has shifted dramatically over the last 40 years, but it seems premature to push for a post-feminist society, and I’m always suspicious that attempts to do so are really founded in a residual resentment of females rather than a sincere belief that feminism is obsolete because there is true equality.
Even though we have a black President, there is ample evidence that racism is alive and well, and even though we may soon have a female President, that will not be a sign that feminism’s task is complete.
The fact that feminists have promoted the idiot Marcotte since her debacle IS a problem for feminism. The fact that so-called skeptics have promoted her as one of our nation’s leading skeptic is an intellectual abomination. I have no idea how you have managed to avoid understanding this excruciatingly simple point.
You also don’t seem to understand that one of the main points of good critical thinking is precisely to avoid allowing one’s prejudices get in the way of what should be one’s better judgment. Citing your own stereotypical notions about frat boys as if that somehow mitigates Marcotte’s behavior shows that you don’t understand that either.
There can be no patriarchy in a democracy where women have 54% of the vote, make up 56-58% of the college degrees, earn 60% of doctorates, where three out of our last four Secretaries of State were women and three out of nine Supreme Court justices are women. The patriarchy is an outmoded idea that has lost its currency. Advanced feminist thinkers really need to stop living in the past.
Your figures on education reflect recent gains, and I’m happy to see these numbers given that the opposite situation reigned for centuries or millennia. You still need to look at who has the most money and property, who has corporate leadership positions, and who holds political office.
All I meant to say about Amanda Marcotte was that, human weakness being what it is, and yes stereotypes being what they are, her mistake was understandable. I wouldn’t condemn her to oblivion for that mistake. I said she ought to apologize. I don’t read her so I can’t comment on the general quality of her work.
Studies have shown that stereotypes don’t form in a vacuum, and they tend to have some basis in reality. They are clearly not absolute and it isn’t fair to judge an individual based on a stereotype. However if one is forced to make snap judgements on a lack of real information (as sometimes happens in the real world), many stereotypes give a greater than 50% probability of agreeing with reality. Stereotypes are not devoid of merit, but obviously should be avoided when possible. My stereotyping frat boys is based on experience, and was not intended to slander any individual fraternity or fraternity member. There are probably some honest fraternity members out there who would concur that wild, drunken, and rude behavior by actual frat boys on many real occasions has contributed to this stereotype. It’s not the fabrication of a diabolical conspiracy to rid the world of fraternities. I indulged in the stereotype only to offer an explanation of how a fallible normal human being might rush to judgement in such a case. I’m male and not at all insulted by Marcottes error. I’m sure the anger that led to her mistake has some basis in real world experience along the way. I tend to be more forgiving than harshly judgemental, even of the over confident and loud exuberance of typical frat boys involved in typical frat behavior, provided they respect the boundaries of consent and usual social norms.
Her linked vanished years ago when Marcotte herself censored it. She replaced the original post with a complaint that people were making a big deal out of it and blamed Mike Nifong for her manifestly self-created problem. Then that vanished when she supposedly had an oopsie transferring the archives of her blog to another server.
“I had to listen to how the poor dear lacrosse players at Duke are being persecuted just because they held someone down and fucked her against her will—not rape, of course, because the charges have been thrown out. Can’t a few white boys sexually assault a black woman anymore without people getting all wound up about it? So unfair.”
Considering that DNA evidence had, by that point, utterly exonerated the players, I’m not sure exactly how much context you need. I also have a lot of trouble imagining any other group besides white straight males that could be attacked in like fashion and still be regarded by the person doing the attacking as a member the skeptic or liberal family would be proud of. Or, for that matter, be invited to write columns for “Salon,” “Slate,” or “Raw Story.” You?
PS: If you don’t think way to many of the women who call themselves feminists are man haters or that there’s no such thing as political correctness, I suggest you read “Until Proven Innocent” by KC Johnson and some guy named Taylor. It’s quite the eye opener.
I’d lost my shit with feminism about the time they insisted there was a child-raping international Satanic Conspiracy (see January 1993 issue of “Ms.”) so, I have no illusions about feminists per se being especially good critical thinkers. Boy are they not. But I never would have thought that as public a jerk as Amanda Marcotte would ever be embraced after making as spectacular a public asshole of herself as she did. There, even my low opinion of feminism proved too high.
Andre, the Duke lacrosse mess went on for almost a year and the case was highly suspect from the beginning. The whole point of good critical thinking is that it’s supposed to be fact based. If you can’t grasp that I don’t know what else I can tell you.
Also, the idea that Marcotte now “knows better” is utterly unsubstantiated. And if she does now know better and hasn’t apologized or acknowledged any kind of error, makes the fact that she has been promoted as one of our nation’s leading skeptics if anything even worse.
Everyone is a screw up now and then and if she deleted her comment this tells me she might be very embarrassed by it now who here has never let pride keep us from apologizing?
Still you make a good point. This is a pretty damn big black mark on her credibility and character. I would not want her representing me.
Cris would win. GRW would get angry and it would turn into name calling. Also they would throw citations at each other that could not easily be answered without looking them up first.
I gotta say, the comments on this video on youtube are about what I expected. Mostly a bunch of men hating on women and completely missing the point.
I really passionately hate the way people see an attractive woman talking about damn near anything and they feel the need to comment ‘Man she’s beautiful!’ I really don’t get that. It’s basically telling everyone: ‘This person is visually arousing to me and I felt the need to alert everyone to this because…’ because why? I don’t get it. It’s entirely pointless and insulting to the person speaking because it doesn’t matter the value of their talk, just that someone feels attracted to them.
Excellent video – one clarification on patriarchy: It is about the concentration of power under a percentage of men in a win-lose model. So you usually have both male and female suffering (for a stark model of big winners and bigger losers, just think of the huge percentage of teenage “lost boys” who get kicked out of the FLDS when they start becoming competition for the old Warren Jeffs types. At the same time, girls are getting pretty much sold off into the sexual slavery of forced multiple mariages at a younger ond younger age because they are just commodities.) Patriarchy tends to create rigid roles and limitations for everyone, because there are limited ways in which to be successful. Matriarchy, on the other hand *tends* to allow shared power and individual paths to success. It usually has freer sexual expression and lack of judgement around sex, and individual expression overall. So, if we just look at the sex negativity of our society, and the huge concentrated power at the top, it is obvious that we are still firmly under a patriarchal model. The feminism that we see in our society is not yet free of patriachy, and that is one reason why the oppressed can lash out to wound in turn against the ones (or a proxy of the ones) who harmed them. For another mental model of patriarchy vs matriarchy, think of chimp vs. bonobo society. In chimp society, the females are getting beaten up all the time, but so are most of the males (by the higher ranking males). In the bonobo society, almost no violence happens – instead, sex is the social lubricant. (Definitely win-win!)
I don’t get your point. Is their something wrong with the words patriarchy and matriarchy? They refer to real phenomena, traditional ways of organizing resources and privileges, particularly with respect to inheritance. It does seem that many anti feminist males fear that feminism is an attempt to establish matriarchy. This is wrong. It is an attempt to establish gender equality, rather than a system of gender based inheritance of privilege, status, rights, and resources.
I don’t have an opinion about “Patriarchy” or whatever, but for anyone who doesn’t like the attention they get due to their “conventionally attractive” appearance, I have one piece of advice: don’t worry – it won’t last.
The problem with beauty is that it’s like being born rich and getting poorer.
-Joan Collins
Bill Maher talks about how it has become okay to make certain comments about men in “liberal” circles and in popular culture, that would not be tolerated if they were made about women. For instance, if some idiot on Oprah (an intellect free zone if ever there was one; one of the springboards for the anti-vaccine crowd, for instance)says something like “If women ran the world there would be no more war,” or “Women are smarter than men”, everyone applauds. Imagine if someone said these things referring to men as being better or smarter. And in modern American sitcoms, it is the man, not the woman who must be the stupid one. So the jokes at your conference are in that vein. However, I must say that I don’t care. There is so much serious discrimination the other way for the reasons you outline in your discussion on patriarchy, that the jokes aren’t worth being concerned about. And I have other fish to fry. When no kids are hungry, everyone has medical care, everyone has freedom and liberty, the environment is safe, and no animals are abused, perhaps I can devote energy to being offended by bad jokes that do not intend to cause harm. For the record, I certainly think it’s a bonus that you’re pretty, it makes watching you more pleasant, and smart is sexy. But that’s not why I watch or what I care about here, and it is not “surprising” that you are smart and pretty except in this sense: A minority of the population is very attractive and a minority is very smart, so that the Venn Diagram showing the intersection between the set of really attractive people and the one for really smart people would show a much smaller subset when compared to the population as a whole, then we would wish for. 🙂
“Patriarchy” is not a bad word and is apt in this case. You are a mainstream feminist, so be proud of it and use the words in the feminist vocabulary. The right wing has painted feminism so that every woman who talks feminism is viewed as a man-hating nut like Andrea Dworkin (who contends that even consensual sex is rape)instead of a reasonable person who thinks that people should be treated fairly regardless of gender. Women who say that they’re for equal pay, for abortion rights, and for equal opportunities in employment and education, will still say they are not feminists. My first girlfriend however, was a feminist (not a radical) and said so. And though our relationship didn’t work out,she left an impression upon me with regard to these issues. She convinced me that her cause was just, and that feminism was not a dirty word, and that most of the problems of discrimination against women (and sometimes men) arise from patriarchal ideas about how society should work.
On another note, take the threats seriously, because one of the people making them could really be nuts enough to do something. Also, making threats is a crime,a violent crime, and anyone who actually threatens you ought to be punished for it. As to the other stuff, while I agree it’s unacceptable, I think the price anyone in the public pays is putting up with these morons. But don’t sweat the stupid stuff, you have far more supporters than detractors, and surprise, your supporters are the smart people. You are also correct that the crap they write about women is always of a sexual nature, and for the reasons you discussed.
Anyway, keep up the good work. Oh, I’m also the guy listed as captainlightning on Youtube. That name comes from an old family story, and a very inside joke. I should probably change it.
Just started watching and I like this a lot. This is the first time I’ve heard patriarchy used not to blame men for unfair treatment of women.
I do very much believe that we do need to ‘work this out together.’
I tend to think that men have been inured with the idea that complaining about being hurt and showing sensitivity is un-masculine, that it is going to be hard to get enthusiastic and popular support for a movement that mirrors the feminist movement.
I think its necessary though, and from the combination of the two, a sense of humanistic gender fairness can emerge.
Very happy to see someone on the internet very evolved in their thinking about it.
I’m looking forward to returning…
The links triggered moderation, so here it is again:
This is the first time you’ve seen this? Where have you been hiding?
A short stroll through my bookmarks turned up things like brutereason.net/2012/09/20/in-brief-do-feminists-care-about-mens-issues-a-handy-list/ and atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1107&p=16230. I’m sure there’s much more out there.
Patriarchy isn’t about blaming men (in some generic, broad brush fashion). It’s much more about certain ideas about gender that cause all people, men and women, to act in very unhealthy ways. Now, patriarchy often places men in the more advantageous position, but it’s not a simple, uniform picture. It also depends on a lot of other factors, like race, social class, etc. Look up intersectionality, if you’re interested in that.
Greg commented on it here.
His defense is basically that he was trolling, which I find a bit ironic.
Thank you for explaining the patriarchy argument in a way that could be understood by a privileged white male. (That would be me.)
And you should be properly ashamed of that too. Harakiri is probably not called for, although I expect most here would look on you with extra favour if you went out and engaged in some further public self-flagellation as penance ….
May I be presumptuous and suggest that this video be split in two? I like it all, but the second half is directed toward and would be of interest to primarily the skeptical/atheist community, while the first half about how patriarchy severely harms while oppressing women needs to be seen by *everybody*.
@Christina Rad
I agree with you on MOST of what you’ve said, except for one glaring issue.
Feminism has not helped to end these things.
In many senses, it has exacerbated them. You’ve got VAWA, that even loads of women are saying portrays women as victims and men as aggressors, and yet feminists have pushed… To continue it. Feminists have argued for rules to continue to shift the burden of proof in rape trials to the accused.
Even on these blogs, you will find people who scoff at the -very notions- you’re speaking of, that men are in many ways at the bottom of the barrel when it comes to gender roles. Even saying what you just said can get you the label of “MRA” “troll” “misogynist”. But you’re a woman on FtB so probably not. 😉
Meanwhile, feminists are attempting their best to destroy the MRA movement. Even the so-called “moderate” feminists. This may be due to constant attacks on MRA as a whole rather than the actual crazies, but still.
We have a movement with a -terrible- track record of protecting men’s rights, and in fact a movement which held women like Lorena Bobbett as heroes back in her day, claiming to be the champion of gender rights, but under the often false pretence that oppression and privilege are things that are clearly defined: This is the “oppressed” group. This is the “privileged” group. There is no circumstance where it could be otherwise.
In short: Feminism has done a lot to perpetuate the exact same gender roles where it was advantageous to women. This is why we see pushes for more and more legislation that is written in a gender-centric way (such as VAWA was) from feminists, why they use the “Most rape victims/DV are women” argument, implying the part “so it’s okay if male rape victims are excluded”. Even if the statistics showed that they were right (whether they are or not is completely irrelevant: Justice for the 80% should not come at the cost of Closing the Doors of Justice for the 20%).
In even shorter: Feminism is diverse, and your brand of feminism seems to be in the minority.
I would love to know the reply to this, although I understand if you’re too busy. 🙂
Oh right:
You mentioned the whole “men having sex while drunk” and “women having sex while drunk” issue.
Please look up the new FBI definition of “rape”. It says that it’s penetration of the victim while non-consenting. This not only means that a man can’t be raped unless he’s penetrated in the behind, but also that a woman and man having sex while drunk makes it rape for the woman.
And feminist groups are VERY happy with it.
The old definition of rape explicitly said only women can be raped and limited the definition to “carnal knowledge.” The new definition is a huge improvement. I understand that your position is that peopel who are forced to penetrate someone else are victims of rape, not some other form of sexual assault, which is how the FBI would currently count it, but you’ve left our important details of why feminists are happy.
The reason they’re happy is that now anal sex and other penetration also counts as rape.
Nothing to do with men. If they were going for equality, they wouldn’t include penetration -of the victim- as a requirement.
Here’s Feministing’s first article about the subject. Male rape victims are specifically mentioned. I’d give mroe links, but this would get me held in moderation. Short version, there was plenty of discussion,albeit not in every article. I don’t think that would be reasonable to expect, though.
Also, your summation of the new definition of rape is wrong. Here it is verbatim.
It never actually says the victim has to be the pentratee and the offender the penetrator. It only says that penetration without consent is rape of whichever party didn’t consent.
You’re missing my point. I never said ALL feminists are bad. I said that feminists are splintered, and you could find feminists on the wrong side of every issue.
And they’re usually the ones with the money. Need I remind you of the change of teaching language to children, which hurt EVERYONE, but was passed because feminists wanted it, because it hurt boys more?
For every reasonable blogger here, you can find another asking whether it’s the same when women commit pedophilia and saying no, it isn’t:
http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m6sig1QhMR1rsuncao1_400.jpg
Or just outright denying what Criss says about gender roles oppressing everybody.
This would be somewhat like someone trying to convince me that Communism will solve all our problems just with their words, while the USSR and China serve as examples of what Communism brought about.
I wouldn’t trust them, would you?
Is Barbara Ellen a monied, influential feminist? I’d never heard of her and Wikipedia has no entry. If you have no problem with feminism per se and think that some people are using the feminism label to support bad ideas, then you agree with about every feminist out there.
Well, respected enough to write for the Guardian.
How about Mary Kellett?
http://www.fathersandfamilies.org/2011/08/05/maine-prosecutor-mary-kellett-loses-another-one/
If you’ll trust a terribad MRA site like… You know, Fathers and Families 😛
Between this and Mel, and people wonder why the MRAs don’t trust feminists to deal with men’s rights issues too. -.-
You beat me to the redefinition of rape in the Uniform Crime Statistics. Here’s a press release, dated January 2012. Remember, though, it’s only for the purpose of crime statistics. If a female mounts a helpless or drunk male’s penis the local statutes determine who’s charged with what … but the crime will still be counted as a rape.
Still, we’re making progress. In a hundred years, when we’re all dead, our descendants (or the mutated chimpanzees that replace us) will have sorted this all out.
That one went forward. A hundred more went back.
How about SCUM’s support of that woman, I forgot her name, who shot Andy Warhol and their support of Eugenics?
The same support for eugenics that radfemhub shows.
I don’t think you are very familiar with that story. SCUM is not a real society. It was a manifesto written by Valerie Solanas. The other thing she’s famous for is shooting Andy Warhol. Note that she didn’t shoot him over any feminist ideals. It was a personal grievance because he lost a manuscript. She also shot two guys who had done nothing except for be in the general vicinity of Andy Warhol when she went to shoot him.
Yes, some feminists, including a few prominent ones like Ti-Grace Atkinson, celebrated her because she wrote something they liked. As far as I’m concerned, this is no different than arguing we should ignore than Roman Polanski raped a thirteen-year-old because he made some good movies. However, the idea that Valerie Solanas is a feminist hero is not popular nor if it ever was.
Sorry, I got utterly confused there. What I meant to say is that radfem hub promotes SCUM and Eugenics.
Radfem hub is a fringe group. It’s probably only a few hundred people.
Eh. They come up enough to be a voice that’s heard enough. That place is -scary-. >_<
Do they come up much in mainstream discussion or reasons other than disavowing or mocking what they said?
Other than SallyStrange linking them in the previous thread? I suppose they’re popular with the Tumblr feminists. 😛
Oh hai asshole.
You know, it’s funny that you hold up my linking to, what was it? Radhub or something like that? supposedly as evidence that I, and possibly therefore other “mainstream” feminists are down with radfems.
See, I was just googling around looking for a link to the story about the Southern Poverty Law Center classifying MRAs as a hate group. Are the SPLC a bunch of radical feminists trying to destroy MRAs? Hmm? I hope you answer that question.
Anyway, that was the first link that popped up. And to be honest, I didn’t recognize the website because that was literally the first time I had ever seen it. Because as a feminist, I have absolutely zero need to frequent their website, because there is such a wealth of other feminist resources out there, ones with which I agree. Later, when I went back and looked at it, I saw that it was a radfem website and thought, “Ah, shit. I better find a different link to use, otherwise some ASSHOLE is going to use this as evidence that not only I, but feminists in general, approve of radfem philosophy.”
So there you are. Being an asshole.
I don’t agree with “radical feminism” generally, especially not the gender essentialist, anti-porn, and transphobic strains of it.
I think it’s funny that you fit my prediction EXACTLY.
Sally: You seem to like linking to that a lot, and it’s good you actually started linking to the SPLC Intelligence Report. I think it was more evidence that you were sloppy in your citations than anything to do with radical feminism. You take the very nuanced article that tried very hard to narrow down what it was talking about before applying the hate group classification and go places it was never intended to go.
For instance, if you’re going to use it to make a point about someone, make sure that you can demonstrate a clear and continuing connection to the MRM after the period between June 15th and July 22 of last year, in which the report says the movement radicalized (the suicide of Ball and the rampage of Brevik are the two moments in question). Before that, it was the neckbeards hiding in basements like the TFL crowd which were more misogynist than the people in RL support groups (which have also now changed dramatically, both from external and internal pressure), and made the MRM a haven for every kind of stereotypically masculine abusive craziness out there.
Where did I learn all that?
The report. So yes, please keep linking to it, because it’s very informative and explains exactly why not only the MRM is creepy, but very clearly why it had mixed roots, how the creepy won out, and why men should stay the fuck away from it.
Again: How about the fact that Radfem Hub apparently -promotes eugenics- but you’re siding with them because of their label?
Also:
http://radicalhub.com/2012/03/09/southern-poverty-law-center-names-mens-rights-activists-mras-as-hate-group/
“Anyone wishing to donate money or other resources to the SPLC can “donate now” through their website, or by mail or telephone.
Please note that you may make charitable contributions to the SPLC and specifically earmark the funds toward individual projects, including the one monitoring the MRAs. Just make a note of the project for which you wish to earmark your contribution at the time you make the donation.”
^ Sounds like proper justice being done to me, what about you?
I thought SCUM was still required reading in many feminist study’s?
Yah it took little work to confirm SCUM still has a solid place in feminist culture and schools.
Even the popular YES YOU ARE essay by Sarah Bunting talks about SCUM like it is anything other then hate.
I am a feminist, but the feminist culture has its own share of hate and screwed up dogma… but hell who doesn’t.
And that’s feminism in a nutshell, and why only 20% of even women call themselves feminist anymore.
Feminism seems to be this from my perspective:
1) Say you’re for equal rights for all
2) Make it seem like feminism is the answer to everything, and without feminism we’d be in the dark ages. Deny any negative influence feminism has had in history (Support for Prohibition, anyone? Feminists were very eager to stand side-by-side with Fundie Christians back then.)
3) Work hard to ensure MRA issues, even the ones that you can’t deny exist, get no attention from the public – Either just keep denying (“Misandry doesn’t exist!”), or just resort to strawmen or ad hominem (“It’s not a zero sum game!” “You just want to go back to oppressing women!”)
4) Turn a blind eye to radical feminists. Barely acknowledge them, or say they’re not doing anything, but never resist their advances, if not make apologies for them. Act like promoting eugenics is less creepy when radfems do it than when the KKK do.
From my experience, these are not just my own opinions, but a very common frustration with feminists in general that I’ve heard voiced in many different places.
But, you know. Anecdotal evidence.
Hell as a pro-sex feminist I find myself locked in nasty drag out fights full of some of the most retched slurs you could think of, all from other feminists. I have spent months fighting other feminists over those very issues you bring up. However I get the same thing from MRA’s.
So why would I still call myself a feminist? Well I would point out the above video on the subject and tell you that change comes fastest from within an organization then from opposition to an organization.
I just wish that both feminists and MRAs, the GOOD ones, realize that they’re not each other’s enemies and start talking about what is good for everyone.
Probably a pipe dream.
I figure this video from Pharyngula pretty much says what needs to be said about MRA (if by that you mean Male Rights Activism). It’s a solution in search of a problem that does not exist (except in trivial insignificant ways).
http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2012/08/07/hey-hes-speaking-to-my-tribe/
Oh joy, here it is, the “Men have no real problems” argument. I suppose it’s not a real problem when men are punished with years more than women for the same crime – Even though we’ll be mad that black people are similarly punished more than white people for the same crime.
Also cute considering that puts you right at odds with Criss right in the video. 🙂
It took longer for the MRA hate to pop up then I would have thought….. PROGRESS!!!!
Despite its name, the Violence Against Women Act is written in a gender-neutral way. The gendering isn’t the only problem with that title.
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-109hr3402enr/pdf/BILLS-109hr3402enr.pdf
We must be reading a different VAWA. Maybe you mean the new one?
I was reading the 2005 one. The old one had problems, but the courts sorted it out. There wasn’t much an an Internet back them, so it’s harder to gauge what feminists in general, rather than a few prominent columnists, thought. Some did do a really bad job of balancing the rights of criminal defendants with the rights of crime victims.
Plenty of feminists had the same objections, though, including the ACLU leadership.
Did you even click the link? That IS the 2005 one. And it’s very gendered.
Yes. The section titles talk about preventing violence against women, but the actual wording of the law is stuff like “notifying persons seeking enforcement of protection orders as to what responses will be provided by the relevant law enforcement agency.” Section 101.(13)b. It always refers to persons or victims, not women. If there’s some part that gives additional protections to female victims or says that only women can be victims, what section is it in?
The Findings section under each title reports mostly female victims, and under the “Purposes” sections of some of the titles “women” are mentioned specifically.
Sec 40802 (b)
(An Eligible entity is:)
“(4) a nonprofit and nongovernmental victim services
organization with demonstrated experience in assisting elderly
women or demonstrated experience in addressing domestic
violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking”
That’s just from a minute’s look. Again, other than all the titles making it clear who this is about. That’s still Gendered speak.
Just to explain something else: I’m not saying they’re representative of feminism. I’m saying feminism is a broad spectrum that includes them.
A bigger problem, I think, is that how even most bloggers and commenters here, who call themselves moderate feminists I’m sure, scoff at the idea of “institutionalized misandry” even while being given examples (like female on male rapists getting away with it or getting pathetically low charges even when the victim is underage. Or the victim, even underage, being made to pay child support!).
Feminists are to proof of institutionalized misandry what creationists are to proof of evolution.
I can’t know whether those are examples unless I know what you think institutionalized misandry is.
Uh… Disadvantages stereotypes being applied to men, giving men a disadvantaged position compared to women.
In these particular circumstances, it is the men who are oppressed (in the aforementioned male rapist vs female rapist dichotomy), and the women are the privileged ones.
As I keep trying to say, privilege and oppression are flexible and apply differently to different people. A man is privileged if society takes him more seriously for being a man, but he’s oppressed in other ways.
Sorry, should’ve been better at explaining:
I think the worst part of institutionalized misandry is the portrayal of all men as aggressive sex-driven monsters. Therefore, all fights between a man and a woman are the man’s fault regardless of context, men with children are suspected of pedophilia, and while rape of women is serious, rape of men is a joke because “What man wouldn’t want to get laid?”
If you’re blaming feminists for this institutionalized misandry, you’re off your head. That myth has been around far longer than feminism has, and feminists actively work to break it down.
I’m sure some of them do, but plenty of other feminists actively work to prop it up.
Doesn’t the idea that “sexualisation” of women causes men to rape depend on the belief that men can barely control their bestial sex drives?
For example, I’ve seen feminists argue that women viewing male strippers is harmless (even if it “objectifies” men) while women stripping must be banned to protect other women from rape. In the absence of evidence that seeing a naked woman actually does make a man more likely to rape, that assumption looks rooted in misandry to me.
Double standards like that are hardly unusual in feminism.
“If you’re blaming feminists for this institutionalized misandry, you’re off your head. That myth has been around far longer than feminism has, and feminists actively work to break it down.”
Yet you participate in a blog where many of the posters will utterly refuse the institutionalization of any misandry to the point where you’ll get laughed out of a blog for saying it exists.
You guys have a VERY FUNNY way of showing you care.
If that’s all you mean by institutionalized misandry, then most feminists would agree with you that it exists. They are less likely to agree that institutionalized misandry is a good term because it isn’t equivalent to what’s meant by institutionalized misogyny.
It comes in law, backed by feminists most of the time. It comes when Maine police receive anti-male-biased training. It comes when laws like VAWA are worded the way they are.
As someone else said: The only thing I can do that a woman can’t by law is walk around barechested and fight on the front lines.
Not to put too find a point on it, but this “institutionalized misandry” caters right to the classical patriarchal division of gender roles. >.>
So how would feminism be amplifying it unless you’re talking about the separatists like Heart (ex-Quiverfull) who believe that the gender roles exist and are essential, and who are also extremely transphobic?
Simple.
Feminists as a whole don’t want those gender roles gone, they want them enforced. Where ARE all the feminists – and please, I want a real push here, not some sort of asking for female pedos to be punished properly, and to institutionalize a system where the child being raped doesn’t then have to pay the rapist child support?
Feminists claim they want “equality”, but with the pre-conceived notion that all men are the problem and all women are oppressed. They actively deny institutionalized misandry is a thing, but rather spin it around so it oppresses women.
For example, it’s obviously oppressive to -women- when men are forced to die in a war, because… I don’t know, it means women are not thought as able to fight. Even though, girlwriteswhat mentions this, there were the White Feather Girls shaming men into going to war in WWI.
Feminism is an upside-down worldview where misogyny is misogyny and misandry doesn’t exist, but is actually misogyny too. How are we supposed to achieve human rights when men are considered a non-entity, other than as an oppressor, by this philosophy?
*not some sort of “But that’s what I want and I call myself feminist” response, or a link to a single blogger, … etc etc.
There’s no need to lobby for equal laws protecting boys and girls for adult predators because we already have them. That means people who want to change them are far more motivated to write about them. Age of consent laws used to apply differently to boys and girls if the applied to boys at all. It was lobbying by the first wave of feminists, along with child rights groups (there were big overlaps) that moved up to the more equitable system we have today. A brief overview can be found here.
http://womhist.alexanderstreet.com/teacher/aoc.htm
True. This discrimination (and the one giving men higher punishment for equal crime, and higher conviction rates) is not on the lawbooks but in practice.
“also because you are inside my computer and I cannot reach you.”
😀
Seriously, beautiful summation of patriarchy and how gender roles screw with everyone, and especially the part about sexual harassment. Also, @3, the first and second halves relate very strongly, because sexual harassment exists both inside and outside the community (and this is pointed out by the example of the hotel worker).
Excellent analysis and explication of the important issues.
Another sign of patriarchy, perhaps the most literal sign of patriarchy, is when men expect women to take their last name in marriage. Why should this be so? If you are male and you can’t imagine taking your wife’s last name, then your mind is embedded within the logic of patriarchy. And vice versa for women.
Life isn’t too complicated if husband and wife both keep their “maiden” name. Others occasionally make false assumptions, but the look of surprise on their faces is sometimes worth it.
It’s a little bit more touchy when you have kids that don’t share the same name as both of their parents.
True, yet only a little touchy because of culturally determined assumptions people make. Their are many step children whose last name differs from a parent. And it is always possible for the husband to use the wife’s last name. I didn’t want to recommend a policy or practice, but only to reveal the one so taken for granted and assumed to be ” natural” when there is nothing at all natural about it.
Well, whatever subscribers you lose over this, you just gained a new one to offset it a little.
A study has revealed women talk 3 times more than men on average.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-419040/Women-talk-times-men-says-study.html
Isn’t that something that should be included in the discussion? I mean men can only listen so much before their heads explode and they shift themselves, against their wills, into physically-abusive mode… metaphorically speaking that is….. I actually like women expressing their emotions and feelings with such mastery and with such ease. Maybe this is one reason women are much less physically violent than men.
By the way, good suggestions in the video. But, Men are strong and women are weak sounds too stereotypical and a little biased. Men are simply (physically) stronger than women, and I believe, this is how most men, who truly care about women (feminists or otherwise), would see the situation.
That’s not a study, that’s a summary (on the Daily Mail) of a widely-disputed book whose title they didn’t even get correct.
Speak for yourself, creepster.
Oh it wouldn’t happen to me. I have been living with a woman for the last 5 years. My head has been fortified. Plus, I learned the art of listening from a Japanese Zen master. He said, never ever ask a woman to stop talking. Let her talk to her heart’s content. Be a good listener. Can’t tell you how effective this method is when dating a woman!
@Kahfre, I do have to agree with Sally here on one thing. You aren’t helping anyone unless all you’re doing is trying to make yourself giggle.
Christina nails it: gender sterotypes punish anyone who doesn’t fit the “norms,” and given that they are oversimplified, bullshit standards, that means almost all of us.
Gender Stereotypes, and the like, are all mental constructs — a point I discussed in the previous thread. The only way they have any existence for a person is for the person to give them reality in his or her mind. Do you think gender stereotypes exist for people who are not familiar with the term? For example, the people of a primitive tribe in South America?
If you do believe in gender stereotypes, then at some point in your life, you must have first created that construct in your mind, and then started believing in it, because gender stereotypes have no objective reality or existence. The books we read, the films we watch, the news we listen to, the people we talk to, all condition our minds.
Having said this, the best way, and probably the only way, to get rid of mental constructs is to stop creating them in the mind.
… duh? Each person has a different idea of what the stereotypes are. No kidding. Yes, they do have stereotypes in different cultures to categorize things in ways which are commonly seen together for whatever reason (even if that “seen together” is only a linguistic construct).
So (assuming you know that the creation of these things is not a conscious act, which is generous on my part), you realize that the only way to avoid this completely is a full-cortex lobotomy, yes, or to be born and raised in a supermax prison (in which case your brain is probably useless for much of anything), right?
What I meant was that if you are not familiar with a certain term, as in you had not heard about it before or had not read about it before, then it doesn’t exist for you. So, if a person is not familiar with the term gender stereotype and how it is seen in certain cultures, then it doesn’t exist for the person. You must be familiar with how Indians complain from to time about racism in Western countries? Yep, they themselves have a caste system in India, which officially divides people into upper and lower ranks. That’s racism at its worst when seen from a Western standpoint, but the Indians do not see it as racism within the context of their own culture. They see it as an acceptable part of their culture, and they only experience racism when they are face to face with those who popularized the particular term. Do you see the point? Racism doesn’t exist for the Indians until they are taught what racism is!
Oh yes. I agree that most of it happens unconsciously and people have no, or very little, conscious choice in this regard. But I am not really talking about avoiding anything. I am actually talking about exploring the mind to see what’s going on deep inside the mind. Where do you think the concept gender stereotypes exist for you? Right in your mind, doesn’t it? So, if you wanted to change it or eliminate it, where would you go to do this?
If a culture breaks down on rigid gender-based lines, gender stereotypes exist. That’s not a matter of definition, that’s a reality that the term was created to express.
Also, if you think racism didn’t exist before we came over and taught it to the Indians, you need to read up on the relations between the Hopi and the Navajo.
Regarding seeing how to fix these things, let me try an analogy with you. We can no more get an accurate idea of ourselves and our biases then a camera can take a picture of its entire self (or the entirety of another camera, for that matter. I’m not saying that self perception and correction are impossible, just that you seem to be presenting it as a great deal easier than it actually is.
The question is, and will always be, where exactly do these gender stereotypes exist if not in a person’s mind? This is just some people’s way of breaking down the world into bits and pieces — and there is no one right way. You said, If a culture breaks down…. This is just one way of breaking down the culture. The popular Western way. This is certainly not the only way.
Suppose you are a native English speaker, and this is the only language you speak. You are on a vacation in China. You know almost nothing, or very little, about the Chinese culture and you don’t speak or understand a word of the Chinese language. You find yourself standing before a native Chinese, who is doing some strange body language, some strange gestures, and shouting some strange words at you. You do not understand what he is doing. At most, he sounds and looks funny to you. But when you ask your Chinese guide, he tells you the Chinese guy was shouting abuse at you in Chinese for some reason. But you still cannot understand the Chinese guy unless you learn his language and his culture. Something similar should happen when the same Chinese guy is transported to the US and exposed to what the average American would call examples of gender stereotypes, racism, misogyny, etc.
Oh I was actually talking about the Indians of India. The real Indians. But I guess the same rule should apply here. Racism and the like are all Western definitions. How could the tribe people be familiar with Western definitions before the arrival of Westerners? Doesn’t make sense. If they were fighting each other, they certainly wouldn’t have called it racism. It must be just how they lived — and acceptable part of their culture. Muslims kill Muslims in Pakistan on a daily basis. Who calls it racism there? But when the American drones kill Muslims, yes, it is racism for sure! Muslims do not like Muslims killing each other, but it certainly is much more acceptable to them than Westerners killing Muslims, isn’t it? I guess the same goes for Westerners too. Millions were killed by the Germans in WW2. But the holocaust somehow gets far too much attention than all those non-Jewish people who were also killed by the Germans!
Maybe yes. It is not easy. But it doesn’t mean it is not possible. And it makes perfect sense too to know and understand one’s own mind before trying to change other peoples’ minds.
Of course, that study has been contradicted by subsequent studies with larger sample sizes and better methodologies:
Your uncritical acceptance of patriarchal gender stereotypes is doing harm to people of YOUR gender, too, Khafre.
But even that is not quite as harmful as how you propagate the insidious narrative that tells us that physical violence (oh, no, it’s METAPHORICAL physical violence *wink* *wink) is a natural, understandable response to a woman talking too much. The fact that you don’t personally participate in such violence doesn’t make your willingness to spread the meme any less creepy.
See, this is why I refrained from giving citations in the past. With Google and fast internet connections these days, it doesn’t take long to find a counter citation….
But what I said does make sense from a common sense viewpoint. This is not to justify the violence, but to find a cause for why it happens. Women, being not as physically strong as men, CANNOT initiate physical violence. This is why women should do what they can do. They can only verbally and emotionally abuse men in most cases. And in turn, men should do what they can do. They can physical abuse women in most cases. And they do. Now, this is not to say men will never verbally and emotionally abuse women, and women in turn can never physically abuse men. I am talking about generalities here.
The problem is, verbal and emotional violence are not as tangible as physical violence, thus do not attract nowhere near as much attention. But it doesn’t mean verbal and emotional violence are not as destructive as physical violence….
As for speaking metaphorically, I think I was a little vague and ambiguous there. Only the heads exploding part was metaphorical.
“See, this is why I refrained from giving citations in the past. With Google and fast internet connections these days, it doesn’t take long to find a counter citation…”
wait what?
As someone who identifies as MRA, allow me to say:
Please stop, you’re embarassing yourself.
I am a virgin. Can you empower me by giving me a blog? I am an atheist. I don’t require pay. I want to make informative and creative posts. I don’t want to argue. I only want to make ends meet. I have a few superstitious beliefs.
I think the empowerment of the free thoughters depends on our ability to make interesting graphs, display data in as many ways as possible, and to compile (for starters) only the best things said by the four horsemen.
I’m sorry, I’m unclear on this, how is having sex while drunk considered rape? Provided both parties consented and were conscious? Is it considered rape?
While you will find plenty of people who argue that it’s impossible to consent while drunk, I don’t think this is consistent with drunk people’s experiences or how we treat drunkenness otherwise. The real issue here is that drunk people often don’t so much consent as don’t clearly object or put up a fight. This is one of the main reasons to behind the push to shift from “no means no” to “yes means yes.”
“Provided both parties consented and were conscious? Is it considered rape?”
By law if it was a man and a women then the man raped the women. This is a stupid sexist law. I think the spirit of the law is meant to address someone who is passed out or drugged. I am going to let you in on a secret no one talks about when it comes to rape… Its not black and white. It has shades of grey that just don’t fit in any definition
If not consent is given, then it’s rape, regardless of the respective genders of the attacker and victim. There’s nothing grey about it. All you have to do to not rape somebody is get consent*, enthusiastic consent is best. I really don’t understand why this is difficult or grey in any way. In all other aspects of life, we are able to recognize when somebody means no, even if they don’t outright say it, and we are able to recognize when somebody is enthusiastically consenting to something. Why does this perception suddenly change when sex is involved?
*a coerced yes (either through emotional manipulation or implied physical threats), does not actually mean yes. if a person cannot say “no” then a “yes” is meaningless.
I don’t want to get bogged down in a lot of the detailed arguments here. But I would like to say I get really annoyed when people try to provide limited definitions of feminism, especially when men do it who seem to be threatened by feminism or are expressing some other insecurity, and especially when the definitions of feminism they want to work with are basically overly narrow straw men that are easy to knock down.
Feminism has existed in many forms, been expressed and argued for or against using many different strategies, and been claimed by different people with differing specific goals. It’s not a monolithic absolute, so if a particular individual claiming to be a feminist adopts extreme positions or makes disparaging remarks about men that are simplistic and based on stereotypical generalities or involve absurd hyperbolic rhetoric, it is that person’s fault, not the fault of feminism. No particular person has the right to represent all of feminism, and no bad behavior on the part of particular individuals can be said to be proof that there is something malicious or destructive or otherwise negative about feminism. Such arguments, and I’ve seen many of them, including here, are silly.
I have a generally positive view of feminism (and I’m a male). I don’t agree with everything that has ever been said in the name of feminism, but I like to give feminism the most generous interpretation possible, because fundamentally I think feminism is modern progress for humanity.
If one looks at the plight of women in Saudi Arabia, or the plight of women in ancient or medieval times, or even women in the 20th century, it is not hard to see that feminism is a net good. The empowerment of women is pretty uncontroversially a net economic and social good for societies. The freedom and empowerment of all people, male or female, is a good thing. But it seems to me even a simple minded view of history and of the present array of diverse cultures on earth (including our own culture) makes it fairly obvious that men have enjoyed far more freedom and empowerment than women. I don’t think anyone can make a sound argument against that proposition, yet men try to do it all the time and they sound foolish.
In my view feminism is essentially a very broad and diverse phenomenon that can be described most generally as a striving to balance the liberty and empowerment of all humans so that opportunities and resources are not allocated based on gender but open to everyone who aspires to them. If a woman wants to be a beauty queen and swoon at every chance to acquire more shoes and accessories, that is fine and should be a choice available (just as this role can be played by an effeminate man who wishes to do so). If a woman wants to be a soldier who could kick your ass in 5 seconds, that should be available. And if a woman wants to be a scientist, a pilot, an executive, an athlete, or a housewife, these should all be options that are open and available without artificial restrictions or social pressures against these choices. Women should have the same freedoms and range of options as men. That’s it.
Any view of feminism that tries to rigidly define what the roles of men or women should be or ought to be is barking up the wrong tree. The goal should be that men and women are equally free to choose how they want to live their lives and what roles they want to adopt or not adopt with respect to gender or with respect to the pursuit of career or how they arrange their domestic and family life.
No matter how many times someone can point to instances of women violating men’s rights or freedoms, or men doing the same to women, none of that should tarnish in the slightest the overall goodness of striving for freedom and equality of all humans regardless of gender, and I’m happy to call that feminism because I see it as restoring an obvious historic imbalance.
I was genuinely enjoying this video a great deal, until the concept of “hate speech” was brought up in way that seemed to suggest that we should regard it as taboo. I do not see how free speech and taboo speech can co-exist and, at least when it comes to interactions between adults, I definitely want free speech to exist.
Free speech has limits; yelling “Fire!” in a crowded theater is a canonical example. The dividing line between protected speech and “hate speech” for me is when discussion of facts, policies, and values turns into blanket condemnation or denigration of an entire group of people. It’s a fuzzy line, I admit, but on one side of it lies, say, discussion of health risks of homosexual behavior* — decidable by facts and research — and on the other lies statements like “Kill all the faggots!” or “Here’s a list of baby-killers” which exhorts irrational people to violent action.
Making value judgements on the worth of human beings generally leads to no good. (Something like “hate the sin, love the sinner” except for real.) John Wayne Gacy and Jeffery Dahmer did monstrous things, but they still deserved due process and a minimum of human dignity … things denied to Matthew Shepard, to take one example.
Pulling this back to gender roles and feminism, finding a bright line between free speech and hate speech may well be impossible. Many of these attitudes have existed for recorded history and beyond. Finding the right balance between the rights of women and the responsibilities of men — and vice-versa — won’t happen overnight, and mistakes in both directions will happen.
About the only thing I know is that blaming “feminists” for every mis-step and ill-thought-out law won’t help, any more than blaming “male chauvinist pigs” did.
—
* I’m aware there are health risks to heterosexual behavior too, and I suspect they’re more or less equal.
Cristina, that was awesome, for multiple reasons. For one thing, I think it’s incredibly important for sex positive feminism to be brought to the fore – I believe it’s the best way to break down destructive gender roles, that it’s the only form of feminism which can truly respect the experiences of all LGTB people, and that it acknowledges human nature in way that some varieties of feminism do not.
I also want to say to OtherSider that, while I don’t think you and I would agree on much, it was good to see you shut down Kahfre. I try to do the same when I feel that a feminist is saying something essentialist and/or hateful about men. (I just think that tendency in feminism is not as mainstream as you believe. Kahfre’s attitude doesn’t strike me as mainstream either.)
You know, I think we’d agree on more than you think. My only arguments have been when feminists went beyond seeking ‘equality’.
Such as… I forget her name, that woman trying to push for inverting the burden of proof on rape. If she gets her way, the consequences would be -chilling- on American society.
Or, you know, the US government and feminists groups continuing to pump millions of dollars into helping women in college when they are more advantaged now than men were when Title IX was passed.
How is that fair?
You know…
Look at Darkmatter2525’s Youtube video called “Fratricide”. It is talking about religious moderates, but I think it applies similarly here. To both moderate feminists and MRAs (yes, they exist, get over it).
I enjoyed the video. You have made alot of good points.
I am still subscribed. You did not offend me, try again.
Great video. I was simultaneously both amused and informed, and that’s pretty hard to do in my case.
5000 whining atheists vs the Great Prophet
http://www.ottawaskeptics.org/forum?func=view&id=4560&catid=3
Good video. There were some points I disagreed with, but disagreement is healthy! You won’t catch me unsubscribing!
MRA are a hate organisation, they hate females, they hate feminism. If any one sympathizes with mra’s even a little they are hateful to women.
There is no room for any discussion with any MRA
Quick! Throw in more charged words and empty accusations!
Don’t forget the lock-step, or people might think you’re not towing the party line.
If you think that men should not be punished higher than women for equal crime (the university of Arizona study shows 3-4 years average higher)? MISOGYNY!
If you think that men shouldn’t be considered pedophiles for spending time with their children, or, as stated in a case in Reddit stories, get called a pedophile for being a lifeguard who saves a kid from drowning? MISOGYNY!
If you think that it’s not right that some feminists want the burden of proof in rape to be on the accused that she DID give consent, AND make it so that he has to prove that she consented to every. Single. Step. Of the Way. Making it nearly impossible for a man to prove his innocence even though he shouldn’t have to in the way our criminal courts work in every other situation? Similarly, if you don’t like that some college campuses and even police officers train their teams to blame the guy from the word “Go”? MISOGYNY!
If you think that it’s not right that it’s socially not acceptable for a man to fight in self-defense against even an armed woman trying to kill or severely wound him? MISOGYNY!
If you’re unhappy about the social standard of the disposable male? MISOGYNY!
It’s okay, you don’t have to talk to the MRAs, or deal with them. None of them want to deal with you, either.
so how exactly can a woman prove she did not consent? By what method. Angle of entry into the orifice, many men will just say she wanted rough sex, by bruising, well I did not do it? How can women prove they did not consent? Aren’t they then being treated like the offender then? If we are all innocent until proven guilty why are women routinely treated like they are making false allegations? I mean like all the time? Again what proof would you accept here? If a person word is not sufficient, and I agree it can not always be, just what do we accept. A hell of a lot of rape and sexual violence occurs and nothing is ever done about p[precisely because people are not believed.
With women getting harassed the mra set ridiculous standards of proof. Not acknowledging that most if not all harassment occurs when there are no witnesses or any way of verifying the occurrence. Also even when women are believed, they are told to get over it or its not harassment.
Its like mra don’t want women to be safe.
MRA have lost no rights through feminism, yet they are so anti-feminism they can not be discussed with and they need to be outlawed as a hate group.
Most men are not in that camp, but to deny that reality of what occurs is at best blind or wilful ignorance and at worst wanting the status to remain the same.
What exactly then is your plan to help the situation. Please post any constructive suggestions on how we can resolve these problems.
Holy shit.
You actually just went the Nazi route. You’re not even trying now. You actually just went ahead and said that anyone who disagrees with you should have their views outlawed.
If this is what feminism does to people, turn them into totalitarians who want to see their proponents jailed, then thank whatever powers may be I’m not a feminist. I like my freedom of speech too much to be your brand feminist, apparently.
But I’ll humor you on the rape thing…
I know it’s a problematic issue. But the real problem is that the only difference between sexual intercourse and rape is consent. Robberies often happen in alleys where there are no witnesses, but nobody is saying that anyone accused of a robbery should prove that they didn’t commit it, that would be absolutely insane.
In short: No, I don’t know how to balance the rights of the accused with a better conviction rate of people who have actually committed the crime. This is because there doesn’t need to be a specific physical action that separates sex from rape. But if you reversed the burden of proof, you’re essentially giving women the right to throw anyone who had sex with them in jail on a whim.
But I’m pretty well aware that you don’t care about the well-being of men. You just said you want anyone who speaks for male rights to be silenced using the law.
Now, on whether men lost rights through feminism… How about Title IX constantly causing men to lose their college teams because there’s an enforced equality of proportion between men’s teams and women’s teams?
How about feminists lobbying against male contraceptive research? How about feminists having been part of what caused the Prohibition? How about feminists pumping more and more money, including using government grants, for women to take men’s place in college where they are limited students available?
And if you get your way with the rape legislation thing mentioned above…
How about men’s right to a fair trial?
“How about feminists lobbying against male contraceptive research?”
That can’t be right, Link?
Here you go
http://www(dot)youtube(dot)com/watch?v=JymN5yu-K_o
Oh and, other than equating feminism with women….
You said “females”. ARE YOU TRYING TO DEHUMANIZE WOMEN? SHAME ON YOU.
And i did not equate feminism with women. I said mra’s hate females and feminism. Meaning in case you did not get that they hate both. MRA’s are consisting hating of feminism, meaning any one who supports it, and they hate females.
And yes I said females, I am well aware many people are gender binary, gender queer, gender indifferent. I myself am gender fluid. I have zero problem with either being called male or female. It was not meant to be denigrating. It fact how you get it to be denigrating is beyond me.
And I am glad the MRA’s don’t want to speak to me, they have nothing worth hearing.
That does not mean most men, in fact 99% of men are like that or should be treated like that. Since sometimes I identify as male, I would not like to be treated like that.
Also by the way any female that was specifically anti male would get a telling off from me as well. I have no time for them either.
I just have no time or tolerance for hate groups and MRA’s are a hate group.
To not stand against recognised and persistent hate or to try and claim it does not occur is dishonest
And by the way, I work very actively for male rights in my area, since I do understand it can be a concern, but it can’t be at the expense of women, nor should female rights be at the expense of men, BUT very few feminists want that, in fact I have yet to see one, although I am sure they do exist, which is bad.
You need to learn more about what MRAs really are instead of lumping them all in the same sort of hivemind group. Yes, there’s a lot of hateful people in the MRA group. However, I think it’s a label that needs to be taken over by the non-crazies instead of the label being banned, which would lead to … Well… Pretty much the banning of speaking about men’s rights for fear of being branded a hate group.
Or is that what you want?
“MRA’s are consisting hating of feminism, meaning any one who supports it, and they hate females.”
This is a baseless assertion. Not all MRAs hate feminism, but to deny that it has had a negative effect on men’s rights is just denial.
“To not stand against recognised and persistent hate or to try and claim it does not occur is dishonest”
Yes it is. So please stop doing it.
“And by the way, I work very actively for male rights in my area, since I do understand it can be a concern, but it can’t be at the expense of women, nor should female rights be at the expense of men, BUT very few feminists want that, in fact I have yet to see one, although I am sure they do exist, which is bad.”
So you’re playing the ‘not all feminists hate men’ card while saying that ‘all MRAs hate women’. And the irony is completely not lost on you.
“nor should female rights be at the expense of men…”
You do. You want men to be thrown in jail on zero evidence via an inversion of the burden of proof.
no i don’t and I have never said that. The crime and the person, regardless of gender needs to be looked at individually. The context of what happened, the background and so on all need to be examined.
Frankly I’m shocked by the idea that people feel strongly that there needs to be an organized movement for men’s rights. I’m a 53 year old white male and I’ve never heard anyone talk about men’s rights before. The whole idea makes me laugh it sounds so absurd. It reminds me of the phony outrage FOX news so often generates about reverse racism, another non issue. As a man I’ve had my feelings hurt a few times when people made false assumptions about me. Big fucking deal. Boo hoo. If people made those errors it was because so many men behave like muscle headed testosterone poisoned louts so frequently. I’m embarrassed by the idea that there are men with the nerve to assert that they are part of a systematically oppressed class that feels it must raise issues and voice demands requiring some kind of broad based social transformation to remedy historical injustices. It’s totally upside down and represents the all too typical egotistical sense of entitlement of childish pampered boys who simply haven’t grown up yet. Meanwhile if you examine history, and if you look at the composition of our legislative bodies, the corporate boardroom, the gender of every single President, the distribution of wealth, and pretty much every other source of power in our world in every country, you will find a disproportionate abundance of persons bearing penises dominating and controlling the resources and the decision making.
Certainly one can point to instances of males being discriminated against. But this is not the same as a pervasive pattern, a widespread systematic denial of rights and denial of control over one’s destiny. There simply is no comparison. To try to place the need to assert and protect men’s rights on an equal footing with the same needs of women is like placing a speck of dust beside a mountain. I agree men and women should have equal rights, but anyone who thinks that the rights of men are seriously under threat is not clear on the concept; they are just nursing some personal private petty grudge, not identifying a real need for broad based social change.
One can assert that men receive longer sentences than women for the same crime, but most of those sentences are being handed down by other men, not women. I haven’t seen the study yet, but I can right off the top of my head several reasons why the result could be skewed, starting with the notion of “equivalent crime”. The outcome of such a study would depend greatly on how that was defined. There can be two men, for example, who can be sentenced differently for the “same crime”, for example first degree murder, because of mitigating circumstances. So any such comparison would have to take all possible sets of mitigating circumstances into account when building up classes of equivalent crimes for statistical comparison, or else a misleading result is likely. I seriously doubt there is a real problem here. The day there is a predominantly female judiciary making blatant gender based discriminatory assumptions about male defendants and using these superficial judgement to unfairly punish, then there will be a real problem. Until then I suspect the most likely explanation for longer sentences for men is that they commit far more crimes, and crimes that are more violent, more extreme, and more harmful than women do. Men are probably more likely to be repeat offenders too, though I’d have to check that one to be sure.
Certainly sexual harassment can go both ways, but again men are more frequent perpetrators by far, and especially the type of harassment that involves using a position of power, such as in the work place or during a police action, to extort or encourage an unwanted sexual transaction, is more likely to be initiated by a man if only because men are far more frequently in such positions of power. Still just because it is possible for a woman to sexually harrass a man, and I’ve experienced this once or twice, is no justification to assert an MRA movement to pretend there is a widespread need to correct pervasive patterns of injustice. Men may suffer some injustices, but men are empowered to stand up for themselves and take action to correct such injustices on a case by case basis. Women can also be so empowered, but historically and still presently are less so, and in a more limited range of circumstances with more complicating barriers, restrictions, and caveats.
I was going to start another long post.
Then I realized you completely ignored most of what I said, didn’t bother to read the University of Arizona research on male imprisonment, and apparently live on another planet.
So, just forget it. I’m done.
I did make some arguments as to why drawing conclusions from comparing sentence length could be misleading, which you didn’t rebut. Since you have read the report and didn’t rebut my points, I’ll take that to mean you don’t have anything to counter my points.
All human beings experience embarrassment, awkwardness, insults, and denial of dignity at various times and in various situations. Men are included in this, whether a mother in a park glares at you suspiciously when you walk near a playground, or when your maleness causes you to be excluded from a social clique or event, or whether you may be molested or assaulted by a woman or because you are male.
None of that means there needs to be an organized movement to call attention to the inconvenient sufferings of poor boys with hurt feelings. It simply is not the same magnitude of problem as the deeply embedded cultural biases that have for millennia systematically limited the opportunities for women to control their own destinies and have equal access to opportunities and resources. To assert the need for a male rights movement as a coequal counterbalancing flip side to feminism strikes me as perverse and laughably absurd when comparing the scope of problems faced by women to problems faced by men. Yes we men face difficulties, but they are most certainly not because of women dominating public and private institutions and most decision making and systematically excluding or limiting men’s access to opportunities for fulfillment.
Because of these considerations it seems fairly obvious that stubborn insistence on MRA is based on something smaller and more personal, some private and relatively trivial grievances compared to the rather global historic culturally embedded forces that feminism has fought and still is fighting to overturn. Yes it is possible for feminists to adopt radical or extreme positions in over compensating attempts to shock or play out feelings of anger or revenge. These things can be addressed by intelligent dialogue. It’s not a cause to raise a banner to rally behind in order to organize collective action to reverse the massive tides of injustice and oppression suffered by poor little pathetic men. I can’t stop laughing at the idea, and I’m also playing the world’s smallest violin in solidarity with your tiny complaints.
“I did make some arguments as to why drawing conclusions from comparing sentence length could be misleading, which you didn’t rebut. Since you have read the report and didn’t rebut my points, I’ll take that to mean you don’t have anything to counter my points.”
Or maybe that I shouldn’t take it upon myself to point out what is in a report that you refuse to read. Probably because you’re afraid of bursting your feminist bubble.
“All human beings experience embarrassment, awkwardness, insults, and denial of dignity at various times and in various situations. Men are included in this, whether a mother in a park glares at you suspiciously when you walk near a playground, or when your maleness causes you to be excluded from a social clique or event, or whether you may be molested or assaulted by a woman or because you are male.”
Feminists are all too eager to blame the male gaze, tell men about how to act because women are feeling uncomfortable around them because of Schroedinger’s Rapist, tell men to stop having their sexuality because women don’t like to be objectified, et cetera.
This rhetoric of yours stands in complete contrast of how you act when women’s rights come. Why is it a social problem when a guy stares at a woman’s breasts, but when “a mother in a park glares at you suspiciously” it’s not really relevant?
“None of that means there needs to be an organized movement to call attention … but they are most certainly not because of women dominating public and private institutions and most decision making and systematically excluding or limiting men’s access to opportunities for fulfillment.”
Except, you know, the laws stating exactly that, for example Title IX limiting men’s sports teams.
Except the feminists pushing for the burden of proof on rape to be inverted.
Except the feminists lobbying against male contraception so that they can prevent the male from having a choice on whether or not he wants to be a father, which I sourced.
Except that nowadays, more and more money is being given for women to go to college, even though the difference in favor of women is now bigger than it was in favor of men when Title IX passed.
You know the creationists saying “There is no evidence for evolution!”? This is you. Right now.
“Because of these considerations it seems fairly obvious that stubborn insistence on MRA … your tiny complaints.”
Aren’t -you- a macho man?
You must really feel threatened by feminism. I don’t feel that way. You see problems where I see none. You sound like chicken little to me. You dish out a tiny handful of instances and claim that amounts to the overwhelming evidence for evolution.
I’m not saying you have no valid complaints. I’m not saying that no feminists go too far on some issues. I’m saying that any such issues can be easily addressed in normal modes of dialogue, dispute resolution, or policy debate. The factors you cite are tiny in comparison to what feminism has had to grapple with. There is no comparability. There is no need for alarm or outrage or an organized defense of downtrodden males. We can deal with problems and stupidity on a case by case basis, whether it comes from a minority fringe of extreme feminists or from elsewhere. That is the nature of what it means to be empowered. There is no need to pretend that the few problems you mentioned are equivalent to a complete reversal of the gender power equation, and that the very notion of gender equality is under threat unless men rise to the occasion and join the MRA to defend male honor. I simply don’t feel threatened as you seem to as women assert rights and share power and control with men, based on ability and not on gender. I don’t perceive a menace growing out of control. I see a few kinks that must be ironed out as women step into their rightful place in human society.
You need to understand one thing. The MRA movement only has a reason to exist in the light of the feminist movement, as a counter-balance.
It doesn’t matter who’s the most oppressed. I seem to recall many feminists telling men that it’s not a zero-sum game. So why does it need to be here?
Furthermore, can you mention a single law on the books that discriminates against women? I mentioned a number that discriminate against men, as well as institutionalization via other methods (like the usual classes in college which amounts to scaring women shitless of men and making men feel like they need to be told not to rape women).
For example, you might want to look at the marriage numbers as a sign of it. If you ask men and women, you’ll find that it’s men who don’t want to get married anymore, amongst other reasons increasingly being concerned about it being a legal trap where the woman can, with a no-fault divorce, leave them without their children, half their assets, and paying child support if not also alimony.
This is leading to, surprise surprise, most men not marrying. MRAs are constantly pointing to the situation in Japan with the grass-eaters now numbering around 75% of young men, and the same trends are coming out in the west.
But you’ll stick your head in the sand and say that the problem is just in our heads, or that it isn’t serious enough?
Girlwriteswhat , that darn misogynist … woman, made the marriage argument better than I did, now I think about it. Might want to look her up.
I looked at the intro to your paper. I don’t feel the need to read all 53 pages. I assume you mean the one by Sarniker, Sorensen, and Oaxaca in June of 2007. It appears they made a good attempt to control for the factors I mentioned, though they admit that different sample size for men and women (because men commit so many more crimes than women) problemetizes their analysis. But for the sake of argument let’s assume they did everything correctly and made no major errors.
The study is to determine if there is sentencing bias, not why there is sentencing bias. The ostensible purpose of deciding if this bias exists (and they conclude it does) is that this knowledge could subjectively impact future sentencing decisions in a way that hopefully begins to compensate for the imbalance.
The whole question of gender equality in sentencing ignores the question of whether men are being sentenced too harshly or women too leniently. I would say it’s important to find appropriate sentencing levels as well as just making them equal. If they were equally too harsh that is not necessarily an improvement of any kind.
Thinking about why this alleged inequality exists leads us to consider factors that aren’t necessarily the fault of women or feminism. In fact we could probably blame it on the opposite of feminism, a tendency for male judges to feel protective of women. I can’t really see a basis to argue that feminism is at fault, or that discrimination by women against men is at fault. My guess would be that there is a larger number of male than female judges (I can’t state any figures here, I’m just assuming), and that males are prone to be punitive of other males, while males are prone to be protective of females. I believe a feminist perspective, or a gender equality perspective would incline one to advocate a better mix of male and female judges, and sentencing guidelines that advise judges against gender bias in sentencing decisions (against for example decisions that give more leniency to a woman with children, but not to a father with children). I don’t like mandatory sentencing rules. I think the system works best when judges have discretion. Perhaps also there are ways to analyze this by considering the social cost of greater rates of male crime, and therefore the greater need for stronger deterrence of males, thus perhaps it would not be fair or beneficial to society to sentence men at the same rate as women until male rates of crime drop to the level of female crime.
Is an MRA perspective different from a mainstream feminist/gender equality approach? What intellectual freshness can MRA add to this, or is it all just undue complaint over perceived male grievances?
Yes, that’s the one. Sorry, I thought I linked it elsewhere on the block. Anyways.
The MRA perspective?
It’s exactly what you said about “gender roles” being the cause due to an idea that women can’t do wrong or that men are the primary aggressors or something ridiculous like that… with the added soberness of realizing that feminists have had a terrible run of fighting against this sort of thing and in fact, they have a history of fighting for laws which promote women as victims and men as aggessors -cough VAWA cough- and promoting this exact same line of thought of women as victims and men as aggressors.
And therefore, the movement that poisoned us is now saying it’s the path towards curing it.
Except that part about “Males commit crimes more so it might make sense to punish them heavily as a deterrent” part. Would you say the same about punishing black people more, or would you say it’s racist?
I’d say it’s racist. Just as I say that argument fails.
“I’ve never heard anyone talk about men’s rights before.”
Maybe that’s the problem. Go watch the above video one more time will you?
Meh. After a bit more research, I realized I’m barking up the wrong tree by using the MRA label.
I used to think that the label should be reclaimed, but it does seem like there’s way too much hate coming from that side to really reclaim it at the moment. Perhaps in the future when more of them do it.
I still think there’s plenty of male rights issues to argue for, and that feminism has its own issues, but it’s pointless to try to defend a label that’s so full of assholes and honestly hateful people.
When a label stops helping I dump it. However I find the MRA label to be useful in feminist blogs and the feminist label useful in MRA blogs. Out in the real world I wont use ether of them so I am not lumped in with anyone bullshit, but can still make the same points.
Other Sider–
You say there’s plenty of men’s rights’ issues to argue for. Okay then, kiddo…. Do it!
Why *are* men getting longer sentences if they’re convicted of crimes? Why *are* men more likely to die in industrial accidents? Start talking about those real issues instead of obsessing about, gee, somebody, somewhere is a feminist with a chip on her shoulder.
Yes, for what it’s worth, you’re completely right. Somebody, somewhere is a feminist with a chip on her shoulder. And I’m saying that as a genuine, card-carrying feminist. I’ve even sat on a panel with Betty Friedan and Ti-Grace Atkinson. I thought, based on actually meeting her, that Atkinson was seriously loopy. It didn’t make me stop trying to get the ERA ratified, though.
Why do you let similar concerns about modern feminists keep you focussed on straightening out their heads instead of going after issues that you think are important? Try addressing real issues like the two I mentioned above, and see, then, if feminists are working for you or against you.
Kinda hard when MRA’s get lumped in with hate groups don’t you think?
I got a much better idea anyway.
You see there is this political movement already in place and funded that has lots of history dealing with this sort of thing, hell they are even in our schools. If we could get them to ease up on the man hate and and point out bullshit no matter who it is effecting we can build a much more effective movement.
In other words we need more people like Cris.
Yeah, it’s kinda hard to get a political movement going when the mean ol’ opposition says nasty things about it all the time. But them’s the breaks, kid.
Take a look at what the atheist movement handles every day, and you’ll see that what the MRAs face is a walk in the park. But you don’t see PZ Myers or Greta Christina sitting around wringing their hands, moaning, “Oh, if only we could convince the pope there is no god. Then we’d have a well financed organization that’s not only in the schools, but in many cases actually owns the schools.” No, the atheists are going out and making their own, grassroots organizations.
And that’s the way social movements work. They tend to be messy and sloppy, with a lots of internal debate (gnus vs accomodationists, anyone?) And I’ll let you in on a secret– the feminist movement is no different. Do you think there’s some lock-step organization that includes both radical marxist lesbians who think women won’t be free until the end of marriage and capitalism; and happily-married MBAs who are hitting the glass ceiling? If you do, I’ve got news for you– if you want a lockstep organization to take over, you’d be better off trying to coopt the American Square Dance Association. Now, *there’s* an organization that really does expect lock-step obedience.
Of course, if all you really want to do is whine about feminism, proceed to whine. If you don’t actually care whether convicted male felons are getting longer sentences than convicted female felons, then don’t bother addressing the issue. But if you want to pursue a totally negative agenda, don’t be surprised if people say your movement is totally negative.
So much anger… You do know I am a feminist and an atheist right?
When you get right down to it MRA’s are just another flavor of feminism.
Men’s/Women’s right all fall under the umbrella of looking for equality. So yah as a feminist I feel it is important to point out when another feminist is talking out his ass. Criticism is how we build a better argument don’t you think?
“Yeah, it’s kinda hard to get a political movement going when the mean ol’ opposition says nasty things about it all the time. But them’s the breaks, kid.
Take a look at what the atheist movement handles every day, and you’ll see that what the MRAs face is a walk in the park. But you don’t see PZ Myers or Greta Christina sitting around wringing their hands, moaning, “Oh, if only we could convince the pope there is no god. Then we’d have a well financed organization that’s not only in the schools, but in many cases actually owns the schools.””
lol you might want to read this one more time and ask yourself who the opposition is in your little fun time story.
Here is a hint….. It’s sexist people.
Great post, I think most of your subscibers would actually agree with you, you dont blame anyone group for something that is beyond their control, you showed how this affects all of us and why we should all be femenists – this is a useful approach – this works
Great video (dare I say bitchin’?).
Cristina, finding someone(anyone!) who is actually open-minded, intelligent and who isn’t just rearranging their prejudices is extremely rare. Period. Finding someone like that who is also good looking is even rarer. I would like to suggest that openly noticing that a woman who is intelligent is also really good looking as if that’s unusual may not be quite as sexist as you seem to think because it really is unusual.
When you raised the issue of patriarchy I noticed that you didn’t say whether there is or is not a patriarchy but instead criticized what you called patriarchal attitudes (and what I like to call leftover sexist bullshit). Lots and lots of mainstream/non-rad feminists, such as Gloria Steinem (whom I used to admire as both an author and a thinker until the day I made the mistake of actually reading her) thinks there’s one by which I mean that there are all these men who are out to disempower women. I think it’s crazy horseshit. For one thing, if men wanted to keep women perpetually disempowered, why on earth did they give them the vote? Why did Republicans nominate–Big Spook With A Hammer In The Sky, help us–Sarah Palin of all beings to be next in line for President? That sure doesn’t look like a patriarchy to me.
Finally, I would like to point out the amazing batshit crazy brand of feminist that has found a comfy home in the so-called skeptical community. There is a well-known feminist blogger by the name of Amanda Marcotte who has written tons of crazy shit but is perhaps most notorious for her incredibly hateful and bigoted behavior during the infamous Duke lacrosse false rape accusation scandal. In order to sustain that hate she had to ignore vast piles of evidence that called the accuser’s story into question including conclusive DNA evidence that not only could the players not possibly have raped her but her insistence that she hadn’t had sex prior to the non-rape was untrue as the DNA of several men who were not on the lacrosse team was found inside her. Marcotte called commentators at CNN “evil” for expressing sympathy for the players after they had been exonerated by the state attorney general and went on to reaccuse them all over again by writing, “Can’t a few white boys sexually assault a black woman anymore without people getting all wound up about it? So unfair.”
Marcotte has yet to apologize or acknowledge error. Despite this she has been repeatedly touted since by PZ Myers as one of our nation’s best critical thinkers and was even invited to be a featured speaker at Skepticon. Isn’t there a problem here?
You have a natural desire to think well of feminism and treat feminists who behave badly as an abusive minority who really do not represent the movement. I believe that this attitude is understandable but mistaken and that you may want to reconsider your point of view. I stopped calling myself a feminist years ago and prefer to be called a gender equalitarian. Maybe you too?
Oh, one other thing. I have been called a troll on multiple occasions not for threatening to rape or murder or anything like that but for the apparently seedy act of disagreeing with the ambient consensus. Indeed, my experience has been that calling someone a troll is a cheap and easy way of trying to discredit a counter argument without going through all the trouble of using facts and logic or any of that bullshit. And while it’s OK for the majority to insult you, insulting the same assholes back is totally out of bounds. Therefore, I encourage you to beware of people who use the term troll w/o specifying what a troll is as its overly-promiscuous use tends to muddy reality to the benefit of the mud throwers rather than clarify it.
Whatever Amanda Marcotte said, it isn’t the fault of feminism. The self-righteous anger over perceived injustice is a deeply human moral characteristic of both males and females, and it is exactly for this reason that we have a justice system founded upon the wisdom of presuming innocence until guilt is proven. In the Duke case justice was served, in spite of anything Marcotte may have written or said.
Marcotte’s decisions are her personal decisions, not feminism’s; to attack Marcotte is not to attack feminism. Given the long history of racist and sexist injustice and the typical arrogant attitudes of entitlement so preeminently on display among many frat boys and jocks, her anger and presumption was at least understandable even though premature and misguided. Her suspicions were unfounded in fact, but based on an awareness of prevailing culture and attitudes, not invented from nothing. I think she should publicly apologize; I don’t know if the claim that she has never apologized is accurate, but if she hasn’t she should.
Nonetheless I see this individual instance as irrelevant to the question of how important or justifiable the cause of feminism is. Personally I can not see any reason to object to the term feminism or the ideas associated with it, and every insistent objection I’ve ever seen has come either from very conservative submissive religious females, who see it as some kind of satanic corruption of society’s natural order, or males who appear in some way to feel threatened by equality or else who have some personal grudge against a woman or women.
In an attempt to claim that there is no need for feminism, or that no general oppression of women exists, you asked “why did [men] give women the vote?” You claim that there is no intention among men to disempower women, and you are mostly right, there is not necessarily a conscious organized plan. What you should ask is “why is it that women did not have the vote in the first place?” The right to vote for women was hard won and against stiff resistance. If you look at how Hillary Clinton was treated as first lady, you can pretty much see that any claim that patriarchal attitudes are non-existent or a thing of the past is an empty claim. Yes progress is happening, and largely because of feminism, not despite feminism. Yes you can point to many instances of empowered women who do not face anywhere near the discrimination their mothers did. This is not the same as proving feminism is not needed or important.
Even if there is not an intentional orchestrated conspiracy to oppress women, there is clearly a de facto one, one that limits and excludes women in many practical ways, easily visible to anyone looking. It is deeply embedded in (many or most) men’s attitudes, and it shows in the distribution of wealth and power between men and women in our society.
One could try to argue that the disproportionate distribution of resources between sexes is due to a natural inferiority of one sex, but you would have a very steep burden of proof to make such an argument. There is ample evidence that there are few things men can do that women can’t. There are certainly physical tasks that men are better suited for, and physical tasks that women are better suited for biologically. But there are also a lot of women that are stronger than a lot of men. The strong/weak dichotomy is not a binary disjunction, but rather an overlap in which many women are as strong or stronger than many men. The strongest humans tend to be men, but this does not justify making any type of work exclusive to males or females. Work, career, political office, and other opportunities to lead a fulfilling life should be available to either sex based on ability. As I observe society there is still too much condescension and still too many males who feel threatened by competition from women. The balance has shifted dramatically over the last 40 years, but it seems premature to push for a post-feminist society, and I’m always suspicious that attempts to do so are really founded in a residual resentment of females rather than a sincere belief that feminism is obsolete because there is true equality.
Even though we have a black President, there is ample evidence that racism is alive and well, and even though we may soon have a female President, that will not be a sign that feminism’s task is complete.
The fact that feminists have promoted the idiot Marcotte since her debacle IS a problem for feminism. The fact that so-called skeptics have promoted her as one of our nation’s leading skeptic is an intellectual abomination. I have no idea how you have managed to avoid understanding this excruciatingly simple point.
You also don’t seem to understand that one of the main points of good critical thinking is precisely to avoid allowing one’s prejudices get in the way of what should be one’s better judgment. Citing your own stereotypical notions about frat boys as if that somehow mitigates Marcotte’s behavior shows that you don’t understand that either.
There can be no patriarchy in a democracy where women have 54% of the vote, make up 56-58% of the college degrees, earn 60% of doctorates, where three out of our last four Secretaries of State were women and three out of nine Supreme Court justices are women. The patriarchy is an outmoded idea that has lost its currency. Advanced feminist thinkers really need to stop living in the past.
Your figures on education reflect recent gains, and I’m happy to see these numbers given that the opposite situation reigned for centuries or millennia. You still need to look at who has the most money and property, who has corporate leadership positions, and who holds political office.
All I meant to say about Amanda Marcotte was that, human weakness being what it is, and yes stereotypes being what they are, her mistake was understandable. I wouldn’t condemn her to oblivion for that mistake. I said she ought to apologize. I don’t read her so I can’t comment on the general quality of her work.
Studies have shown that stereotypes don’t form in a vacuum, and they tend to have some basis in reality. They are clearly not absolute and it isn’t fair to judge an individual based on a stereotype. However if one is forced to make snap judgements on a lack of real information (as sometimes happens in the real world), many stereotypes give a greater than 50% probability of agreeing with reality. Stereotypes are not devoid of merit, but obviously should be avoided when possible. My stereotyping frat boys is based on experience, and was not intended to slander any individual fraternity or fraternity member. There are probably some honest fraternity members out there who would concur that wild, drunken, and rude behavior by actual frat boys on many real occasions has contributed to this stereotype. It’s not the fabrication of a diabolical conspiracy to rid the world of fraternities. I indulged in the stereotype only to offer an explanation of how a fallible normal human being might rush to judgement in such a case. I’m male and not at all insulted by Marcottes error. I’m sure the anger that led to her mistake has some basis in real world experience along the way. I tend to be more forgiving than harshly judgemental, even of the over confident and loud exuberance of typical frat boys involved in typical frat behavior, provided they respect the boundaries of consent and usual social norms.
Can you link to exactly what Amanda Marcotte said? Your claims require context.
Her linked vanished years ago when Marcotte herself censored it. She replaced the original post with a complaint that people were making a big deal out of it and blamed Mike Nifong for her manifestly self-created problem. Then that vanished when she supposedly had an oopsie transferring the archives of her blog to another server.
However there’s this: http://durhamwonderland.blogspot.com/2007/04/case-narative-iii.html
Here’s the post that got her into trouble:
“I had to listen to how the poor dear lacrosse players at Duke are being persecuted just because they held someone down and fucked her against her will—not rape, of course, because the charges have been thrown out. Can’t a few white boys sexually assault a black woman anymore without people getting all wound up about it? So unfair.”
Considering that DNA evidence had, by that point, utterly exonerated the players, I’m not sure exactly how much context you need. I also have a lot of trouble imagining any other group besides white straight males that could be attacked in like fashion and still be regarded by the person doing the attacking as a member the skeptic or liberal family would be proud of. Or, for that matter, be invited to write columns for “Salon,” “Slate,” or “Raw Story.” You?
You may also want to look at this: http://reason.com/archives/2007/04/16/last-call-for-rape-crisis-femi
PS: If you don’t think way to many of the women who call themselves feminists are man haters or that there’s no such thing as political correctness, I suggest you read “Until Proven Innocent” by KC Johnson and some guy named Taylor. It’s quite the eye opener.
I’d lost my shit with feminism about the time they insisted there was a child-raping international Satanic Conspiracy (see January 1993 issue of “Ms.”) so, I have no illusions about feminists per se being especially good critical thinkers. Boy are they not. But I never would have thought that as public a jerk as Amanda Marcotte would ever be embraced after making as spectacular a public asshole of herself as she did. There, even my low opinion of feminism proved too high.
Maybe she did not know about them being innocent yet? I am sure she feels very bad about assuming those men were rapists now that she knows better.
Andre, the Duke lacrosse mess went on for almost a year and the case was highly suspect from the beginning. The whole point of good critical thinking is that it’s supposed to be fact based. If you can’t grasp that I don’t know what else I can tell you.
Also, the idea that Marcotte now “knows better” is utterly unsubstantiated. And if she does now know better and hasn’t apologized or acknowledged any kind of error, makes the fact that she has been promoted as one of our nation’s leading skeptics if anything even worse.
Everyone is a screw up now and then and if she deleted her comment this tells me she might be very embarrassed by it now who here has never let pride keep us from apologizing?
Still you make a good point. This is a pretty damn big black mark on her credibility and character. I would not want her representing me.
I would like to see a live (online) discussion (not a debate) between Chris and Girlwriteswhat on these issues.
Cris would win. GRW would get angry and it would turn into name calling. Also they would throw citations at each other that could not easily be answered without looking them up first.
I would still pay money to see it however.
Its not about “winning”. Thats why I said discussion, not debate.
A discussion is supposed to be an exchange of ideas, not a smackdown.
ZOMG I’m Skool’d!
Great job!
Chris, your videos are getting better and better. An island of reason in a sea of youtube madness.
I gotta say, the comments on this video on youtube are about what I expected. Mostly a bunch of men hating on women and completely missing the point.
I really passionately hate the way people see an attractive woman talking about damn near anything and they feel the need to comment ‘Man she’s beautiful!’ I really don’t get that. It’s basically telling everyone: ‘This person is visually arousing to me and I felt the need to alert everyone to this because…’ because why? I don’t get it. It’s entirely pointless and insulting to the person speaking because it doesn’t matter the value of their talk, just that someone feels attracted to them.
Girlwriteswhat is being falsely dmca’d after commenting on this video at youtube
Excellent video – one clarification on patriarchy: It is about the concentration of power under a percentage of men in a win-lose model. So you usually have both male and female suffering (for a stark model of big winners and bigger losers, just think of the huge percentage of teenage “lost boys” who get kicked out of the FLDS when they start becoming competition for the old Warren Jeffs types. At the same time, girls are getting pretty much sold off into the sexual slavery of forced multiple mariages at a younger ond younger age because they are just commodities.) Patriarchy tends to create rigid roles and limitations for everyone, because there are limited ways in which to be successful. Matriarchy, on the other hand *tends* to allow shared power and individual paths to success. It usually has freer sexual expression and lack of judgement around sex, and individual expression overall. So, if we just look at the sex negativity of our society, and the huge concentrated power at the top, it is obvious that we are still firmly under a patriarchal model. The feminism that we see in our society is not yet free of patriachy, and that is one reason why the oppressed can lash out to wound in turn against the ones (or a proxy of the ones) who harmed them. For another mental model of patriarchy vs matriarchy, think of chimp vs. bonobo society. In chimp society, the females are getting beaten up all the time, but so are most of the males (by the higher ranking males). In the bonobo society, almost no violence happens – instead, sex is the social lubricant. (Definitely win-win!)
So you really just went and said Matriarchy FTW?
Yah how about no….
I don’t get your point. Is their something wrong with the words patriarchy and matriarchy? They refer to real phenomena, traditional ways of organizing resources and privileges, particularly with respect to inheritance. It does seem that many anti feminist males fear that feminism is an attempt to establish matriarchy. This is wrong. It is an attempt to establish gender equality, rather than a system of gender based inheritance of privilege, status, rights, and resources.
I don’t have an opinion about “Patriarchy” or whatever, but for anyone who doesn’t like the attention they get due to their “conventionally attractive” appearance, I have one piece of advice: don’t worry – it won’t last.
The problem with beauty is that it’s like being born rich and getting poorer.
-Joan Collins
Bill Maher talks about how it has become okay to make certain comments about men in “liberal” circles and in popular culture, that would not be tolerated if they were made about women. For instance, if some idiot on Oprah (an intellect free zone if ever there was one; one of the springboards for the anti-vaccine crowd, for instance)says something like “If women ran the world there would be no more war,” or “Women are smarter than men”, everyone applauds. Imagine if someone said these things referring to men as being better or smarter. And in modern American sitcoms, it is the man, not the woman who must be the stupid one. So the jokes at your conference are in that vein. However, I must say that I don’t care. There is so much serious discrimination the other way for the reasons you outline in your discussion on patriarchy, that the jokes aren’t worth being concerned about. And I have other fish to fry. When no kids are hungry, everyone has medical care, everyone has freedom and liberty, the environment is safe, and no animals are abused, perhaps I can devote energy to being offended by bad jokes that do not intend to cause harm. For the record, I certainly think it’s a bonus that you’re pretty, it makes watching you more pleasant, and smart is sexy. But that’s not why I watch or what I care about here, and it is not “surprising” that you are smart and pretty except in this sense: A minority of the population is very attractive and a minority is very smart, so that the Venn Diagram showing the intersection between the set of really attractive people and the one for really smart people would show a much smaller subset when compared to the population as a whole, then we would wish for. 🙂
“Patriarchy” is not a bad word and is apt in this case. You are a mainstream feminist, so be proud of it and use the words in the feminist vocabulary. The right wing has painted feminism so that every woman who talks feminism is viewed as a man-hating nut like Andrea Dworkin (who contends that even consensual sex is rape)instead of a reasonable person who thinks that people should be treated fairly regardless of gender. Women who say that they’re for equal pay, for abortion rights, and for equal opportunities in employment and education, will still say they are not feminists. My first girlfriend however, was a feminist (not a radical) and said so. And though our relationship didn’t work out,she left an impression upon me with regard to these issues. She convinced me that her cause was just, and that feminism was not a dirty word, and that most of the problems of discrimination against women (and sometimes men) arise from patriarchal ideas about how society should work.
On another note, take the threats seriously, because one of the people making them could really be nuts enough to do something. Also, making threats is a crime,a violent crime, and anyone who actually threatens you ought to be punished for it. As to the other stuff, while I agree it’s unacceptable, I think the price anyone in the public pays is putting up with these morons. But don’t sweat the stupid stuff, you have far more supporters than detractors, and surprise, your supporters are the smart people. You are also correct that the crap they write about women is always of a sexual nature, and for the reasons you discussed.
Anyway, keep up the good work. Oh, I’m also the guy listed as captainlightning on Youtube. That name comes from an old family story, and a very inside joke. I should probably change it.
One persons Troll is another persons Freedom Fighter.
And is there a more self absorbed atheist running loose than Christina? She really thinks she is hot shit.
Loved this video, I pretty much agreed with everything you said. That’s rare.
Just started watching and I like this a lot. This is the first time I’ve heard patriarchy used not to blame men for unfair treatment of women.
I do very much believe that we do need to ‘work this out together.’
I tend to think that men have been inured with the idea that complaining about being hurt and showing sensitivity is un-masculine, that it is going to be hard to get enthusiastic and popular support for a movement that mirrors the feminist movement.
I think its necessary though, and from the combination of the two, a sense of humanistic gender fairness can emerge.
Very happy to see someone on the internet very evolved in their thinking about it.
I’m looking forward to returning…
The links triggered moderation, so here it is again: