Quantcast

«

»

May 13 2013

Is misandry simply misogyny in disguise?

When I wrote recently on the misandry isn’t a thing thing, the counter-argument which I found most interesting and challenging went something like this:

All the examples Ally provided were cases of PHMT [patriarchy hurts men too]; if femininity and woman-ness weren’t considered bad things, then men wouldn’t be punished for “adulterating” themselves with such girl-cooties. And if women weren’t seen as inherently weak and passive, it would no longer be an Unthinkable that a man could be the victim of a woman. [Comment from Jadehawk]

A shorter version, put to me by several people on Twitter, was that what I describe as cultural misandry is nothing more than misogyny in disguise. Is it true? Not quite, in my opinion.

I would and do accept that misogyny and misandry are not opposing forces, but parallel, and very closely related. They grow from the same socio-economic roots and they complement, even actively support each other. That does not make them one and the same. There is a very similar theory about prejudice against gay men and transgendered people – that these stem from a hatred or fear of femininity in men. And yet nobody demands that we drop the words homophobia and transphobia as a result and simply refer to them as ‘misogynistic’ attacks. To do so would make invisible the specific nature of the offences, and imply that, for example, when gay men are beaten senseless in homophobic attacks, the real victims are women.

To illustrate, let’s look at one of the more infamous examples of cultural misandry from recent years. In July 2011, US chatshow The Talk discussed the gruesome sexual mutilation committed by Catherine Kieu Becker on her husband. The show’s hosts and guests, notably Sharon Osbourne, discussed the case with relish and celebratory delight, hooting and howling with laughter for a good five minutes.  The case that day was real and new, the victim was at that very moment hospitalised from his wounds, and the section on The Talk (for which they later offered a fulsome apology) was genuinely shocking and stomach-churning.

It is surely unarguable that this was a case of misandry. No other noun could suffice. The gender dynamics are obvious and inescapable. To describe this as misogyny would again imply that although it was a man who had been grotesquely mutilated and then gleefully mocked, the real victims here are still women.  That strikes me as a rather inhumane approach to the issue, which actively excludes a man’s suffering from the equation.

It would seem to me that a better way to understand cultural misandry is not that our society holds that male=strong / female=weak. It is that our society wants to constrain and imprison us into gender roles that match our genitalia. It is often noted that character traits which are considered positive in a man at the workplace (such as assertiveness or aggression) will be seen as negative in a woman (strident, bitchy, bossy). So assertiveness and aggression aren’t held to be negatives or positives in their own right, but become so when they are mis-gendered. The exact same thing is true of sensitivity and caring – seen as positive when displayed by a woman, negative when displayed by a man. It is certainly true that across the board typically female traits are considered less valuable and admirable than typically male traits – I am not saying our society is a post-patriarchal utopia – but it looks to me like the real crime in society is not so much displaying female characteristics per se as displaying characteristics which do not match one’s socially prescribed gender roles.

I don’t argue that patriarchy is the single dominant force in society, I think of it as just one of many oppressive dynamics which holds Global Inc together. Misogyny strengthens the patriarchy, which in turn props up the economic system. So too does homophobia, so too (indirectly) does racism, colonialism, the class system and, crucially, so too does misandry.

The related point, made by many of my detractors, is that oppression is not the same as prejudice. Oppression (such as sexism or misogyny) is prejudice + power. My own position is that while men do indeed have a dominant position over women in society, and this is a real and huge issue to be addressed, the systemic ruling class has vastly more power over both binary genders than either has over the other. Men and women alike are oppressed by capitalist culture. Yes, a significant part of men’s oppression is the imperative to oppress others, but to argue that men are not oppressed because they oppress others, or because they are not oppressed by women seems to miss the bigger picture.

I have no problem acknowledging that patriarchy hurts men too. I would go further, and argue that reciting patriarchy hurts men too should not be a way to end a conversation, but to begin one.  Why does patriarchy hurt men too? How does it do so? How do we help those who are hurt? How do we prevent others being hurt similarly? Those, primarily, are not questions for women/feminists to address, but for men. We’re not only the ones who sit on the receiving end, we are also often the ones doling it out to others.

When a feminist says in one breath “patriarchy hurts men too” then in the next breath “misandry isn’t a thing” it seems to me a contradiction. If patriarchy hurts men too, then we need the language and terms of reference with which we can discuss that. If misogyny is one principal mechanism by which the patriarchy hurts women, misandry is a principal mechanism by which patriarchy hurts men too. Denying the existence of misandry effectively denies that patriarchy hurts men too.

As a general political principle, it always seems to me that we don’t overthrow the existing order (whether we’re talking patriarchy or neoliberal capitalism or whatever you want to call it) by exploding the entire edifice in a big bang. We undermine it by chipping away at every strut, every pillar, every beam that supports it. I don’t call on feminism to solve men’s problems for us. I do assert a need for the essential intellectual space and terminology to address them ourselves.

212 comments

1 ping

Skip to comment form

  1. 1
    CaitieCat, in no way a robot nosireebot

    Good points, absolutely. This is why I don’t say it doesn’t exist. That which you referred to is absolutely revolting, and is clearly hatred of a man for being a man. I’m totally on board with that, and I want to say I get that you’re saying the class-is-worse part as someone who totally recognizes that women do have it worse than men in an overall sense.

    I think part of the reason you get pushback when you say that class oppresses us all in a greater way than sexism comes from two things.

    One, it’s not necessarily a view that reflects the way that a lot of women experience the world; sexism is a pretty heavy thing, when even your fellow class-members are making 30% more because they have a (presumed) penis. It’s not about one being worse than the other; it’s the way they intersect that makes the difference to the people on the ground. Class is heavier in some respects; sexism in others; race in most; different ability is big; et c., et c..

    Two, it’s a line which, in our experience as gender issues campaigners, often comes with “…and so we should ignore gender issues and focus on the thing that really affects us all, which is class.” Which, coming from someone who doesn’t take as big a hit from gender issues, again feels out of touch with the lived experience of those you’re talking with; it’s one of the definitions of concern trolling, the whole “but this thing is worse because it affects me too” part.

    To be clear, I don’t think you’re doing either of those things. But an awfully large number of the people whom I encounter saying “class is so much more important” are a) men and b) often clueless ones. You’re not. I know this. But understand that when you use a core argument of people who are so clueless as to think men and women have it equally hard, it’s going to get some pushback just on a Pavlovian level: we hear it very, very often, and it’s almost always used to say we should shut up and move with the important issues.

    Is that fair? Not really. But people who are reading their first post ever by you, encountering that line, don’t have the recognition yet that you’re actually on the same side in this; like “all the great novelists in history have been men, therefore men are obviously smarter”, it’s a line we’ve become weary with hearing from people seeking to undermine the importance of gender issues in the list of things that want fixed.

  2. 2
    Ally Fogg

    I think part of the reason you get pushback when you say that class oppresses us all in a greater way than sexism comes from two things.

    I know you’re not saying this, but just to be absolutely clear, I do not say that class oppresses us in a greater way than sexism/gender.

    I think the ways in which we are oppressed by class, gender, race, status, sexuality etc are inextricably interlinked and you really can’t look at one while forgetting about the others.

    One of the ways that patriarchy sustains itself is through the class system. One way the class system sustains itself is through patriarchy. Both patriarchy and the class system sustain themselves through racism and racism sustains itself partly through the class system and patriarchy.

    Modern feminism calls this kyriarchy. I’m a crotchety old lefty so I prefer to think of it as capitalist hegemony, but it all describes pretty much the same effect when you strip it down.

  3. 3
    Crommunist

    My reservation about this line of reasoning is that ‘misandry’, in its most common formulation, is postulated as a countervaling and equivalent force to misogyny. To be sure, you specifically address this in your post, but at the same time I am concerned that the differences between misogyny and ‘misandry’ are larger than the similarities between same. ‘Misandry’ lacks the same historical context, it lacks the pervasive power, it lacks the multitude of methods of expression, it lacks (for the most part although not entirely) the type of violence that is inextricable from misogyny. They are not really comparable entities; no more than anti-white racism is comparable to anti-black racism – they simply are not the same animal.

    So while I accept that there are examples of hatred directed at men qua men, its relationship to misogyny is superficial at best, and the comparison to misogyny that it invites is loaded with baggage (which is, I imagine, the intention of the term). Far be it from me to say that the word cannot be used, but one would have to do a very thorough job of explaining the specific denotation.

  4. 4
    CaitieCat, in no way a robot nosireebot

    Ally @ 1.1 (I can’t see a reply option there):

    I know you’re not saying this, but just to be absolutely clear, I do not say that class oppresses us in a greater way than sexism/gender.

    I think the ways in which we are oppressed by class, gender, race, status, sexuality etc are inextricably interlinked and you really can’t look at one while forgetting about the others.

    Absolutely, in both cases, I think we agree more than I thought. Sorry I misunderstood your point; thanks for the assumption of good faith error. :)

  5. 5
    Jacob Schmidt

    My own position is that while men do indeed have a dominant position over women in society, and this is a real and huge issue to be addressed, the systemic ruling class has vastly more power over both binary genders than either has over the other.

    The thing is that since men have greater power, and power begets power, men are in the better position to take advantage of the economic dominance our current financial and political systems allow. These systems don’t descriminate in and of themselves, but they don’t need to; our social systems and cultures will do that just fine.

  6. 6
    Ally Fogg

    Hi Crommunist

    ‘Misandry’ lacks the same historical context, it lacks the pervasive power, it lacks the multitude of methods of expression, it lacks (for the most part although not entirely) the type of violence that is inextricable from misogyny. They are not really comparable entities; no more than anti-white racism is comparable to anti-black racism – they simply are not the same animal.

    I agree they are not the same animal, but I disagree that it lacks the historical context, pervasive power and, certainly, the violence.

    One of the most striking manifestations of misandry is that men should be expected to kill and die for their countries. Dulce et decorum est por patria mori and all that. Similarly the willingness to face death and serious injury at work on a daily basis as an inherent part of masculinity is very much part of it.

    There’s another post I wrote a while ago that I will repost here shortly, where I cover the difference in gender and race, and why misandry is not the same as “reverse racism” or “anti-white racism.”

    In brief, as a straight white male, I can think of literally zero meaningful occasions where my ethnicity (or sexuality) has worked against me in life. Being white is 100% a breeze, it comes utterly without cost or penalty. The same is not true of being male, in my experience.

  7. 7
    smhll

    Thanks for the link to the detestable “laugh fest” from The View. I appreciate that you mentioned the apology. I watched both the joking around episode, and the episode the next day (back when the show was broadcast) in which Sharon Osbourne made a sincere apology. . Most times when this event is used to ‘prove’ the heinousness of all women, the apology is dropped out of the discussion. (I was recording and watching the shows after recording them, so I may have seen the apology before the offensive, derisive discussion, thus slanting the way I perceived the behavior of the hosts.)

    When viewing the piece, note that the studio audience is already warmed up and laughing loudly for the first 20 seconds on the tape, before the hosts introduce the topic of mutilation in the news. Note also that sympathetic moans of “uh” or “ugh” are the only sounds heard in the first part of the discussion. Then, at some point, Sharon O. says something exaggeratedly heartless and reprehensible (“… it’s quite fabulous”). I think this is when the laughter breaks out, amplified by the idiots in the audience who have been primed to function as a human laugh track. Sharon Osbourne’s role on the show is apparently to be outrageous, and sheer outrage is an appropriate response to her remarks.

    Anyway, as the conversation continues, there is some laughter from the other hosts in response to some of the comments. Most of the louder laughing seems to come from the fired-up studio audience. In between the guffaws, there are a couple of attempts at straight-faced discussion from the other hosts and a recitation of the facts in the Bobbitt case 16 years prior. At about 4:10, one host (Sara Gilbert) comments that the reaction is sexist, and that this reaction wouldn’t be happening if they were talking about a female body part. I wish she had said “misandrist” instead of “sexist”, but I’m not sure her audience would have understood the word.

  8. 8
    Crommunist

    One of the most striking manifestations of misandry is that men should be expected to kill and die for their countries

    That one is certainly an example of patriarchial assumptions about the fitness and role of women and men. There is power and prestige and social standing afforded to people who serve in the military (and has been, as far as I know, as long as there have been professional militaries). Women are excluded, not safeguarded, from such service, which necessarily precludes them from reaping the benefits (and, obviously, the harmful consequences). If anything, that’s about toxic definitions of masculinity than it is about systemic anti-male bias.

    In brief, as a straight white male, I can think of literally zero meaningful occasions where my ethnicity (or sexuality) has worked against me in life

    I know of examples of people who were violently assaulted as young people for being white in majority-black neighbourhoods. Again, this is not the same as anti-black racism, but it is a specific example of hatred directed against white people for being white. I would put it to you that most if not all examples of ‘misandry’ (even under your much more caveatted definition) are of this type: deplorable, but not systemic.

    I look forward to reading your archived post, because it may illustrate the flaws in my argument more clearly.

  9. 9
    JE

    “it lacks (for the most part although not entirely) the type of violence that is inextricable from misogyny.”

    Gendered violence against men is enormous, unbelievably big. It’s not as obvious as gendered violence because there are fewer situations where you can directly say that gender was definitly a deciding factor, but looking at the amount of violence in agregate a clear gendered pattern emerges.

  10. 10
    Gjenganger

    our society wants to constrain and imprison us into gender roles that match our genitalia.

    it looks to me like the real crime in society is not so much displaying female characteristics per se as displaying characteristics which do not match one’s socially prescribed gender roles

    Sorry, this is a bit peripheral – I rather like your main argument.

    Well, prescribed gender roles work by having society react against those who do not fit them. No surprise there.The problem with the way you put it is that you imply that there is an alternative to these gender roles, but do not say what that is. Would you prefer
    - A single prescribed role for everybody regardless of gender (and how is that better)?
    - No roles at all (and would that not throw interpersonal interactions into chaos, with no roles to govern our expectations)?
    - A few roles, and you choose freely between them (and how would you teach them to the young, or keep them well-defined, when they are freely chosen anyway.)?
    - Removing the more harmful aspects of our gender roles and keeping the rest (and what would you keep)?

    Social roles are useful as a way of organising social interactions. One reason they are perpetuated, IMHO, is that young children are actively looking for roles to conform to – “how is one supposed to do things here?“. And one reason gender roles, specifically, are perpetuated, is that at some point the same children notice that they are male or female, as the case may be, and actively look for what this should mean for their behaviour. They cannot wait till they are adult and choose their role then, because adapting to the role is part of how they grow to be themselves, not something you put on after the process is finished. The roles may cause problems, but how are you going to get rid of them?

  11. 11
    oolon

    Hehe, Ally might be regretting the 1-level nesting! Reply to yourself to continue in the same conversation…

  12. 12
    Ally Fogg

    Indeed, the system is perfect until people come along and try to use it ;-)

  13. 13
    CaitieCat, in no way a robot nosireebot

    Ahh…not what I would have intuited, evidently. Thanks. :)

  14. 14
    Ginkgo

    “The thing is that since men have greater power, and power begets power, men are in the better position to take advantage of the economic dominance our current financial and political systems allow.”

    Only certain men, and very few of them. That’s the point. the rest of the point is that the other men, being the main competition for power for those few and thus the main threat, are exposed to greater oppression to keep them at bay. This majority of men are treated as more disposable on evey level than any female in the society for two reasons. One is that their disposability is more simply productive than a woman’s, as in industrial settings for instance. But the other is that they will always pose the greater threat to the elite and so it is more crucial to keep them down.

    It is a mistake to lump these two groups togther, everyone agrees, but it is easy to do. One reaosn is that a lot of commentators and peole thinking about gender have simialr class backgrounds as those elite people and we tend to think of them as the norm, or can easily fall into that error. But the other is that the culture itself puts a huge effort the happy myth that we men are all in tis together. It’s parallel to the whiteness myth in America, that “rich or poor we’uns is all white so we got to stick together ‘gainst them blacks.” And guess wh that myth benefits the most.

  15. 15
    Ginkgo

    “Most times when this event is used to ‘prove’ the heinousness of all women, the apology is dropped out of the discussion.”

    Osbourne showed class and more importantly, growth. “The heinousnous of all women” accusation applied mostly to her audience of ghouls, there in the studio and the millions at home, that lapped it all up, licked thier lips and never said a word in apology.

  16. 16
    Ally Fogg

    I know of examples of people who were violently assaulted as young people for being white in majority-black neighbourhoods.

    Yep, I was thinking that as I typed it, and since I’m raising two sons in an inner city area where we are very much a localised ethnic minority, it’s something I’m perpetually conscious of.

    But I think that is an exceptional case. It’s where very local power dynamics (at least within the culture of the streets) has shifted. The equivalent, in gender terms, might be where you have one male employee in an all-female workforce, who finds himself subject to sexual harassment in the way women more commonly do.

    But they’re not really the types of misandry I’m addressing. I’m more thinking about gender roles within the dominant, prevailing social structures.

    And yes, the military thing is entirely wrapped up in patriarchal society, I don’t deny it. I’d actually be perfectly happy if people wanted to adopt a term like “patriarchal misandry” to describe it, which would be quite accurate.

    I’m not arguing against the idea that such structures are patriarchal. I’m arguing against the notion that they are either irrelevant or inconsequential, neither of which is true, IMO.

  17. 17
    Ally Fogg

    this is a really interesting and important point. Maybe too interesting and important to address in a quick reply! What I say in the “about this blog” section

    I believe we should try to build a society where gender is rarely a burden, never a prison and always a blessing.

    I realise that little boys and girls will grow up thinking “boys do that” and “girls do this” to a certain extent. I do think we can work on not exaggerating and amplifying that, so I’m generally opposed to heavily gendered pink and blue toys, for example, and try never to fall into habits with my own sons of saying things like “boys don’t cry” or “don’t play with that toy, that’s for girls.” We are quite passionately opposed to the culture of violence, so the only absolute rule in our house is we don’t hurt one another, or anyone else, ever.

    That said, we still have two very boyish boys who like boyish things, and we don’t attempt to persuade them out of that, which wouldn’t work even if we wanted to.

    Shall need to come back to this question some time.

  18. 18
    Pierce R. Butler

    Ally Fogg @ # 2.1: … I can think of literally zero meaningful occasions where my ethnicity (or sexuality) has worked against me in life.

    You’ve led a sheltered existence. I fall into the same categories, but have spent enough time in white/hetero-minority spaces to have had rocks and hostile glares thrown at me, not to mention repeated hassles by cops (and that’s only episodes within the USA).

    Not a pimple on the ass of a flea on an elephant compared to what non-white, non-hetero/cis, non-male people experience every day, but highly educational…

    JE @ # 2.2 – you-know-what needed.

  19. 19
    Ginkgo

    “I would put it to you that most if not all examples of ‘misandry’ (even under your much more caveatted
    definition) are of this type: deplorable, but not systemic.”

    This is an important point. It is wrong, so it’s important to address. When a feature of society is enforced by the power of the state, that is about as institutional and systemic as it can get. So when you look at the disparate way that female and male rape victims are treated, to the point of gendered legal definitions of rape that erase male victims of envelopment rape, or when you look at disparate incarceration rates for perpetrators of the same crimes, or at child custody rates, or at the erasure of male vicitms of DV and the goss differences in government serivces provided them or even wartime expectations, or at misandrist enculturation boys are subjected to in government run schools, that is about as systemic as it gets.

    Toxic masculinity is not the source of these disparities, it is an accomodation to these disparities. However dismantling it will help disable the process that feeds these disparities, so that has to happen.

    “There is power and prestige and social standing afforded to people who serve in the military (and has been, as far as I know, as long as there have been professional militaries).

    You must be referring to the Veterans’ day lip service. You cannot be referring to the pathetic and disgusting way vetrerans are neglected in your country and mine. And the attitude behind this kind of disposability is hardly new:
    http://quotations.about.com/cs/poemlyrics/a/Tommy.htm

    “Women are excluded, not safeguarded, from such service, ”

    Ah, yes, the old “women are the real victims here” line. They are excluded all the way inot survival. oh the burdens of privilege. But at least they have the spoils of those wars ot console them – a trade empire feeding them off the rest of the world and all the other insuperable oppressions of the patriarchy. The term for this discourse is “damseling”.

  20. 20
    brucegee1962

    A related issue is what I’ve started thinking of as the “Alice Phonomenon.” Alice is for the character in Dilbert, who is constantly yelling “fist of death!” and punching people, usually men. Another place where I’ve seen this is in the webcomic “Something Positive.”

    There seems to be a tacit understanding that female vs. male violence (either carried out or threated) is funny, whereas male vs female violence is deplored.

  21. 21
    Ginkgo

    ….and that clearly does not apply to the entiore audience, as you explain.

  22. 22
    Schala

    ‘Misandry’ lacks the same historical context, it lacks the pervasive power, it lacks the multitude of methods of expression, it lacks (for the most part although not entirely) the type of violence that is inextricable from misogyny. They are not really comparable entities; no more than anti-white racism is comparable to anti-black racism – they simply are not the same animal.

    Seriously, there is less violence against men?

    Must be why they’re most victims of all violent crimes but rape (where it’s more equal), unless we count prison rape (then men is more).

    And they’re targeted because they’re men, yes.

  23. 23
    Steersman

    Ally said (#2.1):

    One of the most striking manifestations of misandry is that men should be expected to kill and die for their countries.

    Indeed. While you are no doubt aware of the ramifications, and of the nitty-gritty and “grim meat-hook” details of that phenomenon, and while this fellow (1) might reasonably be construed to have gone off the deep-end in consequence of focusing on them, one can’t help but feel some sympathy for his view on what might reasonably be characterized as some egregious sexism, some odious misandry:

    A man that does not register for conscription is not allowed to vote. We men have the *privilege* of voting if, and only if we are laying our lives on the lines.

    One might wonder at the outcry if one were to advance a somewhat analogous argument that pregnant women should be obliged – on pain of losing their rights to vote – to carry their fetuses to term because, hey, it’s for the greater glory of our countries if not of man and god.

    Part of my objection to “feminism” is that, as I’ve argued at length on several of your other posts, “it” – or significant sections of it – tends to have a rather narrow, not to say self-serving and hypocritical and bigoted, view, not to say dogma, that only men can be guilty of sexism, that (2):

    In social justice terms, marginalized groups [e.g., women and blacks] cannot be guilty of -isms in regards to the axes of privilege that they fall low on, because they don’t have the power to institutionalize their prejudices.

    Which, I think, also manifests a rather narrow and self-serving “understanding” of the “power to institutionalize their prejudices”. If, for example, three women or three blacks, happen to constitute the bulk of a human resources department and then base their hiring selections on their prejudices against, for example, whites or males, then it should hardly detract from a charge of racism and sexism that there might be more cases of prejudice against blacks or females.

    Totally bogus and egregiously hypocritical, if not the antithesis of critical thinking and a skeptical frame of mind, that that quote – from the AtheismPlus “glossary” – should be given any credence whatsoever.


    1) “_http://www.avoiceformen.com/a-voice-for-men/an-open-letter-to-richard-cohen-of-the-splc/#comment-90094”;
    2) “_http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=2632”;

  24. 24
    Ginkgo

    As Ally says, sexism and the class system reinforce each other.

    Something that has come up now and then in feminists spaces in the US is the topic of “white women’s tears” – the effect on men and the demand a white women can place on them by crying over something. It’s form of chivlary. This came up a few years ago on Feministe in the context of a sexist Ypoutube post a rather privileged white female universtiy student made decrying all these damned [supposedly[hyper-intelligent] Asians running all over her campus, and then her tearful plaint about being so horribly misunderstood (i.e perfectly understood and called out on being racist.)

    The point women of color made in that thread was that only white women can do this hope to sway a situation by crying, and that for WOCs it is immaterial whether this is female or white privilege because functionally from their perspective you don’t get considered fully female in the US unless you are white preferably blond and blue-eyed. The incarceration stats and the gendered disparity they display show this, the disparate reaction to murders and kidnappings show this; it’s systemic.

  25. 25
    Norman Hadley

    Hi Ally. Try this version without any misogynistic bookending. Includes the later apology and an attempt at seriousness by Sara Gilbert at 4:05.

  26. 26
    David Marjanović

    And one reason gender roles, specifically, are perpetuated, is that at some point the same children notice that they are male or female, as the case may be, and actively look for what this should mean for their behaviour. They cannot wait till they are adult and choose their role then, because adapting to the role is part of how they grow to be themselves, not something you put on after the process is finished. The roles may cause problems, but how are you going to get rid of them?

    By presenting less of a gender role to them, and by making sure they learn how complex the world is. At some point children notice they’re male or female or both or neither – at some point they notice they’re nerds, at some point they notice they’re My Little Pony fans, at some point they notice they have political opinions, and so on and so forth; make sure they know these can’t all be subsumed under “male or female”.

    First and foremost, make sure they figure out that they’re not really “supposed” to do things on particular way. They’re not somehow forced to do things they don’t actually want to just because other people do them. They’re not somehow forced to give in to peer pressure – or to exert it.

  27. 27
    David Marjanović

    There seems to be a tacit understanding that female vs. male violence (either carried out or threated) is funny, whereas male vs female violence is deplored.

    All reasons I can find for this are misogynistic:
    1) women are weak, so they can’t do any damage, it’s funny to watch them pummel their little fists;
    2) laugh at the less-than-a-man who lets something as weak as a woman dominate him, LOL.

    Also, the extent to which male-on-female violence is deplored varies greatly. “She deserved it” and “she must have deserved it” are never far away.

  28. 28
    Ginkgo

    “There is a very similar theory about prejudice against gay men and transgendered people – that these stem from a hatred or fear of femininity in men.”

    The narrative that homophobia is really misogyny in hiding is offensive to the point of hate speech. Centering women in a discussion of violence and hatred directed at gay men and more than that even at gay boys, is disgusting appropriation and erasure. The traits I was shamed for were the very traits girls were getting praised for.

    Actually society vlaues femininity very highly. A big portion of one half society spends billions on various forms of the femininity industry and they are probably doing it because the other half rewards them for it.

    “male=strong / female=weak. ”

    This only goes the first layer in. What is misses is “adult = strong / child = weak” and the misogynistic identification of feminine with “childlike”, a kind of social neoteny. In this gender system men are expected to act like adults, take on adult responsibilities for provision and protection and so on, in situations where women can act like children and be dependent and get a pass for it, or activley policed if they don’t conform. It infantilizes women and instrumentalizes men.

  29. 29
    Steersman

    David Marjanovic said (#10.0):

    By presenting less of a gender role to them ….

    Considering that Ally has specifically enabled nested comments – at least single level – is it maybe too much to ask that you conform to the “rules of the road” here? Or that you at least provide a reference to the comments that you’re responding to? (#7.0 in this case)

  30. 30
    Ally Fogg

    yay, you win teh internetz, Norman. Can now update and get rid of that nasty footnote.

  31. 31
    Guy Otten

    I am wanting to meet Avicenna. I believe he is in Manchester. Can you talk to him about meeting up?

    Guy

  32. 32
    johngreg

    Ally said:

    My own position is that while men do indeed have a dominant position over women in society, and this is a real and huge issue to be addressed, the systemic ruling class has vastly more power over both binary genders than either has over the other. Men and women alike are oppressed by capitalist culture.

    This is, I think, of particular importance. The sense I get is that both terms, misogyny and misandry (and, for that matter, racism), are often misused in instances where the real base dynamic is some form of class or economic oppression. I also think that extremists on both sides throw the terms themselves around as intended tools of oppression with the intent being to shame and to silence dialogue and debate. I think this misuse of those terms cripples the dialogue and debate for all involved.

    OT side note: Anyone else getting the “Preview Error” message when they try to preview a post?

  33. 33
    Jacob Schmidt

    Only certain men, and very few of them.

    Only certain men are in benificial economic positions? Certainly, only certain men (and a few women) are economically oppressive, but there are a great deal of men (and again, fewer women) who reap significant benifits from the cuurent economy. Women are at greater risk for being unemployed and/or poor. This places women at a significant disadvantage, one that I think is taken advantage of by some men.

    This majority of men are treated as more disposable on evey level than any female in the society for two reasons.

    You’re gonna have to provide a citation for this claim.

    But the other is that the culture itself puts a huge effort the happy myth that we men are all in tis together.

    This is literally the first time I’ve heard of that myth, or anything like it. I’ve seen a far greater push for womento stick together than for men to stick together (the “bro’s before hoes” slogan not withstanding).

  34. 34
    Schala

    Women are at greater risk for being unemployed and/or poor.

    But not homeless.

    Are they counted in the poor?

  35. 35
    Jacob Schmidt

    The roles may cause problems, but how are you going to get rid of them?

    Slowly. Chip by chip, brick by brick. Unfortunately, I haven’t the knowledge to say more than that.

    No roles at all (and would that not throw interpersonal interactions into chaos, with no roles to govern our expectations)?

    You seem to be begging quite the question here.

    What aspects of the roles are required for smooth interactions? Why would loosing them throw us into chaos? I try to abide by as few limiting expectations as I can. When I’m not sure and I need to know, I ask. We already do it with personal beliefs and philosophies; we don’t assume the person we’re speaking to is an atheist, or mormon, or FMA fan unless we have some reason to. Why would throwing away our assumptions about how genders behave cause anymore problems than throwing away assumptions about how people think?

    Really, I’d wager that gender based roles and assumptions inhibit our ability to smoothly cooperate, for the same reason many of us think the roles and assumptions need to go: far too often, they are wrong.

  36. 36
    Schala

    I can find misandric reasons.

    1) Anything that happens to a man is his fault, so it’s like Sideshow Bob getting sticks in his face, his own fault, regardless of actual fault.

  37. 37
    Jacob Schmidt

    Schala,

    I can’t account for that disparity entirely. I do know homless people are disproportrionately veterans, who are disproportionally men. Also, in canada at least, young women are at a great risk for being homeless, near or surpassing the risk of men. These stats are a few years old, though.

  38. 38
    Steersman

    Crommunist said (#6.0):

    Again, this is not the same as anti-black racism, but it is a specific example of hatred directed against white people for being white. I would put it to you that most if not all examples of ‘misandry’ (even under your much more caveatted definition) are of this type: deplorable, but not systemic.

    Nice of you to concede an example of “hatred directed against white people for being white”, although it would have been much better, more “intellecutally honest”, if you had actually called a spade a shovel and called it what it really was, i.e., racism by some blacks. And, should you wish to correct that “error”, you might then want to consider the “accuracy” of the following assertion and its problematic consequences (1):

    In social justice terms, marginalized groups [e.g., women and blacks] cannot be guilty of -isms in regards to the axes of privilege that they fall low on, because they don’t have the power to institutionalize their prejudices.

    And if you should find that somewhat incongruent with your putative redefinition of that incident you described then I’m sure that you, as a staunch defender and promoter of “social justice”, will wish to correct that egregious bit of unmitigated horseshit that is being peddled as gospel truth in the AtheismPlus “glossary”.

    Oh, and somewhat parenthetically, considering that Ally has specifically enabled nested comments – at least single level which seems an ideal compromise – is it maybe too much to ask that you conform to the “rules of the road” here? Or that you at least provide a reference to the comments that you’re responding to? (#2.1 in this case).


    1) “_http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=2632”;

  39. 39
    Schala

    2) Never a woman’s fault, women are uniquely angelic and unable to do evil. Even if they had the strength to do it (like daycares), they would NEVER abuse that power, because of the power of the uterus.

  40. 40
    Schala

    You have to contrast the 2nd one with men’s predisposition towards evil.

    Men are viewed as able to do evil, even inclined to do evil lest they “be shown the right way”.

    Do you prefer being viewed as an angel who can do no bad, or as a demon who has to learn not to punch random people?

  41. 41
    Jacob Schmidt

    For your first, Schala, I don’t think that myth is common. I’ve never heard of it, at least.

    I’ve never heard of the second either, but it is just laughable. Women can never do wrong? How does that square with all kinds of stereotypes about all women being bitches? Hell, take a look over at Ed’s blog. Absent any details, plenty of people seem to be willing to assume the women was in the wrong.

  42. 42
    Schala

    What Jacob said there.

    This is the best option:

    - No roles at all (and would that not throw interpersonal interactions into chaos, with no roles to govern our expectations)?

    Expectations can be based on what works, not “what groups of people ought to do/identify/behave as”.

    I can identify danger in people, not specifically in men or in women. Knowing someone likes sports and beers doesn’t tell me ONE thing about how they might behave towards me. And if it’s a mask, it doesn’t tell me ONE thing about shared interests.

    If people assume I like spas and manicures because I’m female, they’re going to have it wrong. How useful is it of them to do so?

  43. 43
    Dr.Cheeselove

    “There is a very similar theory about prejudice against gay men and transgendered people – that these stem from a hatred or fear of femininity in men. And yet nobody demands that we drop the words homophobia and transphobia as a result and simply refer to them as ‘misogynistic’ attacks.”

    Yeah….No. Because gay and trans people actually face systemic oppression for being gay or trans. You don’t face systemic oppression for being male. (Unless you live in some tiny county run by Amazons that I’ve never heard of? In which case, I do apologise.)

    All the examples given by MRAs by how they’re oppressed for being male are usually 1. Bull or 2. Not the result of misandry! I guess some men love to complain about how they have to do military service in some countries or they have to go work in the mines? Then they fight tooth and nail to keep women out of the military and the mines because there are benefits to being allowed to undertake these things. For example, you get a pay cheque, social power and you’re considered a full human being. And when women do finally break into these jobs that men are forced to go into because society “puts pressure on them to make money,” the women get paid less! Funny that.

    The vast majority of violence men face has nothing to do with misandry and everything to do with economics, social power, and patriarchy. “Misandry” is as much a thing as racism against whites or classism against the rich.

  44. 44
    Ally Fogg

    @steersman (2.5)

    In simplistic terms, I don’t agree with the theory that women can’t be sexist against men, or black people against white people.

    To complicate matters, I do believe there are many different forms of sexism or racism, some of which are more socially corrosive and of greater political concern than others. So for example, I think misandry (or sexism against men) can and does exist, I think it is a problem, but is less pervasive and less harmful than misogyny. To imagine that all racism is just racism, or all sexism is just sexism is to wilfully ignore context, function and instrumentality.

    I’m sure all of my positions on this kind of thing will come up in blogs in the future and I’ll be happy to talk about them as and when they do.

    But since I don’t identify as a feminist, and I’ve never so much as read the Atheism Plus glossary far less put my name to it, I’m not entirely sure why you’re trying to talk to me about them?

    With all due respect, I’d be more interested in hearing and discussing your views on what I’ve written here, rather than arguing about the opinions of other people or something that someone else I don’t really know might have written elsewhere.

    I’m not trying to silence you, you’re perfectly free to post what you like (within my guidelines, natch) and I appreciate your comments across several blogs so far, but just as a constructive suggestion, I’m unlikely to engage much in defence of other people’s opinions.

    Cheers. A x

  45. 45
    Tamen

    Sharon Osbourne’s apology: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKgwczruOSQ&feature=player_detailpage#t=326s

    I think the minimum requirement for an apology to be considered sincere is that the person apologizing can stop giggling while apologizing.

  46. 46
    Ally Fogg

    You don’t face systemic oppression for being male.

    You think men aren’t oppressed by capitalism? By restrictive gender roles? By violent socialisation? By religious indoctrination?

    If you don’t, fair enough, we don’t have much to talk about.

    If you do, I might politely suggest you go back and read my post again, because it pretty much exactly addresses the points you raise. Tell me what exactly you disagree with and I’m happy to discuss it.

  47. 47
    SallyStrange

    The narrative that homophobia is really misogyny in hiding is offensive to the point of hate speech. Centering women in a discussion of violence and hatred directed at gay men and more than that even at gay boys, is disgusting appropriation and erasure. The traits I was shamed for were the very traits girls were getting praised for.

    Offensive to the point of hate speech, really? I mean come on. There’s a think about getting fucked vs. being the fucker – the latter seems to be preferable, the former is reserved for losers, weaklings, etc. You don’t think that there’s a connection between women as sex class, women as fuckholes, and the cognitive dissonance induced in people who think of women as contemptible fuckholes when a man voluntarily takes on the role of the fuckee rather than the fucker? It’s hate speech to talk about that? Damn. Good thing freeze peach rules the roost around here, huh?

    —–

    It first occurred to me that there was a connection between contempt for women and contempt for gay men when I had the following conversation with my boyfriend and two of his male friends:

    My Boyfriend (BF): Guys, what should we do now that dinner’s over?

    Friend #1 (F1): I dunno, let’s go to a bar, get a couple of drinks.

    Me: How about a little dancing? You guys up for that?

    Friend #2 (F2): Yeah, sure. Where should we go?

    Me: Well, we could go to [Nighclub], but we’d have to drive. And there’s nothing going on at [Bar]. But we could go to [Gay Bar], the music’s good and the drinks are cheap!

    F1: Ummmm…

    F2: I don’t think I want to go to a gay bar.

    Me: Why, what’s the problem? We’re just hanging out.

    F2: I don’t want to get hit on. Those dudes won’t take “no” for an answer.

    F1: Yeah, it just makes me feel like a piece of meat when I go in there.

    Me: Welcome to my world, fellas!

    My conclusion: a lot (definitely not all but a large portion) of homophobia from straight men is fear of being treated the way they are socialized to treat women.

    Tell me, Gingko, if it turned out to be simply factual that there’s a causal relationship between homophobia and misogyny, would you still call it hate speech to point that out?

  48. 48
    Ginkgo

    David! Good to see another Hatter!

    “All reasons I can find for this are misogynistic:”

    A blogger who calls herself (actually zirself) Ozt Frantz has posited what she calls Ozy’s Law – that every manifestation of misogyny is also in some way misandrist and vice versa.

    “All reasons I can find for this are misogynistic:
    1) women are weak, so they can’t do any damage, it’s funny to watch them pummel their little fists;
    2) laugh at the less-than-a-man who lets something as weak as a woman dominate him, LOL.”

    I think it should be prety clear how misandrist these are. And something else I think should be clear is that you are equating a woman being considered less with a man ebing subjected ot physical violence. Do you really think those two are equal? Would you think the same if the genders were flipped?

    “Also, the extent to which male-on-female violence is deplored varies greatly. “She deserved it” and “she must have deserved it” are never far away.”

    Indeed it does, and this is where we see that you do not live in an Anglosphere culture. In the US and probably in the UK, that is kind of question is never asked about women who suffer violemnce,and typically about male victims. Indeed, we just saw that kind of defense used in a case where a woman stalked an man and murdered him in Arizona.
    http://www.genderratic.com/p/2786/male-disposability-how-an-abuser-portrays-herself-as-the-abused-and-how-her-enabler-goes-down-in-flames-the-ballad-of-jodi-arias-and-alyce-la-violette/

    The attempt failed and perhaps that reflects a move toward equality in the culture.

  49. 49
    Schala

    I’m talking about the law here. Stereotypes can at best affect your reputation, they won’t put you in jail.

    If a man reports a female rapist, how many people (of either sex) will side with him?

    If a man reports a female DV perpetrator, how many people (of either sex) will side with him?

    Which report is more likely to carry jail time (male on female or female on male violence) and more than slap-on-the-wrist consequences for a female perpetrator?

    You might say the degree of conviction of male rapists is low…the one of female rapists is pretty much inexistent.

  50. 50
    Ginkgo

    “Offensive to the point of hate speech, really? I mean come on.”

    When it’s used for erasure, yes I do think so.

    “There’s a think about getting fucked vs. being the fucker – the latter seems to be preferable, the former is reserved for losers, weaklings, etc. ”

    That totally exists in common language. Is that supposed to indicate some kind of sexual caste system? because if it is, here’s a word for you: pegging
    http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/SavageLove?oid=7730

    “You don’t think that there’s a connection between women as sex class, women as fuckholes”

    What does “women as a sex class” even mean? Are the men not also having sex? Are the women not viewing men as a sex class, if they are having sex with them?

    Isn’t it more than a little androcentric to privielge the male perspective on penetrative sex?

  51. 51
    Schala

    The vast majority of violence men face has nothing to do with misandry and everything to do with economics, social power, and patriarchy. “Misandry” is as much a thing as racism against whites or classism against the rich.

    Now, this if offensive.

    Most violence against men has to do with women not being a valid target. Hence by attrition, men are the only fair game target = ergo, they’re chosen for maleness, as we only have two legal sexes.

    We kill men because we can’t kill women, so let’s pretend it’s the same as sending rich people to die while the poor live in manors.

  52. 52
    Ginkgo

    “Tell me, Gingko, if it turned out to be simply factual that there’s a causal relationship between homophobia and misogyny, would you still call it hate speech to point that out?”

    It would be about like proving the earth was flat, but if yoyu think you cna prove it, go for it.

    “F2: I don’t want to get hit on. Those dudes won’t take “no” for an answer.”

    Did it ever occur to you to ask while you were talking, or to wonder later, if 1) any of these men had ever turned a woman’s advances down, or 2) if they had, what the consequences had been? Because i cna assure you men report a lot of pretty extreme liberties women take with men’s bodies in places like that, and also some prettty violent responses when they spurn women. Would your guys have been as hesitant to go where women would be doing that, or would they in fact welcome that kind of thing? Because as it stands, it’s not at all clear from your axample is not getting hit they didn’t like, but getting hit on by other men. So your example doesn’t prove much.

  53. 53
    Jadehawk

    There is a very similar theory about prejudice against gay men and transgendered people – that these stem from a hatred or fear of femininity in men. And yet nobody demands that we drop the words homophobia and transphobia as a result and simply refer to them as ‘misogynistic’ attacks.

    the term for bigotry against trans women is “transmisogyny”; transphobia refers to bigotry against trans* people in general, and has more to do with the existence of the gender binary than with misogyny; if there were no status difference between male/masculine and female/feminine, there still would be the notion that these are real, discrete and immutable categories; transphobia stems from that, not misogyny.

    To do so would make invisible the specific nature of the offences, and imply that, for example, when gay men are beaten senseless in homophobic attacks, the real victims are women.

    I don’t even understand this. To say that a man is being attacked for taking on feminine roles because of misogyny, i.e. the hatred of, or devaluing of the female/feminine, is to say that a man is being hurt by a misogynist system, not that the man isn’t the victim.

    OTOH, if people could actually accept “misandry” as a word for what happens when patriarchal/misogynist gender hierarchy is enforced on men, that would work fine; it would make “misandry” a synonym for PHMT, and render the latter superfluous. That’s just not how the word is used or understood, though. It is absolutely meant in a dichotomous way, quite unlike homophobia and transphobia. Do you think you have a chance to reclaim that word for more reality-conforming meanings?

    To describe this as misogyny would again imply that although it was a man who had been grotesquely mutilated and then gleefully mocked, the real victims here are still women.

    I still don’t understand on what you’re basing that claim. “Misogyny” doesn’t mean “victimization of women and women only”. Straight people can be hurt by homophobia, and men can be hurt my misogyny. In the former case the victim would be the straight person, not gays; in the latter the victim would be a man, not women.

    which actively excludes a man’s suffering from the equation.

    how? misogyny doesn’t mean “harming women”, so saying that a man was attacked because of misogyny is to say that a man suffered because of a prejudice against/hatred of women. It doesn’t erase the suffering, it makes a statement about the cause of suffering.

    It would seem to me that a better way to understand cultural misandry is not that our society holds that male=strong / female=weak. It is that our society wants to constrain and imprison us into gender roles that match our genitalia.

    that’s a different if closely related and commonly intersecting axis of oppression. The gender binary and the patriarchy strongly interact and depend on each other for existence, after all. And of course people not at the shit-end of the patriarchal axis can still be at the shit-end of the gender binary axis, for being gender-non-conforming.
    Examples:
    –>transitioning trans men gain a certain degree of male privilege, but lose a lot of gender-binary privilege; doubly so if they are femme and/or gay trans men.
    –>Feminine women (esp. in conservative areas; alternatively, veiled women in conservative Muslim areas) have privilege on the gender binary axis, but not on the gender hierarchy one.
    –>Harry Benjamin Syndrome
    So, in the interplay of these two axes, a feminine woman and a feminine man will both be on the privileged end of one axis, and on the shit-end of the other; neither axis proves the non-existence of the other, nor do they cancel each other’s effects. They simply affect their victims in different ways.

    It is often noted that character traits which are considered positive in a man at the workplace (such as assertiveness or aggression) will be seen as negative in a woman (strident, bitchy, bossy). So assertiveness and aggression aren’t held to be negatives or positives in their own right, but become so when they are mis-gendered.

    that’s not entirely true; as i said, those are two different axes of oppression; and with the example of a masculine man and a masculine woman, suddenly only one person is at the shit-end of an axis.
    And it should be noted that failing to conform to the gender binary by “usurping” masculinity is considered invalid social climbing and punished in a different way than the failure to conform to the gender binary by “adulterating” oneself (and maleness) with femininity: trans men are erased, but they do not tend to feature on the TDoR lists.

    It is certainly true that across the board typically female traits are considered less valuable and admirable than typically male traits – I am not saying our society is a post-patriarchal utopia – but it looks to me like the real crime in society is not so much displaying female characteristics per se as displaying characteristics which do not match one’s socially prescribed gender roles.

    axes of oppression don’t cancel each other out. both being female/feminine, and being gender-non-conforming are the “real crime”

    I don’t argue that patriarchy is the single dominant force in society, I think of it as just one of many oppressive dynamics which holds Global Inc together. Misogyny strengthens the patriarchy, which in turn props up the economic system. So too does homophobia, so too (indirectly) does racism, colonialism, the class system and, crucially, so too does misandry.

    I haven’t seen enough evidence that misandry/anti-male sexism is its own axis of oppression. It strikes me a lot more as the effect of a particular intersection.

    Yes, a significant part of men’s oppression is the imperative to oppress others, but to argue that men are not oppressed because they oppress others, or because they are not oppressed by women seems to miss the bigger picture.

    but that is not the argument being made. Arguing that men are not at the shit-end of the patriarchal axis of oppression (or that misandry doesn’t constitute its own axis) is not the same as arguing that there is no axis of oppression on which men could possibly be oppressed.

    I would go further, and argue that reciting patriarchy hurts men too should not be a way to end a conversation, but to begin one.

    I don’t actually know who that’s addressed at. The only time the conversation stalls here is when PHMT is wholly rejected as a valid interpretation of harm to men. Most of the conversations on this topic I’ve been part of was, usually, with male feminists and it always started with the diagnosis, it didn’t end there.

    Those, primarily, are not questions for women/feminists to address, but for men.

    well, they have been questions that women/feminists have had to address, for the simple reason that you can’t get women equality as long as men are blocked from feminine things. For example, women won’t ever stop being the primary caretakers of children/elderly parents unless it becomes socially acceptable for men to become such caretakers. Parental leave is an idea primarily pushed by feminists, for that reason.
    Also, male feminists (or if you prefer, male Feminist Theorists) have been at the forefront of figuring out how to get men unshackled from the patriarchal rules, as well. There’s entire sociology journals now dealing with that topic, and they all use feminist theory to do so.

    This, incidentally, is the point where I suggest to anyone who cares about this topic to read anything and everything by Michael Kimmel they can get their hands on.

    When a feminist says in one breath “patriarchy hurts men too” then in the next breath “misandry isn’t a thing” it seems to me a contradiction.

    not really; it’s just an acknowledgment that “misandry” is currently a word expressing an opposite to misogyny, rather than an effect of it.

    If misogyny is one principal mechanism by which the patriarchy hurts women, misandry is a principal mechanism by which patriarchy hurts men too.

    eh? granted, the patriarchy produces anti-male prejudice and even hatred (as per the derangement of Osbourne & the others you mentioned above), but I don’t see how this emotion/bias is the primary mechanism in which the patriarchy hurts men. When men are hurt by the patriarchy, it is only rarely because of an anti-male bias/hatred.

    Denying the existence of misandry effectively denies that patriarchy hurts men too.

    how? unless you’re declaring them synonymous, which they simply are not ATM, this is not true; these terms still mean two different things.

    I do assert a need for the essential intellectual space and terminology to address them ourselves.

    you make it sound as if that doesn’t exist. That’s not true, but maybe the space isn’t very visible from outside Feminist Theory because most of the work happens within it:
    http://jmm.sagepub.com/
    http://jmh.sagepub.com/
    http://www.mensstudies.info/
    and the writings of men like Michael S. Kimmel, Scott Coltrane, Michael Kaufmann, Michael A. Messner, James W. Messerschmidt, and Richard Butsch

  54. 54
    Jadehawk

    1) “_http://www.avoiceformen.com/a-voice-for-men/an-open-letter-to-richard-cohen-of-the-splc/#comment-90094”;

    I am quite loving the existence of a link to a hate group right after the whine about feminists. lol.

  55. 55
    Steersman

    Ally said (#2.6):

    In simplistic terms, I don’t agree with the theory that women can’t be sexist against men, or black people [racist] against white people.

    In simplistic terms, it is gratifying to hear you say that, particularly in this [FTB] rather benighted neck of the woods. Mind if I quote you on it? :-)

    So for example, I think misandry (or sexism against men) can and does exist, I think it is a problem, but is less pervasive and less harmful than misogyny. To imagine that all racism is just racism, or all sexism is just sexism is to wilfully ignore context, function and instrumentality.

    I’ll generally concede that point, although one might also point to the aphorism “for want of a nail a shoe was lost; for want of a shoe …”: small effects can have very far reaching consequences, particularly if multiplied in many circumstances. And while they may be “less pervasive and less harmful” in explicit and overt terms, it seems that the tendency to give a pass to cases of misandry, and of racism by blacks tends, at least, to “poison the well”, not to mention providing “justification” for egregious cases of, at least, misogyny. And that that questionable “theory” and bias tends to be, I think, a very substantial causal factor in the “gender wars” you discussed earlier, as well as for substantial amounts of the attendant vituperation and vitriol.

    But since I don’t identify as a feminist, and I’ve never so much as read the Atheism Plus glossary far less put my name to it, I’m not entirely sure why you’re trying to talk to me about them?

    Fair enough, but I tend, as we all do I think, to try to fit facts and events into a larger context and narrative and analysis. And while I recognize that you “don’t identify as feminist” – and am very happy to see you take a more equitable, balanced, “on-the-fence” type of position relative to these “gender wars” and associated philosophies, it seems to me that, even though I will readily admit to supporting substantial elements of a feminist perspective and analysis, and as your post appears to argue, there is also much in that perspective and analysis that is deeply problematic and badly flawed – that glossary being, I think, “of a piece” with your comments about misandry and misogyny, and a case-in-point adduced in support of that overarching argument. To resolve those wars I would say we need to understand their roots and what nourishes them, and what is manifested by them.

    And, to genuflect somewhat more to the tenor of your post, I think that, as a further case in point, the concept of “the patriarchy” and its application is also part of the problem, not least for being a virtual article of faith for many feminists. More particularly, as I suggested on your “Global Inc.” post, it seems that the “patriarchy”, apart from its somewhat odious if not sexist insinuation that all men and no women share a collective guilt for its sins, is a case of reification, the “fallacy of treating an abstraction as if it were a real thing”. Curious, is it not, and rather problematic that this “patriarchy” gets put in the docket for the “crimes” of “prescribing odiously restrictive gender roles” [paraphrasing] yet doesn’t get any credit or “time-off for good behaviour” for inculcating more credible perspectives and values on which the functioning of our societies crucially depends.

    While I will agree that our societies might well be heavily patriarchal, to suggest that the “patriarchy” is some autonomous entity with a uniformly nefarious set of objectives apart from the all of the values we have or share and for which we as individuals are, jointly and severally, responsible seems a rather problematic stretch, a bridge somewhat too far for current technology to support. Far better, I think, at least to a first approximation, to view society as a collection of subgroups, the members of which have a tendency to enforce various standards of behaviour on other members of their subgroups – “in-group morality (good or bad)” – while exhibiting “out-group hostility” to other subgroups. Which tends to make us all equally culpable – more or less – and which in turn seems rather preferrable to scapegoating one particular subgroup, of laying virtually all of the sins of the world at its doorstep.

    I don’t think that worked all that well with Marx’s condemnation of the “bourgeois” nor with Hitler’s condemnation of the Jews; I rather doubt that it will work all that well with the “feminist” condemnation of the “patriarchy”.

  56. 56
    John C. Welch

    Just like not all forms of misogyny and sexism are obvious, i.e. guy on the corner screaming “women ain’t nothing but bitches and bitches ain’t shit”, the same is true for misandry.

    For example, one of the things you learn as a guy is that there is one career field you stay the fuck out of: day care. ESPECIALLY if you’re gay. Doesn’t matter if you’re really good with kids, you like them, you’ve got multiple degrees, you don’t do it. Women are welcomed into the field with open arms, men are considered one degree from a pedophile for even considering it. That’s a shame, because I know a lot of guys who are awesome with kids, not pedophiles, and would be amazing in a day care. But given the life sentence that even an accusation is? Fuck that.

    If you’re male and a single parent, you’re viewed as probably incompetent and people are honestly surprised that you are capable of emotional openness. I used to hate the first day of school, or a new doctor, or even random encounters in the mall, because it meant the same damned drill.

    “No, really his mom’s side of the family have the metabolism of a hummingbird. Here, a picture of them together.”

    “Dr., your own tests show he is being properly fed. He’s skinny. His mom is skinny. His maternal grandparents? Skinny. Aunts, uncles, cousins on that side? Skinny. Not slim, not slender, skinny. Just the way they are. healthy, but skinny.

    Look, picture!. I am not going to stuff him full of high-fat foods because a) it’s unhealthy and b) he just burns that weight gain off the second he starts eating correctly again. I’m sure he would love your peanut butter and milkshake diet, but no. Now, you show me medical evidence of a problem, HELL YEAH, I am listening and we are working to manage it, if not solve it. But the fact you think he’s “too skinny” is not an actual problem.”

    “No, I am not ‘babysitting’ my son. He’s my child. I do not get paid ten dollars an hour to watch him. I watch him because he lives with me, and that’s what parents are supposed to do, last I heard.”

    “No, his mother is not a horrible parent. In fact, she’s a great parent. But as I have the better job, and she just finished her degree, I have custody so that she is better able to get on her feet. No, there’s never a visitation problem, why would there be? The only thing the divorce ended was our marriage. He still has two parents who love him, duh.”

    over. and over. and fucking over again. I cannot tell you how wearying it is to be treated like either i’m borderline abusing my child because penis = incompetent or how AMAZING IT IS THAT A MAN CAN BE A GOOD PARENT.

    (and for all the NOW YOU KNOW HOW IT FEELS commenters: Fuck off. Revenge is a shitty philosophy, and that’s the only reply it earns.)

    The vast majority of men who are parents are good parents. They love their children deeply. They will sacrifice and do what it takes to raise happy, healthy kids. It’s just society that treats us otherwise because PENIS. Oh, and ratings/hitcounts.

    If that’s not sexism and misandry…no, fuck that, that’s exactly what it is: sexism and/or misandry. It’s institutionalized, it’s practiced by many societies as a whole, and the ultimate source doesn’t make it better or what have you. It’s not misogyny. It’s not some weird form of misogyny. It is treating a group of people poorly because they are male. If you can’t bring yourself to admit that, to identify the problem correctly, you have zero chance of solving it in a useful manner.

  57. 57
    Jadehawk

    replying to multiple posters on one comment, because it’s easier

    Ally:

    But since I don’t identify as a feminist, and I’ve never so much as read the Atheism Plus glossary far less put my name to it, I’m not entirely sure why you’re trying to talk to me about them?

    it’s the pitters’ hobby horse to whine about A+

    Besides, didn’t you know that by joining FTB, you’re contractually obliged to love A+, seeing as the FTB overlord is also the God of A+?

    I’d actually be perfectly happy if people wanted to adopt a term like “patriarchal misandry” to describe it, which would be quite accurate.

    you know… I think I can live with that as a compromise. It’s a good term for what’s going on.

    - – - – - – -
    Ginkgo:

    This majority of men are treated as more disposable on evey level than any female in the society

    yeah, no. at a bare minimum, sex workers (usually female) and pregnant women are seen as far more disposable, to the point where plenty of countries have made their bodily autonomy illegal, even if it kills them. And even in places where it’s not illegal, it’s considered worthless.

    One is that their disposability is more simply productive than a woman’s, as in industrial settings for instance.

    I don’t even understand what that sentence means, but assuming it’s about men making up the industrial working class… that’s simply not true. One of the historically very common ways of saving money and allowing for greater social control of workers was to hire women, because working class women have even less power than working class men. This has been historically true in the US, and it’s still true in many other countries: South Korea became a developed country on the backs of young women doing what amounted to slave labor.

    Toxic masculinity is not the source of these disparities,

    actually, yes it is. Male rape victims and victims of DV are an Unthinkable because toxic masculinity says men always want sex and are the active, powerful ones; whereas women are the gatekeepers and passive. Also, I want a citation on “misandrist enculturation boys are subjected to in government run schools”

    They are excluded all the way inot survival. oh the burdens of privilege.

    http://static.thesocietypages.org/socimages/files/2011/01/cartoon1.jpg

    The narrative that homophobia is really misogyny in hiding is offensive to the point of hate speech. Centering women in a discussion of violence and hatred directed at gay men and more than that even at gay boys, is disgusting appropriation and erasure.

    I’m just dying to know how you think the gay men who propose this theory have appropriated and erased themselves.

    Actually society vlaues femininity very highly. A big portion of one half society spends billions on various forms of the femininity industry and they are probably doing it because the other half rewards them for it.

    society values gender-conformity very highly. not like there aren’t billions of dollars being spent in gyms etc. on masculinity maintenance.
    And the fact that mighty Capitalism has until recently shied away from marketing beauty products at men demonstrates how incredibly powerful the notion of femininity-cooties is.

    - – - – - – -
    Crommunist

    That one is certainly an example of patriarchial assumptions about the fitness and role of women and men. There is power and prestige and social standing afforded to people who serve in the military (and has been, as far as I know, as long as there have been professional militaries). Women are excluded, not safeguarded, from such service, which necessarily precludes them from reaping the benefits (and, obviously, the harmful consequences). If anything, that’s about toxic definitions of masculinity than it is about systemic anti-male bias.

    there’s another reason for “expendability”, though it’s one that applies to the West only historically. I wrote about it here: http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2013/05/09/thunderdome-26/comment-page-1/#comment-618290

  58. 58
    Jadehawk

    and since I’ve been telling everyone to read his writing anyway, I might as well link to a relevant piece that’s actually available online: http://faculty.ucc.edu/psysoc-stokes/Masculinity.pdf

  59. 59
    Steersman

    Jadehawk said (#18.0):

    1) “_http://www.avoiceformen.com/a-voice-for-men/an-open-letter-to-richard-cohen-of-the-splc/#comment-90094”;

    I am quite loving the existence of a link to a hate group right after the whine about feminists. lol.

    “Four legs good; two legs bad” there, Jadehawk? A penchant for categorical thinking? Seems you were apparently too biased, not to say bigoted, to note the nuance and implications of my “while this fellow might reasonably be construed to have gone off the deep-end in consequence of focusing on them, one can’t help but feel some sympathy for his view”. Nor did you apparently follow the link and notice my defense of feminism. Your modus operandi is “Shoot from the lip first and ask questions later”?

    Oh, and somewhat parenthetically, considering that Ally has specifically enabled nested comments – at least single level which seems an ideal compromise – is it maybe too much to ask that you conform to the “rules of the road” here? Or that you at least provide a reference to the comments that you’re responding to? (#2.5 in this case).

  60. 60
    Jadehawk
    You don’t face systemic oppression for being male.

    You think men aren’t oppressed by capitalism? By restrictive gender roles? By violent socialisation? By religious indoctrination?

    none of those are oppressions for being male. They are oppressions on other axes of oppression (class, gender-binary, religion, etc.), not oppressions on the gender-axis.

  61. 61
    Jadehawk

    Most violence against men has to do with women not being a valid target. [...]We kill men because we can’t kill women

    wut

  62. 62
    Steersman

    Well said, John.

    I remember the quite reasonable argument that words like “chairman” were supposedly indicative of some “systemic” anti-female sexism in society. Surprising, or maybe not, that so few are prepared to consider evidence that is strongly suggestive of a similarly systemic anti-male sexism. “In-group morality and out-group hostility”, indeed.

  63. 63
    Danny Gibbs

    I’m gonna keep it simple and just share what I responded to your tweet with earlier today.

    The idea that misandry is nothing but misogyny in disguise is based off the way the harms that befall men are interpreted. Those that think misandry doesn’t exist and its just misogyny seem to be of the thought that the harms that befall men are flaws in a system that is designed to keep women and the feminine down for the benefit of men and the masculine.

    As in the intention is to harm women and should it so happen that anything befalls men its not an intention but rather acceptable collateral damage.

    Me personally I’m of the mind that both misandry and misogyny are BOTH features of a system that is willing to mow down anyone regardless of gender in order to keep power for itself.

    To keep it short some people see misogyny/acceptable collateral damage done to men by misogyny and some people see misogyny/misandry.

  64. 64
    Jadehawk

    hm. a comment of mine just disappeared into the ether; either something in it triggered the spam filter, or it suffered from a glitch

  65. 65
    Jadehawk

    To keep it short some people see misogyny/acceptable collateral damage done to men by misogyny and some people see misogyny/misandry.

    this is not a correct interpretation of what PHMT means; it doesn’t mean “Acceptable collateral damage”; it means damage in the service of maintaining the gender hierarchy.

  66. 66
    Jadehawk

    Isn’t it more than a little androcentric to privielge the male perspective on penetrative sex?

    that’s exactly the point sally was making: sex in modern society is viewed through an androcentric, and specifically a straight androcentric perspective, where that which seems to conform to the straight-male/masculine is valued over that which seems to conform more to that which is straight-female/feminine.

  67. 67
    Steersman

    You do seem to be rather clueless there, Jadehawk, in not noticing the nested-structure. And in not conforming to those “rules of the road” ….

  68. 68
    Ally Fogg

    thanks for the detailed comment, Jadehawk. It’s late here so can’t address all of it now, but shall pick out a few points.

    I still don’t understand on what you’re basing that claim. “Misogyny” doesn’t mean “victimization of women and women only”. Straight people can be hurt by homophobia, and men can be hurt my misogyny. In the former case the victim would be the straight person, not gays; in the latter the victim would be a man, not women

    Straight people can be hurt by homophobia and men can be hurt by misogyny. That doesn’t mean that when men are hurt as a consequence of their gender it is necessarily misogyny. To bring you back to the Sharon Osbourne thing, not because it is the only or most important example but because it is a particularly straightforward one, you go on to say:

    “the patriarchy produces anti-male prejudice and even hatred (as per the derangement of Osbourne & the others you mentioned above)”

    Cool. Let me stop you there. You are agreeing that patriarchy produces anti-male prejudice and even hatred. I call that misandry. What do you call that anti-male prejudice and hatred? Would you like me to spell it out every time? Would it mean having the same arguments, but instead of using 8 letters we have to use about 25? Would that advance the arguments any better?

    To continue, you go on to say:

    “but I don’t see how this emotion/bias is the primary mechanism in which the patriarchy hurts men. When men are hurt by the patriarchy, it is only rarely because of an anti-male bias/hatred.”

    I don’t accept that the examples like Osbourne et al are the be all and end all of misandry. As I said in my last post, when I use the word, I also ihclude attitudes towards things like:

    - Male battlefield deaths
    - Workplace deaths
    - Male victimisation
    - Male criminalisation and imprisonment
    - Violent socialisation
    - Ritual circumcision
    - etc etc etc

    Now most of these things you would probably describe as something like costs of dominance. I reject that model. I think of them as oppressive creations of the economic system. By analogy, when a colonial power invades another country, they will often install one tribal/ethnic power as the dominant force to keep the former happy and the latter focused on their immediate oppressor, the local enemy. This prevents both sides from recognising that actually both are being oppressed from above. That’s how the capitalist system plays divide and rule with gender.

    A couple of other points:

    That’s just not how the word is used or understood, though. It is absolutely meant in a dichotomous way, quite unlike homophobia and transphobia. Do you think you have a chance to reclaim that word for more reality-conforming meanings?

    I just call things as I see them. If someone else can come up with a better, untainted word meaning anti-male prejudice, contempt and hatred, I’d be happy to use it. In the meantime I’ll give it my best shot.

    you make it sound as if that doesn’t exist. That’s not true, but maybe the space isn’t very visible from outside Feminist Theory because most of the work happens within it:

    And that’s the big problem. I have some pretty profound disagreements with Kimmel, Kaufmann etc, and they’re pretty similar to the disagreements I seem to have with you! Kimmel, especially, comes across as quite misandrist at times himself, in that he is so much more focused on the problems that men cause than the problems men face. Personally I think the former is inseparable from the latter, and we won’t address the former without addressing the latter. Which is sort of what I try to do here.

  69. 69
    Jadehawk

    You do seem to be rather clueless there, Jadehawk, in not noticing the nested-structure. And in not conforming to those “rules of the road” ….

    yes; my choice not to use a system for commenting that makes long threads unreadable is me being “clueless” and i clearly haven’t “noticed” the nesting.

    I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but your dislike for me and inability to not try to ride your hobbyhorses wherever and whenever are not the topic of this conversation.

  70. 70
    Schala

    wut

    You’re saying men aren’t killed because they’re men.

    But then women’s higher value alive and restrictions placed on violence towards women (“don’t hit girls” from the cradle – boys are fair game) means the only valid target is men.

    Attack a woman, and tons of people will want to defend her, attack a man, and his family and close friends will want to defend him – not the vast majority of strangers, who will show no empathy whatsoever towards his suffering.

    Which do you think someone looking for a brawl or a wallet will pick as a target? Men, and because they’re men (or rather, because they’re not women). They’ll also be most random victims of murder (women are victims overwhelmingly from someone they know – men from someone they know and random thugs alike – having a huge fatal rate to show for it).

    The empathy apartheid also explains why male suicide more often succeeds – if you think no one will care, you don’t do a cry for help, you do it with finality.

  71. 71
    Schala

    There are oppressions on being male.

    Restrictive gender roles and violent socialization are based on having a penis at birth, period, the end. You could be poor, you could be rich, white, black, purple, you’ll still face that.

    Black men face a double dip penalty, especially in poverty and crime, compared to men – and have no more safety net than white men do.

    Black men are arrested more, profiled more, have longer sentences, especially for killing white people (and even more for killing white women) than every other group.

    White men are arrested more, profiled more, have longer sentences, especially for killing white women (but less for killing black women, or black men) than white women.

    So we end up with a 90% male rate, and a disproportionate black rate too. If every time a woman does a crime she gets a suspended sentence, no sentence, less jail time or just probation, because she’s “too pretty”, a mother, or “a man made her do it”, or battered woman’s syndrome (never admitted when males are victims, as a defense), we end up with oppression for being male, and female privilege for being female.

  72. 72
    Schala

    –>Feminine women (esp. in conservative areas; alternatively, veiled women in conservative Muslim areas) have privilege on the gender binary axis, but not on the gender hierarchy one.

    Nope, I have feminine privilege, and I’m not very feminine. I just happen to have been born with neotenous traits which I can keep in adulthood (I’m 30, still look 20). Neoteny is seen as feminine. I got lucky.

    and I’m a trans woman, so I don’t have gender binary privilege – I do have female privilege. People will want to protect me, help me out of poverty more, and generally have more compassion, just because I’m female. They’ll have extra compassion because I’m also feminine enough to quality for the Female Privilege Premium plans.

    And you quote Michael Kimmel? Mr Self-flagellation, only second to Hugo Schwyzer and Julian Real in “sorry I was born with a penis, I swear I won’t do it in the future!” apologizing for existing.

  73. 73
    Steersman

    Sally Strange said (#12.1):

    Offensive to the point of hate speech, really? I mean come on.

    That last part might have been a stretch, although it does seem to be tantamount to making it “all about teh wimmin”. But do you really think that “Hatred of women” is the same as “Fear of or contempt for lesbians and gay men”? Maybe they share some common ground, some overlap of their Venn diagrams, in the common attribute of hate or contempt, but that hardly justifies concluding that they are identical. Not particularly helpful to conflate such terms.

    There’s a thing about getting fucked vs. being the fucker – the latter seems to be preferable, the former is reserved for losers, weaklings, etc. You don’t think that there’s a connection between women as sex class, women as fuckholes, and the cognitive dissonance induced in people who think of women as contemptible fuckholes when a man voluntarily takes on the role of the fuckee rather than the fucker?

    You maybe have some justification for that argument. Although I wonder what sort of evidence you have for the supposed prevalence of that attitude. Is it 1%? 10%? 50% of all men who think that? How about analogous attitudes for women who view men as little more than dildos? Or as walking wallets?

    As with Oscar Wilde’s aphorism that a cynic is someone who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing, I would say your argument is predicated on abstracting the supposed behaviour and attitudes of some subsegment of the male population and then inferring that such attitudes and, extrapolating, even worse ones apply to the entire population of males.

    It’s hate speech to talk about that? Damn. Good thing freeze peach rules the roost around here, huh?

    You mean as opposed to the liberal, not to say capricious and inequitable, application of the banhammer on Pharyngula and other similarly benighted parts of FTB? Is that your standard of “free speech”?

  74. 74
    Steersman

    Jadehawk said (#25.0):

    yes; my choice not to use a system for commenting that makes long threads unreadable is me being “clueless” and i clearly haven’t “noticed” the nesting.

    Your choice; not your blog. You want to try arguing that the blog owner can’t set the rules and standards thereon? That only applies to your blog? Are you just naturally so obnoxious as to ignore that fact or do you work at it? You might want to reflect on the aphorism, “When in Rome, do as the Romans do”.

    And the nesting is single level – which seems a nice compromise. And which doesn’t make “long comments unreadable”. Much less short ones which many of yours were.

    I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but your dislike for me and inability to not try to ride your hobbyhorses wherever and whenever are not the topic of this conversation.

    Not a particularly clever inference there, Jadehawk, as I’ve pointed that thing with the nesting out to several people here including several males. But if you want to make it all about you then fill your boots.

    As for “hobbyhorses”, mine seem to be largely of the same species and breed as those being trotted out by you and others here ….

  75. 75
    Jacob Schmidt

    Steersman, Crom said this (emphasis mine):

    Again, this is not the same as anti-black racism, but it is a specific example of hatred directed against white people for being white.

    Just what the hell do you think racism is?

  76. 76
    Edward Gemmer

    I agree they are not the same animal, but I disagree that it lacks the historical context, pervasive power and, certainly, the violence.

    I think the violence is the most important part of misandry and actually, outweighs that in misogyny by such a huge factor that they aren’t comparable in any sense. In the United States, homicide victims are predominantly male by a ratio between 5:1 and 3:1. For the war in Iraq, 97.5% of deaths in the armed forces were male. Incarceration in the United States tends to run at a ratio of 10:1 males to females. So no, as far as violence, it’s not the same and it’s not close.

    That’s a different question than whether it should be different. I’ve become suspicious of all efforts to equalize genders in the same way we try to equalize things based on race. No doubt, the barriers provided historically based on gender should be knocked down. But have we achieved equality when crime statistics are equally women and men? Would that make sense? I don’t think so. Races exist mostly by happy accident, but genders exist for a pretty specific reason. It is undoubtedly sexist to only prefer to have sex with men or women, but that doesn’t mean it’s a bad idea.

  77. 77
    Edward Gemmer

    Most violence against men has to do with women not being a valid target. [...]We kill men because we can’t kill women

    I agree. You can’t get around numbers – more men are killed than women in murder and war, typically by a huge margin. Women, historically, have been valuable – women can have children, and men can’t. This seems likely the reason that violence against women is taboo, while controlling women has been highly valued. Biologically speaking, men are much, much more dispensable than women.

  78. 78
    Jacob Schmidt

    You want to try arguing that the blog owner can’t set the rules and standards thereon?

    Point to me anywhere the owner of this blogs saying we should use the nesting, Steersman. He’s allowed, he uses it, but nowhere does he state or imply nay imperative to follow suit.

  79. 79
    Jadehawk

    Ally, thanks for the reply upthread to my comment. I would like to continue that line of conversation eventually, but it turns out that I can’t do that right now. I have to go deal with my health problems instead. If/when I feel better, I hope to return to this thread and pick up where we left off, but honestly, that could be several weeks from now. So I guess that’s a temporary flounce and a heads-up that I’m hoping to revive this thread long after everyone else will have moved on to something else.

  80. 80
    Skeptical Atheist

    You’re such a rebel. How old are you?

  81. 81
    Steersman

    Jacob Schmidt said (#6.4):

    Just what the hell do you think racism is?

    That wasn’t what I was objecting to which was, as I said, that “it would have been much better, more intellectally honest, if [Crommunist] had actually called a spade a shovel and called it what it really was, i.e., racism by some blacks.”

    Reminds me of the joke about the English-man who was so stiff-upper lip that he wouldn’t say “shit” if he had a mouth full of it. The point is, I think, that Crommunist seemed to rather coy if not a little evasive in actually and explicitly saying or admitting that some black men were being a bunch of racist dickheads. Which reminds me of a comedy routine (1) by a black man from Georgia, Reginald D. Hunter, in London on that phenomenon:

    Do you ever have that thing where you are embarrassed by your own people, sometimes. Whatever group you think is your group of people, when they fuck up you just go ach! Oh no! Sometimes I’ll be back home [in Georgia] watching the news and it will be like, “coming up in the local news, an assailant breaks into a bank and shoots six people and robs a liquor store. Details at 11:00” And there’s a part of me, a genuine part of me that falls to the TV and says “Please, don’t be black!” And that’s insane! I guess in a sense you have to feel like that if you love your people then the flip side of that is shame. …. I just catch myself being possessive about black people. ….

    Something we all do, I think, to a greater or lesser extent – part of our genetic inheritances. The problem is when we allow our sense of group solidarity – particularly to narrowly defined ones – get the better of our rationality – did that person really commit that crime? – and our commitment to larger groups, our humanity.

    —–
    1) “_http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=QCCUCVAosJU#t=685s”;

  82. 82
    Steersman

    Jacob Schmidt said(#26.0):

    You want to try arguing that the blog owner can’t set the rules and standards thereon?

    Point to me anywhere the owner of this blogs saying we should use the nesting, Steersman. He’s allowed, he uses it, but nowhere does he state or imply nay imperative to follow suit.

    Yes, that’s quite true: he didn’t explicitly say anything to the effect of “thou shalt use nesting!”, at least that I’m aware of. Although there had been some discussion in another thread where he had been using several levels, and on the pros and cons of different options. And his conclusion seems to have been that single-level nesting might be a workable compromise between full and none. But no one is going to find out if that is the case unless a significant percentage of the commenters make some effort to follow that system.

    So I wonder: do you need an engraved invitation? You’re not able to read the writing on the wall – almost literally – that that might be a preference at least? Not able to see that if a substantial percentage of his comments and those by others use that system then it might be considerate if not wise to follow suit?

  83. 83
    Schala

    Yes, because only half of people maintain the hierarchy. The others are just pawns who are manipulated, men are willfully and consciously oppressing women. Because penis.

  84. 84
    Schala

    Races exist mostly by happy accident, but genders exist for a pretty specific reason. It is undoubtedly sexist to only prefer to have sex with men or women, but that doesn’t mean it’s a bad idea.

    Then you can force boys not to like pink and to be conscripted, just because We Must Differentiate the Sexes or People won’t Reproduce!

    Except for people who just want a warm hole, a pole, a hand, or something that vibrates – most people have LTRs because of the *uniqueness* of their date/bf/gf, not because they happen to have the same equipment as their preference – extremely desperate people notwithstanding.

    So why would you NEED those gendered differences enforced on a societal systemic level just to feel good about “being complementary” and “different”. We ALL are different! Celebrate that.

  85. 85
    Steersman

    Edward Gemmer said (#2.8):

    It is undoubtedly sexist to only prefer to have sex with men or women, but that doesn’t mean it’s a bad idea.

    I think your definition of “sexist” is in error there. Either that or you’re using a non-standard dictionary; mine (1) says:

    sex•ism (skszm)
    n.
    1. Discrimination based on gender, especially discrimination against women.
    2. Attitudes, conditions, or behaviors that promote stereotyping of social roles based on gender.

    And, in passing and as a point of reference, discrimination would seem to cover a rather broad range of actions, a “multitude of sins” – so to speak:

    dis•crim•i•na•tion (d-skrm-nshn)
    n.
    1. The act of discriminating.
    2. The ability or power to see or make fine distinctions; discernment.
    3. Treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit; partiality or prejudice:

    Sex itself might reasonably be construed to be a mainspring for most of us – at least some of the time, and some of us all of the time – but it seems a bit of a stretch to call that sexist. Although I suppose if one interpreted that “treatment or consideration based on class or category” in the widest possible way then the argument might hold at least a bit of water.

    —-
    1) “_http://www.thefreedictionary.com/sexist”;

  86. 86
    Gjenganger

    @Jacob Schmidt: What aspects of the roles are required for smooth interactions?

    @Schala:Expectations can be based on what works, not “what groups of people ought to do/identify/behave as”.

    The reason we can work smoothly with people we do not know well, is that we have quite detailed social roles internalized. These things are automatic, unconscious, and therefore fast and efficient. If we had to determine ‘what works’, individual by individual, any interaction with strangers would be extremely demanding. We do not interact with the unique, individual self of everybody we meet, because it is way too hard. Instead we have roles, behavior rules, that people partly choose to conform to as. well, roles, partly merge into part of their own being as they grow. Undeniably these roles make life harder for those whose nature is particularly ill suited to the role they are faced with, but overall everybody gains, by getting a simple and predictable framework for dealing with others.Gender is special in defining different roles for different groups of people, but then so does age. People will automatically classify others by gender, because it is so important for, well, mating and breeding. That does not force you to have any particular set of gender roles (in the first instance) but it does mean the roles will be in principle different.

    As an illustration, think of different national cultures. There are unstated rules about how close you stand, how fast and loud you speak, how you queue, when and where you touch, who you can approach and how, what you talk about (hint: in the UK keep your distance, and start by talking about the weather; with men, generally, sports or news are good, …). One person who just does not get the signals for “I want to keep talking” or “I want to be left in peace” can be very stressful company. Now imagine that every shop assistant, every fellow passenger on the train, every chance meeting, could have a national culture and behavior from any country of the globe, any time in the past few centuries, with no way of knowing what to expect. It would not work – which is why we maintain, and indeed enforce, an agreed set of rules.

  87. 87
    Ally Fogg

    Hi Jadehawk – if you see this, understood. Get yourself well and I’m sure we’ll still have plenty to talk about when you feel up to it.

    Bests

    A
    x

  88. 88
    Ally Fogg

    Just for the record and for everyone’s benefit…

    I have very strong feelings about whether or not people use nesting on this site.

    I strongly feel that I couldn’t give a fuck either way. Please use this comment section in which ever ways make you happy (within reason!)

    thanks all.

  89. 89
    Steersman

    Jadehawk said (#20.0):

    But since I don’t identify as a feminist, and I’ve never so much as read the Atheism Plus glossary far less put my name to it, I’m not entirely sure why you’re trying to talk to me about them?

    it’s the pitters’ hobby horse to whine about A+

    Viewed less as a hobby horse than as an exemplar of the consequences of allowing dogma to dictate social policy, and to override science. One could hardly ask for a better Petrie dish in which to perform that type of social experiment, the principle of which was rather succinctly expressed (1) by Ophelia Benson some time ago:

    There are two motivations for setting up the web site. The first is the common one having to do with the thought that truth is important, and that to tell the truth about the world it is necessary to put aside whatever preconceptions (ideological, political, moral, etc.) one brings to the endeavour.

    The second has to do with the tendency of the political Left (which both editors of this site consider themselves to be part of) to subjugate the rational assessment of truth-claims to the demands of a variety of pre-existing political and moral frameworks.

    —-
    1) “_http://slymepit.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=88852#p88852”;

  90. 90
    Steve Hall

    I think we should all go back to hating the system. It’s called capitalism (or neoliberalism in its current form), in case anyone had forgotten. It’s better that way.

  91. 91
    John Morales

    [OT]

    Steersman:

    Jadehawk said (#20.0):

    But since I don’t identify as a feminist, and I’ve never so much as read the Atheism Plus glossary far less put my name to it, I’m not entirely sure why you’re trying to talk to me about them?

    it’s the pitters’ hobby horse to whine about A+

    Viewed less as a hobby horse than as an exemplar of the consequences of allowing dogma to dictate social policy, and to override science.

    Less as a hobby horse than as an exemplar is still a hobby horse, — and you pitters’ actions are the referent when you refer to “the consequences”.

    (Such philanthropy!)

    One could hardly ask for a better Petrie dish in which to perform that type of social experiment, the principle of which was rather succinctly expressed (1) by Ophelia Benson some time ago:

    Slimers’ Ophelia obsession is hardly a secret, and to call a losers’ hangout a social experiment is an amusing conceit though technically trivially true of any site on the internet.

    (Such framing!)

  92. 92
    John Morales

    [meta]

    One can both participate here and hate the system (or love it, for that matter), so the set of people who can go back is not circumscribed by participating here.

    Any time someone claims one should stop doing whatever because one should do something else instead but doesn’t present mutually-exclusive alternatives they’re wasting their time.

  93. 93
    Steersman

    John Morales said (#30.1):

    Less as a hobby horse than as an exemplar is still a hobby horse, — and you pitters’ actions are the referent when you refer to “the consequences”.

    I would say that that is a rather myopic view on “consequences”, maybe for self-serving reasons. But maybe you think dogma should be allowed to fester? Isn’t that the cause célèbre of PZ and company, the lancing of the religious variety? But ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, I always say ….

    Slimers’ Ophelia obsession is hardly a secret, and to call a losers’ hangout a social experiment is an amusing conceit though technically trivially true of any site on the internet.

    Too bad that PZ has poisoned your mind and those of the rest of his commentariat about the Pit to the extent that you probably didn’t follow that link to read the background of my quote of her. You might have noticed that I and several others commended her for that position – but, unfortunately I think, one she seems to have repudiated in clasping a rather viperish version of feminism to her breast.

  94. 94
    CaptainFizz

    Ally if you really want to start a discussion about how men might or might not be shafted by the system I’d strongly recommend you don’t start on the premise that “patriarchy hurts men too”. For whatever it means to you personally for most the term ‘patriarchy’ inevitably has connotations of demonizing men and masculinity and pinning the blame on men for most of the worlds problems. I’m sorry but theres no way of getting around this fact.

  95. 95
    Danny Gibbs

    this is not a correct interpretation of what PHMT means; it doesn’t mean “Acceptable collateral damage”; it means damage in the service of maintaining the gender hierarchy.
    In other words damage that the system deems acceptable right? If the damage weren’t deemed acceptable then wouldn’t it the very least try to lessen that damage.

    And that’s what I’m talking about in that interpretation that I called “misogyny/acceptable collateral damage done to men by misogyny”.

    It’s not seen as damage that is done to men that is a part of the system, its seen as damage done to men that resulted from trying to harm women. AKA if the system would just stop trying to hurt women everyone would be fine.

    Its a pretty dishonest framing of the system and damage it does to everyone because it frames the entire situation in a way that quite literally makes it all about the women.

  96. 96
    John Morales

    Steersman:

    I would say that that is a rather myopic view on “consequences”, maybe for self-serving reasons. But maybe you think dogma should be allowed to fester? Isn’t that the cause célèbre of PZ and company, the lancing of the religious variety? But ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, I always say ….

    <snicker>

    One of the reasons I know you’re a poseur is your habitual attempts at orotundity via the subjunctive mood, feeble as you are at maintaining the pretence (farcical as that is), and your segues to irrelevancies.

    Regarding your feeble objection: it’s not a view, it’s a factual statement.

    (It really is the referent!)

    Too bad that PZ has poisoned your mind and those of the rest of his commentariat about the Pit to the extent that you probably didn’t follow that link to read the background of my quote of her. You might have noticed that I and several others commended her for that position – but, unfortunately I think, one she seems to have repudiated in clasping a rather viperish version of feminism to her breast.

    You stand revealed in all your glory.

    (Such drama! Such pathos!)

  97. 97
    daveallen

    Was he post not an explanation of why he rejects the premise you are now advising him to reject?

  98. 98
    John Morales

    Danny:

    In other words damage that the system deems acceptable right?

    That’s akin to saying the system that permits driving deems road accidents as acceptable.

    (Does it really?)

  99. 99
    Edward Gemmer

    Then you can force boys not to like pink and to be conscripted, just because We Must Differentiate the Sexes or People won’t Reproduce!

    There is a world of difference between what we do to other people and what we allow them to do. There is certainly a tendency to try and ascribe everything a man or woman does to some sort of social pressure that we should try and destroy. I’m suspicious of these arguments – this idea that life would be better if we ignored every difference between men and women and pressured them into doing the same things seems oppressive.

    Sex itself might reasonably be construed to be a mainspring for most of us – at least some of the time, and some of us all of the time – but it seems a bit of a stretch to call that sexist.

    I don’t think so. I think it is the very definition of sexism – certainly, I discriminate by gender who I pursue sex with. Most people do. With that comes a lot of baggage – there is a world of difference how people interact with those they want to have sex with and those they don’t. These are the behaviors that are often called sexist, though they are triggered by a more innate sexist desire.

  100. 100
    CaptainFizz

    ‘Was he post not an explanation of why he rejects the premise you are now advising him to reject?’

    Erm, no. The writer states in the piece that he heartily embraces that premise. As in,

    ‘ I have no problem acknowledging that patriarchy hurts men too’

    and then asks men to pose themselves the question

    ‘Why does patriarchy hurt men too?

    So regardless of anything else in the piece that part of it is not up for debate or discussion.

  101. 101
    Jacob Schmidt

    Instead we have roles, behavior rules, that people partly choose to conform to as.

    What roles specific to gender make interaction easier?

    Gender is special in defining different roles for different groups of people, but then so does age.

    Funny thing: elderly abuse and child abuse are common. I wonder if that has anything to with pigeonholing people into roles based on age e.g. “She’s old enough; she needs to be in a home.”

    It would not work – which is why we maintain, and indeed enforce, an agreed set of rules.

    I put it to you that none of the cultural signals we use to communicate need be segregated by gender; certainly, said segregation causes a hell of a lot of problems.

  102. 102
    John Morales

    Edward Gemmer:

    With that comes a lot of baggage – there is a world of difference how people interact with those they want to have sex with and those they don’t.

    What proportion of the human race does that represent for you, Edward?

  103. 103
    Ariel

    Ally, the OP and #16:

    You think men aren’t oppressed by capitalism? (…) If you don’t, fair enough, we don’t have much to talk about.

    As an East European, I might view capitalism with much more sympathy than you do. From our perspective, only too often it was the western conservatives who were the allies, with the western left being too busy criticizing “American oppressors” (and maybe too busy looking for the next leftist dictator to fall in love with) to do something useful. But I hope that such a perspective won’t be a stumbling block in my participating in discussions on your blog?

    My own position is that while men do indeed have a dominant position over women in society, and this is a real and huge issue to be addressed, the systemic ruling class has vastly more power over both binary genders than either has over the other. Men and women alike are oppressed by capitalist culture.

    I can’t help wondering how useful is the “capitalist culture” explanation. Various examples you have given are fairly cross-cultural. E.g. “male=strong / female=weak” stereotype is much older than capitalism. “Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori” contains nothing specific to capitalist culture as well. Compulsory conscription of men (but not women) for military service was standard in communist states and it is actually capitalist countries which started to move away from this model. I have an impression that in the OP you are trying to promote the synchronic, not the diachronic perspective (look at the Global Inc; then you will see that “Misogyny strengthens the patriarchy, which in turn props up the economic system”). If so, my worry would be that such an approach tends to minimize the role of misogyny/misandry as a traditional baggage, which in many contexts might be even detrimental to the capitalist economic system. By the same token, it seems to me that the synchronic perspective makes you overstate your case for treating misogyny/misandry as an integral part of capitalist culture – anyway, it would be interesting to see whether you really have much more than “it is here with us, it is widespread, capitalism is using it, so it must – just must – play a crucial role”.

    My own approach would be more along the lines: misogyny/misandry was a given, and capitalism adapted to this reality, modifying it on the way when there was a need. In particular, capitalism doesn’t explain misogyny/misandry, although in some cases it can well explain the particular forms it takes. In addition, I can see no reason to view the fight against misogyny/misandry as an anti-capitalist fight. But I’m rather open (or at least I hope so!) and it would be interesting to read in more detail why you see it that way.

  104. 104
    Edward Gemmer

    What proportion of the human race does that represent for you, Edward?

    12.8648309%

  105. 105
    Gjenganger

    @Jacob Schmidt

    I put it to you that none of the cultural signals we use to communicate need be segregated by gender

    Indeed. Instead of having two gender roles and pressurising everybody to conform to the one that matched their sex, we could have a single gender role and pressurise everybody to conform to it regardless. I cannot see how this makes anybody more free, though.

  106. 106
    John Morales

    Edward, interesting.

    So, since there are roughly 7 billion people on Earth (6,973,738,433 according to the World Bank as I write this), you treat 6,973,738,433 × 12.8648309% = 897,159,656 people differently to anyone else because you want to fuck them.

    So, you want to fuck nearly nine hundred million people, and you interact with them differently to those you don’t want to fuck.

    (For every 8 people in a room, you’re likely to treat 1 of them differently because you want to fuck them, eh?)

  107. 107
    Schala

    For me, and I’m pansexual, it’s likely to represent 0.5% of the population.

    We need to be romantically and sexually compatible, and they need to accept me as female regardless of my being born with a penis.

    And I don’t need anything about People Being Very Different because of their sexes. I’m attracted to something different than “Not Like Me”: *EVERYONE* is not like me. I’ve always felt like an alien, not like “Oh, half the human race is Exactly Identical To Me.”

    Complementary stuff and all holds some water, based on individual traits, not based on being 1 of 3.5 billion people. There is very likely to be people I’m not compatible with in the 7 billion people I *could* be attracted to.

    this idea that life would be better if we ignored every difference between men and women and pressured them into doing the same things seems oppressive.

    The trick is don’t pressure them. They won’t do the same things then. They won’t all want princess dresses and all pink and glitter, and they won’t all want to climb trees, play with bugs or pick up frogs by swamps. We’re applying way more pressure to conform now than we should. No pressure = personal choice.

  108. 108
    Pen

    I couldn’t agree more. This, and not the more historical problem of men being bred as cannon-fodder is the big problem of our times, at least for anyone who’s a parent. It screws up all other attempts at gender equality.

  109. 109
    Schala

    Undeniably these roles make life harder for those whose nature is particularly ill suited to the role they are faced with, but overall everybody gains, by getting a simple and predictable framework for dealing with others.

    We can have rules like “do not punch others” and “say thank you”, without having ANY gendered norms whatsoever, wether in clothing, behavior, approaches, sayings, employment, manners of speech.

    The “chaos” you think will happen if we have to judge people as unique, only works if you have NO “do not punch others” basic civility rules. Having to judge someone as more than a stereotype is something that should be easy to everyone but small children (who use it as a crutch until they develop better systems than rough and simple categorization), and will only make life harder for marketers (who would have no easy “mother housekeeper” stereotype to reach to), not real people interacting.

    Indeed. Instead of having two gender roles and pressurising everybody to conform to the one that matched their sex, we could have a single gender role and pressurise everybody to conform to it regardless. I cannot see how this makes anybody more free, though.

    We have people conform to the letter of the law, and apply basic civility. The rest is horseshit and we can pass ourselves from it. No dual roles, no single roles. Just no role. Total freedom, no conforming. Everyone getting their own path, based on their own individual unique ability, not presumption of vagina power.

  110. 110
    Schala

    That’s akin to saying the system that permits driving deems road accidents as acceptable.

    That’s akin to saying the system permits men (and only men) to drive like mad men with no concern for road signs or normal driving laws, and deems road accidents as acceptable because men should know better than to kill everyone on the road by crashing into them – if they only started to drive reasonably, like women, everything would be fine.

  111. 111
    John Morales

    Schala, so, for you, it’s a mere 35-odd million people with whom you wish to have sexual relations?

    We need to be romantically and sexually compatible, and they need to accept me as female regardless of my being born with a penis.

    You should know your first clause encompasses your second.

    There is very likely to be people I’m not compatible with in the 7 billion people I *could* be attracted to.

    Well, you’re one up on Edward there, since he refers to those to whom he is attracted and not just to those to whom he *could* be attracted.

    No pressure = personal choice.

    True; also, consent = acceptance.

    To the point: do you treat people differently purely because you want to fuck them, and do you imagine that’s to what sexism refers?

  112. 112
    Dr.Cheeselove

    @sallystrange 12.1

    Thank dog you arrived here to talk some sense. Yes, so much homophobia is expressed in terms of hatred of women and the feminine. Doesn’t Leviticus 18:22 even specify that a man shouldn’t lie with a man as he would a woman, thus implying that homosexuality is wrong because a man shouldn’t lower himself to the status of a woman.

    It’s weird that this person thinks that pointing this out is “hate speech” especially when there are so many lesbians and trans women who can experience misogyny directly. And most people agree that there is a “splash effect” when it comes to prejudice, i.e. a sikh can get beat up because of islamaphobia, so why is it so impossible that a gay man could experience misogyny?

  113. 113
    John Morales

    Pen:

    This, and not the more historical problem of men being bred as cannon-fodder is the big problem of our times, at least for anyone who’s a parent.

    What do you imagine feminism’s stance regarding women in the military to be, and what do you understand the opposition to that stance to be?

  114. 114
    Schala

    @Ariel

    The communist states are so far away from socialist ideals of “to you based on needs, from you based on capacity/effort” that it’s laughable to call China and Russia communist.

    They have some of the lowest taxes ever, and are corrupted in having the government keep ITSELF rich (instead of its society), while keeping the vast majority of its people in the shits.

    A true communist government would have relatively high taxes, extremely high for the very rich (like the US pre-Reagan), lots of services for the population, universal healthcare, universal free education, including university, a minimum guaranteed salary for everyone, including those who don’t or can’t work – one that is liveable (don’t need to live 5 in a tiny rat-infested apartment to survive on that, at worst 2 in a small one).

    Chinese and Russian governments are NOWHERE near that.

    Capitalist culture is one that wants men to sacrifice for economical wealth, and women to do the same when they can (ie daycares), that presumes an exponential population (and thus economic) growth (which won’t happen nowadays). It pushes men to not consider their well-being, while pushing women to over-consider theirs “because you’re worth it”, so women become the greatest consumers of all, easily influenced, and rich from money from unions with (relatively) richer men – who have less (personal) needs for that money, because they’re told they don’t need more clothing, hygiene products etc.

    And it heavily favors the rich. Gives them all the power for none of the responsibility, of keeping society afloat and prospering. They only keep themselves afloat and prospering. And then threaten to leave if taxes for them (the millionaires) go higher.

  115. 115
    John Morales

    Schala, nope. There is no such permission, and traffic laws do not in fact distinguish based on the driver’s gender.

  116. 116
    Dr.Cheeselove

    @Ally Fogg 16

    Yes, men are oppressed because of their class, their race, etc. But you haven’t really made a case for men being oppressed for being men. You haven’t made a case that men face systemic oppression for being men.

    And as far as the (dubious) examples you gave elsewhere in the comment section (men being forced to take all the good jobs, being forced to accept higher payrates and being forced join the military), you didn’t even attempt to make an argument that connects those things with misandry. You just assume it’s so. Which is a weird assumption, considering the historical context tells us that women are kept out of being active participants in the military, politics and the economy because of patriarchy.

    Finally, you seem to be getting your analogies crossed when you say, “Misogyny strengthens the patriarchy, which in turn props up the economic system. So too does homophobia, so too (indirectly) does racism, colonialism, the class system and, crucially, so too does misandry.” Why did you nestle misandry in with racism, homophobia and classism but no mention of “straightphobia” or “cysphobia”?

  117. 117
    Patrick Brown

    I’m with Ariel. Churchill is supposed to have said that democracy is the worst form of government except for all the others that have been tried. Capitalism, tempered with a bit of social democracy, is the equivalent as far as economic systems are concerned. The notion that any of us in the free, prosperous modern west are “oppressed”, by gender or anything else, is laughable. As a lowly-paid clerk I live a life the pharaohs of Egypt would have envied. The modern west is as close to paradise on earth as we’ve yet managed. Every other political/economic system that’s been tried has produced more suffering, more poverty, more death, more repression, more violence, more torture, more inequality and more discrimination on multiple axes. Our system is not perfect, and it’s good and right to discuss the problems that exist and try and find ways to alleviate them. But to call any of those problems “oppression” is appropriation and cheapens the experiences of people who can genuinely be called oppressed.

  118. 118
    Schala

    Way to miss the point John.

    Analogy, read the definition. You might understand that feminism theory blames men for perpetuating and benefiting from the system, men only.

  119. 119
    John Morales

    Schala,

    Way to miss the point John.

    What point is it that you imagine I fail to grasp?

    Analogy, read the definition.

    I know what an analogy is no less than what a comparison, a metaphor, a simile, an allegory or a parable is.

    You might understand that feminism theory blames men for perpetuating and benefiting from the system, men only.

    I might, but as it stands I understand feminist theory to blame the system for the system, and to claim men are socially privileged over women by it.

    (Care to attempt to change my understanding?)

  120. 120
    Ginkgo

    “but there are a great deal of men (and again, fewer women) who reap significant benifits from the cuurent economy. Women are at greater risk for being unemployed and/or poor. This places women at a significant disadvantage, one that I think is taken advantage of by some men.”

    Jacob, ooyu are assuming that womnen have to be employed to have access to great wealth and power. That is false of course; they cna just marry well, and always have. in fact they can marry well above thier station and no one bats an eye anymore. Citation? Perhaps the name Anna Nicole Smith will suffice. Or Catherine Middleton?

    “being unemployed and/or poor.”

    The first absolutely does not entail the second. In fact that si what alimony and “maintenance” (kept woman?) is really all about, isn’t it?

  121. 121
    Ginkgo

    “I think the minimum requirement for an apology to be considered sincere is that the person apologizing can stop giggling while apologizing”

    That’s probably an unfair amount of growth to expect, Tamen.

  122. 122
    Schala

    See my comment at 16.2

    Why did you nestle misandry in with racism, homophobia and classism but no mention of “straightphobia” or “cysphobia”?

    Ally said it before, being white has no drawbacks compared to being black. Being straight has no drawback compared to being gay. Being cis has no drawback compared to being trans.

    Being male DOES have drawbacks compared to being female, on the same class axis, same race axis, same sexual orientation, both cis or both trans.

    -The lack of social safety nets and services if you fall in poverty, become homeless, become a victim of DV or a victim of rape.
    - The lack of compassion towards men as a group when bad stuff happens to them (as compared to women for the same equivalent stuff).
    -The push towards being violent or being beaten for being insufficiently able or willing to use it (which doesn’t happen to women).
    -The victim-blaming for being assaulted, raped, beaten up, murdered, simply for being “living while male” regardless of behavior, real or assumed, of the target.

    Need I add some?

    Women also have disadvantages for being female. It’s just not a one-sided comparison like race.

  123. 123
    Ginkgo

    “Yes, so much homophobia is expressed in terms of hatred of women and the feminine. Doesn’t Leviticus 18:22 even specify that a man shouldn’t lie with a man as he would a woman, thus implying that homosexuality is wrong because a man shouldn’t lower himself to the status of a woman.”

    Dr. Cheeselove, you might do better to stay on topics you know something about and stop presuming to speak about other people’s lived experience. It’s pretty obvious you have never experienced homophobia as a man. It is incoherent to say that hatred of gay men is hatred of femininity when it occurs in people who drool over women. These are men who will tell you how much they love that poon, and who will spend almsot any amount to in the affections of some woman.

    So no. It won’t fly.

    By the way, how much homophobia have you experienced as a man?

    Have you experienced the form of homophobia directed at completely masculine-acting men who just don’t want sex with women, as if that is some kind of horrible misogynistic insult to feminine irresistability? I have. I’m not buying your pet superstition.

    And by the way, that homophobia is not a male preserve. Shulamith Firestone and her redstockings wallowed in this kind of bigotry.
    http://www.genderratic.com/p/912/misandry-feminist-gay-bashing-edited/

    It really amounts ot a true rape culture.

  124. 124
    Ariel

    Schala 34.1

    A true communist government would have relatively high taxes, extremely high for the very rich

    This was Marx’s program for the first stage of communism (a transition period). There won’t be any “very rich” people later. Who needs them after all?

    As for the rest:

    A true communist government would have (…) lots of services for the population, universal healthcare, universal free education, including university, a minimum guaranteed salary for everyone, including those who don’t or can’t work – one that is liveable (don’t need to live 5 in a tiny rat-infested apartment to survive on that, at worst 2 in a small one).

    Yes, sounds very familiar. That’s exactly what each new government was saying. “Our predecessors made mistakes and it wasn’t a true communism, we admit that. But just wait, with us as leaders we will move together on the way to true communism!” You know Schala, somehow this experience made me resistant to all these “true communists”, “true Scotsmen”, “true Catholics” etc., especially in the government. I have no idea why. It must be very irrational of me.

  125. 125
    tigzy

    I like the way John Morales accuses Steersman of being a poseur. A truly [META] moment, that one.

  126. 126
    Schala

    Yes, sounds very familiar. That’s exactly what each new government was saying. “Our predecessors made mistakes and it wasn’t a true communism, we admit that. But just wait, with us as leaders we will move together on the way to true communism!” You know Schala, somehow this experience made me resistant to all these “true communists”, “true Scotsmen”, “true Catholics” etc., especially in the government. I have no idea why. It must be very irrational of me.

    It makes me wary of Canada or the US declaring themselves democracies or republics, to the service of their people.

    They ALL serve the very rich, care very little about tax evasion and legal loopholes permitting the very rich and huge companies (like banks, insurance companies and petrol companies) to make HUGE profit, and then get bailed with government money if they’re about to declare bankruptcy for their OWN stupidity.

    I prefer an idealistic “real communism/socialism” than a very flawed concept (capitalism), misapplied on top (everyone’s going to be rich…yeah right).

  127. 127
    Dr.Cheeselove

    @Ginko

    Wow, pointing out a Bible quote = speaking for someone else’s lived experiences? Really? I think we have a semantics problem here.

    “By the way, how much homophobia have you experienced as a man?”

    All of it, since I am a gay man. Thanks for asking.

  128. 128
    Schala

    To the point: do you treat people differently purely because you want to fuck them, and do you imagine that’s to what sexism refers?

    I treat my immediate family differently than I treat everyone else. Usually better, and definitely more personalized and intimate/familiar relation.

    Otherwise, I’m generally courteous, socially anxious around most people (regardless of sex, race, age or what have you), and don’t treat people differently because I want to fuck them.

    I’m also gender-blind in how I treat people. I don’t treat people better or worse for assumed or identified maleness or femaleness. I treat them exactly as I would treat the other. Because I see no valid reasons of treating them differently.

    I won’t tell men to “man up and stop whining” while giving a pass to women. I won’t think women are more incompetent in technical or gaming stuff (I’m a female gamer, I’d be stupid – but it’s still not something you’re immune with). I won’t think men are more incompetent in household chores, caregiving, or more likely to be violent or sexually violent with everyone. I won’t think men are richer than women on an individual basis (or that he should pay because penis).

  129. 129
    Dr.Cheeselove

    @Shalla 16.4

    You say that “Being male DOES have drawbacks compared to being female, on the same class axis, same race axis, same sexual orientation, both cis or both trans.”

    OK, first of all, No. Misandry is not an axis of oppression like race, orientation, etc. It’s not. You can read scholarly articles to confirm this or you can cheat and use wikipedia, but no mainstream source is going to back you up here. So when you’re arguing that misandry is just like homophobia, you’re not just up against me, you’re up against a lot of people in social sciences, psychology, history, etc. And if you’re going to make a semi-coherant case to challenge that, you’re going to have to demonstrate that the drawbacks of being male amount to systemic oppression (you haven’t done that) and are the result of misandry (you haven’t even attempted to do that). So good luck with that.

    In the meantime, I’m afraid you’re terribly confused if you think that being white doesn’t have drawbacks. A superficial perusal of a few race blogs will disabuse you of that notion (wherein bloggers talk discuss the “double-edge sword” of privilege). Many black anti-abolition activists and civil rights activists emphasised that there are drawbacks to whites in a racist system in order to make their case. The key thing, however, is that the drawbacks to being white are in no way equal to the oppression faced by people for not being white. There are drawbacks to being filthy rich. Experiencing drawbacks for having privilege is not the same thing as oppression!

  130. 130
    Ally Fogg

    I’m with Ariel. Churchill is supposed to have said that democracy is the worst form of government except for all the others

    Agree. Democracy’s an excellent idea. We should try it some time.

  131. 131
    Schala

    Tell me, Dr Cheeselove, how hatred of lesbians is based on hatred of masculinity. Tell me.

    And if it’s not that, how much contortions must you have to have two different conclusions to the same case.

    Gay man is assumed to not fulfill his role as protector and provider of woman, for society’s sake (ie reproduction).

    Lesbian woman is assumed not to fulfill her role as baby-making machine, supported by a man, for society’s sake (ie also reproduction).

    Except gay men are assumed to do so with malicious intent (screw society!), while lesbian women are misguided sheep who can be led back to the flock with the right guidance (it’s not their fault). So gay men are punished more (executed in some countries) for “gay sex”. In those countries “gay love (as in romantic)” is something not said to exist, and is not punished.

    As long as sex doesn’t happen, intra-sex intimate acts (sitting on lap, holding hands, long hugs, kisses) are considered harmless same-sex bonding, and good friendships. This works in Japan, and in the Middle-East. Probably other countries.

    Being feminine for a man means he’s not pulling his weight as a robot, clone, conformist. He should live through his wife, who is allowed expression, and be happy he can even be an accessory for her. Just look at the variety of suits. You’d have to really know to see much difference. Dresses can express tons of stuff, extreme variety of lengths, shapes, styles, fabrics and stuff added on them. Clones have no need to express stuff, they should conform and shut up. That’s why we call them penguin suits – all the same.

    But supposedly being limited in expression and forbidden to wear pretty much 90% of clothing types (while not similarly restricting women) is male privilege. Because his clothing can’t be construed as sexy, he can’t be accused of being sexy. Oh the privilege. Being a clone is privileged over being allowed to do what you want, somehow.

  132. 132
    Schala

    And if you’re going to make a semi-coherant case to challenge that, you’re going to have to demonstrate that the drawbacks of being male amount to systemic oppression (you haven’t done that) and are the result of misandry (you haven’t even attempted to do that). So good luck with that.

    The government enforces drawbacks on males, because they are males.

    This is systemic. The government – no higher system than it.

  133. 133
    Ally Fogg

    @DrCheeselove

    Yes, men are oppressed because of their class, their race, etc. But you haven’t really made a case for men being oppressed for being men. You haven’t made a case that men face systemic oppression for being men.

    OK, let me try again. Part of the definition I would use of misandry includes a gender-specific, (relative) contempt for the lives and well-being of men and boys.

    As with all hegemonic value systems, it is embedded in the prevailing culture, so it is manifested in the individual opinions, words and actions of both men and women, which then feeds back to perpetuate the values in the ongoing development of culture. That would be the mechanism (whether or not you agree that misandry exists as a thing, we’ll come back to that) which would make it systemic.

    With me so far?

    And as far as the (dubious) examples you gave elsewhere in the comment section (men being forced to take all the good jobs, being forced to accept higher payrates and being forced join the military), you didn’t even attempt to make an argument that connects those things with misandry. You just assume it’s so.

    Well you’re being a bit cheeky now. Quite obviously “having all the good jobs” and ” being forced to accept higher payrates” are not examples of cultural misandry, which is why I didn’t say those things. As it happens, the jobs that I’m really talking about are the ones that are socially necessary but often very low paid. The jobs (in my society at least) with the greatest risk of death and serious injury – deep sea fishermen, agricultural labourer, unskilled & semi-skilled construction workers etc) are all quite low paid. As for the military bit, which you kind of tacked on at the end, that’s pretty fucking huge. Around 50 million men died in the two world wars, either conscripted by law or volunteered due to cultural pressures. As recently as the 1980s, between half a million and a million conscripted men died in the Iran-Iraq war (had they lived, most would be younger than I am today). 80 out of about 200 countries on Earth still have compulsory male-only conscription.

    But that’s only the part of it. In order to keep the population readied for the next mass conscription, the next war, and for that matter to keep the farms, the fisheries, the dockyards functioning and making profits, our society needs to constantly inure itself to male casualties, male death, male injury. It does that in part by painting such “sacrifices” as heroism, courage, bravery and strength. It does it in part by shaming boys and men who recoil from such self-sacrificial & self-destructive habits as cowards and weaklings etc. it also does it by brutalising boys, teaching them to become men through violent acts.

    So, since this is a rationalist blog site and all, let’s treat the above as a hypothesis. How would we test it were true? Some suggestions:

    Test:: Are we more likely to mock and demean boys who refuse to participate in violent and dangerous activities than girls?

    Test: Are we more likely to tolerate and even encourage violent attributes in boys than in girls?

    Test: Are we more likely as a society to inflict violence upon boys and men than upon girls/women?

    Test: Does our society generally find it more entertaining and amusing to consider the death and injury of men than women?

    Test: Do we show less concern and give less attention when a man dies than when a woman does?

    Feel free to answer any of those, or come up with any other tests of the hypothesis!

    Which is a weird assumption, considering the historical context tells us that women are kept out of being active participants in the military, politics and the economy because of patriarchy.

    You seem to have missed the various occasions when I spelled out that cultural misandry is (to a very large extent) a function of patriarchy, or at least a function of the same socio-economic system that supports patriarchy.

  134. 134
    Uriełe

    As Ally says, sexism and the class system reinforce each other.

    Sorry, Ginkgo. This is what he wrote:

    Misogyny strengthens the patriarchy

    Which makes it quite different.
    “Sexism” is a universal term and I actively oppose what it represents.
    “Class system” is a fairly universal term and I actively oppose what it represents.
    Both in RL rather than on line.
    “Patriarchy” and “misogyny” are gender-specific and in the 2013 “modern” discourse they are big stinky clubs to wave at people who fail to be doubleplus good feminist.
    That’s the problem I have with this article: while claiming to look at Global Inc as something very broad and multifaceted, it actually fails to transcend the good old feministic misandry. Meanwhile, as
    Robin MacDonal pointed out
    , advent of strongly misandric variety of feminism was a godsend for the upper castes, even if they did not fully realize it straight away.

  135. 135
    Illuminata, Genie in the Beer Bottle

    “Yes, because only half of people maintain the hierarchy. The others are just pawns who are manipulated, men are willfully and consciously oppressing women. Because penis.”

    This is shocking and blatant dishonesty. It appears someone is just a little too emotional to discuss things rationally.

  136. 136
    Illuminata, Genie in the Beer Bottle

    My god, is this really the best the pit can offer? Endlessly whining, pouting bigotry?

  137. 137
    Illuminata, Genie in the Beer Bottle

    There is actually, because words mean things. Specific things. And those things don’t change simply because you really, really need them to change in order to support your horribly faulty argument. That is a fact there’s no getting around.

  138. 138
    Edward Gemmer

    The trick is don’t pressure them. They won’t do the same things then. They won’t all want princess dresses and all pink and glitter, and they won’t all want to climb trees, play with bugs or pick up frogs by swamps. We’re applying way more pressure to conform now than we should. No pressure = personal choice.

    I’m certainly a fan of that mindset. My daughter loves being outside, but she also loves cheerleading. I wish I could pressure her out of the latter but that’s probably a bad idea too.

  139. 139
    oolon

    Noticed the “patriarchal misandry” here… Like it too. Especially when misandry is mentioned it’s usually feminist conspiracy driven misandry, or not a real thing.

  140. 140
    John C. Welch

    Pen, I think the cannon-fodder thing is related, but tends to get into the weeds really quickly. For example, Morales’ comment, which contains a huge issue as written, namely the implication that there is this thing called “feminism” that has a singular coherent viewpoint.

    That’s not even slightly correct. There are groups of people of varying size that support certain ideals and actions that have been shoved under the umbrella of “feminism”, but just like any loose confederation of groups of people, you find that the only thing they seem to agree on is the particular spelling of “feminism” in a given language.

    For example, there are a few radfem groups that are of the opinion that transfolk are either sekret rapists or sekret chill girls. Now, the *vast* majority of feminists or people who support parts of feminism without the label would think that’s completely stupid, yet, those groups claim the lable just as much as say, NOW.

    So you can’t ask what “…you imagine feminism’s stance…” is on anything, because there’s nothing that is “feminism”. It’s a bag of cats as a term. You may as well ask what blondes think of something, you’ll get the same level of accuracy for all people who have blonde hair. The only way to ask what “feminism” thinks is to ask about specific named feminist groups who have issued statements on the subject.

  141. 141
    Ginkgo

    “There is actually, because words mean things. Specific things.”

    Treu, and “Patriarchy Hurts Men Too” has a specific meaning, as a unit, just the way “quite a few” has a specific meaning, even if that menaing contradics the sum of its part. The process is called lexicalization.

    And the specific meaning of any lexical unit is determined by usage in the language community, not by theoretical parsing of the elements. And the usage of the expresssion PHMT is dismissive of men’s issues.

  142. 142
    Jacob Schmidt

    The first absolutely does not entail the second. In fact that si what alimony and “maintenance” (kept woman?) is really all about, isn’t it?

    What the fuck does that bolded text mean? And despite the semi-regular whine of “but alimony”, women are still at a greater risk for poverty than men.

    Jacob, ooyu are assuming that womnen have to be employed to have access to great wealth and power. That is false of course; they cna just marry well, and always have. in fact they can marry well above thier station and no one bats an eye anymore. Citation? Perhaps the name Anna Nicole Smith will suffice. Or Catherine Middleton?

    Two things

    1) Sociological trends are not drawn from one or two people. Learn to cite.
    1) Assuming your claim of “Women can just marry up!” is true, I’m not convinced it’s any sort of advantage that the only reliable way a women can gain wealth is by being economically dependant on someone else.

  143. 143
    Jacob Schmidt

    Instead of having two gender roles and pressurising everybody to conform to the one that matched their sex, we could have a single gender role and pressurise everybody to conform to it regardless. I cannot see how this makes anybody more free, though.

    I’d like to see yuo justify that flase dichotomy, there. We certainly could have only 1 role. I didn’t suggest that, though. I don’t know why your talking about it. Why not have no roles, and just let people do as they feel comfortable?

  144. 144
    Steve Hall

    I did actually suggest a concrete alternative that we all might consider doing, John, which means that your reply is simply nonsensical – a failed attempt to appear clever.

    I simply meant that hating the system is preferable – and ultimately more constructive – to hating each other. Underneath these largely polite exchanges is a burning hatred, a torment that can never be satisfied, even by a significant equalisation of gender relations (which could of course never be more than formal in a market society). The hatred is palpable – I can feel it. The system destroyed our unfinished solidarity project in the 1980s and, at that point in time it’s as if it fired a starting gun, smiling as it watches us, as atomised and antagonistic individuals, jostling for position as we compete in a long-distance race.

    The source of that objectless hatred is the pseudo-pacification process.

  145. 145
    Ginkgo

    “yeah, no. at a bare minimum, sex workers (usually female) and pregnant women are seen as far more disposable, to the point where plenty of countries have made their bodily autonomy illegal, even if it kills them.”

    You are seriously going to compare sex slavery with the industrial death rate in Western societies? That’s called erasure.

    Just out of interest, why do you privielge sex slavery so much over any other kind as an oppression?

    “actually, yes it is. Male rape victims and victims of DV are an Unthinkable because toxic masculinity says men always want sex and are the active, powerful ones; whereas women are the gatekeepers and passive.”

    No, that’s toxic feminiity that does that. Isn’t it? Or actually, what’s the difference, since they are both essential components of that process? But that designation of women, adn femininity as passive rears its head even in discussions like this, where we attribute every action to (toxic) masculinity by default.

    “Also, I want a citation on “misandrist enculturation boys are subjected to in government run schools”

    It’s not one citation. There has been a steady drumbeat of these articlesin the UK and US press over the years. Doris Lessing sounded off eyars ago about it in the Guardian, i believe.

  146. 146
    iamcuriousblue

    In response to Jadehawk’s quoted comment, I find the “PHMT” (Patriarchy Hurts Men Too) framing to be simply inadequate when it comes to dealing with issues that affect men, and are important to me as a man. I usually hear PMHT and “feminism helps men” rhetoric to the effect that feminism allows men to cry and be more “sensitive”. Which has never struck me as high on the list of vital issues of masculinity, and such framing is a prime example of what happens when “about us, without us” gets to define an agenda.

    If I had to pick out a key issue that I do want to see dealt with, its the idea that men are physically dangerous to women and children by their very nature and that male sexuality in particular is inherently predatory and dangerous unless kept under extreme constraint. And sadly, there’s a lot of feminism out there that contributes to such notions. Of course, there have also been feminisms, notably the more liberal kinds of sex-positive feminism, that have been very good about questioning such notions about the nature of men, but in the last few years, I’ve seen a major backlash against that sort of feminism, it being framed as taking an insufficiently hard line on men and patriarchy.

    Then again, I think there’s some degree of cross-purpose in feminism – one one hand, it wants to all about women’s rights and defending women’s interests, and putting that first and foremost. On the other hand, it also wants to be an all-encompassing “intersectional” movement that takes on all forms of oppression and inequality, a kind of grand movement on the scale of historic Marxism. I’m not convinced it’s possible to do both, hence, even if a men’s movement doesn’t have to be anti-feminist (contra much of MRAism), I don’t accept the notion that an effective men’s movement can fit entirely under feminism either.

  147. 147
    Ginkgo

    Dr. Cheeselove,
    “Wow, pointing out a Bible quote = speaking for someone else’s lived experiences? Really?”

    My point exactly. A Bible verse proves nothing. For instance, a verse from the torah is hardly going to explain the homophobia of the Catholic Church. Is it?

    “All of it, since I am a gay man. Thanks for asking.”

    And you experienced it as femmephobia?

  148. 148
    John Morales

    John C. Welch:

    So you can’t ask what “…you imagine feminism’s stance…” is on anything, because there’s nothing that is “feminism”. It’s a bag of cats as a term. You may as well ask what blondes think of something, you’ll get the same level of accuracy for all people who have blonde hair. The only way to ask what “feminism” thinks is to ask about specific named feminist groups who have issued statements on the subject.

    Well, I can (and I did!). And you responded that it’s a meaningless question.

    Fine.

    So, what do you imagine feminists’ stance regarding women in the military to be, and what do you understand the opposition to that stance to be?

  149. 149
    John Morales

    Steve:

    I simply meant that hating the system is preferable – and ultimately more constructive – to hating each other.

    Then that’s what you should have written.

    Underneath these largely polite exchanges is a burning hatred, a torment that can never be satisfied, even by a significant equalisation of gender relations (which could of course never be more than formal in a market society). The hatred is palpable – I can feel it.

    So you hold that this burning personal hatred you viscerally perceive is not to be appeased, and therefore you advocate that people should hate the system as an alternative to it.

    The source of that objectless hatred is the pseudo-pacification process.

    What is this pseudo-pacification process to which you refer?

  150. 150
    Skeptical Atheist

    Why would you want to dissuade her from participating in something(presuming that it’s not harmful) that she enjoys?

  151. 151
    Edward Gemmer

    Why would you want to dissuade her from participating in something(presuming that it’s not harmful) that she enjoys?

    Because I hate, hate, hate, hate, hate cheerleading. Hate it.

    Otherwise, I’m generally courteous, socially anxious around most people (regardless of sex, race, age or what have you), and don’t treat people differently because I want to fuck them.

    Well, everyone is different, but I would have a hard time believing that someone would act exactly the same to someone they are strongly attracted to compared to others.

  152. 152
    Danny Gibbs

    John Morales:
    That’s akin to saying the system that permits driving deems road accidents as acceptable. (Does it really?)

    Not a fitting analogy.

    The issue isn’t whether or not the system deems them as acceptable but the analysis and results of those who call themselves interpreting those systems.

    So let me ask. Is there anyone out there that would say that that the system that permits driving deems road accidents as acceptable? Then they would be just as wrong as those who say that the harms that befall men are the results of trying to harm/devaule women.

    That latter group seems to be keen on trying to redirect things that harms men into “actually” being harms to women. In fact I’ve been looking at a few of the comments today but not paying too close attention. But I’ll bet money that someone has already brought up the “homophobia against men is really hatred/fear of women aka femmophobia”.

    Oh I’m sure there are plenty of logical twists to “prove” that policing male sexuality to the point of violence is based on on trying to police, silence, and oppress men but is just collateral damage of trying to police, silence, and oppress women.

  153. 153
    John C. Welch

    You know Morales, i’m puzzled. I just said, pretty clearly, that, at least as I see it, there’s no way you can say what “feminists” say about *anything* because they are not some kind of homogenous group that has a unified statement on everything. I even gave a small example of how some of the groups on the fringe have some opinions that the more mainstream groups would consider idiocy.

    You *acknowledge* that I said that, and correctly interpret that I think what you asked is a meaningless question.

    You then immediately ask me the same fucking question that I just stated was meaningless because you cannot say what feminists think because as an overall group, they have no single unified opinion on anything.

    Which now makes me really curious about something, and if you can provide some detail here, it would be interesting, to wit: If it was a meaningless question the first time you asked it, why would that change? It is still a meaningless question as asked, even if you ask it a second time.

    Should you do nothing in the comments on this post until the heat death of the universe but ask this same question of me over, and over, and over again, my response shall not change. The question you asked is meaningless. If you want to change it to reference a specific group that has actually talked about this, then my response would also change, but what you asked me is, by any practical means, literally unanswerable.

    Were I a cynical man, (and as an IT person, I am, in truth, very cynical), i would suggest that you are deliberately asking the question this way so that no matter how I answer, you can, of course, find a feminist group that disagrees, and therefore be able to accuse me of not knowing anything about feminism.

    So ask that question a third time, or three hundred times. Ask it until your fingers bleed and your computer breaks down into its component elements. It is still meaningless, and until you change that question to have some specific meaning, my response is the same as the first one you read was.

  154. 154
    pitchguest

    Ever since I learned more about patriarchy supposedly entails, and utterly disagreeing with the conclusion reached, I’ve said better to rage against the machine that we can palpably see than the machine we can’t see. That is class and wealth. All the worries to do with patriarchy all ultimately comes back to these two. Gender and race may be of some consequence, but what is gender and race in the face of class and wealth? And who decides these things? The government. The machine. The system. Better to put that rage to good use than harness it towards some invisible boogeyman that you think is responsible for all your ills.

    Now, John Morales, this is OT, but once again I have to ask, why do you keep prefacing your posts with [meta]? Is there another meaning of meta I’m not aware of? [Usually to denote something about itself.]

  155. 155
    Pitchguest

    If “patriarchy” hurts men too, then why is it men are to blame for the hardships of women? A general statement, “patriarchy” is a system by men, for men, where women exist at the expense of men to be oppressed and subjugated. But then it makes no sense that it should hurt men too. It’s nonsense. Furthermore, *if* “patriarchy hurts men too”, shouldn’t we be working together?

    When some men, in the face of these allegations, say they’re as equally in the shitter as women are, many times they get the dismissive “what about the menz?” retort. If “patriarchy” is as unforgiving to men as it is to women, why should that kind of argument even yeild that kind of response? Rather than derision it should be met with solidarity, to fight the evils of the patriarchal society. But it seems to many women, and many of these women are feminists, that it’s a struggle that only goes one way. Or at least, the struggle one way is worse than the other — a prelude for an obvious “Dear Muslima.”

    One of the numerous ways modern feminists have shot themselves in the foot.

  156. 156
    Jacob Schmidt

    I usually hear PMHT and “feminism helps men” rhetoric to the effect that feminism allows men to cry and be more “sensitive”.

    I often hear about heavily under reported male rape victims, good fathers losing custody to mothers on the assumption that women should be the ones raising the kid (this one is touchy, as it’s a common MRA refrain (not that they’ve ever tried to actually do anything about it)), men being pressured to work dangerously and ignore safety guidelines for the sake of masculinity, and men being the ones who shoulder the brunt of war.

    Then again, I think there’s some degree of cross-purpose in feminism – one one hand, it wants to all about women’s rights and defending women’s interests, and putting that first and foremost. On the other hand, it also wants to be an all-encompassing “intersectional” movement that takes on all forms of oppression and inequality, a kind of grand movement on the scale of historic Marxism. I’m not convinced it’s possible to do both…

    This is kind of absurd. That feminism focuses on women’s issues does not require feminism to deal with all sorts of oppression. It may limit it’s ability to do so, but to argue that it can’t be done just doesn’t follow.

    A general statement, “patriarchy” is a system by men, for men, where women exist at the expense of men to be oppressed and subjugated.[1] But then it makes no sense that it should hurt men too. [2]It’s nonsense. Furthermore, *if* “patriarchy hurts men too”, shouldn’t we be working together?[3]

    1) This is laughably false
    2) The hell? All sorts of drugs can be wonderfully helpful, and have some bad side effects. The fact that men are the primary benefactors of patriarchy doesn’t mean that men can’t be hurt by it; this is particularly true of men who fail to support it.
    3) It’s been suggested by numerous feminists. In my experience, slurs tend to follow shortly thereafter.

  157. 157
    Jacob Schmidt

    * That feminism focuses on women’s issues does not require that feminism to be unable to deal with all sorts of oppression. It may limit it’s ability to do so, but to argue that it can’t be done just doesn’t follow.

    Sorry, late night.

  158. 158
    John Morales

    Danny:

    this is not a correct interpretation of what PHMT means; it doesn’t mean “Acceptable collateral damage”; it means damage in the service of maintaining the gender hierarchy.

    In other words damage that the system deems acceptable right?

    That’s akin to saying the system that permits driving deems road accidents as acceptable.

    Not a fitting analogy.

    How not so?

    The issue isn’t whether or not the system deems them as acceptable but the analysis and results of those who call themselves interpreting those systems.

    It may not be the issue, but it is you who simultaneously claims that (1) In other words damage that the system deems acceptable right? and (2) The issue isn’t whether or not the system deems them as acceptable.

    (Analysis and results, eh?)

    Is there anyone out there that would say that that the system that permits driving deems road accidents as acceptable?

    Either you accept them, or you have no such system.

    (Which of the two is it?)

    Then they would be just as wrong as those who say that the harms that befall men are the results of trying to harm/devaule women.

    Heh. You didn’t just ask, did you? ;)

    Unlike driving, I think society itself and indeed most people could manage their lives without recourse to trying to harm/devaule women.

    (Don’t you?)

    That latter group seems to be keen on trying to redirect things that harms men into “actually” being harms to women. In fact I’ve been looking at a few of the comments today but not paying too close attention. But I’ll bet money that someone has already brought up the “homophobia against men is really hatred/fear of women aka femmophobia”.

    But that’s OK, because you are keen on trying to rail against it, as you so amply demonstrate.

    Oh I’m sure there are plenty of logical twists to “prove” that policing male sexuality to the point of violence is based on on trying to police, silence, and oppress men but is just collateral damage of trying to police, silence, and oppress women.

    You here connote unfamiliarity with the actual theses presented.

    (Interesting gambit)

  159. 159
    John Morales

    pitchguest:

    And who decides these things? The government. The machine. The system.

    So you’re agitating against “The government. The machine. The system.”, then?

    Better to put that rage to good use than harness it towards some invisible boogeyman that you think is responsible for all your ills.

    So, you’re a rage-fueled political firebrand, then?

    [OT]

    Now, John Morales, this is OT, but once again I have to ask, why do you keep prefacing your posts with [meta]? Is there another meaning of meta I’m not aware of? [Usually to denote something about itself.]

    Your neediness mildly amuses me, so it pleases me to let it persist.

  160. 160
    Pitchguest

    1) This is laughably false
    2) The hell? All sorts of drugs can be wonderfully helpful, and have some bad side effects. The fact that men are the primary benefactors of patriarchy doesn’t mean that men can’t be hurt by it; this is particularly true of men who fail to support it.
    3) It’s been suggested by numerous feminists. In my experience, slurs tend to follow shortly thereafter.

    1) Is it? That’s one of the definitions provided to me about the patriarchy, which I can provide proof should you want it. The other is that the most common denominator of patriarchy is that it’s a system derived by men, for men, to otherwise oppress and subjugate women.

    2) But if we’re to compare it to a drug (yet another analogy), then the point is that it *hasn’t* had such wonderful effects. For some men it has, but for the majority of men it hasn’t. Is that what the patriarchy is? Then I dare say it sounds more like a class system than a system by men *for* men, and only some men who should be deserving of our wrath instead of some Joe living in his parent’s basement, telling a girl on the internet “TITS or GTFO.” And as for the “men who fail to support it”? What’s that supposed to mean? If you haven’t noticed, there isn’t exactly a set of rules for this “patriarchy” we’re all supposedly suffering from. If we don’t know the rules from the get-go, how are we supposed to know how to support it or not? And where are its representatives, pray? Surely there have to be representatives for this worldwide totalitarian rule, to provide information other than what some feminists tell us?

    Quite remarkable, wouldn’t you say, how these feminists know more about the patriarchy than the supposed perpetuators of patriarchy themselves, no? Hell, I didn’t even know about it until a few years ago (right about the time Elevatorgate hit the fan), and even afterwards I’m still gobsmacked as to what it actually is and why men are at the center to blame for everything. Do you honestly think some homeless bloke, with nothing but his drink, his clothes and his cock (to tell you he’s a man), have the power to harm anyone, let alone oppress and/or subjugate women?

    And I wouldn’t compare it to a drug, really. More like a disease. Which brings me to the third point.

    3) Why (to repeat the question), why aren’t we working together? You say it’s been suggested by numerous feminists. Has it? I’ve been lurking for a while here at FtB and I can tell you right now: not by this lot. A lot of “what about the menz?” and “there is no such thing as misandry” and so on, whatever they can do to minimize the struggle that men, too, surely must be feeling in the fight against patriarchy. Weaved into the blog posts of bloggers like Myers, Benson, Zvan, Lousy, Taslima, etc, is this narrative that men are powerful and women are weak; an incredibly condescending and patronizing view, in my opinion, and the canker that is responsible for this affliction is patriarchy.

    Even if it’s a system that should in all cases benefit men, according to some feminists, when you point to circumstances where men are CLEARLY not even remotely privileged and in fact circumstances where women are more privileged than men (like the draft, which still exists in the US), the reason given is “patriarchy hurts men too.” Circular logic. It doesn’t even lend itself to critical thinking. If we’re all suffering, if we’re all carrying this disease (not a drug, disease), then it would make more sense if we all fought it together. (Which hasn’t been done across the board, Jacob, which is my point.)

  161. 161
    Sans-sanity

    “(this one is touchy, as it’s a common MRA refrain (not that they’ve ever tried to actually do anything about it))”

    Wow… you’ve just completley switched to “I want to believe” mode, haven’t you. Go spend 5 minutes on Fathers and Families, or damn, even A Voice for Men and you will see just how indefensible your point is.

    The regularly scheduled line on this one is “Dangerous men’s rights advocates are forcing courts to give custody to abusive fathers.”

    Bloody hell, I’ve driven past protests rallying against how effective men’s advocates have been in this area, and you’re saying they’ve never even tried to do anything?! Heh, if I went somewhere else and repeated you as an example of stuff feminists say, I’d be accused of strawmaning!

  162. 162
    Schala

    @Jacob

    NOW opposes joint custody on the grounds that fathers that actually want it are mostly abusers (which is obviously bullshit).

    NOW is a feminist organization.

    No other known and preeminent feminist organization is trying to counter this, or advocate for presumed joint custody at the start of a case (instead of extreme bias in favor of mothers).

    Thus I can conclude that the *effective* position on custody after divorce held by feminism is one where the mother is always the best, because most fathers suck.

  163. 163
    Schala

    Unlike driving, I think society itself and indeed most people could manage their lives without recourse to trying to harm/devaule women

    But not without trying to harm/devalue men. It would utterly fail to continue its course of exponential growth of economy (it’s already starting to fail that because our population is no longer growing that fast – but imagine if men could opt out from their hard labor “do it and shut up” role en masse? It would cause an economic crash*).

    *Men do jobs that women are unable (mostly due to physical demands) or unwilling (because it’s far, and/or dirty, and/or dangerous) to do, including garbage collector, miner, lumberjack (or its mechanical equivalent), fisherperson, sewage cleaner and more.

    Men are fungible…but also essential. They’re like electricity. Easy to produce (relatively), but you sure as heck notice when you’re out.

    There probably is sexism in those sectors, but that’s not the whole story. Many women (including my own mother) think they are ABOVE doing such tasks (we were talking about manufacture worker and warehouse worker – majority male professions, except in textile), regardless of pay. “It’s men’s work”. Yes, I was flabbergasted when I heard this from my mother (given I’m trans, and this probably screwed her gendered expectations at least about me – one would expect more personal openness).

    I did warehouse work myself, for years. I was physically too weak to do it (5’6″, 105 lbs, and no muscles to talk about), and I only did it out of feeling it was the only option and needing “work” (and got hired because, being perceived as male, I obviously had super powers – I also got fired when they figured I didn’t have super powers). Had I really wanted to work in the sector, I could have looked for lighter-weight sections of the sector (having to do with human food, pills, or cleaning products maybe – I worked with pet food and construction materials – mostly nails and screws).

    The point being, the system can’t afford to cut some slack to men as much as it can afford to do it to women. Because women are not essential to the system’s basic maintenance. Only to its perpetuation. Men don’t all want to work in sewers either, they have to be presented with “rock and a hard place” kind of deal, or have way way higher benefits than now.

  164. 164
    Schala

    The anti-union capitalism is also very anti-men at the base.

    They want men to have the least options, the least job security, and to depend on one place of employment for their insurance and then not quit it if they ever get something that would count as a pre-existing condition in a new job. They want men to have the option to work and shut up, or starve in the street (while women can have a bit more options, including marrying a guy who’s not homeless or very poor – that’s not even marrying up for most, but it sure is financial security).

    That way employers can drive wages down, remove benefits and vacation time. And employees can go individually cry to the boss (and possibly get fired), or quit to the competition (who probably doesn’t offer any better unless their job is in high demand and low supply).

    A paradise for employers, not so much for men.

  165. 165
    iamcuriousblue

    Jacob Schmidt @ 36.2 & 36.3:

    “That feminism focuses on women’s issues does not require that feminism to be unable to deal with all sorts of oppression. It may limit it’s ability to do so, but to argue that it can’t be done just doesn’t follow.”

    It limits the ability to deal with all sorts of oppression because the two are at cross-purposes. Look, I don’t see anything wrong in and of itself of feminism as a movement that is about defending women’s rights and expressing the views of women as an interest group. Within those limitations, it’s no better or worse than other interest group, especially if they’re able to take a broader view and ally with other groups on matters of shared interest, and benign enough that they don’t pursue their interests in a way that is needlessly harmful to others.

    However, when feminism declares itself this grand movement to fix everything that’s wrong and oppressive that it gets itself in trouble. Putting aside the fact that movements with such grand agendas *really* need to be on guard against degenerating into a very destructive kind of radicalism (and feminism ranks alongside Marxism in my book for not putting a good check on that tendency), there’s also the issue that if you’re seriously pursuing the greater good for all, you simply can’t be primarily about the needs of one social group, in this case women. In other words, a movement pursuing an all-around egalitarian agenda would have to be “equalist” rather than “feminist” by default.

    This is not to say a person couldn’t individually be an “equalist” and “feminist”, having a particular focus on women’s rights because that’s what they’re passionate about, but also be able to put on their “equalist” hat, and be able to not just focus on the needs of women when the occasion calls for it. Likewise, there could be an “equalist” men’s movement, focused on the needs of men, but able to put that aside for larger egalitarian interests when needed.

  166. 166
    John Morales

    Schala:

    *Men do jobs that women are unable (mostly due to physical demands) or unwilling (because it’s far, and/or dirty, and/or dangerous) to do, including garbage collector, miner, lumberjack (or its mechanical equivalent), fisherperson, sewage cleaner and more.

    Mmmhmm.

    I did warehouse work myself, for years. I was physically too weak to do it [...]

    Mmmhmm.

    The point being, the system can’t afford to cut some slack to men as much as it can afford to do it to women. Because women are not essential to the system’s basic maintenance. Only to its perpetuation. Men don’t all want to work in sewers either, they have to be presented with “rock and a hard place” kind of deal, or have way way higher benefits than now.

    If women aren’t essential, then men certainly aren’t.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_roles_in_the_World_Wars

  167. 167
    heart attack symptoms

    First off I want to say awesome blog! I had a quick question in which I’d like to ask if you don’t mind.
    I was interested to find out how you center yourself and clear your
    thoughts before writing. I have had difficulty clearing my
    thoughts in getting my ideas out there. I truly do take pleasure
    in writing but it just seems like the first 10 to 15 minutes
    are usually lost just trying to figure out how
    to begin. Any recommendations or hints? Appreciate it!

  168. 168
    karmakin

    I actually wrote this in a comment on your old blog (I think it was your old blog), but it’s still the same thing. I think talking about “misogyny” and “misandry” are entirely missing the point. Or to be more specific, it’s actually quite a bit below where we SHOULD want the actual baseline to be, and as such we shouldn’t focus on those things. I.E. the problem isn’t JUST those things, it’s just basic run of the mill sexism. Now, I don’t think we’ll ever eliminate it entirely…it’s going to be a constant struggle, as humans tend to be pattern-seeking, but that’s the bar that we should be aware of.

    However that’s not what I want to comment on, for the most part.

    I agree with you about the economic roots of oppression. I’ve been mulling it over, and here’s what I think about it (I think). When our economy started to evolve into the corporatist economy that it is today, there are certain traits that made for a “good” leader. Aggression, ruthlessness, etc. In a largely faceless, corporatist system, these are the traits that lead to “success”, for the most part. And for a variety of reasons, in most cases, these were seen as male characteristics, and not female characteristics.

    And thus, why we still see today more men at the top than women. However, over the last few decades, one of the things that feminism has done has been to open the door to see those traits as acceptable in women as well, in order to try and get more women into positions of power. (That being the defining metric of Patriarchy). So we’re starting to see progress in that front, although we’re talking about change that’s probably going to take decades. (I actually think we’ll see a massive shift in a few years just due to demographics)

    But here’s the thing. Screw aggression and ruthlessness. It’s horrible. It’s resulting in a worse and worse life for many people. It’s destroying our society. And to be honest, it’s successful because in the current economic climate it works with little to no costs, and NOT because it’s socially desirable or rewarded. In fact, if you can’t reach those levels, aggression and ruthlessness are definitely seen as NEGATIVE traits. I would argue that in our society they were not seen as feminine traits, not because of any inherent “misogyny”, but because we think these things are beneath women. (What’s the childhood poem? Girls are sugar, spice and everything nice, boys are snails, whales and puppy-dog tails (dismembered is how I took it)) Which is still sexism, of course, and wrong. But it’s hardly hatred.

    So the real question is how do we come up with an economy that balances out the scales, and provides a REAL economic cost to such asshole-dom? The reason it works is because we don’t have employers competing for employees, we have employees competing for jobs. The second this reverses, then typical corporatist behavior suddenly becomes a HUGE liability in terms of the ability to compete.

    That’s the beef I have with Apex Feminism. By focusing on the top of the food chain, I feel like it ends up glorifying that sort of behavior, and sustaining it. Class…and what’s being done to the lower classes right now, is a much more destructive force in our society. I agree with looking at it from a feminist point of view, but unfortunately I find too many people want to sweep it under the rug to protect their own privilege.

  169. 169
    Ally Fogg

    great comment, thanks.

  170. 170
    Schala

    @John

    They could have conscripted less men, and those men would have done the factory work.

    It’s not a job men were unable or unwilling to do that was essential to the survival of society (like sewage and gargage collection).

    They were just in so much of a hurry sending men to die, not enough left.

    Their problem.

  171. 171
    SallyStrange

    When it’s used for erasure, yes I do think so.

    Okay, so erasing other people’s experience is certainly not nice, and can rise to the level of hate speech, but I am not erasing anyone’s experience here. I am merely pointing out that there’s a large overlap between misogyny and homophobia.

    “There’s a think about getting fucked vs. being the fucker – the latter seems to be preferable, the former is reserved for losers, weaklings, etc. ”

    That totally exists in common language. Is that supposed to indicate some kind of sexual caste system? because if it is, here’s a word for you: pegging
    http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/SavageLove?oid=7730

    I’m familiar with pegging… I’m not sure what your point is, though. Some straight men like to be penetrated, yes. Are their preferences regarded as normal, normative, uncontroversial? And, yes, I am talking about a sexual caste system: men do work, women fuck, gestate, give birth, and raise children. That is the social order we’ve only just begun to move out of.

    “You don’t think that there’s a connection between women as sex class, women as fuckholes”

    What does “women as a sex class” even mean? Are the men not also having sex? Are the women not viewing men as a sex class, if they are having sex with them?

    You’re unfamiliar with that terminology? I would think, with your strong interest in matters regarding feminism, discrimination against men, and gender roles, that you would have already encountered this concept. No, describing women as the sex class does not mean that the men are not also having sex (such a simplistic misreading that I’m kind of shocked you advanced it). It means that women are regarded as the class of people whose worth and purpose is defined in large part by their fuckability.

    Isn’t it more than a little androcentric to privielge the male perspective on penetrative sex?
    12.3
    Ginkgo

    Yes, more than a bit. Are you mistaking my descriptions of the dominant culture’s views on sex and gender for an endorsement of same? Simplistic, again.

    “Tell me, Gingko, if it turned out to be simply factual that there’s a causal relationship between homophobia and misogyny, would you still call it hate speech to point that out?”

    It would be about like proving the earth was flat, but if yoyu think you cna prove it, go for it.

    I would put it to you that it’s a teeny bit more plausible to suggest that contempt for women (whose purpose is to be fucked by men) and contempt for men who choose to fuck and be fucked by men are related, than that the earth is flat. I find your juxtaposition of these two concepts – flat earth, and the possibility that homophobia and misogyny are related – to be discouraging. It certainly doesn’t leave me thinking that you’d give my hypothesis or my evidence much of a fair hearing.

    “F2: I don’t want to get hit on. Those dudes won’t take “no” for an answer.”

    Did it ever occur to you to ask while you were talking, or to wonder later, if 1) any of these men had ever turned a woman’s advances down, or 2) if they had, what the consequences had been? Because i cna assure you men report a lot of pretty extreme liberties women take with men’s bodies in places like that, and also some prettty violent responses when they spurn women.

    No, it didn’t occur to me to ask that. Okay, let’s suppose that women sexually harass and assault men in equal numbers as the other way around. Does that mean anything for the hypothesis that homophobia and misogyny are related? Not really.

    Would your guys have been as hesitant to go where women would be doing that, or would they in fact welcome that kind of thing? Because as it stands, it’s not at all clear from your axample is not getting hit they didn’t like, but getting hit on by other men. So your example doesn’t prove much.

    Proof isn’t a useful concept. My example was evidence that this entitled way of acting towards potential sex partners–touching without permission, refusing to take no for an answer–is experienced as men by unpleasant when they are subjected to it, and these two straight dudes were pre-emptively worried about experiencing that at the hands of gay men. When I mentioned going to the other bars, straight bars, these dudes did not express any concerns about having non-consensual sexual contact forced on them by the straight women there. The most parsimonious explanation for their lack of expressed concern is that they were genuinely not worried about it.

    Yes, women do sometimes sexually harass men, but that doesn’t refute the idea that misogyny and homophobia are connected, conceptually.

    “All of it, since I am a gay man. Thanks for asking.”

    And you experienced it as femmephobia?

    When homophobes mock gay men, do they mock the hairy, masculine bears? Or do they generally stick with mocking gay men for being “effeminate,” a word that exists specifically to describe men who evince stereotypically feminine characteristics?

    Anyway, I believe Dr. Cheeselove is saying that he has experienced some homophobia as being at least similar to femme-phobia (please correct me if I’m wrong, Dr. Cheeselove), and other gay men who are friends of mine have expressed similar sentiments, so be careful that you don’t erase their experiences, eh?

  172. 172
    Dr.Cheeselove

    @Allyfog 16.7

    OK, let me try again. Part of the definition I would use of misandry includes a gender-specific, (relative) contempt for the lives and well-being of men and boys.

    This is fine. It’s the rest of your argument that’s a problem

    As it happens, the jobs that I’m really talking about are the ones that are socially necessary but often very low paid.

    You can’t just look at those jobs, though. You have to look at all the jobs. When you stop cherrypicking and look at the historical context, it becomes clear that the narrative you’re suggesting isn’t very convincing.

    The jobs (in my society at least) with the greatest risk of death and serious injury – deep sea fishermen, agricultural labourer, unskilled & semi-skilled construction workers etc) are all quite low paid.

    1. The most dangerous occupation in your country is prostitution. Also one of the worst-paying.

    2. The jobs you listed are all even lower paid if you’re a female working them. And the higher the going payrate, the more effort will be made to keep women out of them. Only when the pay rates fall do those fields become feminized. And there is a long, illustrious, Google-able history of women working ALL of these jobs.

    3. Women are currently doing all of the jobs you listed and female deaths are included in the mortality rates in the statistics available for all of those occupations. But while men are more likely to die on the job from the danger inherent in dangerous work (a danger they are paid more to face than their female counterparts), women are murdered on the job at a higher rate.

    As for the military bit, which you kind of tacked on at the end, that’s pretty fucking huge. Around 50 million men died in the two world wars, either conscripted by law or volunteered due to cultural pressures. As recently as the 1980s, between half a million and a million conscripted men died in the Iran-Iraq war (had they lived, most would be younger than I am today). 80 out of about 200 countries on Earth still have compulsory male-only conscription.

    There so much wrong with your methodology here that I don’t know where to start. You mention male deaths, but not female deaths. You deal with the death of soldiers, but ignore civilian deaths. And again, where is the evidence that men die in war because of misandry? If you are going to suggest that war is caused by hatred of men, then I’d encourage you to conduct research, write a paper, have it published in a peer-reviewed journal and then email me a link. In the meantime, though, you haven’t made that case. What you have here amounts to a hack conspiracy theory (in other news, the rise in crime in the UK is clearly being caused by the Spice Girls).

    So, since this is a rationalist blog site and all, let’s treat the above as a hypothesis. How would we test it were true? Some suggestions:

    The ways you propose to “test” the hypothesis aren’t tests at all. When you try to test something scientifically, you attempt to disprove the hypothesis. Typing out a list of leading questions on the internet =/= good scientific practice.

  173. 173
    SallyStrange

    If “patriarchy” hurts men too, then why is it men are to blame for the hardships of women?

    “Men” are not “patriarchy.” If what you said

    How many people have tried to explain this to you?

    And yet you still repeat this falsehood.

  174. 174
    SallyStrange

    Whoops, I got distracted and didn’t finish my sentence. I was saying that if the sentence I quoted from Pitchguest were true, and feminists maintained that it’s just men who are to blame for women’s problems, then we wouldn’t need the word “patriarchy” at all.

  175. 175
    Gjenganger

    @Schala, Jacob Schmidt Why not just have no roles”?

    Because as long as we are interacting with others, in a social system, we have to adapt our behaviour to fit with the expectations of others. So do the others. That is what roles are, and you cannot really get around that. Doing as you feel comfortable regardless of what others expect, is a bit like insisting on speaking Turkish even when everybody else prefers English. You may have your reasons, but if you want to get along with people you may still be forced to conform.

  176. 176
    Jacob Schmidt

    Oh, for fuck sakes.

    GENDER ROLES. Why not no GENDER ROLES? You keep mixing up societal communication conventions with GENDER ROLES. The former does not necessitate the latter. You are going to have to justify your claim that GENDER ROLES are necessary for communication.

  177. 177
    Jacob Schmidt

    Pitchguest

    1) Is it? That’s one of the definitions provided to me about the patriarchy, which I can provide proof should you want it.

    With the groups I interact with, yes. Show me your proof, apparently there’s someone fucking up the definition I need to have words with.

    But if we’re to compare it to a drug (yet another analogy), then the point is that it *hasn’t* had such wonderful effects.

    I’d say that having a better chance at being hired than a women with the same qualifications is pretty kick ass. From this article: “The researchers found that when the new assistant professor CV had a male name, the candidate was judged by both male and female evaluators to be worthy of hire approximately 73% of the time. When the same CV had a female name, it was rated worthy of hire approximately only 45% of the time.”

    3) Why (to repeat the question), why aren’t we working together? You say it’s been suggested by numerous feminists. Has it? I’ve been lurking for a while here at FtB and I can tell you right now: not by this lot.

    Yes, by this lot. Not to you, specifically, since you tend to be delibrately obtuse, but yes by this lot.

    Even if it’s a system that should in all cases benefit men[1], according to some feminists, when you point to circumstances where men are CLEARLY not even remotely privileged and in fact circumstances where women are more privileged than men (like the draft, which still exists in the US), the reason given is “patriarchy hurts men too.” Circular logic.[2]

    1) It isn’t. Point to me to someone who says that and I’ll point to you to someone who’s wrong. And maybe you could stop citing vague, other feminists and actually deal with what I’m saying.
    2) I don’t think you what what circular reasoning is.

    Sans Sanity

    Wow… you’ve just completley switched to “I want to believe” mode, haven’t you. Go spend 5 minutes on Fathers and Families, or damn, even A Voice for Men and you will see just how indefensible your point is.

    My understanding is that while MRA’s have a fairly large internet presence, their meatspace presence is fairly low. Maybe I’m wrong about how active they are.

    I’m not going to AVFM though. Paul Elam’s “the only women I like are fuck bunnies” bit has soured me entirely.

    The regularly scheduled line on this one is “Dangerous men’s rights advocates are forcing courts to give custody to abusive fathers.”

    I was actually thinking of MRA’s tendancy to whine about how all women are bitches trying to steal their children. But you have fun making stuff up about what I was thinking.

    Schala

    NOW opposes joint custody on the grounds that fathers that actually want it are mostly abusers (which is obviously bullshit).

    NOW is a feminist organization.

    Can you give me a link? Looking them up gives me a bunch of third parties talking about them.

  178. 178
    Jacob Schmidt

    iamcuriousblue

    However, when feminism declares itself this grand movement to fix everything that’s wrong and oppressive that it gets itself in trouble.

    Does it declare itselfs like that? I see plenty of feminists taking into acccout other axes of oppression, but I don’t see many saying they’re part of a grand movement to fix them. Feminism seems, to me, like it deals primarily with gender issues, and takes other issues in stride where possible.

  179. 179
    johngreg

    I agree very much with this comment by karmakin.

    I have thought for many years now that the primary branch of current feminism does not so much promote equality, it promotes the right for women to be as vicious, nasty, and self-concerned as men have shown themselves to be over the last several generations.

    I have, for at least 15 years now, called it distaff black pantherism, in the sense that the Black Panthers were not, contrary to their PR, about freedom and equality, they were for the most part about reversing the status quo, and putting it to the white man.

    And in my belief, the type of feminism evangelicized by groups like Skepchick, and most of the more hardcore feminist bloggers and commentors here, is very much distaff black pantherism. And I feel it harms everyone, men and women, and to a large degree turns back the clock on the real tangible results made by femism over the last century or so. For one simple example, how can any rational, forward thinking humanist possibly accept Amanda Marcotte’s drive to end habeus corpus? That’s moving forward?

  180. 180
    Pitchguest

    Jacob Schmidt

    With the groups I interact with, yes. Show me your proof, apparently there’s someone fucking up the definition I need to have words with.

    “Fucking up the definition”? So you have the optimal definition of what patriarchy is then? Finally. I’ve been going through several feminists who’ve told me they know exactly what the “patriarchy” is, eager to let me know through gritted teeth and told me in no uncertain terms how ignorant and stupid I am for not knowing. So tell me, Jacob Schmidt, once and for all: what is the “patriarchy”?

    Oh, and as for the proof, while it’s unlikely to prove anything conclusive, here it is:

    _http://freethoughtblogs.com/brutereason/2013/04/03/busting-myths-about-feminism-with-science/#comment-7396

    As you can plainly see, very confident and very certain. Something tells me yours is going to be different. Something also tells me that if I should happen to use your definition to define what patriarchy is to other feminists of whom I’m disagreeing, they likely won’t find it to their satisfaction. Just a hunch.

    I’d say that having a better chance at being hired than a women with the same qualifications is pretty kick ass. From this article: “The researchers found that when the new assistant professor CV had a male name, the candidate was judged by both male and female evaluators to be worthy of hire approximately 73% of the time. When the same CV had a female name, it was rated worthy of hire approximately only 45% of the time.”

    Then I would counter it by saying that perhaps “patriarchy” is just very US-centric?

    According to this report in work places conducted in my country of origin, there were little to no discrimination based on gender.

    _http://lnu.diva-portal.org/smash/record.jsf?pid=diva2:420428

    Isn’t that interesting?

    But you missed the mark as to my point. If it’s something that ails both genders, then “patriarchy” shouldn’t be compared to a drug that only benefits one gender (and just a tiny portion of that gender), it should be called a disease. An affliction that both genders affected by it, men and women, should fight together in unison. But that hasn’t actually happened. What it’s been instead is a long, tiresome feud of who’s responsible fucking it up for whom. Don’t you find that strange, John?

    Yes, by this lot. Not to you, specifically, since you tend to be delibrately obtuse, but yes by this lot.

    Haha. Touché- or should that be touchy? In that case, would you do me the honour of showing me whom of “this lot” has extended such an invitation? Not to me specifically, of course, you’ve made that clear, but to others. Shouldn’t be hard to prove. Pray, is it anything like the cease-fire that Lee Moore and Dan Fincke offered for which “this lot” roundly spat on in nigh unanimous indignation?

    Because I have to admit I’ve kept an eye open for any such activity, and under the scrutiny of my watchful eye it never occurred. Sadly. Then again, it’s possible I might have missed it.

    1) It isn’t. Point to me to someone who says that and I’ll point to you to someone who’s wrong. And maybe you could stop citing vague, other feminists and actually deal with what I’m saying.
    2) I don’t think you what what circular reasoning is.

    1) I’m just going by the definitions provided to me. One definition is it’s an institutional structure that supports men at the expense of women, another (notably Wikipedia) says it exploits social mechanisms to keep and retain male dominance and yet another says it simply means asserting the domination of all men over all women in equal terms. (That last one is from Finally Feminism 101, which provides a glossary of words like “patriarchy” and the definition provided is from a book, “Wisdom Ways” by Elisabeth Schussler. [Who's a Christian, by the way, and the full title is "Wisdom Ways: Introducing Feminist Biblical Interpretation."])

    Another issue brought up by Geek Feminism is that using “patriarchy hurts men too” in feminist discourse is apparently a “derailing tactic”, because according to their definition “men are, as a class, the group advantaged by the patriarchy.” Again, just going by the definitions provided to me.

    Finally we have the more loony alternatives, like Twisty Faster and Cathy Brennan. Should I go on?

    I wasn’t aware that I shouldn’t cite other feminists when making my case. You still haven’t provided your own definition of “patriarchy” (of the feminist theory variety) so I can’t well use yours. As for what you’ve said, Jacob, what have you said? All you said in your response to me was to call one of my statements laughably false, imply “patriarchy” is like a drug you imbibe (with side effects) and lastly asserting that numerous feminists have tried to make peace offers to men (or non-feminists, to which I’d assume MRA’s or similar) for which they only received slurs in return. For which of these statements am I supposed to “deal”, exactly?

    2) It might not be the usual format, but it’s about as close to circular as you can get.

  181. 181
    John Morales

    John C. Welch:

    You know Morales, i’m puzzled.

    I know.

    I just said, pretty clearly, that, at least as I see it, there’s no way you can say what “feminists” say about *anything* because they are not some kind of homogenous group that has a unified statement on everything. I even gave a small example of how some of the groups on the fringe have some opinions that the more mainstream groups would consider idiocy.

    No; the original question was about feminism and the subsequent about feminists; since you objected to the existence of feminism as an entity, I changed the subject noun to feminists.

    You then immediately ask me the same fucking question that I just stated was meaningless because you cannot say what feminists think because as an overall group, they have no single unified opinion on anything.

    No, I didn’t, and now you’re giving a different reason for your inability to answer a different question.

    Which now makes me really curious about something, and if you can provide some detail here, it would be interesting, to wit: If it was a meaningless question the first time you asked it, why would that change? It is still a meaningless question as asked, even if you ask it a second time.

    Actually, it’s the first time I’ve asked you, and it’s a different question to that which I asked Pen.

    But fine, you consider it meaningless to refer to stances taken either by feminism or by feminists, since one is non-existent and the other is not monolithic.

    Should you do nothing in the comments on this post until the heat death of the universe but ask this same question of me over, and over, and over again, my response shall not change. The question you asked is meaningless. If you want to change it to reference a specific group that has actually talked about this, then my response would also change, but what you asked me is, by any practical means, literally unanswerable.

    Again: it’s the first time I’ve asked you, and it’s a different question to that which I asked Pen.

    Were I a cynical man, (and as an IT person, I am, in truth, very cynical), i would suggest that you are deliberately asking the question this way so that no matter how I answer, you can, of course, find a feminist group that disagrees, and therefore be able to accuse me of not knowing anything about feminism.

    But you haven’t done so — instead, you’ve taken this opportunity to demonstrate your credibility, since you’ve belied yourself.

    (Nice going!)

    So ask that question a third time, or three hundred times. Ask it until your fingers bleed and your computer breaks down into its component elements. It is still meaningless, and until you change that question to have some specific meaning, my response is the same as the first one you read was.

    Your response was evasiveness.

  182. 182
    Sans sanity

    @Jacob, You mistake me sir, I was not making up things you had said, but making up things you may wish to say in the future should you wish to continue to disparage the efforts of men’s rights activists. As it is you clearly have no idea of what they are actually up to (do fuck bunnies make good editors? Because Elam sure has a lot of women contributing to his sight), and are just running on prejudice “I heard MRAs are just angry blowhards, they mustn’t be doing anything about the causes they complain about! I’m ah tell everyone how they suck for not doing the things I assume they’re not doing!”

    (Now I’m making stuff up about what you’ve said, but I prefer the term hyperbolic summarisation :)

  183. 183
    Jacob Schmidt

    Sans Sanity

    You mistake me sir, I was not making up things you had said, but making up things you may wish to say in the future should you wish to continue to disparage the efforts of men’s rights activists.

    Perhaps no one told you, but pedantry is not wit.

    As it is you clearly have no idea of what they are actually up to (do fuck bunnies make good editors? Because Elam sure has a lot of women contributing to his sight)
    -SNIP-
    Now I’m making stuff up about what you’ve said, but I prefer the term hyperbolic summarisation

    So you use hyperbole, but are unable to recognize it. How surprising.

  184. 184
    Sans sanity

    “Perhaps no one told you, but pedantry is not wit”
    Gracious, no!?

    Nor is obvious deflection an effective mode of argument, for that matter. But hey, why am I trying to help of fool become more effective at misleading people in any case. Lay on Macduff!

    Oh, ok, one more. Your “Fuck bunnies” comment was misrepresentation, not hyperbole. Elam would have to have an existing reputation or tendency for treating women as only good for sex for that to have even come close to working. As it is, his own hyperbolic self depreciation is to characterise his female editors as “Sammich slaves” or terms to that effect.

    Come now, the man deliberately paints a target on his back, if you’re going to take a shot there’s no excuse for missing! :)

  185. 185
    Gjenganger

    @Jacob Schmidt

    First, it is not merely a matter of communication conventions. It is also behaviour, and to some extent even personality. Part of our personalities and tastes are formed by imitation as children – you find out how people are ‘supposed to be’ and you form yourself in that image. The current gender roles are transmitted that way, and end up by influencing how people are, not just how they talk. This is not limited to gender-specific roles, it works the same for gender-neutral, but. say, community-specific roles.

    Second, I am not saying that gender roles are necessary for communication, or rather for social interaction, which is not quite the same thing. You can clearly have a society where the accepted role is the same for both genders. What I was trying to say above was that the difference is not between constraining people into roles and leaving them free to blossom as they will. The difference is between constraining the two sexes into different roles, and constraining everybody into the same role.

    Now, the roles can obviously be more or less rigid, allow for more behaviours, be more tolerant of (certain) deviations. The gender roles have clearly become less rigid in recent times. We can sensibly discuss how rigid social roles ought to be, but a society with ‘no roles’ cannot exist. It is not a society but mass of hermits.

    As for gender roles, I think that some kind of gender differentiation of roles will naturally tend to appear, unless specifically repressed. People classify clearly into two sexes (with some very few exception, pace Schala), so children will notice which group they belong to and look for indications about what that means for who they should be. And there are quite a few uncontroversial sex differences that will show how the two sexes ‘are different’ and anchor the different roles: physical strength and dexterity, size and apearance, pregnancy, breastfeeding, the mechanics of sex and orgasm, timing differences in the maturation of certain cognitive skills in childhood. One might notice that most people select their sexual partners on the basis of sex, and that, by current orthodoxy, which sex you go for is a partly innate characteristic. Personally I think that there are biological components also in some mental attitudes, like aggression, sexual attraction to beauty v. status, desire for plentiful, superficial sex v. deeper, rarer intimacy, … But even if I am wrong here, we still have more than enough sex differences to sustain a difference in roles.

  186. 186
    Schala

    Can you give me a link? Looking them up gives me a bunch of third parties talking about them.

    Michigan NOW opposes forced joint custody for many reasons: it is unworkable for uncooperative parents; it is dangerous for women and their children who are trying to leave or have left violent husbands/fathers; it ignores the diverse, complicated needs of divorced families; and it is likely to have serious, unintended consequences on child support.

    From http://www.now.org/nnt/03-97/father.html

    This quote implies that only men are violent, and that women never would fight father custody if he was a good father (she couldn’t possibly want to spite him or anything). And that he’s likely to “win” custody if he fights for it (they consider joint and complete custody to be 70%). This ignores the legal costs of fighting in the legal court over months, without even a flimsy chance at crumbs (win one weekend every 2 weeks, after 50,000$ and 6 months, congratulations! – most men get told to “drop it, you won’t win” Only those who are rich enough or have a case of her being an abuser or a drug addict, can even win. His fitness as a father doesn’t matter one bit, if she’s fit she wins).

    NOW apparently considers DV to be a crime perpetrated by only men to only women. But that’s not sexist, from an organization for equality, right?

    Does it declare itselfs like that? I see plenty of feminists taking into acccout other axes of oppression, but I don’t see many saying they’re part of a grand movement to fix them. Feminism seems, to me, like it deals primarily with gender issues, and takes other issues in stride where possible.

    Yes, it does declare itself the arbiter on gender issues, male and female issues alike. That feminism will fix it for women, and will fix it for men. It ends up only fixing it for women, and only when the advantage of misogyny is not bigger than the drawback (like for alimony for the spouse – they didn’t fight that).

    If feminism only fights “opened door” cases, like seeing women as victims (something the system is all too ready to do already) so they get provisions against DV, but only women, it’s not fighting for gender equality. It would fight the “closed door” case of seeing men as victims too, so it would fix most of the problem of DV – because by helping every victim, we prevent future victimization by a certain factor (not 100%, but better than nothing). By ignoring victims, they get the message that “sucks to be you” is how the world works, and perpetuate that.

  187. 187
    Schala

    Just to make my case. You’ve seen the movie Looper?

    Long story short, they have time travel, and some guy is a killer for hire who kills bound and gagged people from the future, so they can be “disposed of” in the present.

    The main character foresees his own being disposed of in the future, manages to escape his tormenters and travels back 30 years ago (for him) and to the present (for his younger self). To prevent his wife being killed in the future, he wants to kill a Kingpin kind of guy who was just a kid 30 years ago. The kid has huge telekinetic powers potential, on a Magneto-level.

    And he only became evil because he saw his mom die…by the looper’s future self.

    He got the lesson: People are shits, they must die.

  188. 188
    Schala

    I am merely pointing out that there’s a large overlap between misogyny and homophobia.

    So a part of the problem society has with lesbian women is misandry, right?

    Because if not, you’re inconsistent.

  189. 189
    Schala

    It means that women are regarded as the class of people whose worth and purpose is defined in large part by their fuckability.

    Funny you should say that. Are you assuming men being judged as having more notches on their bedpost is not judging their fuckability? That virgin-shaming is not shaming lack of success in fuckability?

  190. 190
    Jacob Schmidt

    Sans Sanity

    Nor is obvious deflection an effective mode of argument, for that matter.

    Deflection from what?

    Your “Fuck bunnies” comment was misrepresentation, not hyperbole.

    My apologies. It was fuckmuffins. Totally different.

    Schala

    You claimed this: “NOW opposes joint custody on the grounds that fathers that actually want it are mostly abusers (which is obviously bullshit).

    The article is specifying forced joint custody, which is not the same as joint custody. The article specifically states that joint custody is good, so long as both parents agree to it. Not that I agree with most of what the article is saying; I don’t. I don’t think it says what you think it says.

    Also, joint custody between feuding parents can be a very bad thing. There needn’t be any abuse on either side. It can often devolve into using the child as a messenger and other shitty things. Yes, this point is irrelevent; divorced parents fucking up their child is just a touchy issue for me.

    NOW apparently considers DV to be a crime perpetrated by only men to only women. But that’s not sexist, from an organization for equality, right?

    Their failure to recognize that men are abused by significant others is definately sexist, yes. Why you assume I think otherwise, I have no idea.

    Yes, it does declare itself the arbiter on gender issues, male and female issues alike. That feminism will fix it for women, and will fix it for men. It ends up only fixing it for women, and only when the advantage of misogyny is not bigger than the drawback (like for alimony for the spouse – they didn’t fight that).

    I didn’t question feminism’s focus on gender issues, I questioned the claim that feminism tries to fix all issues.

    I’m not sure what your point about Looper is.

  191. 191
    Schala

    Part of our personalities and tastes are formed by imitation as children – you find out how people are ‘supposed to be’ and you form yourself in that image.

    It can be harmless, as in a “try this because so-and-so did it and it looks fun” tryout periods for various things. Trying out sports, trying out dancing, trying out skating, trying out videogames. All harmless.

    The problem comes with the prescription and the being beaten for not conforming. A guy can be inclined to dance, but he’s likely to be so extremely ostracized for it, even if he had no say in it (ie only parents decided), that he might as well be making a choice between “hate life and do what I like” and “have a tolerable life, but can’t do what I like”, and the latter seems better unless you have a passion for it.

    It’s not a natural choice when there’s an electric fence around the choice.

    Second, I am not saying that gender roles are necessary for communication, or rather for social interaction, which is not quite the same thing.

    They’re not necessary for social interaction either.

    Be courteous, be polite when the other isn’t an ass/hostile, and voila, solved all social interactions.

    You can clearly have a society where the accepted role is the same for both genders. What I was trying to say above was that the difference is not between constraining people into roles and leaving them free to blossom as they will. The difference is between constraining the two sexes into different roles, and constraining everybody into the same role.

    We clearly can have zero constraints around role so that we don’t end up with a “unique role” we end up with thousands/millions of templates, not based on genitals. No constraints means you’re free to express and explore as you see fit. You can wear a dress even if you have a penis, you can climb trees even if you have a vulva. And no one should bat an eyelid. Gay couples nowadays are so common that a 1950s reaction of “Oh my God!” would be extremely backwards, most people think it’s totally normal to see a gay couple, even be friends with them. So things can change for the better.

    The gender roles have clearly become less rigid in recent times.

    Men’s role is 90% as rigid as it ever was. There is no mandatory military service for only males, in the US or Canada. SSS can be removed soon I hope. In other countries, mandatory military service is usually mostly or only for men though. Their role as provider is as there as ever – they can’t “live off someone” without losing face. Even if they need it, even if it was agreed upon between the parties (ie SAHD). Their role as protector is as there as ever – you need to be willing and able to inflict and take violence to protect your loved ones (while they’re not expected to do the same for you) regardless of size, ability or stance towards violence (you can’t be a pacifist).

    Women’s role was softened mainly due to contraception becoming widespread. Now it’s super open. Can work part time, full time, stay home with kids, and no one really cares (the “have it all” crowd are a minority). Can decide to have lots of kids, abort all of them. Can decide to wear pants, wear skirts, wear suits, wear dresses, wear heels, wear men’s formal shoes, wear make-up, or not, have long or short hair (with “no hair” being the last taboo). Can shave or not. Can follow fashion or shun it. Can play sports, or do arts. Can be a geek, or a jock.

    For sure women will tend to have less incomes. If 100% of men feel full-time family-supporting wage work is their only option, while most women feel they have other options than full-time family-supporting wage work, less than 100% of women will pick it. If it’s sub-optimal (for health, happiness), maybe very few will pick it.

    We can sensibly discuss how rigid social roles ought to be, but a society with ‘no roles’ cannot exist. It is not a society but mass of hermits.

    It is an utopic society (doesn’t mean it’s not realizable it’s just ideal) that allows people to reach their full potential, without trying to control the masses to exploit their insecurities and fears for financial benefit.

    As for gender roles, I think that some kind of gender differentiation of roles will naturally tend to appear, unless specifically repressed.

    Of the 60/40 tendency, not of the 90/10 or 95/5 tendency. Playing with dolls isn’t a 100% female thing. It might be MORE female, but if people who play with dolls are 60% girls and 40% boys, it’s stupid to call it a girl’s toy. It’s a toy. Right now we punish boys who play with it, and punish girls who don’t. So we try to engineer a result, harming people in the way. Just because we prefer black and white stuff to grey.

    People classify clearly into two sexes (with some very few exception, pace Schala), so children will notice which group they belong to and look for indications about what that means for who they should be.

    I clearly identify as female, except I didn’t do so on the basis of long hair, dresses or bow in the hair. I did so on the basis of endocrinology. The role doesn’t matter. They could be identical, or millions of roles. I identify with the biology, not the role.

    And there are quite a few uncontroversial sex differences that will show how the two sexes ‘are different’ and anchor the different roles: physical strength and dexterity, size and apearance, pregnancy, breastfeeding, the mechanics of sex and orgasm, timing differences in the maturation of certain cognitive skills in childhood.

    I’m sure 5 years old go “I’m a girl because I can have multiple orgasms”. And kids have the same dexterity and strength on average. And appearance is pretty much identical too. You can very easily dress a boy as a girl, or vice-versa, and nobody would know, if the kids is coached how to ‘pass’. There are no “physical tells” besides genitals, for kids. Until puberty anyways.

    One might notice that most people select their sexual partners on the basis of sex, and that, by current orthodoxy, which sex you go for is a partly innate characteristic.

    We are a society very closed on the concept of bisexuality. Even gay and lesbian people shun bisexuals as would-be traitors “who can’t pick”. They’re the forgotten ones in sexuality. This doesn’t mean bisexuality isn’t natural. We just love absolutes. Round peg, square hole, and we’ll make it fit even if we have to break the peg.

    Personally I think that there are biological components also in some mental attitudes, like aggression, sexual attraction to beauty v. status, desire for plentiful, superficial sex v. deeper, rarer intimacy, … But even if I am wrong here, we still have more than enough sex differences to sustain a difference in roles.

    I think that the kind of intimacy men seek is different from the one women seek, on average, because of how we treated them differently since birth. We coddled and hugged and cooed more at girls, gave them more attention, and more love. The guys learned to do with tough love, didn’t have high expectations of intimacy from getting way less.

    Even if there is a small biological tendency for women to like foreplay more than men, it’s a small tendency. Same for cuddling.

    The only thing I can think of that could be a major difference is verbosity. Verbal diarrhea are way more common in women. And in aspie people of either sex (me included).

  192. 192
    Schala

    I’m not sure what your point about Looper is.

    Ignore victims, or treat them like shit without repercussions and a certain portion of them will go on becoming their abuser – having no concern for the well-being of others, because no one had for theirs.

    Having no DV shelters for men and no rape crisis centers for men, while also having campaigns showing only male perps and female victims cements the (already prevalent) view that males cannot be victims, and even less at the hands of female perps.

    If feminism says men are not victims, it must be true, they’re on the left! Not like those right-wing people who are against helping victims. That’s what the government’s left hears. The government’s right already doesn’t care one bit about men.

    I didn’t question feminism’s focus on gender issues, I questioned the claim that feminism tries to fix all issues.

    Focus on only FEMALE issue, and then saying they cover ALL gender issues, is being disingenuous.

    I couldn’t find a better quote from NOW btw, but there is one saying that those who want joint custody (and face any opposition whatsoever, like someone contesting their getting custody) are mostly abusers and batterers. Note that accusing your ex of being a rapist or perp of DV is common, because it works. There’s no consequences for the accuser, except gaining more chance at custody. And due to the gendered nature of feminism advocacy and how well it penetrated society, only women can credibly make those accusation and be believed enough for it to affect custody chances.

  193. 193
    Schala

    1. The most dangerous occupation in your country is prostitution. Also one of the worst-paying.

    Wrong, it pays many times the amount a minimum wage job pays. And that minimum wage job can be in awful conditions too.

    3. Women are currently doing all of the jobs you listed and female deaths are included in the mortality rates in the statistics available for all of those occupations. But while men are more likely to die on the job from the danger inherent in dangerous work (a danger they are paid more to face than their female counterparts), women are murdered on the job at a higher rate.

    A higher rate compared to all female murdered or compared to male murdered on the jobs?

    There so much wrong with your methodology here that I don’t know where to start. You mention male deaths, but not female deaths. You deal with the death of soldiers, but ignore civilian deaths.

    Except for bombings (which are pretty indiscriminate), most civilians killed are male (they’re selected to die), women can often be rescued by UN and such. Men are never rescued.

    Case-studies range from The Paraguayan War of 1864-70 to the gendercides in Kosovo and East Timor in 1999. Other cases of gendercide against men include the Indonesian genocide of 1965-66, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Kashmir/Punjab/The Delhi Massacre, Sri Lanka, Burundi, Colombia, and the Anfal Campaign in Iraqi Kurdistan (1988). We analyze little-known gendercides such as the Nazi murder of 2.8 million Soviet prisoners-of-war in just eight months of 1941-42 — possibly the most concentrated mass killing of any kind in human history.

    From http://www.gendercide.org/what_is_gendercide.html

  194. 194
    Jacob Schmidt

    Ignore victims, or treat them like shit without repercussions and a certain portion of them will go on becoming their abuser – having no concern for the well-being of others, because no one had for theirs.

    I still don’t see the relevance.

    Having no DV shelters for men and no rape crisis centers for men, while also having campaigns showing only male perps and female victims cements the (already prevalent) view that males cannot be victims, and even less at the hands of female perps.

    Again, I don’t question the sexism in ignoring male rape or abuse victims. I don’t know why you think I would.

    Focus on only FEMALE issue, and then saying they cover ALL gender issues, is being disingenuous.

    From my limited experience, feminism can be helpful towards men. Everything you’re talking about, from assuming men are violent and abusive to erasing the existence of male rape victims, I learned from feminists. The list I gave above @36.2 I learned from feminists, most of whom are on this blog network. I will concede that feminism, in general, has done little for men’s issues; to argue that it never does or that it can’t, however, is wrong. Most of the feminists on this network mock the ridiculous idea that men must be “manly”, or that only women can be victims, or any other kind of gender binary bullshit.

  195. 195
    Jacob Schmidt

    There’s no consequences for the accuser, except gaining more chance at custody.

    No concequence for DV, I might be willing to grant you. But rape? Avoiding the concequences of accusing someone of rape is the very goddamn reason rape is under reported for both genders.

  196. 196
    Schala

    he list I gave above @36.2 I learned from feminists, most of whom are on this blog network. I will concede that feminism, in general, has done little for men’s issues; to argue that it never does or that it can’t, however, is wrong. Most of the feminists on this network mock the ridiculous idea that men must be “manly”, or that only women can be victims, or any other kind of gender binary bullshit.

    I’ve seen it argued, by reasonable feminists who don’t ban me for dissenting and having strongly-opposed opinions (like at Alas, a blog, and another blog I only went once), that having funding for male DV shelters would take money from female DV shelters, and thus it would be bad for women, and thus an idea they opposed.

    The zero-sum game mentality, from the very same people who say equal rights are not a zero-sum game.

    I learned from feminism too, that men not being allowed to be feminine was bad. Except I don’t agree it stems from female-hatred or feminine-hatred.

    I’m a trans woman. I’ll get hatred if they know I was born with a penis, and courteous normal behavior if they don’t know (and it’s not obvious at first sight). If they hated feminity or femaleness, they’d hate me regardless. They only treat me with contempt when they think I usurped my position through trickery and deceit.

  197. 197
    Schala

    No concequence for DV, I might be willing to grant you. But rape? Avoiding the concequences of accusing someone of rape is the very goddamn reason rape is under reported for both genders.

    The accusation needs not be substantiated. It can even be proven wrong later, and still no consequence. You don’t revisit your trauma if you made the event up, and you don’t weaken your chances at custody, or your credibility, or face a fine for perjury or anything.

    Rape is pretty much NOT reported for female on male rape. I’d be surprised if up to 10% are reported. I think 2% is more likely.

  198. 198
    Jacob Schmidt

    The accusation needs not be substantiated. It can even be proven wrong later, and still no consequence. You don’t revisit your trauma if you made the event up, and you don’t weaken your chances at custody, or your credibility, or face a fine for perjury or anything.

    In Canada, we had a case out east where the rape of a young woman was recorded, and passed around her school. The police refused to do anything on the matter, and the young women was harrassed until she committed suicide. She, and many others I might add, had evidence. Yet now she’s dead for accusing some young men of raping her.

    There can be some serious percussions to accusing someone of rape, even if you have evidence. A woman could potentially get away scott free; that doesn’t make it likely, particularly in a culture where women are so often harrassed for far less. There’s more than just legal consequences to consider.

    That the rape of men is less reported than the rape of women doesn’t matter; it doesn’t demonstrate that there can be no consequences for a woman making a rape accusation.

    I’ve seen it argued, by reasonable feminists who don’t ban me for dissenting and having strongly-opposed opinions (like at Alas, a blog, and another blog I only went once), that having funding for male DV shelters would take money from female DV shelters, and thus it would be bad for women, and thus an idea they opposed.

    The zero-sum game mentality, from the very same people who say equal rights are not a zero-sum game.

    Money and rights aren’t the same thing. Money can in fact be modeled using a zero sum assumption, since the money must come from somewhere. But that’s an aside.

    Maybe I’m not making this clear. I’m not saying all feminists ever are helpful to men. That’s not it at all. I’m saying feminism has the capacity to be helpful to men, and I’ve seen it happen. That some or even most feminists opose ideas that would help eradicate systemic forces against men does not contradict what I’m saying. I’m aware such feminists exist; they are wrong. Absolutely.

    I’m a trans woman. I’ll get hatred if they know I was born with a penis, and courteous normal behavior if they don’t know (and it’s not obvious at first sight).

    I’m trying to not be condescending. I’m sorry if I fuck it up.

    I don’t deny that feminism has a problem with transphobia. I do deny, however that all feminists do. The ones that I learned from (many on this network) are very supportive of trans rights. I’ve seen a number of comment threads turn into a dogpile, with everyone piling on the transphobic asshole trying to defend his or her hateful statements.

    If you feel alianated from feminism because of feminist transphobia, there’s little I can say. You’re probably right to feel that way. I don’t want to say, “Just give them a chance”, since you’ve probably heard it before, and it was probably bad advice. All I can say is that, from my cisgendered perspective, this particular group of feminists don’t act the way you’re describing.

  199. 199
    Schala

    There can be some serious percussions to accusing someone of rape, even if you have evidence. A woman could potentially get away scott free; that doesn’t make it likely, particularly in a culture where women are so often harrassed for far less. There’s more than just legal consequences to consider.

    I was specifically talking about accusations during a custody hearing for divorce. Not a criminal accusation. Normally the accusation is used as a lever to get more sympathy, or to attempt to prove the husband is unfit, without any proof. If the custody hearing ends before the procedures can prove it didn’t happen, she gets custody during that time, and can use that as leverage to say its habitual for her to have custody.

  200. 200
    Schala

    If you feel alianated from feminism because of feminist transphobia, there’s little I can say. You’re probably right to feel that way. I don’t want to say, “Just give them a chance”, since you’ve probably heard it before, and it was probably bad advice. All I can say is that, from my cisgendered perspective, this particular group of feminists don’t act the way you’re describing.

    I feel alienated from feminism partly because of transphobia, but mostly because of misandry.

    Some will say Mary Daly’s transphobia was awful, but her misandry was peachy. I say both are awful.

    Especially since I can claim with assurance that the transphobia I can/would/have experience(d) is from misandry.

    For example, bathroom panic topics stem from the idea that men are evil predatory beasts who will rape any woman given the chance, and that since trans women are “really men”, they are just as dangerous. I don’t only reject that trans women are “just as dangerous” as men. I reject the premise that maleness itself is dangerous. Unisex bathrooms would not see chaos and rampant rape because of men.

    This is an argument mostly used by conservatives, and TERFs. Though the accusation that men are particularly susceptible to be violent (sexually or otherwise), especially against women, is extremely widespread, including mainstream feminism. I reject this premise as well. The accusation against trans women gets the left riled up. The accusation against men gets people to agree with it.

  201. 201
    Jacob Schmidt

    I was specifically talking about accusations during a custody hearing for divorce. Not a criminal accusation.

    And you think this stops the possibility of the accusation becomes public? Whether or not it’s a criminal accusation does not matter; many women face harassment for accusing men of rape. I’m not saying that women can’t use rape accusations to their advantage. I’m saying it’s ridiculous to assume that there are no consequences for the accuser.

    I feel alienated from feminism partly because of transphobia, but mostly because of misandry.

    I understand that. I was only commenting on alienation from the former.

    Some will say Mary Daly’s transphobia was awful, but her misandry was peachy. I say both are awful.

    Especially since I can claim with assurance that the transphobia I can/would/have experience(d) is from misandry.

    Can you? I accept that some parts of transphobia is based on misandry (the same way some aspects of homophobia are based on misogyny), but all of it? I’ve seen MRA’s complain about misandry, and then go on to make hateful comments about transgender women. I don’t think it’s reasonable to claim that the only source of transphobia is misandry.

    I think it’s wrong to claim that hatred of a group has any one source. The hatred is often irrational, and justifications for it are often ad hoc bullshit. When you dismantle one source, 3 more pop up. Or the bigot in question just throws up their hands and says, “Those people are just wrong/sick.”

    Though the accusation that men are particularly susceptible to be violent (sexually or otherwise), especially against women, is extremely widespread, including mainstream feminism. I reject this premise as well. The accusation against trans women gets the left riled up. The accusation against men gets people to agree with it.

    For how widespread it is, I rarely see it. I see far more people attacking that premise than accepting it.

    Within feminism, I see the claim that we live in a society that devalues women and teaches men to dominate. I see the claim that much of the abuse women see from men has a cultural component, and that changing the culture would do wonders for this. I’ve never seen a feminist claim that men are inherently abusive, only that we live in a culture that sometimes encourages them to be.

  202. 202
    Schala

    I’ve never seen a feminist claim that men are inherently abusive, only that we live in a culture that sometimes encourages them to be.

    TERFs claim that socialization is inevitable
    Trans women are socialized the way men are

    Thus trans women are evil oppressing violent people, who are really men because they didn’t have female socialization and childhood, also bleeding.

    I know it’s not logical, but that’s the thought process.

    I see the claim that much of the abuse women see from men has a cultural component, and that changing the culture would do wonders for this.

    Most abuse from men is directed at other men, because while they’ve been socialized to respond with violence and be able to use it (or suffer bad consequences for “being too wimpy”), they’ve also been socialized to pedestalize women, never hurt women, and almost worship women. But not too much of the latter or you become a Nice Guy – too supplicative is unattractive.

    So men suffer more violence in all forms except rape outside prison (where they’re a bit less than half the victims), mostly at the hands of other men. Women mostly suffer violence in the forms of DV and rape.

    That doesn’t make men more dangerous in women’s bathrooms than women in men’s bathrooms. Or people in unisex bathrooms (with capacity for more than 1 person).

    It’s a paranoid fear based on thin air and “Protect The Women And Children” conservative narratives. It doesn’t sound better when it comes from moderates or leftists.

  203. 203
    Jacob Schmidt

    Schala, I’ve no idea what the hell you’re going on about anymore. You’ve built a nice case to attack the notion that men are necessarily violent. I agree with you. So do many feminists. Specifically, the feminists I associate with.

    Most abuse from men is directed at other men, because while they’ve been socialized to respond with violence and be able to use it (or suffer bad consequences for “being too wimpy”), they’ve also been socialized to pedestalize women, never hurt women, and almost worship women.

    Men are raised to treat women as objects. We’re raised to treat them as if they’re intellectually inferior. The “worship” you’re describing is only “worship” in the most condescending sense; buy her pretty things and whisper sweet nothings so she’ll give you a blowjob and you can go brag to your friends later. No, women absolutely are not “worshiped” by the majority of men; they’re often treated as things to manipulate and fuck.

  204. 204
    Schala

    Men are raised to treat women as objects. We’re raised to treat them as if they’re intellectually inferior. The “worship” you’re describing is only “worship” in the most condescending sense; buy her pretty things and whisper sweet nothings so she’ll give you a blowjob and you can go brag to your friends later. No, women absolutely are not “worshiped” by the majority of men; they’re often treated as things to manipulate and fuck.

    We can play ping-pong with this, because for every notion that women are objects, you have the notion that men are walking wallets. Equally embraced, mostly by conservatives.

    You say “we” when you talk about men. You might notice I never include myself in any group, except maybe “society”. I don’t include myself in women, in men, in trans people. I talk about concepts, not specific people.

    Women are raised to treat men as “useful” to attain objective. They’re raised to treat them as if they’re stupid, immature, immoral, and inherently that way (can’t change them much). Men get told condescending things about how they’re “big and strong”, before being asked to do a task, for someone else calling herself weak (regardless of actual capacity – two kids are likely to be just as strong). String men along a la Sex and the City, get treats and gifts, and sex too, and then brag to your friends about the Gucci you scored.

    See, I can do that too.

  205. 205
    John C. Welch

    Changing your answer from a concept to a group that encompasses billions of people across the globe still doesn’t make it answerable in any useful fashion.

    Should you wish to specify which feminists you’re talking about, sure, I’ll take a whack at that. For example, I don’t have to “tell” you what one subgroup, NOW, the National Organization of Women thinks on military issues, they have a fine set of links dealing with that very subject: http://www.now.org/issues/military/

    But that’s not “feminists”, that’s one specific group of feminists. That’s what NOW, as a group, “officially” thinks about various military issues including women in the military. For the draft specifically, there’s this statement from here – http://www.now.org/history/timeline.html:

    “1980 NOW announces opposition to the draft, but states that if there is a draft, NOW supports the inclusion of women on the same basis as men. ”

    But that doesn’t answer your question as asked. NOW is neither “feminists” or “feminism”. It’s one group, with a conveniently set up web site. Getting information on what they think on major issues is pretty simple. But to say NOW represents all feminists or feminism would be untrue, and in some cases, a blatant lie. They are but one group out of many.

    You asked about “feminists” and “feminism” which means, by the way you asked it, all of them. That is an unanswerable question. It’s an unanswerable question regardless of whom you ask. And based on your answer, I think that’s the point in you asking it that way. Ask a question that’s so vague that any attempt to answer it will always be wrong. Obvious, but given who you’re clearly used to dealing with, I see where it would work.

    My response wasn’t evasiveness, it was pointing out the flaw in your question. Should you care to fix that flaw, I’ll care to try to answer it.

  206. 206
    Pitchguest

    Speaking of ping-pong, I never did get a definitive answer about the patriarchy.

    The post’s still there, Jacob, when you’re ready.

  207. 207
    oolon

    @PitchGuest. Jacob was/is having an interesting conversation with Schala… I can’t speak for Jacob but what is the point of a conversation about patriarchy with you?

    If “patriarchy” hurts men too, then why is it men are to blame for the hardships of women?

    You then link as evidence of this a comment that clearly contradicts your assertion! But you think it supports it….. Weird reading comprehension fail.
    _http://freethoughtblogs.com/brutereason/2013/04/03/busting-myths-about-feminism-with-science/#comment-7396
    This comment clearly contradicts the quote from you above. In fact I’d say the bit in it about conspiracy theories not being correct quite aptly describes your position. There is no Patriarchal Men in Black, I know you like sinfest and the patriarchy is personified as the devil character, but that is not meant literally, you know that, right?

    In fact anyone reading this should look at how clearly it was explained to PG in that thread by Miri and others, he was hand held through it and turns nasty and condescending as usual. You know the definition is not that men are to blame, its been explained to you many many times. Just because you can find some ppl who identify as feminists saying that (You didn’t actually cite any)… Well big whoop, go argue with them.

    Finally PG, your obtuse nature is shown nicely here… You didn’t actually link to one of your citations, for good reason.
    _http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/2007/03/21/faq-isnt-the-patriarchy-just-some-conspiracy-theory-that-blames-all-men-even-decent-men-for-womens-woes/

    …another says it simply means asserting the domination of all men over all women in equal terms.

    *Very* next sentence is “The theoretical adequacy of patriarchy has been challenged…[as a result]“, so in a post that challenges some definitions and uses of patriarchal theory you cherry pick to make it look like the author is asserting the very thing they are challenging!

    Again, just going by the definitions provided to me.

    _http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias –> u haz it!

  208. 208
    B-Lar

    Stem cells are a highly morphable type of ceels which all cells start as at first, and then these cells have the primary function of becoming whatever they are needed to become. Each other type of cell has a specific role to play in the overall health of the organism but they all come from a role which is inherently plastic

    We need a single role to teach all children that naturally evolves into whatever role that person then matures into as a result of their environment and experiences.

    A gender neutral role which:
    Promotes empathy, fostering understanding and acceptance of difference,
    Promotes inquisitiveness, Demotes unquestioning obedience,
    Judges success based on a wide range of criteria (as opposed to single or narrow ranges),
    Values integrity and truth,
    Introduces cause and effect as the force that drives our reality,
    Introduces the concept of cognitive error/bias,

  209. 209
    B-Lar

    My conclusion: a lot (definitely not all but a large portion) of homophobia from straight men is fear of being treated the way they are socialized to treat women.

    SallyStrange, you never fail to make me stop and think about stuff that I have never thought about before. If this conclusion turned out to be true, it would be living poetry.

    Are you assuming men being judged as having more notches on their bedpost is not judging their fuckability? That virgin-shaming is not shaming lack of success in fuckability?

    Schala, The distiction has been made that there is a significant difference between the Fucker and the Fucked dynamics. Men are judged by conquest (on the number of fucks that they have acheived), not on their fuckability, which I read as ‘their potential to induce the desire to fuck them in others’.

    You appear to be conflating the masculine aspect with the feminine aspect on this topic, however, as I expected you to do no less, perhaps the bias which kicks in everytime I see your name is clouding my judgement here. Regardless, we are all judged by the myriad ways in which we fuck; My observations are that Women are judged on their fuckability significantly more than men are, and their fuckability is brought up in leiu of intellectual, leadership, potato-growing, etc judgements reflexively.

  210. 210
    Jacob Schmidt

    Ptichguest

    At your request. That’s a long post, so this’ll be a long response.

    A general statement, “patriarchy” is a system by men, for men, where women exist at the expense of men to be oppressed and subjugated.

    Contrast the above with your “proof”:

    Wait, you think the word ‘patriarchy’ is necessary? Look, jackass, I don’t know if you’re aware of this, but patriarchy is a description of structural biases that support men at the expense of women. Apparently, you are too stupid to google for 20 seconds and find abundant evidence (And a non-straw definition) so here’s my links, working properly:

    There’s no ‘conspiracy’. It’s not an overt plan thought up by the Men in Black or whatever, it’s inertia from millenia of oppression. Only anti-feminist know-nothings maintain that it must mean a conspiracy, so they can pretend the obvious structures aren’t what we mean.

    Your “proof” doesn’t say what you think it does. “Supporting men at the expense of women” neither means “all men gain always” nor “for men; by men” nor “women exist to be subjugated”.

    But you missed the mark as to my point. If it’s something that ails both genders, then “patriarchy” shouldn’t be compared to a drug that only benefits one gender (and just a tiny portion of that gender), it should be called a disease. An affliction that both genders affected by it, men and women, should fight together in unison. But that hasn’t actually happened. What it’s been instead is a long, tiresome feud of who’s responsible fucking it up for whom. Don’t you find that strange, John?

    Oh dear lord. This is why I call you obtuse. Look at what you first wrote: “A general statement, “patriarchy” is a system by men, for men, where women exist at the expense of men to be oppressed and subjugated. But then it makes no sense that it should hurt men too.

    Just because A has some benefits doesn’t mean it can’t have some bad side effects. Just because a drug is beneficial doesn’t mean it can’t have some bad side effects. Even assuming your false definition of patriarchy is true, men benefitting from patriarchy can, in fact, be harmed by it, from time to time. That was the only meaning of the anology.

    Haha. Touché- or should that be touchy? In that case, would you do me the honour of showing me whom of “this lot” has extended such an invitation? Not to me specifically, of course, you’ve made that clear, but to others. Shouldn’t be hard to prove.

    No. I’m not trolling through archives of multiple blogs to bring up specific quotes. Don’t believe me? That’s fine. I don’t care.

    I’m just going by the definitions provided to me. One definition is it’s an institutional structure that supports men at the expense of women, another (notably Wikipedia) says it exploits social mechanisms to keep and retain male dominance and yet another says it simply means asserting the domination of all men over all women in equal terms. (That last one is from Finally Feminism 101, which provides a glossary of words like “patriarchy” and the definition provided is from a book, “Wisdom Ways” by Elisabeth Schussler. [Who's a Christian, by the way, and the full title is "Wisdom Ways: Introducing Feminist Biblical Interpretation."])

    The first two are different wordings of the same concept. The third simply states that, all else being equal, men are in the better position; this definition is perfectly in line with the first two. You haven’t come up with 3 seperate definition. It’s also notable that Finally Feminism specifically states that not all men support patriarchy.

    Finally we have the more loony alternatives, like Twisty Faster and Cathy Brennan. Should I go on?

    Right. Because we must judge all feminism by Cathy Brennan, or other narrow groups of feminists. It’s like you’re paradoxically honest about your intellectual dishonesty.

    I wasn’t aware that I shouldn’t cite other feminists when making my case.

    I specified vague other feminists, but whatever. The problem is that you keep citing other feminist’s supposed definitions of patriarchy to attack mine. It’s an obvious strawman.

    You still haven’t provided your own definition of “patriarchy”[1] (of the feminist theory variety) so I can’t well use yours. As for what you’ve said, Jacob, what have you said?[2] All you said in your response to me was to call one of my statements laughably false, imply “patriarchy” is like a drug you imbibe (with side effects)[3] and lastly asserting that numerous feminists have tried to make peace offers to men (or non-feminists, to which I’d assume MRA’s or similar)[4] for which they only received slurs in return. For which of these statements am I supposed to “deal”, exactly[5]?

    1) How about the one used in the OP?
    2) Not much; I did point out that your definition was wrong, and I gave examples of PHMT. I don’t see the point in claiming that patriarchy can’t hurt men.
    3) I didn’t imply, I openly stated. In at least one respect, they are similar.
    4) Uhh… no. I made no such claim. “Peace offers” or similar is not anywhere in my posts. I claim that there are feminists who want to work with men on fixing gender issues, nothing more. Further, “peace offers” assumes a state of war or similar; it assumes an idea many feminists don’t hold.
    5) You aren’t ‘supposed” to deal with anything; why you feel the need, I have no idea. But rambling on making references to vague other people who supposedly disagree with me accomplishes nothing; not in the least because it does nothing to respond to what few claims I have made towards you.

    It might not be the usual format, but it’s about as close to circular as you can get.

    Circular reasoning is where the conclusion is assumed in the premise: “God must exist because god made us”. What you’re probably trying to accuse feminists of would be called ad hoc justifications. However, the accusation only holds if feminists define patriachy the way you claim they do; so far, it appears they don’t.

  211. 211
    Jacob Schmidt

    Oooh, I also found this definition pretty good:

    It does not mean “men are bad and evil and want to oppress women.” It means, “a societal system that, in general, privileges men over women.” .Both men and women, of course, are complicit in this system, and that doesn’t mean that men as a group intentionally make it so. (Although some probably do.)

    I found that one in the OP of the blog post you sent me to. Yet, somehow, you asserted, “patriarchy is a system by men, for men, where women exist at the expense of men to be oppressed and subjugated”. So, at best, you’re cherry picking your definitions for your own convienience; at worst, you’ve no reading comprehension skills, intentionally or otherwise. My guess is a mix of the two.

  212. 212
    Schala

    Schala, The distiction has been made that there is a significant difference between the Fucker and the Fucked dynamics. Men are judged by conquest (on the number of fucks that they have acheived), not on their fuckability, which I read as ‘their potential to induce the desire to fuck them in others’.

    If I call my car ” a means of transportation from point A to point B” and you call your car “the awesome super cool motor machine of hell”, we’re still talking about cars.

    Being fucked or fucking is senseless, we all participate in the act, we all seek the act. And yes, men who can get to have the act are celebrated as fuckable.

    Note that I’m not mentioning asexual people as it’s likely they don’t seek the act in the first place, and don’t measure (or shouldn’t measure) their prowness or value by something useless like how fuckable they are, since its irrelevant to them.

  1. 213
    All I want for Christmas… | A feminist deconstruction site

    […] I think MRA’s can gtfo, and I am a firm believer in male privilege, this article makes a valid point about why we need to talk about misandry (although this term is quite […]

Leave a Reply

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

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