Malestrom pt 2: When anger is justified »« How not to write about false rape allegations

Malestrom pt 1: The rights and wrongs of anger

This is part of a series asking why (some) men are so angry. For the introduction and links to other posts in the series as they appear, go here


As I’ve said before, anger is not the enemy of empathy and compassion, it is often their offspring. Anyone who can survey the global landscape of injustice, suffering, oppression and environmental vandalism and not feel a surge of anger is, in my view, somehow lacking. It is essential to be angry. It is also essential to ensure that the anger is not cut adrift from its parents. Anger is an unruly child and like any child it is prone to stupidity and self-destructive tendencies. It needs the guiding hands of compassion and empathy to keep it in check and occasionally banish it to the naughty step to calm down.

In beginning this series on men’s anger, it was important to me to stress from the outset that there are good reasons to be angry at some of the issues that specifically affect men. Not only to be angry at those issues, but to include them in a very heavy bundle of things in the world one could be legitimately angry about.

Society treats men and boys in many ways that are unfair, unjust and harmful. Some of these are institutionalised and formal: the workings of the family courts (especially their inability to enforce contact arrangements for fathers); male-only military conscription in 40% of countries on earth; or the legality of male genital mutilation. Others are consequential – the (usually unintended) results of broader policy decisions which impact negatively and disproportionately upon men and boys – educational underachievement; provision of physical and mental health services; vastly disproportionate workplace deaths and so on.  Yet more are cultural – formally unwritten but woven through our beliefs, assumptions, prejudices and the way we socialise each generation: the belief that male victims of violence and abuse are less deserving of sympathy; the ‘man-up’ policing of emotional expression; enforced conformity of gender performance; the oppressive imposition of violence and aggression and so much more.

All of these problems disproportionately (or even exclusively) affect men and boys. That’s not to say they all affect all of us of course, but only a lucky few will dodge every one.  These are not the only problems in the world, and I am certainly not arguing that they are more significant or urgent than the problems created by racism, class or homophobia or the problems created by our society for women. However I do acknowledge that the problems are real and I respect and salute those who are angry enough about them to try to make them better – providing they don’t trample over the rights to justice, welfare and wellbeing of others in the process.

Anger needs to be tempered and focused by empathy and compassion, because without them, the monstrous child will smash the nearest object to hand. This is when the angry dispossessed will grab for easy answers in fascism or religious fundamentalism, and where gender warriors often reach for the claw hammers of abuse and disdain.

Whenever I write about male gender issues such as men’s mental health or educational underachievement, I can guarantee a smattering of emails, comments and messages from a few feminists saying something like “Oh cry me a river” or simply “LOL”. I have nothing but contempt for such attitudes, just as I have nothing for contempt for those men’s activists who become so wrapped up in their own concerns around male victims of false accusations that they will dismiss, downplay or mock the extent and profound trauma of rape. Oppression and suffering are not zero sum games, and compassion is not a finite resource. If your anger is obscuring your humanity, you are doing it wrong.

I’m not one who argues that just because a men’s rights activist says something, it must be wrong. That is a logical fallacy of the first degree.  I try to be open to ideas whatever their origin, and when I disagree with MRAs (which is often) I’ll still look for strands of common ground that we can build upon. However there is one fundamental tenet of the movement which is so grotesquely, monumentally wrong that I can barely even begin to express it. It holds that those who are angry about the injustices and problems facing men should target their anger upon feminism.

This idea is so mind-shrivelingly stupid I rarely bother to engage with it, but this seems an appropriate opportunity. Not a single one of the real male problems I identify above originates with feminism, is supported by feminism or even significantly added to by feminism.  There. I said it.

Family courts are one of the most patriarchal institutions in the UK (and I suspect the same applies in most other countries). They routinely presume that women are more natural and competent carers and men, not women, should be in full time work. Those are not feminist ideas. The laws, procedures and precedents they follow have been laid down not by feminists, but by generation upon generation of (primarily) crusty old men with sexist attitudes.

Feminists did not invent male-only conscription or circumcision. Feminists didn’t mould the hegemonic cultures of violent masculinity and male disposability. It wasn’t feminists ordering women and children first onto the lifeboats (if that did indeed ever happen.)  It isn’t feminists who decide that teachers and child carers should be predominantly women, and it wasn’t feminists who designed the national curriculum. It certainly isn’t feminists running the banks, the IMF and the policies of globalisation that devastated the industries upon which working class men once depended.

Most controversially of all, it is not primarily feminists who mock, revile and dismiss male victims of violence and abuse. There certainly have been occasions when some, even most feminists have made it much harder to address the issue (something I will return to in my next post in this series) – but it is simple fact that it was very largely feminism that identified and popularised the issue of domestic violence and sexual abuse as a problem in the first place. It was feminism that created the language and the concepts, the support systems and the resources for victims that have since been adopted and replicated by supporters of male victims since. It was feminist analysis of sexual violence that began to show up the barbarity of our (lingering) attitudes towards prison rape, and it is not feminists that I see making the ubiquitous jokes on that topic. There were just as many male victims of domestic violence before feminism, but they were mocked as henpecked husbands, the pathetic butts of jokes that decorated greetings cards, cowering in fear beneath a raised rolling pin. It wasn’t feminists drawing those cartoons, but they may have helped to kill them off.

I applaud those who are angry that so many men sleep rough, so many men take their own lives, so many men have to face unnecessary physical harm, so many men and boys suffer in one way or another. I see many men who are angry for the right reasons, but at the wrong targets. When the anger such issues generate is aimed at feminism, it is misdirected and therefore wasted. Every hour spent angrily obsessing over the words and deeds of feminism, past or present, is an hour that could be spent making a positive difference. That so many men waste so much anger is, I believe, something to get angry about.

Comments

  1. Soarer says

    As my old physics teacher used to say (hello Dr Gordo!) – ‘First, you have to define your terms’.

    If you are talking about feminism which demands equality of opportunity, equal pay for equal work, equal rights and equal responsibilities, then I agree with you and with them.

    Some people who call themselves feminists, though, demand equality of outcome (50% of board members to be women regardless of ability or experience), equal pay for different work (all the dodgy stats used by The Fawcette Society, amongst others), making FGM illegal but defending male circumcision (on cultural grounds no doubt), no enforcement of contact orders, making pornography produced by consenting adults illegal, making prostitution (always defined as male perpetrator, female victim) illegal and therefore dangerous for the participants, playing down the amount of DV affecting men (including in gay relationships) and so on, then I don’t.

    I have no time for MRAs despite being a man, as I don’t see it is us vs them, but as creating a better society together for everyone. Not everyone who calls themselves a feminist appears to agree with that.

    So, Ally, please define what you mean by ‘feminism’ – then we can talk.

  2. Soarer says

    @2 Soarer

    At the risk of appearing to talk to myself (I do, but I don’t want it to appear that I do):

    I have no time for MRAs despite being a man, as I don’t see it is us vs them, but as creating a better society together for everyone. Not everyone who calls themselves a feminist appears to agree with that.

    I should add that not everyone who supports MRAs seems to believe in an equal society either.

    (Also, if there was an edit function, you would have been saved having to read this correction)

  3. Ally Fogg says

    @Soarer (2)

    define your terms

    I actually don’t think it matters in this context Soarer.

    What I say applies to the broad range of the feminist movement, from upper class liberals to hardcore radfems; from privileged academics to grassroots activists. None of them, literally none of them can be held primarily responsible for the problems that men face.

    Some of them may not be very helpful, some are actively harmful to men’s interests, but that is still a level down. The truth is that even if every single feminist of every single flavour abandoned feminism today and went back to bed with a good book for the rest of her life, it would make barely a jot of difference to the real and significant problems facing men, and would quite possibly make things worse for men. .

    So define feminism how you please. It doesn’t change the argument.

  4. Soarer says

    @ 4 Ally Fogg

    Good point, well made. I certainly agree that many of the successes brought about by feminism have made life better for men too. In the 1960s and 1970s I called myself a feminist, not for that reason, but because it seemed self-evident to most of us that human rights should be the same for all.

    I’m not so sure I would call myself a feminist now though.

  5. mildlymagnificent says

    The truth is that even if every single feminist of every single flavour abandoned feminism today and went back to bed with a good book for the rest of her life, it would make barely a jot of difference to the real and significant problems facing men,

    I expect this may get you a lot of quotes. Never were truer words written.

  6. Cicero says

    Look, we have known since about 1980 or so that domestic violence was about 50/50. Today we have more than 1700 studies documenting this. Many or most of the studies are bigender, they show rates for both men and women. If you where a feminist working with research on this specifically or just a feminist working in gender studies in general or any form of feminist domestic violence advocate you would have seen these numbers tons of times. You would also have been confronted with mens activists trying to bring awareness to the real numbers for men. Yet despite this, despite having absolutely zero excuse for not being truthfull about the male numbers, feminists have for decades presented domestic violence as a male on female issue only. They have also talked exclusively about mens violence against women and children and spun men as the sole perpetrator for violence against children. This is despite the fact that numbers clearly show that more than 40% more children (in Norway where I live) is beaten by their mother than their father. Now for 10-15 years when I have read or heard a feminist alking about a study showing numbers for mens violence against women or children I have googled the study and found that yes it did have numbers for women on male and women on children violence. They have conciously presented a mallicious lie for decades and there is NO excuse for it. The only reason the real numbers are starting to come out is because non feminists have pushed the real numbers so hard that they can`t be denied anymore.

    Feminists are not to blame for the way society initially saw this but they are to blame for conciously misleading the public in a campaign to demonishe men and white wash women. This is why I will never trusts feminists. It is too late. You don`t get credit for acknowleding things you have been forced to admit, after decades of denying it and cocniously misleading about it. And those decades of denying nad misleading reveals the real intent.

    This is not to say that there have been individual exceptions amongst feminists, but they where/are rare exceptions and it is the way the movement as a whole has treated the issues that count in assesing the movement and the way the ideology will tend to make people behave.

    The first domestic violence shelter was started by Erin Pizzey who was not a feminist. She quickly discovered that about 50% of the women comming to her where about as violent as the men she was fleeing. Because of this she wanted to open shelters for men and she spoke up about violence against men. Feminists answered by threatening to kill her and killed her dog. Eventually she had to flee the country for fear of her life. Thats feminism for you.

    As for family law I I often read both the US website fathersandfamilies.org and I read follow Norwegian and Swedish family law developments and read blogs by people who cover them. The pattern is crystal clear in all three countries. The largest feminist organisation work harder to prevent fathers rights in every imaginable way than anyone else. THEY are the greatest obstacle for fathers rights activists. SO, again while there are excpetions amongst feminists and more are changing their tune, I judge feminism on what it has done for the last decades, not by what it has been forced to admit or what reasonable outliers think. As with domestic violence I won`t trust feminists with this issue ever as they will just continue to twist it unless they are forced to behave by pressure from others.

    Look, I have tried for 15 years to get feminists where I live to acknowledge these things in a meaningfull way and so have many others. It did not help one bit. It has only been when the pressure on them has been increased even more in the later years through people who don`t identify as feminists or might loosely see themselves as fmeinists but are not on the activist wing have covered the issues so that they have been forced to acknoweldge a tiny bit of it. I am fed up with it. I tried trust for 15 years it did not work at all and now I don`t care. Whinning over committed feminist activists is not important anyway one just needs to win over everyone else.

    This does not mean I don`t see that there are SOME reasonable people amongst feminists that it is meaningfull to have a dialogu with. You for example strike me as an admirable exception. So I am willing to dialogue and be respectfull to those but feminism as a whole I have written of completely and I don`t care to change the minds of most feminist activists anymore. They will only change their minds, if they ever will, after the wider public has changed their minds and the public pressure is to great

    Sorry if that comes of as angry or an excessive attack but it is the result of 15 years of receiving NOTHING from feminists and evaluating decades of the same before I started being interested in it. You personally strike me as very reasonable and with good intentions so it is not really and attack on you.

  7. Cicero says

    “Whinning over committed feminist activists”

    Haha. It should have been winning over…

  8. Cicero says

    “I applaud those who are angry that so many men sleep rough, so many men take their own lives, so many men have to face unnecessary physical harm, so many men and boys suffer in one way or another. I see many men who are angry for the right reasons, but at the wrong targets. When the anger such issues generate is aimed at feminism, it is misdirected and therefore wasted”

    When I have adressed those issues to non feminists they care, when I have addressed it to feminists they argue things like it is the mens own fault, it is not a result of gendered unfairness or they just keep ignoring it. These issues came up in a debate in Norway last fall and feminists wrote op ed pieces just arguing that this wa really not relevant etc. We hada minister of equality some years ago that started to look more seriously at mens issues. A great example of a feminist that could be reasoned with. SHe was knifed in the back and thrown out of politics by the womens group in her party because of this. Her party was the social democratic party which is fairly close to labour but very close to the center. There are to socialist parties to the left of them and that is where most of the harcore feminist activists are. So the moderate Norwegian feminists ended the career of the first feminist politician that actually started to (barely) look at mens issues in a reasonable way BECAUSE she did so. They have heard all the male rights arguments before, they just don`t care about them. I used to believe they could be persuaded but this sort of stuff has convinced me that is meaningless. The wider public is interested and quite easily persuaded while feminists fight almost all of the mens issues. They have made themselves the biggest obstacle.

  9. Cicero says

    Then there is the demonization of men and of masculinity which is 99% the fault of feminism. I grew up with heavy shaming from teachers and from society for being male. Virtually every masculine quality was presented as negative. That is the fault of feminism alone. You don`t find it in countries without an influential feminist movement. i like spending time with immigrants from non western countries for this reason. The men are unapologetically masculine and the women like masculine men and don`t make regular downputting comments about men and masculine qualites. I feel much better arround them because of that.

  10. Ally Fogg says

    Cicero

    As I hint at in the article, I will return to a lot of this in the next post in the series, but for now, you are not addressing the point I am making.

    Feminism could vanish off the face of the earth in a puff of magic, and it would not prevent a single instance of domestic violence against men. It would not open a single shelter or support service for men. It would not shift society’s attitudes towards male victims one inch (except possibly backwards).

    You can, if you like, argue that you are angry at feminism because it does not care about these issues. That line is problematic, IMO, but is at least coherent. But you cannot reasonably be angry at feminism for creating or causing these problems, because feminism didn’t. For the same reasons, attacks on feminism do nothing to address the root causes of the problems either. That’s the point I’m making.

  11. Adiabat says

    Ally: Your entire OP is just a series of assertions with no argument presented whatsoever. You continue this trend in your most recent comment:

    “The truth is that even if every single feminist of every single flavour abandoned feminism today and went back to bed with a good book for the rest of her life, it would make barely a jot of difference to the real and significant problems facing men, and would quite possibly make things worse for men.”

    In the last Malestrom thread I showed that the main opposition to a bill that introduces shared parenting, a bill which will help solves a prominent men’s issue and further equality (proposed by the “crusty old men” you deplore no less), comes from what is probably the most influential feminist group in the UK today: The Fawcett Society. If they packed it in and went away the bill would be practically unopposed, as it stands now there’s a chance that it will either be defeated or the shared parenting part removed. It seems to me that your statement is nothing more than belief, as it doesn’t match up with the facts of the situation.

    Another good example is domestic violence, as put forward by Cicero. After the feminists stole and claimed credit for Erin Pizzey’s work research into IPV committed by women practically stopped, and was replaced by ideological based “research”. Only now are we catching up to where Erin was 30 years ago. In this field it is feminists that have been the “crusty old men” you blame for everything; they have been the ones setting the agenda. Just think about where we would be now in understanding and preventing IPV if Erin was allowed to continue her work, if we had an additional 30 years of real research into the causes of domestic violence and the ways to prevent it and help those affected.

    (And just because I’ve refreshed and seen your latest post): “Feminism could vanish off the face of the earth in a puff of magic, and it would not prevent a single instance of domestic violence against men. It would not open a single shelter or support service for men. It would not shift society’s attitudes towards male victims one inch (except possibly backwards). “

    Societal attitudes are being affected by feminists, if they disappeared, along with their corrosive influence on the public debate, society would care more about men. Our government is already trying to do something to help men, yet it is feminists that are working against them.

  12. Gjenganger says

    Some reasons men might well be angry at feminism.

    First a bad reason:
    Feminism has forced men out of a good and privileged position into something much weaker and more insecure, and has forced us to make a lot of painful changes along the way. They were right, of course, but those who lost in the process do not necessarily appreciate it.

    A slightly better reason:
    The process has left men having “lost an empire and not gained a role”. By current social mores, women can do everything men can do equally well – so what are men for? In addition women are seen as less violent, nicer, more sought-after sexually, and with a strong crucial role in motherhood (should they care to take it up). Reason for some resentment at least?

    A half-way good reason:
    Feminism is working across the board to achieve a society that fits the needs and desires of women but not necessarily the needs and desires of men. On past form (see above) there is reason to fear they might well succeed. You do not have to invoke biological differences to claim that the sexes have different wants and interests. Men and women are at the very least socialised differently, and most men would not welcome either a world where their current desires are less and less catered for, or a world where their sons and daughters both cointinue in the current female role and manhood (whatever it is) disappears without a trace. Surely the general feminist take on custody, violence, equal numbers in the job market, prostitution, pornography, and enthuastic consent as the criterion for rape is at least influenced by the fact that women have different experiences and problems than men.

  13. mildlymagnificent says

    Virtually every masculine quality was presented as negative.

    I’ve heard this several times before, but I don’t know what it means.

    What “masculine” qualities are being talked about here? Courage, strength, hard work, common sense? Or what? I look at the qualities I admired in my father and grandfather, my husband and my other male relatives, men who were business contacts, workmates and neighbours, the boys I’ve tutored and counselled about their schoolwork and their career prospects … and I just don’t see anything particular. 10 yr old and 15 yr old boys can be silly, stroppy, loud-mouthed or sullen – they are also funny and engaging and hardworking when you get them to apply themselves, much like girls of similar ages.

    I admit I’ve known some extremely unpleasant men (I think killing your wife counts as unpleasant by anyone’s measure) and others personally difficult, irresponsible or unpleasant if not so extremely violent as those two. But they’re difficult and unpleasant because they don’t meet the standard set by most men, not because they’re outstanding examples of ideal manhood.

  14. Paul says

    Thanks for another interesting post Ally.

    Used in the right way anger is a key component in motivating and mobilizing people to fight for change.Used in the wrong way then all hell can break loose in one way or another.

    Men have a lot to be angry about- as indeed do women.But many feminists ridicule the idea that there is any legitimacy to male anger. That male anger is something that is problematic- especially to women and children- and that women and women alone are the ones who have a right to be angry. Hence i think men are wasting their time trying to develop a better understanding with feminists .And on some issues men -and their female supporters- have got to be prepared to run the gauntlet of feminist scorn when addressing the issues that specifically or primarily affect men and boys.Indeed on issues such as equal custody rights for fathers and greater acknowledgement of the extent to which women can be either guilty of abuse themselves or of using men to do their dirty work for them i think men have got to be prepared for the equivalent of a bare knuckle fight with feminists.

    The rights of men and boys must never come at the expense of the rights of women and girls.And in fighting for their rights men must never make the same mistakes that radical feminists in particular have made.Namely demonising and attacking all women in the way rad fems have historically demonised and attacked all men. Never the uncompromising attitude of rad fems fuelled by anger has played a key role in forcing up the political agenda a number of issues which affect women and girls so in some respects men can also learn from them.

  15. Paul says

    Never the uncompromising attitude……

    That should read ”Nevertheless the uncompromising attitude …….”

  16. Adiabat says

    Ally: “But you cannot reasonably be angry at feminism for creating or causing these problems, because feminism didn’t.”

    No-one is saying that. People are angry at feminists for either making the problems worse or working against those who want to fix them.

    “For the same reasons, attacks on feminism do nothing to address the root causes of the problems either.”

    And opening DV shelters does nothing to tackle the “root cause” of DV either. But that doesn’t mean that it doesn’t help and we shouldn’t do it. What’s your point exactly? That we should only fight the thing which initially causes something and not the thing which propagates it?

  17. Cicero says

    “The truth is that even if every single feminist of every single flavour abandoned feminism today and went back to bed with a good book for the rest of her life, it would make barely a jot of difference to the real and significant problems facing men,”

    It would make a huge difference for men because changing the mind of the the people who don`t self identify as feminists, which is most people, is not that hard though far from easy, but changing feminists minds is very hard. It is also feminists that perpetuate a whole range of myths about men as oppressors and women as victims that makes it much, much harder to address mens issues and get people to listen.

    Example, womens so called second shift. It has been accepted as truth that women work more total hours than men when you combine work outside and inside the home. I grew up with TV debates about how bad men where for opressing women by making them slave away for them. The claim has been repeated hundreds and hundreds of times. I have known for about 15 years that it was untrue because I checked the research done in this field. Just recently a fairly well known feminist published a book about how women are so much worse of because of having to do more work and no one complained. Untill Saturday when a male journalist wrote an article slaughtering the book based on the research that is avaiblable now and have been for 30 years. It got a huge amount of attention. The shame and guilt men feel and the anger women feel because fo myths like that makes it very hard to address mens issues.

    When I have argued mens issues with other non feminists before it is difficult to get across and I easily come of as evil in their eyes because they believe men make women work a lot more, they belive women are not promoted as much as they should (research has debunked this) and so should be helped by affirmative action (a lot), because they belive domestic violence is male on female only issue, because they believe men are almost sole resposible for violence against children, because they believe women who work part time do so usually because they are forced by men who does not want to share equal burdens with her and other bullshit. All fed to them by feminists. These are the types of myths, created by feminists alone or perpetuated by feminists by twisting numbers in unimaginable ways, that makes addressing mens issues much, much harder. These are the sorts of beliefs that gets me demonized for raising mens issues that you also address. These are the sort of beliefs people point to and say we need to fix all of that first and then we can maybe talk about men. Etc. Etc.

    The Norwegian minister of equality has recently proposed a law (that will probably become law, if it hasn`t already) that will give mothers total control of the children. Acording to the new law if the mothers says she FEELS that the father might at some point in the future abuse the child in any way she instantly gets sole cutody and the father won`t see the child again untill he has gotten the case through the courts, which will typically take a few years. She has also done one hell of a job trying to make sure that a father won`t win such a case. She is trying to make the fact that an acusation has been raised at some point be close to sufficient to keep him away from his children for life by writing instructions for how the law shoudl be aplied that more or less says that. Mothers now get sole right to remove the father out of childrens lives by snapping their fingers. Formaly it is not mothers but the parent who has primary custody that has this right but that is almost always mothers, parents who have only visiting rights do not get it and neither do any of two parents still living together (though I am sure mothers are next), so in reality it is a right to the mother alone. The supposed reason is to protect against the abuse of visiting parents (fathers) but as many organisations pointed out it is most often the custodial parent that abuses the child. This is just one of many cases where feminsts are moving laws in a direction that is very negative for men.

    Or how about this insane law. Punishing men even when it has been established that they did nothing objectively wrong just because a woman felt harased and it has been proven that her feelings where irrational:

    http://www.cotwa.info/2013/05/most-shocking-federal-policy-yet-sexual.html

    It will create tons of abuse and it is solely the fault of feminism and far more is comming.

    Or how about this:

    http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/government-tyranny/spanish-feminist-establishment-is-shaking/

    http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/government-tyranny/spanish-gender-stalinism-part-i/

    Ally, are seriously willing to claim that Spanish men where better of after feminists got these insane domestic violence laws passed in Spain as oposed to before they where subjected to it.

    Or how about Swedish 16 year old boys who have to watch the SCUM manifesto while sitting on hard seats while girls sit on nice pillows and get candy and afterwards have an indoctrination session with radfems explaining that while you don`t quite deserve to be killed you are men and the hatred she expresses against men is basically legitmate. What effect do you think that has on Swedish boys?

    Addressing male issues in Sweden would have been a lot easier without death threats and harasment from feminists. Pär Ström who has written several books about male rights and has blogged for years recently quit mens activism because he said the strain on him and his family of the threats and harasment and villifcation was to great.

    Watch this video:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Avz7RX9EXd8

    What the voice says is just the names of men they don`t like and they want to silence which includes the aforementioned Pär Ström and Pelle Billing og pellebilling.com which some of you might be familiar with. This is how feminists are trying to silence mens activists. They do so with government funding for their videos and SCUM performances. And it works. Stöm has withdrawn because he can`t take it anymore and almost veryone that has MRA opinions blog anonymously and don`t want to have their names in print on op ed pieces and wouldn`t get them in print anyway. Raising the issues that YOU raise on behalf of men on your blog and on in your articles makes them compare you to the mass murderer Anders Behring Breivik in op ed pieces in the largest most respected Swedish newspapers.

    Or how about male soldiers who have and are suffering because feminists have succeeded in their demands to have women admitted into the army in many countries wihtout passing the physical requirements. Not only do male soldiers have to carry equipment for female soldiers that are not strong enough, male soldiers die because the troop moves much slower when they have female soldiers that are far, far slower than the worst male soldiers. Male soldiers die when female soldiers are not strong enough to carry them. I recently read about a study that found that male US soldiers are not trained as hard as they did before and so are less physically prepared because when you train the men together with the women you can`t train them as hard as before because the women can´t keep up. So male soldiers die because they are less physically fit than before because feminists feel that womens privlllege to be soldiers if they feel like it, no matter how incompetent they are, is far more important than the male lives they put at risk.

    Or how about all the men that do not get any education or the education that they want and are best qualified for becuase women in Norway get extra credits for 139 types of education while men only get so for 4 types of education. Or how about all the men in other countries that experience the same because of similar qouta systems that have been put in place and kept despite women making up most of the univeristy students for a long time.

    A recent swedish study tested the abilities of male and female firemen and firewomen at breaking open a door. The men used on average something between 30 seconds and 1 minutes I think. The women used about 10 minutes. How about the men, women and children on the other side of that door? What about the male firemen that have to compensate for these women playing firewoman?

    These are just a few examples of things that are the sole responsibility of feminism. There are many, many more.

  18. says

    So, Ally, please define what you mean by ‘feminism’ – then we can talk.

    That’s your problem. The rest of us can easily understand and appreciate Ally’s thesis without having to quibble over definitions, because we all know the history — not “women’s studies,” the HISTORY — supports it. Your lame-assed quibbling is clearly nothing more than another cowardly attempt at diversion.

    In the last Malestrom thread I showed that the main opposition to a bill that introduces shared parenting, a bill which will help solves a prominent men’s issue and further equality (proposed by the “crusty old men” you deplore no less), comes from what is probably the most influential feminist group in the UK today: The Fawcett Society.

    Yeah, and it was shown that you had blatantly misrepresented the Fawcett Society’s position: they had expressed “concerns,” and you lied and said they were “opposed.”

  19. Cicero says

    “You can, if you like, argue that you are angry at feminism because it does not care about these issues. That line is problematic, IMO, but is at least coherent. But you cannot reasonably be angry at feminism for creating or causing these problems, because feminism didn’t. For the same reasons, attacks on feminism do nothing to address the root causes of the problems either. That’s the point I’m making.”

    It stands in the way of addressing them. When male activist try to argue for addressing those issues feminists argue against them. THey have done everything they can from preventing the issues from gaining public attention and being accpeted.

    I`ll bet my right arm that the people mentioend in this article working to prevent the spread of knowledge about male victims of rape on war are feminists:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/jul/17/the-rape-of-men

  20. says

    And opening DV shelters does nothing to tackle the “root cause” of DV either.

    You’re actually equating your stupid-assed attacks on feminism with the opening of DV slelters? Puh. Lease. Grow up two decades and come back tomorrow.

  21. Sid says

    Family courts aren’t patriarchal, most family law comes under the jurisdiction if feminist jurisprudence.

    Under patriarchy, it was totally biased in favor men, the house, custody … everything went to the man.

  22. says

    Or how about male soldiers who have and are suffering because feminists have succeeded in their demands to have women admitted into the army in many countries wihtout passing the physical requirements.

    Examples, please?

    Not only do male soldiers have to carry equipment for female soldiers that are not strong enough, male soldiers die because the troop moves much slower when they have female soldiers that are far, far slower than the worst male soldiers.

    When and where, exactly, did anything like this happen? Please cite specific engagements.

  23. Cicero says

    “Just think about where we would be now in understanding and preventing IPV if Erin was allowed to continue her work, if we had an additional 30 years of real research into the causes of domestic violence and the ways to prevent it and help those affected.”

    Not to think where we would have been in addressing violence against children committed by mothers, which is most of the violence against children. I have expressly asked people I know from outside the western world how they asses the likelyhood of a mother and a father hitting their children. The people I have talked to are very much aware that mothers hit children and have littel illusions in that regard. My informal survey is far from proof but when I compare it to the mental universe I grew up in where mothers being violenct to their children did not exist something is very different and the difference was cased by feminism.

    People I have talked to from outside the west are also deluded about the extent of violence against men performed by women but when asking them about it they where far more aware that violence is often mutual and there are some women who as one woman said “beat their husbands like dogs”.

  24. Sid says

    Im sorry Ally but you are very uninformed Ally.

    >Most controversially of all, it is not primarily feminists who mock, revile and dismiss male victims of violence and abuse.

    The feminist shelters movement doesn’t serve boys over 14.

    Feminist academics have been covering up abuse

    Male help seekers are far more likely to be mocked when approaching DV services than they are in their own social network.

    >Results indicate that men who seek help for IPV victimization have the most positive experiences in seeking help from family/friends, and mental health and medical providers. They have the least positive experiences with members of the DV service system.

    http://vc.bridgew.edu/socialwork_fac/9/

    For years feminists have been mocking people that advocate for male abuse victims and a non sexist system of intervention with “what about teh menz LOL!”

    >Processes Explaining the Concealment and Distortion
    ofEvidence on Gender Symmetry in Partner Violence

    http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/V74-gender-symmetry-with-gramham-Kevan-Method%208-.pdf

    Evidence is important.

  25. says

    Feminist academics have been covering up abuse

    Please tell us how “academics” can cover up abuse (or anything else) that happens outside of academia, and thus outside the sphere of whatever power “academics” have.

    For years feminists have been mocking people that advocate for male abuse victims and a non sexist system of intervention with “what about teh menz LOL!”

    In my experience, most of that mockery is well earned by unbelievably stupid and childish men who can’t seem to touch a keyboard without exposing multiple levels of stupidity, irrationality, dishonesty, and mindless incoherent hatred of phantoms and straw-harpies. Seriously, you guys have a real and persistent credibility problem, and it’s doing your cause more harm than any “feminist academics” could ever do.

  26. Sid says

    >just as I have nothing for contempt for those men’s activists who become so wrapped up in their own concerns around male victims of false accusations that they will dismiss, downplay or mock the extent and profound trauma of rape.

    Evidence?

    The common mra position tends to be

    * objecting to feminist legislation that erodes the presumption of innocence for men

    * presumed male guilt in the public sphere

    * false accusations going unpunished.

    * feminist agenda to keep definitions of rape excluding a woman forcing someone else to penetrate them.

    * feminism presenting forced sex to the public, gov and its followers as if it were overwhelming male perpetrated in the strength of these misleading definitions.

    * opposition to creeping legislation and definitions that make consensual sex while drunk, rape.

  27. says

    Family courts aren’t patriarchal, most family law comes under the jurisdiction if feminist jurisprudence.

    The last time you were asked to provide examples, you weren’t able to come up with much. I’m not holding my breath waiting for specifics this time either.

    Under patriarchy, it was totally biased in favor men, the house, custody … everything went to the man.

    The simplemindedness of that assertion is matched only by its utter falsehood.

  28. Cicero says

    Or how about male soldiers who have and are suffering because feminists have succeeded in their demands to have women admitted into the army in many countries wihtout passing the physical requirements.

    Examples, please?

    Not only do male soldiers have to carry equipment for female soldiers that are not strong enough, male soldiers die because the troop moves much slower when they have female soldiers that are far, far slower than the worst male soldiers.

    When and where, exactly, did anything like this happen? Please cite specific engagements.

    THe physical requirements for female soldiers are much, mcuh lower in the US and in the Norwegian army. That is public knowledge and I am not going to bother google searching it for you. Other armies I am don`t know about but I presume it is often the same.

    I have no specific studies documenting it but it is logically self evident that it happens. When a group of soldiers are trying to escape from a larger group of soldiers the speed with which they move deceiced if they will get away. At a short distance your ability to rund very fast matters at longer distances that can take hours or days your ability to move as fast as possible over very long distances matters. When you get women that run say 30-40% slower when they sprint and can only keep 60-70% of the speed of male soldiers over distances they will get caught up with by enemy soldiers far more often and then they will be killed. A child can understand that.

    The same goes for carrying a wounded soldier. Whena soldier is wounded sufficietnly he needs to be carried to where he can be treated. If a female soldier can not carry a male soldier at all or long enough or long enough fast enough the male soldier will often die before they reach help, he will die because she must leave him or he and she will die because enemy soldiers catch up with them. A child can understand this. Given that there has been many female soldiers in wars now for quite some time and there has alos been substantial female casualties it is self evident that this has happened a lot.

    Male soldiers fought lower physical requirements vehemently (and usually entry by women at all) precisely on these grounds but they have been silenced by politicans controlled by feminists. If you speak up your career is dead.

    So yes, feminism puts the right of women to play soldier, which is what soldiers that are grossly physically unfit do, above the right of male soldiers to be protected from death.

  29. Sid says

    Ragingbee

    >Under patriarchy, it was totally biased in favor men, the house, custody … everything went to the man.

    >The simplemindedness of that assertion is matched only by its utter falsehood.

    You are so uninformed, here is more evidence to run off you like water off a ducks back

    >Historically the English Family Law gave custody of the children to the father, in case of divorce. Until the nineteenth century the women had few individual rights, most of their rights being derived through their fathers or husbands. In the early nineteenth century, Mrs. Caroline Norton, a prominent British society beauty, feminist, social reformer author, and journalist, began to campaign for the right of women to have custody of their children. Norton, who had undergone a divorce and been deprived of her children, worked with the politicians of those times and eventually was able to convince the British Parliament to enact legislation to protect mothers’ rights. The result was the Custody of Infants Act 1839, which gave some discretion to the judge in a child custody case and established a presumption of maternal custody for children under the age of seven years.[1] In 1873 the Parliament extended the presumption of maternal custody until a child reached sixteen years of age.[2] This doctrine spread then in majority of the states of the world as England was controlling a wide empire. By the end of the 20th century this doctrine was abolished in the majority of the states of USA and Europe.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tender_years_doctrine

  30. says

    I have no specific studies documenting it but it is logically self evident that it happens.

    In other words, you have nothing — just a simple picture in your head of how things are, with no experience, common sense, or understanding of how certain organizations do their jobs in the real world to check your suppositions against.

  31. Cicero says

    Feminists in India have successfully lobbied to have the rape laws written so it is only rape if a man rapes a woman:

    http://www.avoiceformen.com/misandry/indian-government-men-dont-matter/

    Feminists spread the myth that women got harder punishments than men for doing the same crime. Based upon that belief a wide range of special programs and means of support was put in place in England (and probably many other places as well) in order to help women to compensate for this. A wide range of studies from several different countries, and the english justice departments own numbers, show that it is actually the other way around. Men got 50-70% harder punishments for exactly the same crime. That is a several hundred percent larger sentencing addition than you get for being black. everyone seem to (correctly) buy into the claim that you get discriminated against for being black in the justice system but no one knows the discrimination for being a man is much harder. A male british MP finally brought this to the attention of the british parliament and made the minister of justice admit that the governments belief was wrong.

    As this study shows boys falling grades are almost entirely explained by changes in grading policy implemented at the wishes of feminists in order to improve things for girls. Anyone with any sense could have predicted exactly how bad this policy shift would have been for boys:

    http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/eliminating-feminist-teacher-bias-erases-boys-falling-grades-study-finds

    A repport made by the Norwegian government organization Reform in conjunction with feminist antifeminism experts from the whole of Scandinavia has, on behalf of the Nordic council of ministers, made a report that recommends criminalizing speech that is critical of feminism and critical of feminist views of gender roles. You can read about that here:

    http://forums.avoiceformen.com/showthread.php?tid=2971

    Feminists have worked and work tirelessly to give women extra payment for doing less. The pay gap between women and men is there for the following reasons. In a variety of ways men make choices where they choose a higher salary as a compensation for a higher risk or higher discomfort while women make the opposite choice. Men choose jobs that one can more easily get fired from and so pay less to compensate for that in order for anyone to want the jobs. Men take jobs that have a higher possibility of a high salary but a risk of an unstable salary. Men choose jobs with less flexible hours, with more over time and take jobs they have to travel longer to get to. These and a variety of other choices have been documented by Warrenn Farrell to explain the pay gap and various other researchers, including some Norwegian ones, have found similar results. What feminists do is deny this and demand women get as much pay as men despite women not taking equal risks and having the greater comforts of women’s typical jobs. This is working against the interests of men.

    http://www.warrenfarrell.net/Summary/

    In Norway not they are trying to redistribute money from men to women to compensate for the supposed payback. That is stealing from men and it is the sole reponsibility of feminism. Swedish feminists ahve proposed a tax on men for just being men to compensate for the pay gap and our general evil behavior. I have come across similar proposals from US feminists.

    Then you have the whole Donglegate thing where feminists have driven workplace harassment stuff so far men have to shut their mouths in fear not knowing what they can say without getting fired.

    Then you have stuff like Naomi Wolf claiming 150 000 women die each year of eating disorders in the US while the real number is 525. She is trying to make people believe there is some sort of eating disorder holocost which men are to blame for. This creates a climate that is hostile, angry and sometimes hatefull towards men based on lies.

    Then there is the swedish feminist party, with the most famous mainstream feminists in its leadership, singing “fucking man we hate you you fucking man we will tear you up” in their political meetings. Enjoy:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=scCMxYfQoa0

    You think that might lead to some bias in policy? I do.

    And there is the case of the leader of ROKS the swedish crisis center organization (which used to run all the crisis centers but was and is paid by the government) saying in an interview that she thinks men are not really humans but on the level of animals and later following up on that a few years later claiming men are even worse than animals. She was defended by large segments of the swedish feminist elite. It has also been documented that the government funded organization ROKS actively tries to make the women who come to them isolate themselves, FOREVER, in all women collectives to get away from the evil men that of course are everywhere. ROKS has worked actively and expressly against providing treatment for male abusers. They have also fought as hard as they could against help for male victims. This documentary about them made by Swedish Boradcasting has English subtitles. There is much, much more in the documentary:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yn3cHsHnUPM

    In Norway because of the qouta system there has to be 40% women in all boardrooms. In finance there are 10% women in the business as a whole yet 40% women in the boardrooms. Thanks to feminism. Finance is amongst the most extreme but as studies show women who work as much as men in the same business and have the same education progress as fast as men there are far, far, far to many women in the boardrooms compared to the number of women who have done the work to get there. So feminism has implemented the discrimination they where supposedly fighting against but against men instead of women.

  32. Sid says

    >Sid, as Ally already said, in plain English, it was not a feminist or matriarchal society that passed the laws you cited.

    It was feminists that lobbies for those laws. This is why there is a dispute between fathers rights and feminist jurisprudence.

  33. Cicero says

    “I have no specific studies documenting it but it is logically self evident that it happens.

    In other words, you have nothing — just a simple picture in your head of how things are, with no experience, common sense, or understanding of how certain organizations do their jobs in the real world to check your suppositions against.”

    I have the self evident fact everyone can understand that if a troop moves MUCH slower more soldiers will be killed. If a soldier can not be carried or carried fast enough he will die. Explain to me with your “common sense” how this will be avoided.

  34. Sid says

    >Not a single one of the real male problems I identify above originates with feminism,

    Ally, this is very irritating.

    There is no such thing as mra’s that say male only conscription originated with feminism. Tha discussion about that conscription doesn’t involve that at all.

    Do some research on your chosen topic.

  35. Cicero says

    “Ally, this is very irritating.

    There is no such thing as mra’s that say male only conscription originated with feminism. Tha discussion about that conscription doesn’t involve that at all.

    Do some research on your chosen topic.”

    Yeah, you set up strawmans.

  36. Cicero says

    “I have no specific studies documenting it but it is logically self evident that it happens.

    In other words, you have nothing — just a simple picture in your head of how things are, with no experience, common sense, or understanding of how certain organizations do their jobs in the real world to check your suppositions against”

    I might also add that this IS exactly what the men owkring int he military have argued for years. Men that have the most experience in teh world with thsi and know exactly how it works. But you will have huge problems in your career not if you speak up about it and politicans show no will to change anything so must shut up.

  37. Jacob Schmidt says

    Then you have the whole Donglegate thing where feminists have driven workplace harassment stuff so far men have to shut their mouths in fear not knowing what they can say without getting fired.

    Heh. Adria Richards explicitely stated that firing the man was way too much. She didn’t advocated for it, was totally against, and was totally un involved in that decision.

    Hell, as far as I could tell, everyone said firing him was way to much. What the fuck are you talking about?

  38. Sid says

    edit

    There is no such thing as mra’s that say male only conscription originated with feminism. The discussion about conscription doesn’t involve that at all.

    If you read the Myth of Male Power, you will understand some the arguments made about conscription.

    Get your information from the source instead of uninformed feminists.

  39. Jacob Schmidt says

    THe physical requirements for female soldiers are much, mcuh lower in the US and in the Norwegian army. That is public knowledge and I am not going to bother google searching it for you.

    It’s public knowledge that women primarily get non-combatant roles.

  40. Cicero says

    “It’s public knowledge that women primarily get non-combatant roles.”

    And also that they do not only get that

  41. Adiabat says

    Raging Bee: “Yeah, and it was shown that you had blatantly misrepresented the Fawcett Society’s position: they had expressed “concerns,” and you lied and said they were “opposed.””

    We’ve been over this stuff, and run ended up running off with your tail between your legs. Are you gambling on people not bothering to read the other thread? (It all starts here: http://freethoughtblogs.com/hetpat/2013/06/06/malestrom-ten-reasons-why-some-men-are-so-angry/#comment-2657)

    Here’s their statement:

    ” Fawcett maintains… that the assumption of shared parenting will dilute protections for women and their children.”

    And:

    ” Fawcett recommends.. no dilution of this made by an amendment to the Children Act 1989 on shared/cooperative parenting.”

    And the reason they give is based on discriminating against men based on a sexist assumption. Sure sound like they’re fucking opposed to it to me. Predicting that my truncating the quotes above will be used against me, here’s the link for people to check it for themselves that I haven’t misrepresented anything: http://www.fawcettsociety.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Fawcett-Briefing-for-the-Second-Reading-of-the-Children-and-Families-Bill.pdf page 6.

    “You’re actually equating your stupid-assed attacks on feminism with the opening of DV slelters? Puh. Lease. Grow up two decades and come back tomorrow.”

    I’m using the opening of DV shelters to show that just because something doesn’t deal with the “root cause“, it doesn’t mean that it shouldn’t be done, as Ally seems to be arguing.

    I really hoped that you would take what happened in the other thread and use it to grow as a person; to stop lying and misrepresenting everything. I’m sorry to see that you haven’t done that.

  42. says

    I might also add that this IS exactly what the men owkring int he military have argued for years.

    You have no studies to back anything you say, but you’re certain you know what people in the know have been saying, based on what’s “logically self-evident” in your own mind? Do you really expect us to take you seriously?

    And you wonder why MRAs get laughed at every time they oen their mouths?

  43. says

    Here’s their statement…

    Neither of the statements you quoted constitute blanket “opposition.” They’re concerns about how a law might affect a certain aspect of child-custody.

  44. Adiabat says

    Edit: “and run ended up running off with your tail between your legs” should be “and you ended up running off with your tail between your legs”

  45. Sid says

    Ragingbee.

    Over these threads its been mra’s consistently backing up their claims while yourself other behave like children with singing lalala with their fingers in their ears.

    >And you wonder why MRAs get laughed at every time they oen their mouths?

    Mra’s are laughed at because of patriarchal assumptions that are stronger in feminists like you, than they are outside of it.

    “Men can’t have problems, only women can, men that speak about male problems are to be mocked” type of thinking.

  46. carnation says

    @Ally

    This is as good a place as any to make this point: the family court isn’t biased against fathers. Fathers break contact orders, lie, obfuscate and play the system. 10, 15 years ago, there *was* a presumption that mothers were th best caregiver, but that is no longer the case. F4J lie, lie and lie again. They muddy the waters, deliberately mixing fatherlessness up with family court issues.

    The family court is imperfect, to put it mildly. But mothers experience extreme difficulties, motivated by spite, from fathers. It is simply a lie to presume fathers are discriminated against. The evidence simply doesn’t exist.

    The MRM, as it exists today, is like the Bush administration post 9/11. Blame Iraq for something it had nothing to do, and reap a whirlwind of condemnation.

    @Ally (again) I believe that MRA theory is as (potentially) damaging to men as it is to women. I say potentially, as MRAs have achieved nothing, except reduced a few thousand men to an endless, pointless cycle of Internet bitterness.

    Can MRAs, and the MRM, as it current exists, ever achieve anything worthwhile for men?

  47. Adiabat says

    Raging Bee: “Neither of the statements you quoted constitute blanket “opposition.” They’re concerns about how a law might affect a certain aspect of child-custody.”

    Is this what you’re reduced to? Hanging onto the fact that they don’t use the word “oppose”. It’s clear that they don’t want that part of the bill to pass.

    We’ve covered their reasoning in the other thread: it’s sexist and discriminatory.

    People who are reading this: please read the other thread, linked in my previous post. Doing so will show you just how dishonest RagingBee is being in raising the exact same talking points here

  48. Dunc says

    Predicting that my truncating the quotes above will be used against me, here’s the link for people to check it for themselves that I haven’t misrepresented anything: http://www.fawcettsociety.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Fawcett-Briefing-for-the-Second-Reading-of-the-Children-and-Families-Bill.pdf page 6.

    Did you bother to read the first 5 pages, or the rest of page 6 for that matter? Yes, you’re egregiously misrepresenting them. You’ve misrepresented the two specific quotes you’ve used through selective elision, and you’ve completely ignored the rest of the document, which is in fact very supportive.

  49. says

    Feminists spread the myth that women got harder punishments than men for doing the same crime.

    I have not heard one single person, feminist or not, who said that. Who the fuck are you talking about? Furthermore, anhyone who’s seen the inside of a prison can tell you that conditions tend to be much harsher in the men’s section than in the women’s, if only because the men’s section is more crowded and the security is tighter because the men are presumed (with good reason) to be more dangerous.

    Seriously, guys, what color is the sky in your bubble-verse? Or are there too many feminist dementors flying about for you to see the sky?

  50. says

    People who are reading this: please read the other thread…

    Translation: “Oh crap, I’m looking like an idiot here — everybody look somewhere else, okay?”

  51. Cicero says

    “I might also add that this IS exactly what the men owkring int he military have argued for years.

    You have no studies to back anything you say, but you’re certain you know what people in the know have been saying, based on what’s “logically self-evident” in your own mind? Do you really expect us to take you seriously?

    And you wonder why MRAs get laughed at every time they oen their mouths?”

    You are arguing that having soldiers that run much, much slower and for far, far shorter distances will not endanger the soldiers that can run fast and long. You are arguing that it is inconsequnetial that there are now soldiers that can not adequately carry wounded soldiers. And YOU are wanting to get taken seriously. You have just demonstrated an extreme lack of empathy for men in addition to an inability to comprehend the most self evident facts. And you want us to believe feminsts are not a danger to men.

  52. Cicero says

    So Ally, how exactly does feminists like carnation not make things more difficult for men to fix the sissues facing them, cosnidering how she argues about men and parenting rights?

  53. says

    Over these threads its been mra’s consistently backing up their claims…

    …with sources that are insonsistent at best. And that’s when you back anything up at all — which you have not “consistently” done, anywhere.

    “Men can’t have problems, only women can, men that speak about male problems are to be mocked” type of thinking.

    That thinking predates feminism by CENTURIES, you halfwit. Blaming “feminism” for stupid machismo and its consequences is just plain Nazi-style scapegoating; and it shows just how dishonest, demented, and totally unhinged you MRAs really are.

  54. says

    You are arguing that having soldiers that run much, much slower and for far, far shorter distances will not endanger the soldiers that can run fast and long. You are arguing that it is inconsequnetial that there are now soldiers that can not adequately carry wounded soldiers…

    I’m not arguing anything of the sort; I’m just pointing out that you don’t know what you’re talking about, you have no common sense, and your entire worldview is based on nothing but a childishly simple, stereotype-based picture of how things work; so you can’t be trusted to provide any useful insight on any subject.

  55. Sid says

    >…with sources that are insonsistent at best. And that’s when you back anything up at all — which you have not “consistently” done, anywhere.

    Don’t tell lies.

    >“Men can’t have problems, only women can, men that speak about male problems are to be mocked” type of thinking.

    >that thinking predates feminism by CENTURIES, you halfwit. Blaming “feminism” for stupid machismo and its consequences is just plain Nazi-style scapegoating; and it shows just how dishonest, demented, and totally unhinged you MRAs really are.

    I know it predates feminism, I’m saying that its often stronger in feminists like you, than it is in patriarchy. Feminists ironically perpetuate patriarchy.

    You get the same thing in domestic abuse, men abused by women get more support in the general society than they do in feminist run DV services.

  56. Melhopkins says

    Ally the logic of your argument is impeccable and also pretty obvious.

    Isn’t it therefore fair to conclude that any Men’s Rights activist or supporters who do spend all their time complaining about and criticising feminism are in fact angry about feminism (and/or loss of priviledge/uppity women,/can’t get laid) and all the homeless, suicidal, non-healthcare seeking, conscripted, circumcised, partner-abused and emotion-repressing men are just the excuse? At any rate that is my (male) partner’s attitude.

    My acid test is are they actually doing anything practical to help men suffering disadvantage or are they just moaning about what women are or are not doing. If the later – well “Cry me a river,” seems a perfectly reasonable response.

  57. says

    Cicero @30

    Most people, even my fellow Soldiers, don’t seem to understand the purpose of the APFT. It’s sole purpose is to measure the fitness of a Soldier, and not the ability to handle specific physical tasks. That’s why we do push-ups instead of lifting an objective weight, why we are able to do a 2.5 mile walk if we have a permanent medical profile saying we can’t run (and, contrary to what you might believe, these non-runners can still be deployed), and why BMI is part of the standard. To explain, I’m a 200lb man who scores around the 230s on my APFT. There’s another man my age who is 120 lbs (right at the minimum for his height, too) and scores a 300+. Yet, in any physical task like rucking with a 50lb load or, Hel, even arm wrestling, I far outclass him. no one seems to complain about these super skinny guys who can only get high scores because they’re so light but can barely lift a ruck being 11B or even 68W. The reason for that is that it’s the unit’s responsibility to ensure that Soldiers are a Go for their required tasks, and any that are untrainable are pushed aside (unless you’re a Staff Sergeant or something… then you just get “promoted” to a desk job).

    That being said, I can offer at least anecdotal evidence that I have seen no more women fail to live up to Army standards than I have men of comparable size. The only negative thing I’ve noted is that women sustained more stress fractures while we were running around in OCS than men, but, to be frank, if you think sustained sprinting has anything to do with surviving deployment in the modern Army, you really need to find some post-Vietnam sources, ’cause that is damn near the most foolish thing a PL can order their platoon to do in today’s battlefield (not that I’d put it past one).

    So, yeah, citing different Physical Fitness requirements isn’t sufficient in this case.

  58. carnation says

    Cicero, no evidence exists that proves that mothers (or fathers) are treated preferentially in disputed custody arrangements.

    Most arrangements concerning child are and settled amicably. Where there is high levels of animosity, it is often the man who is the one “playing the system”.

    The myth that women “steal” children for their fathers is just that: a myth. It only exists in the imagination of MRAs.

    Can you provide any comparative, peer reviewed studies that prove women are more often given preferential treatment, on account of their sex, in disputed custody cases? I’ll save you the effort of looking: you can’t.

    A tiny, tiny percentage of cases result in no contact with a parent, and with exceptional reasons. The picture that MRAs and f4j paints simply isn’t true. Caring, loving, capable parents are not denied contact with their children. And you any prove that they are. There is no evidence.

  59. Sid says

    Melhopkins

    >Ally the logic of your argument is impeccable and also pretty obvious.

    His argument is based on large misunderstanding of mra positions and a lack of knowledge of feminist jurisprudence.

    There is lots going on. Itsat tipping point where the strategy of being angry in order to breach the mainstream has worked. Mens issues are now being talked about everywhere. For example you mentioned “all the homeless, suicidal, non-healthcare seeking, conscripted, circumcised, partner-abused and emotion-repressing men”. The only reason that those things are getting exposure is the mens movement making noise.

    >men are just the excuse? At any rate that is my (male) partner’s attitude.

    This attitude and “Cry me a river” is basically feminists gender policing, men are supposed to be stoic, only women can really have issues and mens motivations cannot be morally correct, they are men, not women so it must be sinister.

  60. says

    I know it predates feminism, I’m saying that its often stronger in feminists like you, than it is in patriarchy.

    And you’re still dead wrong.

  61. says

    …For example you mentioned “all the homeless, suicidal, non-healthcare seeking, conscripted, circumcised, partner-abused and emotion-repressing men”. The only reason that those things are getting exposure is the mens movement making noise.

    Don’t kid yourself, boy — all of those issues have been getting mainstream attention for as long as I’ve been reading newspapers, at least. Blustering incoherent halfwits like you had NOTHING to do with that. And, in fact, the feminists I’ve known of (as opposed to the feminists you apparently dare not name, so we still don’t know they’re even real) have been on the RIGHT side of all of those issues the whole time. They want men to be healed, at least so they’ll stop hurting women. (Call it enlightened self-interest.)

  62. Sid says

    >And you’re still dead wrong.

    My evidence trumps your emotional reasoning.

    Feminist DV help services are more likely to mock male survivors than the general population.

    > Results indicate that men who seek help for IPV victimization have the most positive experiences in seeking help from family/friends, and mental health and medical providers. They have the least positive experiences with members of the DV service system.
    http://vc.bridgew.edu/socialwork_fac/9/

    Feminists have worked to keep female perpetrated DV in the closet.

    >Processes Explaining the Concealment and Distortion
    ofEvidence on Gender Symmetry in Partner Violence

    http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/V74-gender-symmetry-with-gramham-Kevan-Method%208-.pdf

    Feminists like you laugh at men that object.

    Feminists are often more patriarchal than patriarchy.

  63. Sid says

    Ragingbee.

    Trying to act all superior and condescending doesn’t constitute you making an an argument.

    The only reason that we are discussing mens issues here now, and the only reason they are becoming such a hot topic is mra’s noise and awareness raising on line.

  64. Sid says

    >They want men to be healed, at least so they’ll stop hurting women. (Call it enlightened self-interest.)

    They cannot achieve that by sweeping female perpetrated child abuse and domestic violence under the carpet, and shaming, this has the effect of perpetuating the cycle of violence, emotional pain and addiction in society.

  65. Schala says

    but it is simple fact that it was very largely feminism that identified and popularised the issue of domestic violence and sexual abuse as a problem in the first place.

    You might mean polarized, genderized, and made it a us vs them issue instead of trying to fix it.

    Also, Raging Bee is obviously a troll. Guys, stop feeding the troll. Someone who calls you dishonest when you provide citations, who says “nuh uh because I say so” to every claim, calls you stupid for saying something factual, and so on. It’s obviously ONLY to cause anger in the people this person talks to.

    @carnation

    Here:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/4181867/Custody-ruling-deals-a-blow-to-house-husbands.html

    Look at the judge’s reasoning for giving primary custody to the mother, who was, up to that point, the sole earner. He allows for an escape close, but only for women, from the “but he was a breadwinner and I was home” reasoning for giving women primary custody. She gets custody because its reasonable that she would change her mind after regretting not taking care of her children before. A father would NEVER get custody because of a “well, its reasonable for him to change his mind (post-divorce) about caregiving arrangements”, never.

    Mothers get over 85% of primary custody, fathers get less than 15%. You think less than 1/6th of fathers want it? I got news for you. If you get counseled that you have zero chance, and “you should just accept”, it’s like a plea deal to “guilty” so you can avoid a life sentence (or a very hefty legal bill), even when you’re innocent. It’s not arrangements that are entered into freely.

  66. says

    Feminists are often more patriarchal than patriarchy.

    Only if you use the word “feminist” to include women who support patriarchy — which is just as stupid and dishonest as equating Jews with Buddhists; and pretty much proves your entire case against “feminists” is totally bogus.

  67. Sid says

    >@Sid

    >Many MRAs deny that patriarchy exists. Do,you believe that it does?

    Depends what definition we are using, we reject the scapegoating conspiracy theory that all men oppressed all women in favour of something more rational.

  68. says

    Also, Raging Bee is obviously a troll. Guys, stop feeding the troll.

    I guess that’s the best excuse we’ll hear for your failure to answer most of my requests for specifics or citation. (BTW, I’m a regular at several FTBlogs, with very little complaint, and I may have been in these parts longer than you have, so calling me a “troll” doesn’t exactly hold water.)

  69. Cicero says

    Raging Be, MRAs are growing very fast. Avoiceformen now has more traffick than feministing and goodmenproject. The MRA is full of former feminists. If MRAs upset you that much you will die of a heart attack within 5-10 year as MRAs grow much larger and more mainstream.

  70. Adiabat says

    Dunc: “Did you bother to read the first 5 pages, or the rest of page 6 for that matter? Yes, you’re egregiously misrepresenting them. You’ve misrepresented the two specific quotes you’ve used through selective elision {I must be psychic to have predicted that response}, and you’ve completely ignored the rest of the document, which is in fact very supportive.”

    Sigh, do I really have to go over this again.

    You are trying to conflate shared parenting after separation (the challenge put forward by WithinThisMind in the other thread) with other things, such as shared parental leave. Every single part of the bill that they support are measures that have no negative impact on women, and all work in women’s favour (as well as men’s, which is incidental to Fawcett’s advocacy). Conversely the main part in the bill which they oppose is the only bit which promotes equality that doesn’t work in women’s favour. What a coincidence!

    And even the parental leave is a 180 degree turn on their position a year before when they opposed it (http://www.nurseryworld.co.uk/article/1147967/point-need-parental-leave), and has only been changed because of how much they were shown up for not working towards equality and because it was pointed out just how the proposals help women. Their former advocacy, which caused a bill that would’ve introduced these changes much earlier to be dropped, was that leave should be ring fenced for women to prevent them from being pressured into returning to work. As it’s already illegal for employers to pressure women to return to work, the only possible pressure is from their nasty male partners who would’ve no doubt stolen all the leave for themselves, those abusive bastards! An organization that makes policy based on sexist claims about men, and only changes its policy only after it’s pointed out how it may benefit their preferred group is not an organization that cares about equality, or doing the right thing because it is the right thing to do.

    The Fawcett Society opposes shared parenting based on a sexist stereotype where the typical man is abusive and a cry of “Won’t somebody think of the children”. The proposal is “an assumption of shared parenting”: it is not automatic and abusive men will not get shared parenting. This fact, which I doubt they are unaware of, highlights the sexism at play in Fawcett’s advocacy.

    The assumption proposed is that children generally benefit from having both parents actively involved in their lives, which seems a reasonable assumption. The Fawcett Society are arguing that the unequal system must be kept as it is because of the minority of abusive men. Not only does this ignore abusive women who commit the majority of child abuse, but it effectively screws over the vast majority of men due to the behaviour of a few. That is sexist.

    Please just read the thread. We’ve covered all this. (In fact all the above is just quotes from the other thread. (If it reads a bit disjointed that’ll be why))

  71. Ally Fogg says

    @carnation

    “This is as good a place as any to make this point: the family court isn’t biased against fathers. Fathers break contact orders, lie, obfuscate and play the system. 10, 15 years ago, there *was* a presumption that mothers were th best caregiver, but that is no longer the case. F4J lie, lie and lie again. They muddy the waters, deliberately mixing fatherlessness up with family court issues.”

    I’m not convinced by evidence that there is no discrimination in family court decisions. I’ve personally seen cases where the father was the primary carer and yet residency was awarded to the mother too often to have faith in the fairness of the system. The research I’ve seen coming out of, for example, the Norgrove Report was riddled with problems, primarily in that it largely depended on the judgements of the family courts as to whether or not they were doing their job properly.

    That said, I think the proportion of unfair rulings by family courts are probably pretty low. I don’t doubt that in most of the 91% of cases which rule towards the mother, it is the correct decision in the interests of the children.

    The biggest problem, from what I’ve seen, is not the initial rulings but the inability of courts to enforce access arrangements. If the responsible parent (usually the mother) chooses to refuse access, there is virtually nothing the courts are willing or able to do about it.

    Having said all that, the biggest problem with separating families is not the court rulings, it is what happens before the separation. Our society is designed around the assumption that the male will be the primary earner and the woman the primary carer, that makes it inevitable that more couples will fall into those roles. I don’t hold men to blame if they are resentful that after being pushed into working long hours to support a family over many years, when the family splits they are effectively punished for that.

  72. Adiabat says

    “I guess that’s the best excuse we’ll hear for your failure to answer most of my requests for specifics or citation.”

    And again, this has all been covered and RagingBee exposed as a liar and a troll. Is she/he going to pop up on every new thread pretending his/her ass hasn’t already been kicked?

  73. carnation says

    @Cicero

    You’re deluding yourself. Reactionary, attention grabbing outfits will always get attention. F4J are recognised globally. They’ve achieved nothing. The Westboro Baptish Church is better known than the MRM.

  74. Sid says

    @Only if you use the word “feminist” to include women who support patriarchy — which is just as stupid and dishonest as equating Jews with Buddhists; and pretty much proves your entire case against “feminists” is totally bogus.

    You like many are a feminist that laughs at and pushes back at men trying to get their issues on the table.

    “The patriarch” is more sympathetic to male dv victims than feminist DV help services, where male DV help seekers have a strong chance of being mocked.

    > Results indicate that men who seek help for IPV victimization have the most positive experiences in seeking help from family/friends, and mental health and medical providers. They have the least positive experiences with members of the DV service system.
    http://vc.bridgew.edu/socialwork_fac/9/

    Feminists have worked to keep female perpetrated DV in the closet.

    >Processes Explaining the Concealment and Distortion
    ofEvidence on Gender Symmetry in Partner Violence

    http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/V74-gender-symmetry-with-gramham-Kevan-Method%208-.pdf

    So, going by what feminists say patriarchy does, feminism is patriarchy.

  75. Dunc says

    Please just read the thread. We’ve covered all this.

    I’ve read the thread. I’m unimpressed.

  76. Ally Fogg says

    Cicero (55)

    So Ally, how exactly does feminists like carnation not make things more difficult for men to fix the sissues facing them, cosnidering how she argues about men and parenting rights?

    With no offence intended to carnation, I suspect she (?) has no more influence on the judgments of the family courts than you or I.

    Take carnation and her arguments away and family courts are still ruling against fathers, because they (and the rest of society) are still wrapped up in the assumptions that childcare is women’s work.

  77. Sid says

    @carnation

    F4J are impotent because they are afraid to be angry, they are also in a bind, they need to get angry to make it work link all other social movements but they cannot because men aren’t allowed to show emotion and anger that they show, no matter how righteous will be used against them by the anti father lobby.

  78. says

    I can count on one hand the number of feminists I, personally, have come across that advocate for women’s rights at the expense of men’s. The majority that I have heard about (these tend to be in the skeptical community, of course, so I can’t say much about woo-woo feminists) have explicitly shown support for both women’s and men’s rights, while I have yet to find an MRA who does the same. All the MRAs I see tend to do little more than dump all over feminists using slut-shaming, victim-blaming, and various gender-based insults while only bringing up men’s issues when a feminist brings up an analogous women’s issue and asks why they’re ignoring the men’s side even though these feminists have usually addressed it in the past. This insistence of the MRAs and their supporters that because one labels him- or herself a feminist means that she or he must be of the man-hating, gender essentialist, granola girl type is little more than strawman(or -woman)ing of the same vein as theists who claim that Mussolini is representative of all atheists. Contrary to MRA belief, a majority of modern feminists, at least in the skeptical community, seem to have long ago recognized the flaws of gender essentialism and I have seen many posts by feminists denouncing the idea.

  79. Adiabat says

    Ally (76): good post. Especially This:

    “Our society is designed around the assumption that the male will be the primary earner and the woman the primary carer, that makes it inevitable that more couples will fall into those roles. I don’t hold men to blame if they are resentful that after being pushed into working long hours to support a family over many years, when the family splits they are effectively punished for that.”

    Men are just as pressured to be the breadwinner as women are to stay at home. It’s never happened to me (fingers crossed!) but I can imagine that it’s one thing to agree with your wife that you are going to be the one who slaves all day in a job you hate, when you’d rather be at home with your family, if you get to come home to a loving wife who gives you a peck on the cheek and children who greet you with a hug, quite another to do all that to go home to an empty apartment and have your ex cancel your visitation days consequence-free. Like you said, you are being punished for something you probably didn’t really want to do but “made more sense” because of how society is structured.

    Then on top of that your income is severely reduced which hampers your chance of meeting someone new and having another go at living a happy life.

  80. Sid says

    >Take carnation and her arguments away and family courts are still ruling against fathers, because they (and the rest of society) are still wrapped up in the assumptions that childcare is women’s work.

    Fallacious argument Ally.

    There can simultaneously be shared parenting as a starting point and visitation order enforced in a society that sees child care as woman’s work.

  81. says

    F4J are impotent because they are afraid to be angry, they are also in a bind…

    So here’s how they can get out of that bind: start being intelligent.

  82. Ally Fogg says

    Sid (28)

    Evidence?

    The common mra position tends to be

    * objecting to feminist legislation that erodes the presumption of innocence for men

    * presumed male guilt in the public sphere

    * false accusations going unpunished.

    * feminist agenda to keep definitions of rape excluding a woman forcing someone else to penetrate them.

    * feminism presenting forced sex to the public, gov and its followers as if it were overwhelming male perpetrated in the strength of these misleading definitions.

    * opposition to creeping legislation and definitions that make consensual sex while drunk, rape.

    Here is a challenge for you. Find me any single thread on AVFM, /r/mensrights, antimisandry or any other prominent MRA site which has a whole article and more than a dozen comments without someone mentioning and blaming feminism for something?

    You might be able to do it, but I bet it takes you a long, long time.

  83. Sid says

    >I can count on one hand the number of feminists I, personally, have come across that advocate for women’s rights at the expense of men’s.

    How many feminists have you meet that know anything about what feminism is doing regarding legislation and rights?

  84. Adiabat says

    Dunc: “I’ve read the thread. I’m unimpressed.”

    I don’t give a fuck how impressed you are. I’m more interested that that was the only response you could muster to my post.

    Ally: “With no offence intended to carnation, I suspect she (?) has no more influence on the judgments of the family courts than you or I. “

    I agree. Which is why I generally only care about those feminists with influence, not the insignificant ones on blogs whose only effect is to provide cover and credibility for those that try to screw men over.

    I also question how you know what influences family courts. I think it’s likely that they are heavily influenced by feminist advocacy, including that from DV charities which publish lies about the nature of DV. Do you have any evidence that they are influenced more by “Patriarchy”?

    Michaelbrew: “I can count on one hand the number of feminists I, personally, have come across that advocate for women’s rights at the expense of men’s.”

    I can count all those involved in the Fawcett Society, the most influential feminist organisation in the UK, and those feminists that defend them.

  85. Ally Fogg says

    Sid (85)

    There can simultaneously be shared parenting as a starting point and visitation order enforced in a society that sees child care as woman’s work.

    That may be true, although it looks pretty unlikely as a hypothetical to me, but it’s beside the point. There can simultaneously be shared parenting as a starting point and visitation orders enforced in a society that allows and even encourages a robust exchange of views, opinion and evidence in debates about the issues.

    The existence of feminists =/= global feminist domination, any more than the existence of MRAs means Paul Elam is emperor of the universe.

  86. Sid says

    Hi Ally.

    I asked you for evidence to back up a serious claim you made relating to rape, then I clarified the mra positions relating to rape for you.

    Then you set me a challenge that is unrelated to the evidence I asked you for and the clarifications I gave you as if it followed ….

    Anyhow, I did a quick google and got you an article that lampoons traditional women and traditional gender role expectations, notice how it doesn’t conform to your bizarre strawman of mras blaming feminism for traditionalism and patriarchy, can you do me the same respect and get the evidence I asked you for, even though I am a dirty mra?!

    http://www.avoiceformen.com/women/a-letter-to-traditional-women-revisited/

  87. Adiabat says

    Ally: “The existence of feminists =/= global feminist domination, any more than the existence of MRAs means Paul Elam is emperor of the universe.”

    Yes, we get that. But you seem to be denying just how influential they are. Do they control everything? No, after all if they did the shared parenting clause wouldn’t even make it into the bill. Can they stop bills passing which they don’t like, or get bits taken out that they don’t like? Yes, as we saw with the governments earlier attempt to change the parental leave system to make it more equitable.

  88. says

    How many feminists have you meet that know anything about what feminism is doing regarding legislation and rights?

    So now you’re down to saying that feminists who don’t conform to your stereotype aren’t “true” feminists? Don’t the nazis say the same thing about Jews who don’t show any signs of being part of a conspiracy?

    What a fucking pathetic joke. I’ve heard more coherent bollocks from LyndonLarouche. IF you really want to “get your issues on the table,” you should try harder to separate your valid criticisms from all the raw sewage they’re currently buried in. I’ll take you guys seriously when I hear reality-based criticism without having to wade through pantload after pantload of laughable ignorance and irrationality.

  89. says

    But you seem to be denying just how influential they are.

    That’s because you haven’t shown us nearly enough evidence of anything of the sort. And you’re pretty much admitting this in the backpedaling that follows the above sentence.

  90. Paul says

    Retired judge Elizabeth Butler-Sloss recently gave credence to the myth that UK Family Courts don’t discriminate against fathers which was somewhat disingenuous of her.

    The fact is that if a father takes a mother to court either for custody or improved access he runs a 50/50 chance of losing contact with his children altogether.. For even if the father is the primary carer of his children he still may lose custody to the mother. And if he seeks an improvement in access the mother can ignore it with impunity because Family Courts simply won’t enforce access orders.

    Another issue that’s come up time and time again is that some mothers actively seek to turn their children against the father and fathers are powerless to do anything about it. And if challenged in the Family Courts there’s also a problem of mothers making tearful but unsubstantiated and often false accusations of domestic violence and child abuse in order to demonise the fathers in the eyes of the judge -who despite a total lack of evidence may still give the mother the benefit of the doubt .

    In my opinion many women are highly territorial when it comes to preserving their traditional role as the primary carer of children.They may want more help and support from the fathers but the idea of the father usurping them in their traditional role is one they’re not comfortable with.Which is why most women i suspect wouldn’t be attracted to any man wanting a role reversal or even a 50/50 split in childcare/earner roles.So most couples starting out do so with the understanding that the mother will be the primary carer of any children they have.And mothers may play a key role in encouraging and reproducing that gendered division of labour to the next generation.

    British men with dependent children work the longest hours in Europe and give more time to childcare than they’re ususally. given credit for -much easier it seems to demonise and ridicule us.Yet no matter how hard we work and no matter how good a father we are we’re usually at the mercy of the mothers should our relationship with them break down.For the Family Courts almost always discriminate in favour of mothers unless the father can prove beyond reasonable doubt that she’s either mad or bad.And as i said earlier if the father should challenge the mother at a Family Court he runs the risk of losing contact with his children altogether.Hardly surprising therefore that many fathers simply accept whatever access the mother is prepared to give them even when she in effect marginalizes him in the lives of their children which is what too often happens..

  91. says

    I can count all those involved in the Fawcett Society, the most influential feminist organisation in the UK, and those feminists that defend them.

    Based on their stated opinions about ONE PIECE OF LEGISLATION. Which you lied about. In the immortal words of a Samuel L. Jackson character, “Go the fuck to bed.”

  92. Ginkgo says

    “All of these problems disproportionately (or even exclusively) affect men and boys.”

    And they also affect women – the daughters and mothers and sisiters of those men. That’s not what makes this a problem, but it’s part of it. It was a woman who campigned for years until father’s day was recognized alongside Mother’s day. We are all in this together.

    “Feminists did not invent male-only conscription or circumcision. Feminists didn’t mould the hegemonic cultures of violent masculinity and male disposability. It wasn’t feminists ordering women and children first onto the lifeboats (if that did indeed ever happen.) It isn’t feminists who decide that teachers and child carers should be predominantly women, and it wasn’t feminists who designed the national curriculum…..”

    Tis all rests on the assumption that feminists are somehow outside rebels against the society that enofrces all this when in fact feminists were in very privileged positions in that society and for the most part still are.

    Every item on that list is gynocentric. Feminism is fundamentlaly gynocentric. There is no real daylight between the two. And this dominant form of feminism is nt merely gynocentric, it also tends ot center ion teh concerns of middle class white women. WOC feminists and womanists have been criticizing this about white feminism for decades now.

    And this centering of middle class white women is completely traditional, however much it claims oot be transgressive and subversive and revolutionary.

  93. Sid says

    Ally

    >That may be true, although it looks pretty unlikely as a hypothetical to me, but it’s beside the point. There can simultaneously be shared parenting as a starting point and visitation orders enforced in a society that allows and even encourages a robust exchange of views, opinion and evidence in debates about the issues.

    Shared parenting has existed in Australia, which was rolled back by the feminist lobby.Its not hypothetical. Visitation orders can be enforced, thats not hypothetical either.

    Its a nonsense to say these things cannot exist while child care is seen as women’s work.

    >The existence of feminists =/= global feminist domination, any more than the existence of MRAs means Paul Elam is emperor of the universe.

    I’m doing you the respect of not strawmanning your postions, can you do me the same respect, even though I am a dirty mra?!

  94. Ginkgo says

    Jacob @ 40 – Then you have the whole Donglegate thing where feminists have driven workplace harassment stuff so far men have to shut their mouths in fear not knowing what they can say without getting fired.

    Heh. Adria Richards explicitely stated that firing the man was way too much. She didn’t advocated for it, was totally against, and was totally un involved in that decision. ”

    Adria Richards =/= feminists. That answer was unresponive.

    Once you lit the match it’s easy to stand aside and wring your hands in horror as the house goes up in flames. Considering what happened to her as a consequence of her her actions she can be expected to at least make a show of contrition and concern.

  95. Gjenganger says

    All this MRA v. Feminism is beginning to look like Prime Ministers Question Time.
    Does anybody know a group that:

    – Is trying to develop a political position about the specific interests of men?
    – that can eventually be presented and defended to a mainstream audience?
    – Is independent of Feminism?
    – Does not take it for given that men and women have identical interests, and that all anybody needs is to get rid of patriarchy and/or capitalism (that is you, Ally, much as I respect you).
    – Is sane, rational and reality-based?
    – Avoids conspiracy theories, harassment, and primal screams of pain?
    – Starts from people’s experience, not a pet ideology?

    If you do, could you please post a link?

  96. Ally Fogg says

    Sid (91)

    I asked you for evidence to back up a serious claim you made relating to rape, then I clarified the mra positions relating to rape for you.

    OK, since you’ve started linking to AVfM, how about for starters, Paul Elam’s “hilarious” demonstration that it is possible to make up statistics, by writing a spoof article about how many women enjoyed being raped? The one that (judging from his comments) most of his readers clearly did not get through before whooping with joy that evidence had been found at last?

    Or how about those AVfM posters showing a distressed woman and saying something like “just because you regret it in the morning doesn’t mean it was rape” or suchlike?

    How about Angry Harry, interviewed by Man Women Myth, saying “it is my opinion that the great majority of women who report rape are false accusers”?

    How many examples do you need? We could be here all night, seriously.

  97. Sid says

    @Gjenganger

    I would get you a link but I’m short on patience with feminists being disrespectful. Perhaps you could rephrase it respectfully, even though people that advocate for men’s rights are made or snails and puppy dogs tails!?

  98. Ally Fogg says

    Sid (98)

    Shared parenting has existed in Australia, which was rolled back by the feminist lobby.Its not hypothetical. Visitation orders can be enforced, thats not hypothetical either.

    But in Australia, to the best of my knowledge, childcare is not only seen as “women’s work” (any more so than it is in UK / US, at least). That was the point of my challenge.

  99. Adiabat says

    Raging Bee: I don’t generally mind troll as long as they are funny and keep things fresh, but you are just getting boring now.

  100. Sid says

    Hi Ally,

    Again you have changed the subject.

    And yes, Paul Elam made a shock rhetoric article about women enjoying rape to demonstrate how feminists create evidence by citation to cover up abuse, he sacrificed a sacred cow, to draw attention to a wider issue shock and horror!!

  101. says

    Adiabat @ 68

    Good for you. I’m not very familiar with the Fawcett Society, but looking through their site I can find instances of them affirming the rights of men to break traditional gender roles as well as women:

    We need to see an end to narrow or negative attitudes about women and outdated stereotypes that maintain inequality and limit both women and men.

    For example research has showed 29% of 11- 16 year girls are “ not at all happy with the way they look” , 20% of people think it is acceptable for a man to hit his partner if she dresses in sexy or revealing clothes in public and 76% of girls and 59% of boys would be interested in a non-traditional work sector if they were given the opportunity to try it out.

    (emphasis mine)

    The pay gap, combined with dramatically different leave entitlements for mothers and fathers when a child is born (one year for the mother, two weeks for the father) means that in most cases women continue to be primary carers for children. There is little support or encouragement for men to spend more time caring. This is bad for both fathers and children who would benefit if care was shared more equally but is also a key factor in the discrimination faced by women at work.

    So it seems that they do, in fact, affirm men’s rights as well as women’s. Now if you have an issue with how they go about it in certain instances, that’s fine. Go ahead and criticize their methodology, and you may find many skeptical feminists who agree if their behavior really is discriminatory toward men. However, you can’t use a smattering of poorly thought out policies to smear all of feminism, anymore than creationists can use a poorly done experiment to discredit all of science.

  102. Gjenganger says

    @Sid 103
    I am an antifeminist. Honest, ask Ally. And I have not done that much research – seeing that I have a day job and a family. If you have a link that fits my description, could you post it? Please? I promise that I shall try my best to be polite in my posts.

  103. Melhopkins says

    Sid 63

    This attitude and “Cry me a river” is basically feminists gender policing, men are supposed to be stoic, only women can really have issues and mens motivations cannot be morally correct, they are men, not women so it must be sinister.

    I am not into gender policing. I am sceptical about MRA motivation, though not as sceptical as some. Tell me about the good, practical projects you are starting or supporting to help men – men’s domestic violence shelters, man-friendly suicide prevention or health promotion campaigns, non-conscription or equal conscription campaign – and I might be less sceptical.

    Oh and don’t whine about how hard it is to achieve any thing against the prevailing orthodoxy, not to feminists OK

  104. Ally Fogg says

    Gingko (97)

    Tis all rests on the assumption that feminists are somehow outside rebels against the society that enofrces all this when in fact feminists were in very privileged positions in that society and for the most part still are.

    Here’s a crucial point, and one I disagree with strongly. The idea that feminists exercise considerable control over politics / society etc.

    They don’t. They have certain platforms in media and political lobbies, they have more influence than men’s activists certainly, but that doesn’t make them all-powerful, or even especially influential.

    I’ll tell you who is influential in politics: Goldman Sachs; RBS; Rupert Murdoch; Ernst & Young; Exxon; Toyota; Warren Buffet; Lord Rothermere; Paul Dacre; elected politicians (80% male) government cabinet ministers (90% male) religious leaders; Halliburton; British Aerospace; British-American Tobacco; Glaxo Smith-Klein; Monsanto; etc etc etc etc etc.

    All these people wield a thousand times more power and influence than the combined efforts of every feminist on the planet. Occasionally these people will throw feminists a few scraps from the table, especially if its on something they can make money out of (eg women in the workplace) but the truth is that feminists influence, in the big picture, is utterly marginal.

  105. Soarer says

    27 Raging Bee

    In my experience, most of that mockery is well earned by unbelievably stupid and childish men who can’t seem to touch a keyboard without exposing multiple levels of stupidity, irrationality, dishonesty, and mindless incoherent hatred of phantoms and straw-harpies. Seriously, you guys have a real and persistent credibility problem, and it’s doing your cause more harm than any “feminist academics” could ever do.

    I assume this is irony.

    I like irony :)

  106. Sid says

    >But in Australia, to the best of my knowledge, childcare is not only seen as “women’s work” (any more so than it is in UK / US, at least). That was the point of my challenge.

    Under patriarchy, prior to feminist Caroline Norton’s activism the father got custody, its the same way in Islamic countries today.

    Sole custody can go to the father, the mother, the maincare giver whether child care is seen as women work or not, same goes to shared parenting.

    A man who is the main care giver can be automatically give sole custody, in a society where child care is mainly seen as work, this would still be unfair on the non main are giver and open to exploitation.

    I think the difficulty that people from a feminist background in conceptualising the fact that feminism does influence the legal system is the ideological position that women have no power or agency. And before you say it, I realise that this belief is rooted in older ideology.

  107. Ally Fogg says

    Sid (106)

    Again you have changed the subject.

    Not intentionally but it is hard to keep up with so many comments. Ask me a question and I’ll try to answer it.

    And yes, Paul Elam made a shock rhetoric article about women enjoying rape to demonstrate how feminists create evidence by citation to cover up abuse, he sacrificed a sacred cow, to draw attention to a wider issue shock and horror!!

    And in doing so he dragged the lived experiences and mental health of countless rape survivors through the mud, mocked, reviled and diminished their suffering, helped to deliberately create an incredibly dangerous myth and then found it hilarious when people objected.

    What was your point again?

  108. Ally Fogg says

    Sid (113)

    Under patriarchy, prior to feminist Caroline Norton’s activism the father got custody, its the same way in Islamic countries today.

    On the assumption that the father would quickly remarry and get a new woman to raise his kids, or indeed get his mother to raise them for him.

  109. Sid says

    edit for for typos.

    >But in Australia, to the best of my knowledge, childcare is not only seen as “women’s work” (any more so than it is in UK / US, at least). That was the point of my challenge.

    Sole custody can go to the father, the mother, the maincare giver whether child care is seen as women’s work or not, same goes FOR shared parenting.

    A man who is the main caregiver can be automatically giveN sole custody in a society where childcare is mainly seen as WOMEN’S work, this is still be unfair on the non main Care giver, and open to exploitation.

  110. Cicero says

    “- Is trying to develop a political position about the specific interests of men?
    – that can eventually be presented and defended to a mainstream audience?
    – Is independent of Feminism?
    – Does not take it for given that men and women have identical interests, and that all anybody needs is to get rid of patriarchy and/or capitalism (that is you, Ally, much as I respect you).
    – Is sane, rational and reality-based?
    – Avoids conspiracy theories, harassment, and primal screams of pain?
    – Starts from people’s experience, not a pet ideology?”

    Gjenganger you probably now him but I would say Pelle Billing fits your descritpion.

    Point one yes. Point two, I have presented him to many people that don`t particulary identify as feminists but believe in equality or are right whing libertarian feminists and other people who are not left wing blank slate feminists (most people) and I generally get good reactions about him. They think he is not angry, polite, diplomatic, non dogmatic, that he does not want to turn back the clock and that he raises many important issues they where unaware of. They don`t necessarily agree with him on everything but he is certainly as presentable as you can get if you believe in a large part of the issues MRAs raise on behalf of men and are very critical of the ways feminists have handled things (though at the same time give them some credit for some things, which he does.). Point three, yes obviously. Point four, he believes there are quite significant biological differences between men and women on average and that these will lead to a lot of different behaviors and desires on average but that it is very important to work for the right and realistic ability for people to live as they want without being discriminated against. Point five, yes I belive so and he is perceived by the type of people I mentioned as fundamentaly rational, though of course most feminists ahte his guts.Point six, yes I think so. POint seven, yes I think so.

    If you do, could you please post a link?

    http://www.pellebilling.com/

    http://www.pellebilling.se/wp-content/uploads/Manifest_Pelle_Billing.pdf

    The manifesto is, unlike the first blog which is in English, in Swedish but so can not be read by everyone but is the best presentation of his position (besides the book). But you are Norwegian are you not?

  111. Sid says

    >On the assumption that the father would quickly remarry and get a new woman to raise his kids, or indeed get his mother to raise them for him.

    Sure, it doesn’t change the original point that uninformed land lay feminists claims that feminist jurisprudence doesn’t exist in family law, and that shared parenting as a starting point cannot exist because child care is seen as women’s work is incorrect and flawed.

    The battle over shared parenting is father rights v’s feminist jurisprudence, the feminist lobby and the politicians on both sides it influences.

    Feminists that think otherwise are just uninformed.

  112. redpesto says

    Fogg:

    Whenever I write about male gender issues such as men’s mental health or educational underachievement, I can guarantee a smattering of emails, comments and messages from a few feminists saying something like “Oh cry me a river” or simply “LOL”. I have nothing but contempt for such attitudes […]

    You’re going to have to make a much clearer distinction between men’s anger at bad or unhelpful feminist attitudes, arguments and policies, and the idea that men shouldn’t be angry at feminism or feminists (at all?) because neither it (nor they) were responsible for anything (which is why the ‘patriarchy hurts men too’ meme often sounds more smug in a ”Don’t blame me, guv – I was too busy being oppressed’ way than a means of offering any kind of insight).

    Every hour spent angrily obsessing over the words and deeds of feminism, past or present, is an hour that could be spent making a positive difference.

    True – but it’s not as though it’ll go away if you ignore it. Is it really possible to build a ‘men’s sector’ while leaving feminism and feminists to their own devices (not least because it’s not worth the grief, let alone getting angry about)?

  113. Sid says

    >And in doing so he dragged the lived experiences and mental health of countless rape survivors through the mud, mocked, reviled and diminished their suffering, helped to deliberately create an incredibly dangerous myth and then found it hilarious when people objected.
    What was your point again?

    I see what you’re saying. This is your evidence that MRAs mock the suffering of rape victims,Ok.

    How many patriarchal assumption are you operating under that you judge him more harshly for that then you do the decades long suppression of male domestic abuse victims than the article is drawing attention to?

    Women are weak, men are invulnerable, women need special protection, rape is the ultimate taint on a woman and is a sacred cow…

    Look at how many of these sacred cows and assumptions the article in question destroys and unashamedly puts the shoe on the other foot.

    You pro-feminist people don’t realise how patriarchal you really, this is why AVfM and like shock you, you have never seen these roles and assumptions being torn asunder before.

  114. Adiabat says

    Michaelbrew (107): Thanks for the courteous reply. This is the type of reply I’d expect from people arguing in good faith, and it only took 107 posts.

    Firstly, do you have the links to those quotes? It’s always useful to see the sources myself.

    Secondly, I would argue that their position when it really matters i.e. discussing legislation matters more than a blurb on their website, is what really matters. It’s all well and good them going on about helping men when it has little consequence, but then they go and do the opposite when it really matters, in their official statement for the government! And on top of that they use a highly sexist and discriminative reason.

    The fact that they agree with parts of the bill is inconsequential, they will happen without them (‘if they pack up and go to bed’ as Ally puts it). It’s the parts they are against which matter.

    “However, you can’t use a smattering of poorly thought out policies to smear all of feminism, anymore than creationists can use a poorly done experiment to discredit all of science.”

    The Fawcett Society is the most influential feminist organisation in the UK today. I don’t really care whether some inconsequential feminists on here or another blog disagrees with one of their policies, by identifying and defending feminism all they are achieving is to give the most influential feminist groups and individuals cover and credibility. And when the most influential groups are attempting to prevent legislation that will work towards equality and make a fairer society for all, that means that all the feminists who defends feminism are also preventing legislation that will work towards equality and make a fairer society for all.

    Anyways, I will be away from a computer for a couple of days, and refuse to post from a phone, so I’ll reply to any further posts when I can.

  115. Ally Fogg says

    Sid

    Sure, it doesn’t change the original point that uninformed land lay feminists claims that feminist jurisprudence doesn’t exist in family law, and that shared parenting as a starting point cannot exist because child care is seen as women’s work

    I don’t doubt that feminist jurisprudence exists and may have even had the occasional moment of influence. But I seem to recall the minister responsible for the Children Act 1989 was that noted feminist Kenneth Clarke.

    And I’ve never said that shared parenting cannot exist because child care is seen as women’s work.

    I am saying that if residency is determined according to the best needs and interests of the child, as is currently (and correctly) the law, then in a society where women do most of the childcare, women will usually end up with principal care.

  116. says

    Is it really possible to build a ‘men’s sector’ while leaving feminism and feminists to their own devices (not least because it’s not worth the grief, let alone getting angry about)?

    We’re not asking anyone to “leave feminism and feminists to their own devices;” we’re asking MRAs to be honest and intelligent in their criticism of feminists and feminism. Can you not tell the difference?

  117. jcarr says

    Great essay, well-written. Sociologists specializing in gender issues have been making the same points for years, but John Q Citizen tends to ignore the research due to confirmation bias, of course.

    As you say, there is no denying that there are valid men’s issues and concerns, and the biggest obstacle to overcoming these issues is not feminism but men’s own perceptions. We are getting in our own way. Cultural and social norms are in place that are very difficult to reconstruct, and again, as you correctly pointed out, they are not in place due to feminist activism.

    The challenge here is to get men to stop looking for someone to blame. Humans have a tendency to scapegoat. The enemy-making process is at work here. Feminist activists are easy targets because it is so easy to perceive them as anti-men, so rather than turn the microscope on themselves and their conceptions of social norms, it’s much “safer” for men to point to feminists as the “problem.”

    That’s why so many of these comments in this thread can be summed up as “Yes, but the feminists….” type of commentary. Deflection and evasion rather than careful scrutiny. Individual feminists and some feminist arguments are indeed worthy of criticism, but overall this is just a red herring.

    As an aside, let me just add a personal anecdote to this comment: when I was a stay-at-home Dad for four years, I had to deal with quite a few comments and opinions about how I was a bum because I wasn’t working, and somehow less of a man since I was taking care of the kids, cooking, doing the chores, etc. And these comments came exclusively from MEN, not women, not feminists. I had a ball playing with my kids, taking them to school, having a hot meal waiting for the missus when she came home from work, and making improvements to the house, and yet….well, far too many guys around me thought of me as a lazy bum, “girly” in some immeasurable way that I didn’t really understand, and they kept wondering when I was going to “get off my ass.”

    More men should be stay-at-home Dads for at least a year, by the way. It will give them a whole new perspective on life and a deeper appreciation for the enormous amount of work performed by a “homemaker.”

    It’s my opinion that success for the feminist movement will translate into improvements in men’s issues too, as stereotypes fall away, but I guess only time will tell, eh?

  118. Ally Fogg says

    You pro-feminist people don’t realise how patriarchal you really, this is why AVfM and like shock you, you have never seen these roles and assumptions being torn asunder before.

    Hate to disappoint you, but I’ve been observing sociopathic assholes trampling over the welfare of vulnerable people for at least 30 years now.

    Honestly Sid, if you cannot see how that Elam piece could cause immense unnecessary hurt and potentially cause some real danger to women, then you really are a classic example of someone so blinkered by anger that you have lost sight of empathy and compassion.

    Elam was making an utterly trite point that statistics can be manipulated or fabricated. He could have written an amusing little spoof article about how 14% of howler monkeys can learn to use lipstick or something, and made exactly the same point. He didn’t. He chose to deliberately lie about rape, and to do so by invoking perhaps the single most damaging, hurtful and offensive myth about rape of them all. Why did he do that?

    How can you possibly justify or excuse it?

  119. redpesto says

    @ Raging Bee: I wans’t talking about MRAs as a ‘men’s sector’ (see this article – a href=”http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/may/15/why-crisis-masculinity-feminism?INTCMP=SRCH” – by Glen Poole for the sort of thing I was referring to). Sample quote:

    When we look at the evidence, it is undeniable that men and boys as a distinct group face significant problems. The gap between men and women applying to, and entering, university is growing. They are much more likely to commit crime than women, be homeless, and, between 2006 and 2010, for every single age group men were significantly more likely than women to take their own lives. Tackling these issues as gender problems can make a huge difference, as the emergent men and boys’ sector is beginning to demonstrate through a number of small but significant grassroots projects.

    Successful men’s organisations, including Calm, A Band of Brothers, Young Dads TV, and the ManKind Initiative demonstrate that men of all ages and backgrounds are happy to talk when the people listening are positive about men.

    Somehow I don’t think this is the same thing as MRA groups.

  120. Sid says

    Ally

    Again you struggle to conceptualise feminist jurisprudence as effective – poor women, so weak and pathetic, men so big and strong, they can barely hear the small and mouse like voices of the feminist lobby and feminist jurisprudence!! Here I’m satirising how pro feminist people see things of course, I know myself that feminist jurisprudence is significant part of the establishment.

    The initial point was your repetition of the feminist fallacy that the issue for fathers rights isn’t feminism obstructing shared parenting and feminist jurisprudence in family law but patriarchy, this isn’t correct.

    Others have provided evidence of that here already.

  121. Sid says

    >How can you possibly justify or excuse it?

    How do you justify your sexist double standards and patriarchal assumptions while claiming to be against those very things?

  122. says

    …by identifying and defending feminism all they are achieving is to give the most influential feminist groups and individuals cover and credibility.

    First you try to pretend all “feminists” are the same; then you admit they’re not, but insist that the feminists who aren’t evil only give “cover” to the ones who are — the standard excuse for refusing to distinguish individuals within a hated “enemy” group. Yet another sign of the stupid pointless axe-grinding bigotry that destroys your movement’s credibility.

  123. Sid says

    Surely the real villains here are the feminists that are covering up abuse and demonizing men for 30 years , not the person that puts the same shoe on the other foot for 5 mins to make a point.

  124. says

    Successful men’s organisations, including Calm, A Band of Brothers, Young Dads TV, and the ManKind Initiative demonstrate that men of all ages and backgrounds are happy to talk when the people listening are positive about men.

    redpesto, can you post some links to information about those groups? If they’re not as ignorant, bigoted, and batshit crazy as the MRAs, then I, for one, would rather listen to them than have good blogs clogged up with MRA sewage.

  125. Sid says

    Ally

    >Honestly Sid, if you cannot see how that Elam piece could cause immense unnecessary hurt and potentially cause some real danger to women, then you really are a classic example of someone so blinkered by anger that you have lost sight of empathy and compassion.

    Ally, you have the empathy and compassion dysfunction here. All Elam did was quickly put the shoe on the other foot for 5 mins to highlight what feminists have been doing to male abuse victims for 30 years.

    A large point of the rhetorical device is the highlight the very empathy and compassion gap you are showing us.

    It doesn’t matter that feminism has been covering male abuse victims for 30 years, a FEMALE RAPE VICTIM might be offended! Quick, bring me my sword. Men – saddle up there are gender roles to play.

    You are typifying the traditionalist /feminist / mainstream gender mind set – that men are invulnerable and women are women are weak and empathy and compassion is something for women and not men.

    Elams rhetoric is trying you wake you up from that delusion, that’s what you need to know if you are going to interpret it properly.

  126. Ally Fogg says

    Sid

    Ally, you have the empathy and compassion dysfunction here. All Elam did was quickly put the shoe on the other foot for 5 mins to highlight what feminists have been doing to male abuse victims for 30 years.

    Point me to one piece by a feminist where she suggests that large numbers of men enjoy being raped

    And even if you can, since when has “here’s a person who’s an even bigger asshole than me” been a moral defence for anything?

  127. Ally Fogg says

    RagingBee

    Despite Gjengagner’s (probably reasonable) characterization of me as a batshit anarcho-commie anticapitalist, I’m pretty much on the same page as Glen Poole with this stuff. We’re in pretty close contact.

    And I covered the same territory here and here.

    CALM

    Mankind Initiative

    Don’t know the other two, sorry!

  128. jcarr says

    Surely the real villains here are the feminists that are covering up abuse and demonizing men for 30 years , not the person that puts the same shoe on the other foot for 5 mins to make a point.

    You know, the more you post, the clearer the message. I’m beginning to wonder if you believe that those black UN helicopters are flown by feminazis that will take over the country.

    There is simply no way feminist activists and/or academics could have kept hidden a prevalent system of abuse of men….in a society dominated by men. They just don’t have that kind of power, unless you can provide some solid evidence otherwise.

    You completely dodged Ally’s question, too. He asked you how you can you justify or excuse Elam’s article, and rather than answer the question you did another “yes, but the feminists….” tangent.

    Men’s issues are important, but you aren’t helping the cause.

  129. Sid says

    Everyone note how patriarchal these feminists are.

    Even when given proof that feminism has been covering up abuse against men, its still not wrong and it doesn’t matter.

    Women are morally pure you see, and men are invulnerable!!!

    Smash the patriarchy!!

  130. Ally Fogg says

    not speaking for anyone else, but I’ve never doubted that some feminists have covered up and resisted attempts to address problems of male victims. As I’ve now said repeatedly, I’ll come back to that in the next blog.

    But please read this piece here. Follow the link through to the Storify. That’s the popular public reaction to male victimization, it long predates feminism, and the damage done to male victims by any feminists is vastly outweighed by social conservative, patriarchal attitude towards male roles.

  131. Sid says

    Ally

    >Point me to one piece by a feminist where she suggests that large numbers of men enjoy being raped

    Only a dirty man would say something like that, feminism is female Ally so its morally pure and even when professional feminists cover up domestic abuse and cover up rape like this …

    >Although consideration of male victims is within the scope of the legal statutes, it is important to restrict the term rape to instances where male victims were penetrated by offenders. It is inappropriate to consider as a rape victim a man who engages in unwanted sexual intercourse with a woman. Mary Koss – Feminist http://jiv.sagepub.com/content/8/2/198.abstract

    >By introducing gender neutrality in the law, the government is projecting a falsified image as though there was indeed some semblance of equality in the crimes that are committed against both men and women. … What relief can a woman expect if on being harassed herself, she finds that her attacker has already filed a case against her in order to protect himself? Source: Chandana ChakraAborty, women rights activist http://www.deccanchronicle.com/130217/commentary-op-ed/commentary/dc-debate-gender-neutrality-clause-introduced-govt-fair-or-not

    That is, the meaning of a woman giving oral sex to a man who is asleep is profoundly different from the meaning of a man giving oral sex to a woman who is asleep. Nicola Gavey in her book Just Sex?: The Cultural Scaffolding Of Rape

    http://books.google.no/books?id=OynWn7S3ToEC&printsec=frontcover&hl=en#v=onepage&q&f=false

    It doesn’t count and anyway a FEMALE RAPE victim might have been OFFENDED and men can’t really feel abuse anyway, not when its done by a woman!!

    Saddle up men, gender roles to play!

    Smash the patriarchy.

  132. Ally Fogg says

    Only a dirty man would say something like that, feminism is female Ally so its morally pure and even when professional feminists cover up domestic abuse and cover up rape like this …

    translation: I can’t because it has never happened.

  133. Cicero says

    Point me to one piece by a feminist where she suggests that large numbers of men enjoy being raped”

    Even Enlser in the original version of the Vagina Monologues had a scene where a 24 year old women rapes a 13 year old girl and the experience of the rape is presented as healing and a “good rape” because it showed her she did not need a man to get sexual satisfaction. So rape apology of the most extreme kind, pedophila and hatred of men all rolled into one yet feminism made her an icon. THe scene was included for years untill removed only after pressure. Some feminists took offense, such as Betty Dodson who in addition to protesting the scene found the play to be hatefull towards men, yet most have just celebrated Ensler and appraently found no reason to protest the scene. Not exactly what you asked for but couldn`t possibly be much worse could it eitehr for Ensler or feminism.

  134. jcarr says

    Sheesh, Sid, give me time to read your links, eh?

    I never bother with Wiki links, but the Straus research was a good one, thanks. He has some good work. There are some criticisms, too, however, such as the context of the violence he was comparing. He also doesn’t point to feminists as the sole cause of suppressing male abuse, as you claim, but he does build a strong case for a societal tendency to minimize violence against men for a variety of factors, ONE of which is the feminist politics.

    Here’s an open discussion with Dr. Straus and several other researchers on domestic violence in general, at the National Institute of Justice. Good discussion, very revealing.

    http://www.nij.gov/topics/crime/violence-against-women/workshops/gender-symmetry.htm

    I agree that women violence against men doesn’t get nearly as much attention, but that is more of a social and cultural phenomenon than some feminist conspiracy. It wasn’t suppressed so much as it was relatively ignored by researchers. Blaming feminists ignores the fact that male researchers by the truckload weren’t interested in the subject either.

  135. Sid says

    I provided you three links of feminists down playing womens sexual abuse against men Ally.

    Do your patriarchal lens not let them through?

    I’ll throw in a quote from Michelle Elliott, who also talks about feminists trying to sabotage meeting for the victims of female pedophiles.

    “Whilst there are reasons why feminists limit discussion on the subject of women abusers, these reasons are valid only to feminism.” Female Sexual Abuse of Children edited by Michele Elliott

    http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=zrhafV2NTU4C&lpg=PP1&pg=PA100#v=onepage&q&f=false

    Here are feminist groups working to keep rape by envolopment off the legal books

    http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Womens-groups-Cancel-law-charging-women-with-rape

    I can get you a quote of a feminist saying that men can benefit from being falsely accused of rape too.

    But you see, it doesn’t count, because women can’t really hurt men right!! Besides, Paul Elam might have offended a female rape victim.

    As well as that, if men are angry – that’s bad, only women’s movements are allowed that emotion!!!

    Don’t forget – men movement – snails and puppy dogs tails, women movement – sugar and spice!!!

  136. Sid says

    Jcar

    The NIJ has been criticized by straus for deliberately biasing data to correspond with feminist beliefs.

    So what you are saying is that there is a problem with holding feminism responsible for its role in deliberately covering up abuse in order to support its patriarchy theory because of society and because more men didn’t do research?

    Its like when women do things they don’t really do things and id they did do things, its really because of men and society.

    Sort of like the old thing where men would be sent to jail for the crimes of their wives.

    What if men covered up abuse, whose fault would it be then?

  137. Schala says

    Blaming feminists ignores the fact that male researchers by the truckload weren’t interested in the subject either.

    Okay, so you have some radical feminists with a vested interest in keeping it under wraps because it conflicts with their men=evil women=good theory of oppression, and a bunch of disinterested people who just so happen to work in that sector…and you give them equal blame?

    It’s like giving equal blame to someone assaulting me with a knife than the innocent bystanders who just looked and did nothing (or worse, got their phone on to film the scene while smiling).

  138. Sid says

    BTW Jcar

    Male academics have been quite involved in the attack on the scientific domestic violence data in favour of feminist ideological positions, Kimmel, Flood, Johnson … all cling to this notion that domestic abuse is patriarchal and use dishonest means to attempt to “disprove” what the scientific data is saying.

  139. jcarr says

    Sid

    Did you read the link I gave you, or just dismiss it because Dr. Straus (whom you clearly respect) criticized the entire department? That’s confirmation bias, mate.

    Domestic violence is a complex issue with a multitude of factors, as Dr. Straus himself admits. He also accepts that there are valid criticisms of his methodology. Why don’t you accept this as well?

    So what you are saying is that there is a problem with holding feminism responsible for its role in deliberately covering up abuse in order to support its patriarchy theory because of society and because more men didn’t do research?

    What I’m saying is that there is blame to go around on this. Holding feminists solely responsible for a lack of attention or research on women violence against men ignores the culpability of literally thousands of male researchers who ALSO didn’t feel it was a subject worthy of investigation. It also ignores the societal pressures and cultural norms that kept the population from caring about such an issue. You blame feminists. I blame SOME less-than-honest feminists, a society that didn’t feel it was a problem, a political arena (comprised of mostly MEN) that caters to votes rather than pursue truth, and an academic world of mostly MEN who favored research in other, more interesting areas.

    There simply isn’t any reasonable way to lay the sole blame for this at the feet of feminism.

    Nor does any of this bring down Ally’s point that men need to work on themselves and their issues and stop trying to blame feminism for our own manufactured problems.

  140. says

    Okay, so you have some radical feminists with a vested interest in keeping it under wraps because it conflicts with their men=evil women=good theory of oppression…

    No, fool, we have the well-documented fact that female abuse of males was ignored long before feminism was even a word, so you can’t blame “feminism” for suppressing something that wasn’t all that widely discussed to begin with.

    Seriusly, dude, how can you be trusted to solve a problem when you can’t even identify who or what is causing it?

  141. Cicero says

    Cicero, the example you provided was not what was asked for. Did you not understand the question?

    My example was even more daming to feminism than what he asked for.

  142. Sid says

    >But please read this piece here. Follow the link through to the Storify. That’s the popular public reaction to male victimization, it long predates feminism, and the damage done to male victims by any feminists is vastly outweighed by social conservative, patriarchal attitude towards male roles.

    This is your working off your premise that mras are dirty, ignorant simpletons.

    Yeah everyone in the debate knows it long predates feminism, it still does not negate the responsibility of feminism for taking over the DV movement and suppressing the data about female perpetration in order to demonise men and support its patriarchy theory while setting up intervention and support services that discriminate.

    You really underestimate the intelligence of the dirty, sinister, snails and puppy dogs tails group, Ally. And like with many feminists, you’ve got a real difficult in seeing women as responsible actors. This is why pro feminist cannot understand the mens movement, they cannot compute women being held as responsible as men, and men claiming the same right to compassion and emotion as women. This is also why you won’t be writing articles and doing radio shows that treat female or feminist anger and emotion as some sort of oddity.

    This is also why many disillusioned feminists are joining the mens movement – because it is what liberal feminism once was.

  143. Schala says

    Raging Bee, I don’t know if you’re aware, but I generally skip over your posts, as I would any other troll after a while (confirming they’re one).

    And note that you can troll on one subject (or with a certain audience) while being perfectly reasonable on another, so your claim that you’re well-accepted on other blogs falls flat.

  144. says

    This is also why many disillusioned feminists are joining the mens movement…

    How many?

    Raging Bee, I don’t know if you’re aware, but I generally skip over your posts…

    I’m aware that you seem to feel a great need to make excuses to skip over my posts…and to make sure everyoone sees you pretending to ignore me.

  145. jcarr says

    It’s like giving equal blame to someone assaulting me with a knife than the innocent bystanders who just looked and did nothing (or worse, got their phone on to film the scene while smiling).

    The bystanders wouldn’t be responsible for the knife-wielder, of course, but they would certainly be guilty of a lack of interest in your life, wouldn’t they? As you lay dying on the street, would you view those bystanders as innocent, or would you be pissed that they did nothing? If they had jumped in, you might not be dying.

    By the same token, why aren’t you pissed at all those male researchers who simply ignored or failed to conduct any research on women violence against men? I might add, the male researchers vastly outnumbered the female researchers. You lay the entire blame on the knife-wielder and seem perfectly content to forgive the massive crowd that stood around and did nothing. Hardly seems reasonable.

    And to take your analogy even further, let’s say the knife-wielder is a woman. She’s to blame for the attack….but there are dozens of women in the crowd who have knives but aren’t attacking you, they just have them for defense. But in your view, they are as guilty as the knife-wielder, even though they are just members of the “innocent” crowd of bystanders.

    If the bystander doesn’t step in and try to stop an injustice, are they truly innocent? Silence and inaction can be complicit as well, mate. If I hadn’t stepped in and stopped three guys from raping a women (true story) and gotten my ass kicked in the process, would I be innocent of the woman’s rape? I didn’t participate in the rape, but I could have stopped it, and I didn’t….where does responsibility begin and end?

    In any event, the point I’ve been making repeatedly is that there are too many reasons for the lack of interest/research into women violence against men to blame feminists and feminists alone. If a feminist academic or advocate deliberately suppressed data, she/he should be called out on it and castigated for such action, as we do for any such dishonesty in any field, but blaming feminism as whole is over-the-top.

  146. Sid says

    >There simply isn’t any reasonable way to lay the sole blame for this at the feet of feminism.

    Well you are feminist, you (ironically ) view women as like children, they are never really responsible for their actions, not like men are. If it was men covering up abuse of women, your perception would change.

    So there is no reasonable way we can hold feminism responsible for seizing control of the original domestic violence movement and suppressing the information about domestic violence. The using dishonest means to continue to cover it up and installing an intervention system that discriminates against men and lies to the public about the nature of domestic violence, in your mind.

    You are all so patriarchal and yet you don’t know it.

  147. says

    So now Sid is down to meeting every reply to his BS with “You’re a feminist…” followed by yet more tired, ignorant and very old statements about feminism. Go to bed, boy, we have information from Ally and redpesto about MORE SENSIBLE groups dealing MORE SENSIBLY with “men’s issues.” So your “contribution” really isn’t needed here.

  148. thascius says

    @108-The Wikipedia page you cite notes that the studies showing “very, very high rates of false accusations” had some very, very serious flaws. The more credible studies they cited found rates of false accusations in the 2-8% range. I didn’t see any mention of how many (if any) of the false accusations in those studies led to convictions. I wonder how that compares to false reporting of other crimes? I’d also be curious to know what percentage of men who were genuinely guilty of rape falsely denied it.

  149. jcarr says

    Well you are feminist, you (ironically ) view women as like children, they are never really responsible for their actions, not like men are. If it was men covering up abuse of women, your perception would change.

    I never said that women weren’t responsible for their actions. I pointed to several different factors, widely recognized in the research (including the research that YOU linked me to) that led to the ignoring of female violence against men. You’ve ignored the other factors and lay the sole blame on feminism.

    ….and then assert a conspiracy.

    ….oh, and then decide, without knowing anything about me, that I’m patriarchal, simply because I see complexity where you see simplicity.

    Thanks for the dialogue, and the Dr. Straus link. I work with traumatized children, primarily children who are victims of violence of some kind, and Straus’ research is somewhat relevant to my field. It’s interesting, if only anecdotal, that, contrary to Straus’ research, the vast majority of situations of violence within families that I’ve encountered here in the U.S. is generally committed by men in the house. It’s certainly possible that the women violence simply isn’t reported due to social norms, of course….but I’ve never had reason to think there was some feminist conspiracy out there keeping men from knocking on my office door and seeking help for their abuse….

  150. Sid says

    So Ally Fogg.and Jcarr

    Do either of you care to discuss the sexist assumptions that causes you to hold elams article that might offend female rape victims and feminisms covering up, minimizing and omitting female perpetrated domestic violence, sexual violence, pedophilia and child abuse in favour of patriarchy theory to such vastly different standards?

    Suppose we jail broke the patriarchy and reversed the genders, would elam all of a sudden become the good guy we make excuses for.and the feminist researchers would appear in the snails and puppy dogs tails role for you?

  151. Paul says

    @jcarr

    I agree that putting the entire blame on feminists for the lack of research/interest in female-on-male violence is plain wrong.For there are clearly also other forces at work.However there has been a perception for some time now that feminist academics,politicians ,journalists and others have been highly selective in the research they’ve used to justify playing down or ignoring the extent to which women can also be abusive .And that feminists have played a key role in the formulation of policies to address the problems of dv in our society.

    I’ve certainly heard and witnessed cases where men who are the victims of dv have been treated appallingly badly by those agencies who would almost certainly be much more willing to help female victims. For instance i used to live in a flat under a couple where the woman was extremely violent towards her partner and was always threatening to kill him . And other neighbours had also witnessed her attacking him -on one occasion with a piece of wood which she beat him. him around the head with until he bled.One night i called the police when the violence got really bad and was told that officers would be sent immediately as a woman was at risk.However when i told them that it was a bloke at risk i was told we’d have to wait until officers became available,.It ceased to be a priority solely on the basis of the victim being male. Now feminists aren’t entirely responsible for that double-standard but they have imo played their part in underpinning and legitmizing it .

  152. Schala says

    By the same token, why aren’t you pissed at all those male researchers who simply ignored or failed to conduct any research on women violence against men? I might add, the male researchers vastly outnumbered the female researchers. You lay the entire blame on the knife-wielder and seem perfectly content to forgive the massive crowd that stood around and did nothing. Hardly seems reasonable.

    You seem to think I’m pissed at people based on their genitalia. I’m not. I’m pissed at people based on their ideology.

    Those male researchers were doing nothing based on confirming the status quo.

    Those feminist researchers (male or female, I don’t fucking care), were doing harmful stuff based on confirming their false ideolgy.

    Yes, I WILL hold the harmful people to a standard above people who just “do nothing”. This is damn obvious. Being member of a certain demographic is not a choice. Pushing a certain ideology is. And if it reinforces harmful attitudes while claiming to combat them, it’s even more harmful (since it claims to have solved the issue it just made worse – and some people (including the governments) give credence to those “problem solved now” claims).

  153. says

    However there has been a perception for some time now that feminist academics,politicians ,journalists and others have been highly selective in the research they’ve used to justify playing down or ignoring the extent to which women can also be abusive.

    A “perception?” Care to guess where that “perception’ came from? Does this “perception” come with actual names or specific cases? This sounds like a classic propaganda tacic: someone says there’s a “perception,” then others repeat the statement, so the “perception” becomes part of everyone’s discourse just because everyone’s talking about it, so there must be something to it, right?

  154. jcarr says

    @Paul

    I agree for the most part, and that’s been my point. I think it would be very interesting to investigate to what degree we CAN blame feminism for some of these issues. It has clearly been a part of the phenomenon, but to what degree?

    Considering the ratio of men to women in academics, journalism, politics, and so forth, I have a difficult time imagining that feminists could possibly have so profound a power in a male-heavy environment. I tend to blame societal and cultural norms more than a concerted effort by such a small minority of the population (and you shared a good example of societal and cultural norms backfiring on men, by the way), but I could be wrong.

  155. says

    I’m pissed at people based on their ideology. Those male researchers were doing nothing based on confirming the status quo. Those feminist researchers (male or female, I don’t fucking care), were doing harmful stuff based on confirming their false ideolgy.

    So the male researchers get a pass because it’s okay to do nothing?

  156. Ally Fogg says

    Sid (147)

    I provided you three links of feminists down playing womens sexual abuse against men Ally.

    OK, if you insist, let’s go through them.

    1. the Mary Koss quote is a point about language and terminology. She is explaining that she uses the specific term “rape” to mean penetration by force, and not envelopment. In that she is reflecting the legal (and usually dictionary) definition of rape since the dawn of time. She does not state that other forms of sexual assault are not harmful, deny they occur or anything like it, I presume the quote is from the introduction and is explaining why they have included and excluded certain offences from the analysis in an academic paper.

    2. The Chandana Chakraborty quote is a standard position on why domestic violence should be considered a gendered crime. It’s not a position that I entirely agree with, but arguing against gender neutral approaches is not remotely the same thing as saying violence against men is a joke or insignificant, it’s just saying that violence against men and women happen for different reasons and may be experienced differently. This is a bogstandard position in an academic / ideological debate with pros & cons on both sides. I happen to broadly disagree with her, but there’s no way you can say she is actively denigrating male victims there.

    3. the Nicola Gavey quote is from a book that I haven’t read (would hazard a guess you haven’t either.) Reading the intro on Google, it appears to be a post-structuralist, post-constructionist philosophical treatise that sets out to “problematize” (always love that word) the semiotics and meaning of the language of rape and sexual violence. I don’t mean to be disrespectful to the author, who I’ve never read, but I’d hazard a guess this is stuff brought down from Roland Barthes where you can spend 200 pages deconstructing the meaning of a plate of sausages. In that context, what she says about the “meaning” of different sexual acts is hardly surprising. Even read superficially and out of context, she doesn’t actually say one act is more serious or harmful than the other, just that they are different.

    Meanwhile, let’s remind ourselves what Elam wrote

    Headline: “Study Reveals Female Rape Victims Enjoyed the Experience”

    He then begins to detail false and fabricated studies, attributed to Psychology Today, which supposedly found that large proportions of female rape victims enjoyed the experience and wanted it to happen again. Also a bunch of stuff about how women secretly wanted to be raped, and a whole lot more besides.

    Then after about 800 words of this, he suddenly says “Only kidding. Not really, but hey, if I can make shit up so can feminists” or something to that effect.

    I presume Elam is well aware that a huge proportion of readers of any articles never get to the end, and so many readers who find his blog will leave with entirely false information that is unbelievably dangerous (music to the ears of any potential rapist) and incredibly hurtful to rape victims. And then most of the comments beneath prove that many readers were posting their comments without noticing that it was all fabricated bullshit.

    And you think those quotes you gave are some way equivalent? Really?

    Now, I could just about write that one off as an aberration of judgment, a moment of madness or whatever you want to call it. Except that this is the same man who calls upon jurors to rule men accused of rape not guilty irrespective of the evidence. This is the man who wrote about theories that rape victims who wear short skirts or flirt in public might be asking for it by responding: “Asking for it? They’re fucking begging for it!”
    He’s the man who wrote of Slutwalks saying something like “even the ugly ones look good enough to be raped” and that “all women want to be taken and dominated.”

    All of that is just off the top of my head. He’s got a list of that stuff as long as my arm. It’s not me making this up, it’s not David Futrelle making this stuff up. It’s all there, still there, on his own website for anyone who wants to look.

    I know nothing about Elam as a man, I have no reason to believe he has personally ever harmed anyone, but his combined writings over the years add up to a whole fucking rape manual.

    And you’re worried about some post structuralist saying the meaning of a woman giving oral sex to a man who is asleep is “profoundly different” from the meaning of a man giving oral sex to a woman who is asleep?

  157. Ally Fogg says

    Sid

    Suppose we jail broke the patriarchy and reversed the genders, would elam all of a sudden become the good guy we make excuses for.and the feminist researchers would appear in the snails and puppy dogs tails role for you?

    If any woman wrote the stuff Elam writes with the genders reversed, I would consider her deranged, dangerous and probably sociopathic.

    Which is pretty much how I consider the likes of Femitheist Divine and some of the Radfem Hub veterans, before you ask.

  158. jcarr says

    You seem to think I’m pissed at people based on their genitalia. I’m not. I’m pissed at people based on their ideology.

    No, no, I understood that. No need to explain, mate. I was referring to ideology too, but since most feminists tend to be female historically, I just defaulted to that.

    Yes, I WILL hold the harmful people to a standard above people who just “do nothing”. This is damn obvious.

    I didn’t say that the knife-wielder and crowd were equally to blame. My point was to demonstrate that the do-nothing bystanders are not exactly innocent. I also showed that other people in the crowd had the same knives (ideology), and that they were being lumped into the blame, despite the fact that they were part of the “do-nothing” crowd.

    Just extending your analogy to reflect the feminism-Is-to-blame arguments that have posited in this thread.

  159. Sid says

    Ally

    Ally, I didn’t ask you about the feminists that advocate mass murder, I was asking about the ones that cover up abuse. Its interesting how you see the possible offense of female rape victims as akin to calling for the extermination of all men though. I think this is your patriarchal bias showing, men and women are of equal worth.

    Are you saying that if a feminist woman wrote that article in response to a male organisation that used dishonest means to cover up abuse in order to demonise women and mislead the public, the feminist woman would still be the bad guy and the male organisation that was covering up the abuse would be the good guy?

  160. says

    Yes, I WILL hold the harmful people to a standard above people who just “do nothing”. This is damn obvious.

    You know what else is “damn obvius?” Doing nothing is often harmful. And BTW, people who oppose feminism aren’t just “doing nothing” — they also do a lot of very harmful things, either to “push a certain ideology,” or just to hurt someone they hate.

    Being member of a certain demographic is not a choice. Pushing a certain ideology is.

    You know what else is also a choice? Doing nothing.

    Damn, Schala, your grudge against “feminism” (as you imagine it) is looking more ignorant, unhinged, and totally divorced from reality every time you comment.

  161. Sid says

    Why don’t you consider the feminist organisations that cover up and misrepresent abuse dangerously sociopathic Ally?

  162. Schala says

    Considering the ratio of men to women in academics, journalism, politics, and so forth, I have a difficult time imagining that feminists could possibly have so profound a power in a male-heavy environment.

    If you reinforce conservatism (and this is what a lot of feminist policies do), you’ll have a lot of support. Not just from the right-wing theocrats, but also from everyone scared of paradigm shifts, such as people scared of men being recognized as victims of rape and DV.

    Pushing a door open is easy. All you have to do is agree with the current paradigm on all the points except those that disadvantage your group, and claim you will achieve equality by being selfish.

    Conservatism: Men are BY BIOLOGY brutish, evil, violent, beastly creatures who will rape women if provoked.

    Feminism: Men are SOCIALIZED TO BE brutish, evil, violent, beastly creatures who will rape women if provoked.

    Both: This biology or socialization is inevitable, so we need to protect those weak fragile women from those big strong brutish men.

    Where is the difference? Not in those subjects. They also have the exact same outlook towards trans people (ie a very cissexist outlook, that paints men as extremely sexually aggressive and violent by nature – and trans women that way since they’re considered men too).

    My point was to demonstrate that the do-nothing bystanders are not exactly innocent. I also showed that other people in the crowd had the same knives (ideology), and that they were being lumped into the blame, despite the fact that they were part of the “do-nothing” crowd.

    They can then renounce their ideology, since it accepts the loonies as normal. I renounced feminism. I renounced the MRM. I embraced a ideology-free ‘identity’ that consists of examining each claim, each iteration of sexism, and to work against that. No dogma needed.

  163. Ally Fogg says

    Sid (172)

    Its interesting how you see the possible offense of female rape victims…

    I’m not talking about “possible offense” being caused to victims. I’m talking about profoundly dangerous and harmful comments that are at times tantamount to incitement to rape. So yes, I think Elam is in roughly a similar ballpark to the murderous wingnuts of feminism. In some ways more dangerous, as I can imagine it is rather more likely that someone might commit rape while inspired by Elam’s words than murder baby boys while inspired by the Femitheist Divine.

    But nicely dodged.

  164. Ally Fogg says

    Why don’t you consider the feminist organisations that cover up and misrepresent abuse dangerously sociopathic Ally?

    Because most of them are not.

  165. Sid says

    Ally

    >Then after about 800 words of this, he suddenly says “Only kidding. Not really, but hey, if I can make shit up so can feminists” or something to that effect.

    You are like David Futrelle.

    This is what was said

    >These items, indeed this entire article, are illustrative examples of what Murray Straus identified as “Evidence by Citation” and other forms of academic fraud in widespread and unchallenged use by feminist ideologues. They were presented here as an example of their destructive use.

    You changed the most important part to sinisterize the Elam position and obscure the point that this is exactly how feminism deliberately erased abuse victims.

    You are following patriarchal script here man. You have totally different standards of behaviour and levels of compassion for men and women.

  166. jcarr says

    Are you saying that if a feminist woman wrote that article in response to a male organisation that used dishonest means to cover up abuse in order to demonise women and mislead the public, the feminist woman would still be the bad guy and the male organisation that was covering up the abuse would be the good guy?

    This is where you lose me, Sid. You keep wanting to target the entire movement/organization as the sole blame for…well, whatever it is to which you object. It just isn’t that simple. It’s probably reasonable to assume that there have been some feminist activists and academics that have marginalized, ignored, or even suppressed information pertinent to men’s issues, such as the abuse you keep harping about. But you want to continually take it a step further and lay a blanket over the entire movement/organization as responsible for this, despite several other factors (mentioned above in my posts repeatedly) that are just as likely, if not more, to play a significant role in the issues.

    If I could use a few comparisons, you’re blaming Christian theology for the KKK, Germanic culture for anti-Semitism, and Islam for 9/11, all of which have some role in the problems, but they are far and away not solely responsible for the events or behaviors.

    Complexity, mate, complexity! Understanding the entire picture rather than focus on one small part allows for a deeper comprehension of what actually needs to change. As Ally Fogg has pointed out numerous times, if feminism never existed, we would still have these issues.

  167. Eristae says

    Conservatism: Men are BY BIOLOGY brutish, evil, violent, beastly creatures who will rape women if provoked.

    Feminism: Men are SOCIALIZED TO BE brutish, evil, violent, beastly creatures who will rape women if provoked.

    Both: This biology or socialization is inevitable, so we need to protect those weak fragile women from those big strong brutish men.

    Where is the difference? Not in those subjects. They also have the exact same outlook towards trans people (ie a very cissexist outlook, that paints men as extremely sexually aggressive and violent by nature – and trans women that way since they’re considered men too).

    The difference is that in the conservative one, increased violet urges are seen as inherent and immutable. In the second, increased violent urges are seen as something that are imposed and that therefore can be changed. Socialization is inevitable, but how we socialize people is not.

    More than once my mother has told me that, when she was getting ready to have kids, she was worried about how she would protect her potential son from a culture that was going to impose violence on him, both by minimizing any violence he received and minimizing any violence he doled out. She didn’t believe that her son would somehow be inherently violent; she was worried about the fact that our society would tell him that.

    With a daughter, she felt that she didn’t have to worry that I would punch someone or be punched by someone and the world wouldn’t care.

    Although, in retrospect, both my sister and I were struck (by boys) in elementary school (kicked in my case; I’m told that I had a rather spectacular black eye, although I only remember being kicked and not having the black eye) and the world didn’t care. They actually cited the whole “boys will be boys” in my case. In my sister’s it was justified that he had meant to hit someone else (another boy, if I remember correctly, who wasn’t doing anything to provoke it, just as my sister wasn’t doing anything to provoke it).

  168. Sid says

    Ally

    Why is there such an empathy gap for you between the hypothetical female rape victims that Elam might offend and the 30 years of deliberately covering up, excluding and denying the existence of real male abuse victims?

    Why is Elam a sociopath and a feminist deliberately covering up abuse not?

    Straight answers for straight questions :)

  169. Sid says

    Jcar

    >This is where you lose me, Sid. You keep wanting to target the entire movement/organization as the sole blame for…

    No.I’ve fully aware that most feminists have no idea that this is going on and that there are feminists like Wendy McElroy and Murray Strauss that speak out against it, while most feminists that you meet online talking about this stuff will attack you for saying it … I see them as supporting it but not out of badness or ill intent, they are supporting it out of ideological commitments and bigoted beliefs about men and women.

    The ideology – Patriarchy theory and hate is what drives the propagandists that knowingly do this this stuff to do it.

  170. jcarr says

    No dogma needed.

    Ah, okay, I see why we seem to be talking past each other. I don’t see feminism as dogmatic, on the whole, but rather just a movement that tries to a) protect and advance women’s interests, and b) raise awareness about women’s issues. You see it as dogmatic, apparently. Okay, fair enough. I agree some feminists might fall into a dogmatic trap, but I disagree that feminism itself is dogmatic, thus our miscommunication.

    I understand your position in a general sense, however. I’m an Independent for roughly the same reason, to avoid favoring one party over another and being able to view candidates and proposals without a vested interest in any one party.

    Be careful, though. I recall my grandfather being really disgusted with black activists for being dogmatic and anti-white….

  171. Sid says

    edit

    there are also other pressures on feminist researchers, eg, being bullied and their funding and threatened if they don’t toe the feminist party line.

  172. Ginkgo says

    Ally ab 111 – “Here’s a crucial point, and one I disagree with strongly. The idea that feminists exercise considerable control over politics / society etc. ”

    I was referring there specifically to the women involved in the suffrage movement – look at photos from that era and tell me those women in those ridiculous bustles could do any manual work. Every one of them was rich and privileged. Even without the vote they were eventually able to get an amendment to the Constitution to establish Prohibition. A constitutional amendment is probably the largest-scale political accomplishment in our system, pretty good for a supposedly powerless demographic.

    How much of a feminist would you consider Joe Biden, who says VAWA, patently sexist VAWA, is his proudest poltical achievment? What exaclty do you consider “considerable control”? Is seciond most powerful person on the planet not “considerable control?

    As repugnant as we all think doxxing is, one thing that the Agent Orange/ RadFemHub affair made abundantly clear was that many of those people were indeed in positions of great influence and even direct power. It was like the time in the 60s when membership roles of various KKK groups started coming to light with the names of judges and university administrators and influential clergy on them.

    And this does not even touch the numbers for instance of male judges whose attitudes on child custody, traditionalsit and patriarchal as hell, mirror exactly those of NOW. Those are certainly not feminists, but they certainly are the functional equivalent.

  173. Dinner4Schmucks (N4M) says

    Ally, tell you what, here’s something which I think completely typifies the way professional feminism goes about its business in Britain. You follow the media pretty closely here in the UK, so I’m sure you’ll know what I’m talking about, without me having to post lots of links to all the relevant articles. (Of course, I can if you want me to, though!)

    Back in 2008, when the financial crash first hit, many of the sectors which were worst impacted economically happened to be disproportionately populated by men (that’s to say construction, heavy industry, etc).

    So as far as the figures go, it was men, at that point, who were affected significantly worse (if someone, objectively, wanted to look at the situation from that sort of perspective. Not that the crash wasn’t bad for most people, in some way, apart from certain rich, city bankers.).

    However, then, over the period of a month or so, there was a slight uptick in the female unemployment rate relative to men. All of a sudden – as I’m sure you will remember – the Guardian newspaper (whose editors are largely radical feminists, like K. Viner and Jessica Reed), along with parts of BBC radio, used this phenomenon to start blitzing us with dozens of pieces about how ‘women were bearing the brunt of the recession’, and those politicians charged with discussing gender matters in the governing Labour party (the usual suspects), did exactly the same thing.

    Of course, they were well aware that this was a mendacious use of statistics, but they went ahead and did it anyway. I mean, do you not recognise that this happened? Is not such behaviour a real abuse of authority? Is it not symbolic of an unfortunate attitude towards gender relations in this country? Or does it make no difference if power is mishandled like that?

    What’s more, incredibly, it looks as though the same thing may be happening all over again, according to this report, here:
    ,
    http://www.cipd.co.uk/pressoffice/press-releases/women-men-job-stats.aspx

    So, when such distortions are created, is it”brain-shrinkingly stupid” to be indignant about this, or should one ever have the right to object about being consciously and cynically lied to in this sort of fashion, often on a regular basis?

    Such tactics surely also sum up the ethos of ‘positional competition’ associated with this mainstream form of UK political feminism. In order for women to do better, men’s suffering apparently needs to be downplayed and minimised, and also it needs to be implied that men always have advantage and privilege in society, even in situations when they do not.

  174. jcarr says

    No.I’ve fully aware that most feminists have no idea that this is going on and that there are feminists like Wendy McElroy and Murray Strauss that speak out against it, while most feminists that you meet online talking about this stuff will attack you for saying it … I see them as supporting it but not out of badness or ill intent, they are supporting it out of ideological commitments and bigoted beliefs about men and women.

    …which leads us back to a large (or small, depending on your argument), nefarious conspiracy….against men.

    We’ve come full circle.

    I’m done. I’ve been on this bloody computer too much anyway….

  175. Sid says

    >As Ally Fogg has pointed out numerous times, if feminism never existed, we would still have these issues.

    If feminism had not derailed the original domestic abuse movement and suppressed the data, we wouldn’t have a nondiscriminatory, holistic, science and evidence based abuse intervention system instread of the corrupt,ideoloical and discrimiantory one we have now.

  176. Sid says

    edit

    >we WOULD have a nondiscriminatory, holistic, science and evidence based abuse intervention system instead of the corrupt,ideological and discriminatory one we have now.

    Were it not for feminist intervention, the world would know that DV is not a gendered issue.

  177. Ally Fogg says

    Sid

    Why is there such an empathy gap for you between the hypothetical female rape victims that Elam might offend and the 30 years of deliberately covering up, excluding and denying the existence of real male abuse victims?

    First, that’s the third time you’ve implied my problem was that Elam’s article was “offensive” That was the least of it. it was actively dangerous. But in answer to your question, I have no empathy gap for the male victims, no lack of sympathy and concern for the way in which their needs have been sidelined and ignored, and no shortage of condemnation for those feminists who have actively contributed to the obscuring of male victims over the years. I have written about all of those topics repeatedly over the years, and as I have said repeatedly I intend to return to them in the next blog in this series. However those are not the points I was covering in this article.

    Why is Elam a sociopath and a feminist deliberately covering up abuse not?

    I have never known a single feminist who revels in the abuse of men the way Elam does in rape. The closest analogy was Valerie Solanas who was undoubtedly a deeply deranged woman, with only the saving grace of being a great writer.

    FWIW I’m not actually saying Elam is a sociopath. As I say, I know nothing about the man. My hunch is he’s a’ mooth and no troosers, as we say in my neck of the woods. However his writing on this topic – the indifference to suffering, the total absence of empathy for rape victims, the political program he champions on rape jury duty etc – can quite comfortably be described as sociopathic.

    But I’m now kicking myself that I’ve been sucked so deep into this conversation. The bottom line, as I said earlier, is “BUT BUT BUT… SHE DID A BAD THING TOO!” is a pathetic claim to moral justification for anything.

  178. Sid says

    >…which leads us back to a large (or small, depending on your argument), nefarious conspiracy….against men

    You mean manipulating abuse data to “prove” patriarchy theory and demonise men? Yes that happened.

    http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/V74-gender-symmetry-with-gramham-Kevan-Method%208-.pdf

    But it doesn’t count as wrong, because women can’t do bad things, and even if they do them nobody can feel them because they are women.

    It would only be bad if men did it.

  179. Gjenganger says

    Despite Gjengagner’s (probably reasonable) characterization of me as a batshit anarcho-commie anticapitalist,

    You are misrepresenting me. I object to “batshit”. Can we agree on “A highly sensible anarcho-commie anticaptalist”? :-)

  180. Eristae says

    @Sid

    But it doesn’t count as wrong, because women can’t do bad things, and even if they do them nobody can feel them because they are women.

    I don’t know why people say things like this. Clearly it’s not the case. You know it’s not the case, I know it’s not the case, everyone on this board knows it’s not the case. So why willingly present a massive hyperbole as your argument?

  181. jcarr says

    But I’m now kicking myself that I’ve been sucked so deep into this conversation. The bottom line, as I said earlier, is “BUT BUT BUT… SHE DID A BAD THING TOO!” is a pathetic claim to moral justification for anything.

    Completely agree.

    I should have avoided posting, too. All I’m hearing is conspiracy theories rather than critical thinking, “yes, but feminists…” comments rather than careful scrutiny of man’s own role in men’s issues.

    I think we can solve our own problems without blaming feminists, guys.

  182. Ginkgo says

    Ally @ 114 – “And in doing so he dragged the lived experiences and mental health of countless rape survivors through the mud, mocked, reviled and diminished their suffering, helped to deliberately create an incredibly dangerous myth and then found it hilarious when people objected.

    What was your point again?”

    That’s half the truth and a half truth is a whole lie. The other half was where he referred to a very, very nasty pattern in American history of rape hysteria and lynchings, which as Theodore Roosevelt said in 1912, would eventually be visited on white men as well as black. And now that same disregard for due process is begining to happen in university settings and with various effects of rape shield laws. Especially when it is white women talking about rape there is cause for attacking their rhetoric with the most disabling tacitcs available.

    And speaking of white women and white feminists, it’s good that you are outraged about the erasure of “lived experiences and mental health of countless rape survivors” but not white feminists, because they have no room to talk, having done exaclty the same thing for decades now – ask male rape survivors like Toy Soldier or James Landrith how their experiences with feminists were like.

    Do you remember that remark of Maureen Brian;s about how she couldn’t understand how a man could unwittingly etc, that you thought I had misunderstood? In fact she was the one who misunderstod what she was saying because she was assuming agency on the part of the man – that’s exactly the mentality that informs that kind of cluelessness, and one male rape survivor in that thread called her on it. She couldn’t even be bothered to respond.

  183. Ally Fogg says

    @N4M

    “Of course, they were well aware that this was a mendacious use of statistics, but they went ahead and did it anyway. I mean, do you not recognise that this happened?”

    yes, I noticed, and pointed out that it was happening repeatedly at the time, including doing my best to put an alternative view on the same pages.

    “Is not such behaviour a real abuse of authority?”

    Not really. The Guardian is a liberal-left pro-feminist newspaper that laps up press releases and briefings from the Fawcett Society or whoever is offering to fill them half a page that day. That’s how 99% of media works. It’s exactly the same as the Taxpayers Alliance and Migration Watch plying constant dodgy stories to the Mail, Telegraph and other stories.

    Yes, as a believer in good journalism I would like all papers to be more sceptical and punctilious in checking their facts and stories, but this is not unique to feminism. Your entire newspaper (whatever it is) is filled to the gunnels with barely edited press releases and bandwagon commentary. Broadcast media are little better, mostly taking their lead from the papers.

    Is it not symbolic of an unfortunate attitude towards gender relations in this country? Or does it make no difference if power is mishandled like that?”

    It’s symbolic of a rather simplistic view of gender relations in the Guardian, but I would ask you whether any of those stories made a blind bit of difference in the real world? Did the coalition govenment suddenly reverse public sector cuts and Surestart closures? Of course not.

    Feminists in politics and the media occasionally get their views across. Of course they do. That doesn’t mean they regularly or easily get their views accepted.

  184. says

    Adiabat @ 122

    Click through a few things on their site, you’ll find it pretty quickly.

    I notice that there’s a lot of people seriously derailing the issue, though. The OP explicitly states that there are feminists who are behaving in a very poor manner by perpetuating male stereotypes and downplaying men’s issues; yet I see many poster’s trying to argue that this is the case as if Ally didn’t just acknowledge it. Yes, feminists do sometimes hold views that honestly shoots their own movement in the foot. That’s because this whole patriarchy thing is very culturally imbued, and it takes a lot of time for anyone to tease out if what they believe is really rational or just a result of gender essentialist conditioning. The whole “women are pure and good” thing has been lambasted by many modern feminists, because not only does it hurt men but it also hurts women by turning them into these objects of purity which, by the way, originated in sexist ideas perpetuated by male dominated societies in the same way the Magical Negro trope dehumanizes black people. Same with the preference for granting custody to women over men, because it perpetuates the trope of women as the “natural” caregivers, and saddling women with the sole responsibility for raising children gives folks the perfect excuse as to why women shouldn’t be given equal work opportunities, etc.

    This is a good example of what I see the MRAs doing here, though. They take a straw feminist caricature they have in their heads and take it right to people who don’t hold any of those positions. Why is it, then, that all these MRAs want to go to Stephanie’s or Greta’s or Jen’s blogs and pile on abuse for being feminist when they have all said in the past that they support the very issues MRAs claim feminists ignore. That’s the problem with this anger. Why are you not directing it at the people who actually hold these positions to which you object rather than the one’s who seem to agree with you (except when you or your compatriots start saying that “she deserved it for dressing slutty” or “what about my right to touch lady-parts without permission?!” or that no one should be allowed to be offended or criticize you if you start calling women bitches or cunts)?

    This is made worse due to the fact that the majority of “activism” I see MRAs engaging in has nothing to do with advancing men’s rights but with denying that women have issues worth resolving altogether. Where are the MRAs who at least acknowledge that women have legitimate issues like harrassment, rape, slut-shaming, etc? If there are any, please, point us to them because they’re doing a great job of staying on the down-low.

  185. Ally Fogg says

    @MichaelBrow

    Yes, feminists do sometimes hold views that honestly shoots their own movement in the foot. That’s because this whole patriarchy thing is very culturally imbued, and it takes a lot of time for anyone to tease out if what they believe is really rational or just a result of gender essentialist conditioning.

    True. Although you shouldn’t forget the factor that a certain proportion of the members of any group of people are invariably unpleasant or fucking idiots.

    Occam’s razor and all that ;-)

  186. Schala says

    The difference is that in the conservative one, increased violet urges are seen as inherent and immutable. In the second, increased violent urges are seen as something that are imposed and that therefore can be changed. Socialization is inevitable, but how we socialize people is not.

    There is no difference, since radfems will claim trans women were inherently unable to avoid this socialization, so they are inherently (unavoidably) and irremediably evil, power-grubbing brutes who would necessarily be against women.

    The only way to avoid this is to topple patriarchy. But since patriarchy is everyone and no one at once, and is not something like a government, it cannot ever be toppled – ergo men are evil, forever and ever.

    The only difference is one claims its genetic, the other claims we impose it on them. None claims its avoidable.

    Ah, okay, I see why we seem to be talking past each other. I don’t see feminism as dogmatic, on the whole, but rather just a movement that tries to a) protect and advance women’s interests, and b) raise awareness about women’s issues. You see it as dogmatic, apparently. Okay, fair enough. I agree some feminists might fall into a dogmatic trap, but I disagree that feminism itself is dogmatic, thus our miscommunication.

    Feminism claims to be:

    1) for women’s rights
    2) for equality

    claims being for 1, means being for 2, but that being for men’s rights means being against 1, and thus against 2.

    How can it claim that? Well, it views men’s rights as the equivalent of white rights or heterosexual or rich rights. Ergo, feminist theory claims to have examined men’s situation (even though it only looked at the Obama and Bill Gates of the world), and to have determined that they have it extremely good, in fact so good that ONLY focusing on women’s rights would eventually hit equality. It’s called the Apex Fallacy.

    This is obviously flawed.

    On every well-being measures, men are disadvantaged compared to women in the west. But apparently that doesn’t count, because CEO and congress people! The 1% are sexist and favor men within their own ranks, so we must change the order of the entire rest of society so that the 99% favor women even more than they already do…

    This is how a lot of feminist theory sounds like.

  187. Eristae says

    There is no difference, since radfems will claim trans women were inherently unable to avoid this socialization, so they are inherently (unavoidably) and irremediably evil, power-grubbing brutes who would necessarily be against women.

    The only way to avoid this is to topple patriarchy. But since patriarchy is everyone and no one at once, and is not something like a government, it cannot ever be toppled – ergo men are evil, forever and ever.

    The only difference is one claims its genetic, the other claims we impose it on them. None claims its avoidable.

    1) I’ve never actually seen anyone claim that men are “irremediably evil, power-grubbing brutes who would necessarily be against women.” Not even the radfems. They could be out there, but they certainly don’t speak for me or any of the feminists I know.

    2) Every feminist I’ve ever spoken to believes we can avoid avoid imposing the patriarchy on people. All of them. That’s the whole point of fighting the patriarchy. One doesn’t fight things that one believes to be unavoidable (like gravity).

    3) I am not a radfem and they do not speak for me. No transphobe speaks for me. I get into arguments with them when I encounter them. I got into a big roe with them recently over twitter. Trying to fit anti-transphobic arguments into 140 characters? Interesting activity..

  188. Schala says

    2) Every feminist I’ve ever spoken to believes we can avoid avoid imposing the patriarchy on people. All of them. That’s the whole point of fighting the patriarchy. One doesn’t fight things that one believes to be unavoidable (like gravity).

    How?

    Raise kids gender neutral in bubbles without imposing ANY gender standard on them and preventing everyone else from ever doing so? Good luck.

  189. Schala says

    And many radfems have actually DEFINED femaleness not as the possession of female reproductive systems or feminity…but on the basis of being oppressed since birth.

    Imagine, defining the own peculiarity of your existence as being about having it shitty in life all the time. Must be hard to define your entire life around being a victim.

  190. jcarr says

    Feminism claims to be:

    1) for women’s rights
    2) for equality

    claims being for 1, means being for 2, but that being for men’s rights means being against 1, and thus against 2.

    How can it claim that? Well, it views men’s rights as the equivalent of white rights or heterosexual or rich rights. Ergo, feminist theory claims to have examined men’s situation (even though it only looked at the Obama and Bill Gates of the world), and to have determined that they have it extremely good, in fact so good that ONLY focusing on women’s rights would eventually hit equality. It’s called the Apex Fallacy.

    This is obviously flawed.

    If that was in fact the basic premise of feminism, I’d agree that it is flawed. But that’s YOUR interpretation of feminism, not the reality. You are dismissing it as “I want a bigger piece of the pie!” Feminism seems more to me like “I want an equal chance to help make the pie!”

    You claim that they only looked at the rich and drew their conclusions. I disagree. There is a ton of research out there that shows the vast disparity in gender equality in a wide variety of circumstances, not just among the rich. You insinuate that feminist theory has only “examined men’s situation,” but that isn’t accurate at all. Feminism has examined the societal situation overall that has predominated for generations, and decided that we can do better as a society on gender issues.

    Your arguments are eerily similar to the ones I heard twenty years ago from opponents of Affirmative Action (in the U.S.), by the way. The implementation of the program wasn’t perfect and mistakes were made, but the idea behind it was solid and necessary…which is how I would characterize the feminist movement of today.

    On every well-being measures, men are disadvantaged compared to women in the west.

    And a strong argument could be made that this is a self-inflicted wound by men. Granting women an equal chance in every arena in life could very likely improve the well-being of men in general. I know I was certainly less stressful when I was home with the kids and the wife was the one with the responsibilities of bringing home the paycheck…

  191. Schala says

    And a strong argument could be made that this is a self-inflicted wound by men.

    And I would doubt it is so in a big measure.

    The only countries that approached female suicide rates equal to male suicide rates extremely devalue female weakness the same as male weakness. No compassion apartheid. Everyone gets shat on. In other countries men get WAY less compassion, and a lot more “stop whining and man up”, than women do.

    This doesn’t exactly help men confide into people about their depression or helplessness. They’ll be blamed for it, and told they’re even more of a burden for feeling bad. So they choose lethal methods, because no one wants to survive it as a vegetable, and surviving it unscathed means being blamed for it. Better die outright.

    Granting women an equal chance in every arena in life could very likely improve the well-being of men in general.

    Or worsen women’s down to men’s.

  192. Sid says

    Jcar

    >I should have avoided posting, too. All I’m hearing is conspiracy theories rather than critical thinking, “yes, but feminists…”

    Where are you hearing conspiracy theories, from me?.

    Are you alleging that Erin Pizzey and Dr. Murray Straus are conspiracy theorists? Closer to the truth is that you don’t want people talking about the fact that abuse of men has been systematically covered up and domestic abuse has been misrepresented to conform to patriarchy theory.

    I can only imagine how different your position would be were it female abuse victims being hidden by a male group.

    Keep smashing that patriarchy.

  193. jcarr says

    In other countries men get WAY less compassion, and a lot more “stop whining and man up”, than women do.

    This doesn’t exactly help men confide into people about their depression or helplessness. They’ll be blamed for it, and told they’re even more of a burden for feeling bad. So they choose lethal methods, because no one wants to survive it as a vegetable, and surviving it unscathed means being blamed for it. Better die outright.

    Aha! Precisely, I agree! But who is telling men to “man up?” Feminists, or other men, generally speaking? This is a cultural, social norm that I would argue is, again, a self-inflicted wound by men. Machismo wasn’t created by women, mate. And this is something that WE can fix ourselves, with or without feminism.

    Or worsen women’s down to men’s.

    Life is stressful, but sharing the load can improve well-being. Men try too often to take it all on themselves, or feel that they MUST do certain things BECAUSE they are male. Once again, cultural and social norms take center stage.

  194. Sid says

    @Ally

    >I have never known a single feminist who revels in the abuse of men the way Elam does in rape

    Don’t make false accusations relating to rape.

    Can you answer the straightforward question without dancing around it falling back on the feminist standard of smearing people false claims relating to rape.

    How is it in your mind a potential negative outcome for hypothetical female rape victims is so much more serious than the deliberate erasure and exclusion of millions of real abuse victims that are male.

  195. jcarr says

    Are you alleging that Erin Pizzey and Dr. Murray Straus are conspiracy theorists? Closer to the truth is that you don’t want people talking about the fact that abuse of men has been systematically covered up and domestic abuse has been misrepresented to conform to patriarchy theory.

    I’m alleging that YOU are a conspiracy theorist, mate. You keep regurgitating the same points over and over without even acknowledging the information provided by others. You provided me links, which I read and critiqued, but when I provided you a link, you dismissed it out of hand because you believe, based on someone else’s say-so, that it is unreliable. I acknowledged that there is a good chance that there were and are some feminists that try to minimize or suppress genuine concerns in men’s issues, but that there are far more variables at work here than just a feminist conspiracy. You do not acknowledge these other influences, and keep insisting on the conspiracy. Ally went through your links point by point, and you simply ignored his evaluation and quibbled about something else before, once again, returning to the conspiracy.

    You getting the drift? It’s textbook, mate, and I’m done chatting with you, because you just don’t seem to be interested in listening to what others have to say unless they say what you want to hear.

    And I’m really tired of your attempts at mind-reading me and acting like you know more about what’s in my mind than I do. Give it a rest and talk with someone else. I’d rather chat with someone who actually tries to listen. Empathy ain’t your strong suit, mate.

  196. Eristae says

    How?

    Raise kids gender neutral in bubbles without imposing ANY gender standard on them and preventing everyone else from ever doing so? Good luck.

    I see. So it’s not the feminists who think that the patriarchy can’t be overthrown, it’s you?

    In which case I don’t understand what you are trying to get at. You clearly have disdain for the view that men are bad, but you also seem to be arguing that the patriarchy makes men bad and that we can’t escape it. From what I’ve seen of you, the second part of the sentence is not a view that you hold, but it does seem to be what you are arguing. So perhaps you could clarify.

  197. Ally Fogg says

    Sid

    Can you answer the straightforward question without dancing around it…

    How is it in your mind a potential negative outcome for hypothetical female rape victims is so much more serious than the deliberate erasure and exclusion of millions of real abuse victims that are male.

    Well not very easily because your question is not remotely straightforward.

    You are attempting to quantify and compare two qualitatively different issues.

    The initial point that started this discussion was whether MRAs ever dismiss, downplay or mock the extent and profound trauma of rape.

    I’ve given you a whole bunch of examples from one very prominent and highly influential MRA (perhaps the most influential after Warren Farrell) all of which dismiss, downplay or mock the extent and profound trauma of rape..Then I’ve gone further, saying that the extent to which he has done this is actively harmful and dangerous.

    Your response has been to argue that dismissing [etc etc] is justified because some feminists have dismissed, downplayed [etc] male victims of domestic violence.(something I’ve never denied).

    I’m not saying that one is more serious or more of a problem than the other. I’m saying you’ve elided two different issues.

    I am also saying that the Elam’s articles in their own right are more repulsive than anything I’ve seen coming from anywhere but the scariest extremes of feminism. You’ve been unable to demonstrate any evidence to the contrary.

    And on that note I’m signing off for the night. Thanks for the comments everyone. Please be excellent to each other until my return (at least)

  198. Maureen Brian says

    You are mistaken, Ginkgo.

    I refused to argue with you further and said so. I do get to do that, even under the patriarchy – my house, my computer, my decision what I do with my time.

    (Refers back to 195, this thread.)

  199. Sid says

    Right, Ally. You are saying that Paul Elams article is worse, more dangerous and more frightening than deliberately covering half of all the domestic violence for thirty years, and the only thing it might be on a par with it is calling for the death of all men.

    I’m asking you about the patriarchal assumptions behind your double standards and blind spot for dismissing the trauma of male abuse victims.

    You are blind to the fact that deliberately covering up and denying abuse of men by women does male abuse victims harm, and very sensitive to the trauma of female rape victims.

    So, I am asking you to examine the patriarchal assumptions and biases that are behind your double standards and empathy blind spots.

  200. Lucy says

    I’d just like to point out that a high proportion of male victims of domestic violence are being attacked by male relations and partners.

  201. Lucy says

    Two researchers at Uppsala University in Sweden examined records of 18 ship accidents from 1852 until 2011, which involved more than 15,000 passengers and crew members. They selected accidents for which there is complete data on survivors and decedents by number and sex, and they limited their sample to wrecks involving 100 people or more in which at least 5 percent died or 5 percent lived.

    Their findings suggest that the events on the Titanic, where 20 percent of men and 70 percent of women and children lived to tell the tale, were highly unusual, if not unique.

    The Titanic and the Lusitania, a passenger ship torpedoed by a German submarine on May 7, 1915, accounted for more than a quarter of all casualties in the study. So the researchers made calculations with and without those two ships to avoid statistical bias. Among almost 2,000 passengers and crew members on the Lusitania, there was little difference between men’s and women’s survival rates — 37.1 percent for women and 40 percent for men.

    Of the other 16 wrecks examined, women survived at a higher rate than men in only one: the grounding of the British ship Birkenhead off Cape Town in 1852.

    In five of the disasters, there was no discernible difference in survival rates between men and women. In 10 of them, men survived at significantly higher rates. Over all, women did about half as well as men: 17.9 percent of them survived, compared with 34.6 percent of men.

    Crew members of ships in trouble were apparently quite helpful — to themselves. Compared with passengers, they were 18.7 percent more likely to survive, the researchers found. Children fared worst: Of 621 on the ships, only 95, or 15.3 percent, lived on.

  202. Schala says

    Aha! Precisely, I agree! But who is telling men to “man up?” Feminists, or other men, generally speaking? This is a cultural, social norm that I would argue is, again, a self-inflicted wound by men. Machismo wasn’t created by women, mate. And this is something that WE can fix ourselves, with or without feminism.

    Who is telling men to man up?

    Conservatives, anarchists, feminists, abolitionists, unionists, pro-choicers, pro-lifers, pro-wars, anti-wars, pacifists – basically EVERYONE.

    I don’t think it’s generally men themselves though.

    When men are in a couple and dare show their vulnerability? That’s when the shit hits the fan and they get hit the hardest. See how women in Africa react to their husband telling them they were raped by an enemy army. They (the wives) say they are emasculated, no longer men, and thus not worthy of being with her. But keep thinking its something self-inflicted.

    I see. So it’s not the feminists who think that the patriarchy can’t be overthrown, it’s you?

    In which case I don’t understand what you are trying to get at. You clearly have disdain for the view that men are bad, but you also seem to be arguing that the patriarchy makes men bad and that we can’t escape it. From what I’ve seen of you, the second part of the sentence is not a view that you hold, but it does seem to be what you are arguing. So perhaps you could clarify.

    I don’t think men are bad, either biologically, or socialized to be so.

    I think EVERYONE is socialized to go at the throat of their adversaries, because it pays (financially, in social status etc) to do so. It’s rarely something explicitly taught. It’s implicitly taught and a kind of “life’s lesson” deal (after being beaten up so many times, you learn that being the bully can have advantages).

    I also think women get a pass on their bad behavior a ton more than men do. They are presumed unable to rape or sexually assault men. Unable to rape or sexually assault women. Unable to kill or harm anyone else, man, woman or child. And punished with 60% shorter sentences IF punished at all, for the same offenses. They’re also arrested, charged and convicted less, for the same crimes, than men.

    It might be patriarchal attitudes. But no one seems to say we should punish women more harshly (or men less harshly) in the legal system to reach a certain parity. Either people care very little about it, or they want women to get non-prison sentences instead of prison, because women are non-violent (unlike men). More patriarchy.

    And the radfems who push the “men are inherently bad” thing don’t think men can be redeemed, that men can be good, that the system can be changed except by outright abolishing men from it.

    Other feminists either think someday the patriarchy, this formless mass of everything-and-nothing-at-once will be vanquished and immediately our society will become some utopia worthy of gregorian chants, where oppression doesn’t exist.

    This will happen the day humanity dies. Atomic boom, no more oppression. It’s in human nature, we can only minimize and prevent some of it, much of it at best (not most of it, definitely not all of it).

    By ignoring the entire portion of stuff affecting men because of a “men doing it to themselves, so who cares” attitude, we’re shooting ourselves in the foot, as a society. Men who have been shown no empathy and told “suck it up” all their lives, are MORE likely to turn on their oppressors (anyone harming them) like ticking time bombs. You want to stop men harming other men with violence since the cradle? Have empathy for them, have services for them, don’t shit on them when they open up about their vulnerabilities and pain. And don’t tell them they have it all and were born with a silver spoon because of penis.

  203. Schala says

    “Other feminists either think someday the patriarchy, this formless mass of everything-and-nothing-at-once will be vanquished and immediately our society will become some utopia worthy of gregorian chants, where oppression doesn’t exist.”

    I meant to complete this with this:

    or they think that by fighting women’s issues (and only women’s issues) men’s issues will vanish just like that, by magic.

  204. jcarr says

    @Schala

    You have a very gloomy view of humanity, my friend. I don’t share it, personally, but I’ll try to think up something reassuring and life-affirming to change your outlook.;)

    Who is telling men to man up?

    Conservatives, anarchists, feminists, abolitionists, unionists, pro-choicers, pro-lifers, pro-wars, anti-wars, pacifists – basically EVERYONE.

    I don’t think it’s generally men themselves though.

    I’m 45 years old, and I’ve heard this sentiment almost exclusively from men my entire life. I recall Jeff Foxworthy cracking a joke about a man chopping his leg off with a chainsaw, and trying to “walk it off,” because he’s a man, and men don’t cry (or something along those lines). It’s a very prevalent attitude in most societies. My point was that it is part of the culture rather than a result of feminism.

    Come to think of it, I don’t think I’ve ever heard a feminist use this phrase. Ah well, anecdotal, of course…

    They (the wives) say they are emasculated, no longer men, and thus not worthy of being with her. But keep thinking its something self-inflicted.

    Well, we WERE talking about western culture, not African. Different cultures, different norms, mate. In either case, I didn’t say it was exclusively a self-inflicted wound, I said largely a self-inflicted wound. Machismo wasn’t created by feminists, as I said before. It’s a “western” cultural norm that is in large part actuated and perpetuated by males, which, let me stress, doesn’t mean that women don’t also participate in the stereotype to some degree.

    I also think women get a pass on their bad behavior a ton more than men do. They are presumed unable to rape or sexually assault men. Unable to rape or sexually assault women. Unable to kill or harm anyone else, man, woman or child. And punished with 60% shorter sentences IF punished at all, for the same offenses. They’re also arrested, charged and convicted less, for the same crimes, than men.

    While I don’t deny there are some serious balance issues in conviction and incarceration rates, across ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and gender, I don’t think it is accurate to portray men as victims of the legal system, as you seem to do here. In the American system, at least, the true victims of the “system” are minorities and the poor, especially blacks of either gender. Some of your numbers are suspect, too, because frequently these studies fail consider context of the crimes, gender of the sentencing judge, social and cultural norms that influence juries, and other confounding variables that might provide other explanations for some of these differences. It is really hard to pin down solid numbers with direct causality in the criminal justice system. Changes need to be made in the system, no doubt about that, though.

    As for women getting a free pass on bad behavior much more often, I don’t agree at all. Sure, there are certainly areas in which this might be true, but there are plenty of other areas in which men hold the advantage. Sexual activity, for example. Men can have multiple partners, and people in general don’t really bat an eyelash. He’s “playing the field.” A woman who does the same exact thing is a whore, and if she’s legitimately raped, it’s her own fault. You might dismiss this is insignificant compared to jail, but social stigma can have an absolutely devastating effect on mental health. It’s a prison of another form and substance. That’s just an example, but you get the idea, I hope. It doesn’t really balance out, either, when we consider the greater opportunities men have in general in modern western society.

    But no one seems to say we should punish women more harshly (or men less harshly) in the legal system to reach a certain parity

    Spend more time in court. I hear this sort of thing quite a bit. As part of my work, I’m frequently in Juvenile and Family Court working with families and children, and I can’t count how many times I’ve heard this exact sort of sentiment, about achieving a greater parity in sentencing and outcomes, sometimes in terms of gender, sometimes in terms of rich and poor, or ethnicity, etc. The other part of the complaint is how often efforts have been made, only to get slammed down at the political level, because Americans want more prisons, prisons, prisons.

    There is a disparity here, I agree with you, I just don’t share your gloomy outlook on the possibility of change.

    By ignoring the entire portion of stuff affecting men because of a “men doing it to themselves, so who cares” attitude, we’re shooting ourselves in the foot, as a society.

    I haven’t heard anyone say it should be ignored or no one cares. Men are indeed shooting themselves in the foot, but we can change that. As Ally Fogg pointed out, we can turn this anger we might feel about the situation and turn it toward our problems, resolving them, rather than scapegoating feminists as undermining our efforts. As part of my internship, I did a turn working with men suffering from combat PTSD, and I still volunteer my efforts at the local VA hospital. Trauma is trauma, whether it is rape, combat, male, female, or child. As you say, have empathy for them when they open up and share their pain.

    I think you are on the right track in terms of wanting to help other men, mate, and trying to change cultural and social stereotypes, I just disagree with the premise that feminism is a big part of men’s problems.

  205. Schala says

    As for women getting a free pass on bad behavior much more often, I don’t agree at all. Sure, there are certainly areas in which this might be true, but there are plenty of other areas in which men hold the advantage. Sexual activity, for example. Men can have multiple partners, and people in general don’t really bat an eyelash. He’s “playing the field.” A woman who does the same exact thing is a whore, and if she’s legitimately raped, it’s her own fault.

    Men’s romantic partners (as in, not one-night stand partners, but their girlfriends/wives) WILL cares about their number counts. And man-whores are shamed for it by most who aren’t 16. You think the stupid guy in Misfits season 3/4 (the guy with a double) is considered an example to attain because he has lots of sex? He’s considered the worst trash of society.

    About women being raped and it being their own fault…you think it’s different for men, how? When are men assumed to not be responsible for their own rape? The guy in “That’s my boy” was considered responsible for his statutory rape at 13 years old, by most people (but not the court). He just “scored” with her, according to most everyone. Because he’s a man, he’s judged way way more responsible for stuff even outside the realm of things he could control.

    And I don’t think someone’s reputation in social life is equivalent to someone spending time behind bars. Sorry, doesn’t cut it. I think people who went in jail don’t have that good a reputation either, so there’s that, too.

    I’m 45 years old, and I’ve heard this sentiment almost exclusively from men my entire life. I recall Jeff Foxworthy cracking a joke about a man chopping his leg off with a chainsaw, and trying to “walk it off,” because he’s a man, and men don’t cry (or something along those lines). It’s a very prevalent attitude in most societies. My point was that it is part of the culture rather than a result of feminism.

    Masculinity is policed intra-gender at the base, but extra-gender when it comes to mating standards.

    In short, men police each other on “not doing girly things”, but women will shun/ignore/not be attracted to men who are not masculine enough (and this includes, because of doing things like being a caregiver, or an introvert).

    Feminity is policed intra-gender at the base, but extra-gender when it comes to mating standards.

    In short, women police each other on fashion, but men will shun/ignore/not be attracted to women who don’t perform to a feminine enough standard (which is far removed from fashion magazines by the way).

    Women probably don’t care one bit if you, as a guy they don’t know (as in an acquaintance), wear eyeliner or even a kilt.

    Men won’t even notice if you don’t wear your “natural make-up”, and they certainly won’t even care for the brand of your handbag.

    Men notice, quite young, that they HAVE to be stoic. Why? Because NO ONE CARES if they cry or have grievances (legitimate or not). In fact, if they show weakness they could be bullied for it. And get zero sympathy for that too. His identity is as someone who is invulnerable (valued for usefulness/toughing it out). This is non-negotiable (don’t value that identity, get shat on anyway).

    Women notice, quite young, that there is a HUGE value premium on looks. Why? They get told AT EVERY TURN that they’re pretty doing this, wearing that, using this thing (men hardly ever get praised on looks). Only the rare one who voluntarily drops out of the rat race altogether (and not-consequence-free) will be free of insecurity about looks. Her identity is as someone who is valued mainly/only for looks. This is non-negotiable (don’t value that identity, get shat on anyway).

    because he’s a man, and men don’t cry (or something along those lines)

    Where do you think he learned that? He read it in a book, saw it on TV, had it physically beaten into him by his own father or his “friends” when he was 6?

    I learned not to show weakness deliberately when I was 6. It got me beaten enough that I got social anxiety nowadays. But hey, it’s probably me internalizing some standard because I want to continue oppression, right?

    I’m a trans woman, by the way, and my social anxiety is about both men and women, particularly children between 5-17 that I don’t know personally.

  206. Schala says

    I wasn’t beaten by my father by the way. Only by peers, some boys, some girls. Also lots of taunting and name-calling and psychological bullying.

    I never ever threw a punch. I didn’t even know how to do that. The best “fighting back” I ever did was crawl in a fetal ball, protect my head, and try to scratch them (mostly arms/legs) with my non-existent nails (bitten nails), or if they kept going, bite them. I got nicknamed as ‘the cat’ for only retaliating that way (if at all), in elementary.

  207. says

    I noted on twitter that people were referring to this discussion to denigrate ‘MRAs’ to Ally on twitter and he was not challenging them.

    I have read the comments and think there is nothing that deserves being put down or made fun of. I think it is an illustration of the (negative) power of feminism that whenever anyone challenges the dogma it allows for them to be treated with contempt.

    I know a lot of MRAs and am part of a group including MRAs in London. I have found them consistently to be nicer, more welcoming and more thoughtful about gender issues than the huge numbers of feminists I have known over the years.

    Ally supports feminism wholeheartedly and people who support feminism also support the myth that it is not a powerful ideology. I suggest they go ask Hilary Clinton, Lynne Featherstone and Diane Abbot about that.

    Elly./QRG

  208. Ms Fry says

    Wonderful article, thanks for writing it. The point that feminism’s not creating problems for men / working against men’s rights is such an important one, though I’d maybe have been a bit more explicit in going further and pointing out that it’s actually working for them – all the legitimate aims of MRAs have always been the goals of feminism too. A lot of the problems MRAs rail against (eg child custody) are, as you suggest, just patriarchy backfiring.

    I also think that when mentioning male-only conscription as an injustice for men, it’s worth pointing out that a) the wars tend to be started by men and b) women still suffer disproportionately in conflict as civilians.

    ANYWAY thanks for writing such a balanced piece on this.

  209. says

    @Ms Fry – you illustrate my point perfectly. In dismissing the genuine suffering – including loss of life – of men as soldiers you are showing that feminism does not care a fig for men and is actually part of the reason we treat men as disposable collaterall in war.

  210. DeepThought says

    Not a single one of the real male problems I identify above originates with feminism, is supported by feminism or even significantly added to by feminism. There. I said it.

    Yes, Ally, but there are problems you haven’t identified. Imagine that you and I are schoolkids being smacked around the playground by a bully. All of a sudden, the attention of the teachers is drawn to me, but not to you. All the resources at hand are used to heal me and prevent the bully from continuing to harm me, but not you. When you complain about it, you are told to shut up since you always had it better than me, since you only suffered simple but not compound fractures. Also, you are bigger than me and should be able to take it; I mean what are you, a little child? And there were times when we turned on each other, as a psychological after-effort of the bullying, but you are constantly reminded of what you did to me, while I am never reminded of what I did to you, since I’m supposed to be helpless and unable to harm anyone.

    Note that teachers did not cause the bullying, support it, or add to it. Yet their behavior will be criticized, and rightly so, and the older child will rightly be angry.

    It has taken quite a while for feminism (or some feminists) to realize and admit that patriarchy hurts men too. It is not honest to pretend this was in the movement or the vocabulary from the beginning.

  211. DeepThought says

    I also think that when mentioning male-only conscription as an injustice for men, it’s worth pointing out that a) the wars tend to be started by men…

    No it’s not worth pointing it out. Because the men who start the wars aren’t the same men who fight them. Another problem Ally didn’t mention is that up until now feminism has been almost completely blind to issues of class.

  212. kilo says

    “Aha! Precisely, I agree! But who is telling men to “man up?” Feminists, or other men, generally speaking? This is a cultural, social norm that I would argue is, again, a self-inflicted wound by men. Machismo wasn’t created by women, mate. And this is something that WE can fix ourselves, with or without feminism.”

    What’s generally speaking? Of course, sometimes men tell each other to man up. But at the same time, very often it is women, including feminist women.

    Here are two quotes illustrating this:

    “I was not prepared to hear over and over from men how the women—the mothers, sisters, girlfriends, wives—in their lives are constantly criticizing them for not being open and vulnerable and intimate, all the while they are standing in front of that cramped wizard closet where their men are huddled inside, adjusting the curtain and making sure no one sees in and no one gets out. There was a moment when I was driving home from an interview with a small group of men and thought, Holy shit. I am the patriarchy.”
    – Brene Brown, Daring Greatly

    “Most women do not want to deal with male pain if it intereferes with the satisfaction of female desire. […] In feminist circles, men who wanted to change were often seen as narcissistic and needy. […] Here I was, an enlightened feminist woman who did not want to hear my man speak his pain because it revealed his emotional vulnerability. It stands to reason, then, that the masses of women committed to the sexist principle that men who express their feelings are weak really do not want to hear men speak, especially if what they say is that they hurt, that they feel unloved.”
    – bell hooks, The Will to Change

  213. Ally Fogg says

    Deepthought (224)

    Yes, Ally, but there are problems you haven’t identified

    In case you missed the bit in big red letters at the top of the page, this is intended to be the first of (at least) 10 pieces on this broad topic. Watch this space.

  214. Ally Fogg says

    Sid (213)

    Right, Ally. You are saying that Paul Elams article is worse, more dangerous and more frightening than deliberately covering half of all the domestic violence for thirty years, and the only thing it might be on a par with it is calling for the death of all men.

    Sigh. This is like an argument that goes:

    “How can you possibly say shoes are better than trousers?”
    “I can’t. I’m saying you can’t compare shoes and trousers.”
    “That means you’re saying shoes are better than trousers!”

    Let me make this easy for you.

    I utterly condemn and dissociate myself from anyone who has ever belittled, mocked or obscured the extent and severe consequences of violence and abuse against men, including but not restricted to many feminists.

    I also utterly condemn and dissociate myself from anyone who has ever belittled, mocked or obscured the extent and severe consequences of violence and abuse against women, including but not restricted to many MRAs.

    Care to join me in saying that?

  215. Ally Fogg says

    @QRG

    I suggest they go ask Hilary Clinton, Lynne Featherstone and Diane Abbot about that.

    Right. So the pinnacle of feminism’s political power is two women who are currently not in charge of anything, and one who is junior minister in the department for International Development.

    That’s probably a fairly accurate reflection of feminism’s presence in the political system – visible; not entirely non-existent, fairly distant from the major levers of power. No argument here.

  216. Sid says

    @Ally

    >I utterly condemn and dissociate myself from anyone who has ever belittled, mocked or obscured the extent and severe consequences of violence and abuse against men, including but not restricted to many feminists.

    >I also utterly condemn and dissociate myself from anyone who has ever belittled, mocked or obscured the extent and severe consequences of violence and abuse against women, including but not restricted to many MRAs.

    The point is you aren’t doing this, you are holding extreme double standards.

    And you are belittling and minimizing male abuse victims and concerns about feminism erasing male abuse victims by trying to paint the criticism of feminism for doing this as irrational and unfounded, you then criticize Elam for doing the same thing that mras criticize feminism for doing in an article.

    I won’t be joining you in your sexism, male disposibility and strawmanning of the mens movement.

    Read this book,

    http://www.amazon.com/Legalizing-Misandry-Systemic-Discrimination-Against/dp/0773528628

    Your claims that feminism is not working against men’s rights are simply incorrect.

    You are working against men’s rights and male abuse victims.

  217. Sid says

    @Ally

    Your argument are just David Futrelles repackaged Ally.

    *Mra’s draw attention to male disposability, and use the draft as an example.

    *mra’s also criticize modern feminism for legislating against men, and making false claims about abuse being gendered.

    *Therefore mra’s are blaming feminism for conscription – attack that strawman.

    What you are doing is fanning the flames of anger, mistrust and animosity in the gender debate by working to suppress legitimate issues.

  218. Ally Fogg says

    Sid

    And you are belittling and minimizing male abuse victims and concerns about feminism erasing male abuse victims by trying to paint the criticism of feminism for doing this as irrational and unfounded,

    I’m not. painting “criticism of feminism for doing this as irrational and unfounded,” On the contrary I stated in the article that it is something I will come back to in the next blog, and have repeated that about half a dozen times in the thread.

    I’m saying that you can criticise feminism for doing things like this and you can support male victims without trampling all over the wellbeing of other female victims. Anyone who does trample over the wellbeing of one gender in pursuit of the wellbeing of the other has gone way off beam.

    Your entire argument seems to boil down to “feminists have done terrible things therefore any terrible things done in response are not really terrible.”

    My four year old is just about past that kind of thinking now.

  219. Sid says

    Yes I know what you stated Ally.

    The point is the double standards you are holding – Elam is totally awful – feminism doing far worse and doing far more damage, not as awful. Your double standards are patriarchal and exactly the sacred cow that Elam is trying to poke in that article.

    And your arguments in the OP do basically boil down to.

    “Mra’s talk about conscription, mra’s criticise feminism.

    Therefore mra’s blame feminism for conscription.

    I have proven that the men showing the emotion anger are absurd”

  220. Copyleft says

    And again we see the tired old dogmatism: “There are NO legitimate criticisms of feminism.” Over and over, from zealots who will insist that they’re being entirely rational and evidence-based…..

  221. Sid says

    @Ally

    You still aren’t answering my question Ally

    You can conceptualise legitimate damage and anger generated by Elams article.

    You have difficulty conceptualizing legitimate anger and damage generated by covering up female perpetrated abuse, dishonestly presenting abuse as gendered, running discriminatory services, claiming that female abuse is self defence, attacking the science that contradicts the feminist positions on abuse, and follower feminists mocking male abuse victims with “what about teh menz LOL” for years now.

    Instead you gaslight and dismiss it as being too stupid and ignorant to know feminism isn’t responsible for conscription and that sexist biases against men abused by women existed before feminism and feminists began carrying that particular torch.

    And you wonder why people get angry with pro feminist people.

    Why the obvious bias against male abuse victims and dismissal of what they are saying about how feminism has treated them Ally?

  222. Ally Fogg says

    Sid

    You have difficulty conceptualizing legitimate anger and damage generated by covering up female perpetrated abuse, dishonestly presenting abuse as gendered, running discriminatory services, claiming that female abuse is self defence, attacking the science that contradicts the feminist positions on abuse, and follower feminists mocking male abuse victims with “what about teh menz LOL” for years now.

    No I don’t. I recognise and condemn it. The first article I wrote about male victims of DV was in about 1996, I think, and I’ve returned to the topic repeatedly over nearly 20 years, especially the past five or so. I’ve also said repeatedly that it is something I’ll be writing about YET AGAIN in my next blog.

    I am saying none of that excuses the shit that Elam writes, any more than the shit that Elam writes excuses feminists who cover up male abuse.

    Why is this so difficult a position for you to understand?

  223. Sid says

    I understand your position. I’m talking to you about the large biases, double standards and empathy gaps within your position.

  224. Sid says

    I also talking to you about your dismissive attitude towards men that experience the emotion anger about feminisms covering up of abuse and taunting male abuse victims with “what about teh menz”.

  225. Thil says

    “As I’ve said before, anger is not the enemy of empathy and compassion, it is often their offspring. Anyone who can survey the global landscape of injustice, suffering, oppression and environmental vandalism and not feel a surge of anger is, in my view, somehow lacking. It is essential to be angry. It is also essential to ensure that the anger is not cut adrift from its parents. Anger is an unruly child and like any child it is prone to stupidity and self-destructive tendencies. It needs the guiding hands of compassion and empathy to keep it in check and occasionally banish it to the naughty step to calm down.”

    thank you obi-won

  226. Ally Fogg says

    Sid

    large biases, double standards and empathy gaps within your position.

    such as, specifically?

    also talking to you about your dismissive attitude towards men that experience the emotion anger about feminisms covering up of abuse and taunting male abuse victims with “what about teh menz”.

    You mean you’re complaining that I’ve written the article I’ve written this time, and not the one I’ve told you repeatedly I will write next time?

  227. Sasori says

    first I should say I’m not a MRA or a feminist so my understanding of these movements might be clouded.

    Interesting, I think that a major part of the reason why mens rights activists so often have ‘feminists’ as their enemy is explained by a sort of path of least resistance in creating a community. In the history of nationalisms one of the most effective ways to do this is to have an enemy which you can define yourself against. For a lot of feminists this enemy is ‘men’ and for the mens rights community this enemy has often become ‘feminism.’

    Another motivator in my experience is a reaction to the various shaming tactics and collective guilt arguments used commonly by feminists in the media seeking to motivate men and galvanise women. A lot of mens rights writing, seeks to absolve men of the shame and collective male guilt that is regularly espoused by feminists.

    Also I suspect it would be significantly harder for mens rights activists to have traditional cultural attitudes/elements as their major enemy because it seems there is a significant (somewhat) traditionalist part to that community and a further (right) libertarian part. This would be alienating to these members and also to the sense of ‘were all on the same team.’ Add to this that none of the traditional cultural elements issue regular denouncements of ‘men’ or ‘masculinity’ and strident condemnations of ‘men’ etc from positions of absolute moral authority. When people do this, it often leads others to hold them to their own moral standards and when they are found wanting it can create a kind of moral imbalance that can amplify anger.

    Finally I think that many feminists provide ample evidence for people looking for reasons to be angry at feminists.
    It seems obvious to me that a lot of (especially ‘professional’) feminists and feminist ideologies regularly have serious problems with a pronounced lack of empathy with ‘men’ and often engage in ring-fencing female suffering as special in some way or assuming that ‘under a patriarchy’ women suffer more. Much of popular feminist theory seems to be unbalanced and various studies (family research and now the CDC) have called into question the predictive value of assuming that women’s suffering is unique or even that women suffer more in modern western society.
    Often feminists seek to define phenomena as gendered even when there is substantial evidence that they aren’t. This is the only way I can explain the work of Mary Koss and other feminists who seem to have been ideologically blinded by this assumption of female oppression. It is also obvious that while there is much high language about erasing gender roles etc, there is also a desire to go along with prevailing regressive attitudes as long as women benefit form them.

    Elam is interesting, I find him to be a combination of modern right wing rabble rousers like Glenn Beck and some 70’s/80’s feminists like Andrea Dworkin. His prominent position in the mens rights community is incredibly depressing to me, but an interesting example of how effective the ‘nationalism for…’ create an enemy and rail against them, is. IMHO the rhetoric and ideology of the mens rights movement, as well as a lot of it’s conduct is in many ways the daughter of various strands of feminism.
    I have a US nightmare scenario in which the very real problems of men, (amplified by a Japanese style 20 years of economic stagnation) remain almost totally unacknowledged by the left (in the sphere of gender), continue to be pushed into the right of centre and become the backbone of a future regressive social movement.

    Ally Fogg, do you think that the (idiotic and reprehensible) ramblings of Paul Elam (a man with no real power) really has had a worse effect than the statements of Koss and ChakraAborty (who are powerful figures in their respective fields) above. The attitudes exemplified by Koss and ChakraAborty are a major reason for the lack of acknowledgement and poor treatment for male victims of sexual and domestic violence today; Elam’s incredibly objectionable statements may have caused harm to individual people, but they have much less of an effect on society (although in the future they may result in terribly negative things and I dread to think about him in any kind of position of real power). And did you just use ‘dictionary definitions’ (eg prevailing attitudes or ‘everybody else thinks it’) to defend Koss etc, I think that is very poor.
    Although I am weary of drawing a ‘moral equivalence’ to the two situations, I think they are somewhat comparable;
    Ally’s conduct in the debate between leading feminists and trans activists on twitter and elsewhere a while ago. Ally was completely understanding of the anger of trans activists against some leading feminist columnists at a perceived or real slight. He is considerably less so of mens rights activists anger even though I think the mens rights movement is similarly powerless and they have a somewhat similar case. Also, your tweet about ‘ooh emm gee’ MRA’s are angry at me’ was not well advised if you want to have an honest debate.

  228. Copyleft says

    Sasori @244, you make several excellent points. I share your concerns about the men’s rights movement being hijacked by regressive and neo-traditionalist influences, turning the lazy feminist critiques (“they just want women back in the kitchen”) into a reality before a legitimate, post-feminist egalitarian effort can coalesce.

  229. Schala says

    Also I suspect it would be significantly harder for mens rights activists to have traditional cultural attitudes/elements as their major enemy because it seems there is a significant (somewhat) traditionalist part to that community and a further (right) libertarian part.

    Most MRAs have cutoff the traditionalists, who are typically against real men’s rights and for “men as beast of burden”.

    Feminist theory is very pro-traditionalist, so it would be pretty hard to find support amongst traditional men and women for people who want the entire traditional thing dismantled from the ground up (no more disposable, stoic male by default).

  230. Sid says

    Ally.

    What feminism has done to abuse victims is far beyond the scope what the catholic church has done, and average catholics haven’t been chanting “what about the children lol!!” in the faces of the child abuse victims and what Paul Elam has done to draw attention to how feminism covers up abuse, is miniscule compared to what feminism does.

    Now you are you trying to tell me that you see feminist journalists,professors, public service announcements, data collection, abuse propaganda that misrepresent abuse as gendered as you do Elams far less serious damage in the same light, but even if you were as angry about what feminism has done as you are about what Elam has, it would still be extremely disproportionate and biased as Elams crime here is insignificant compared to feminisms.

    You painted Elam in the worst possible light, even going as far as to make a false assertion about rape against him to smear him while you paint feminisms far greater and far more horrific damage in the best possible light and try to transfer the blame onto capitalism.

    Speaking of false assertions about rape, did you read what Farrell himself has said himself about rape or did you get your information about what he said from a false claim relating to rape against him made by feminists?

    This is another legitimate reason for anger with feminists – their throwing false claims and smears relating to rape around like confetti.

  231. Ally Fogg says

    Sasori

    Ally Fogg, do you think that the (idiotic and reprehensible) ramblings of Paul Elam (a man with no real power) really has had a worse effect than the statements of Koss and ChakraAborty (who are powerful figures in their respective fields) above.

    That’s not quite what I’ve said at any point.

    Are Elam’s writings more dangerous and disturbing than the equivalent writings of any one individual feminist? I think yes, they are, unless you veer way into the extremes of misandrist radical feminism.

    Have the complete written works of Paul Elam and every other MRA of his ilk done more harm to female victims than the complete written works of every feminist has done to male victims? Probably not, but only because there have been thousands of feminists repeating similar lines, including some with significant influence on policy making in the area of DV.

    On the other hand, why have feminists got so much influence on theory and policy making in DV? Precisely because without feminism, there would be virtually no theory and policy making on DV. The idea that Erin Pizzey (who I have plenty of respect for) would single handedly have built a global gender-neutral DV movement had feminists not stepped in is laughable. There had been women running refuges in their own homes for centuries. There were also many, many women cared for in convents and similar institutions, often muddled up with “repentant prostitutes” and unmarried pregnant girls. (there’s a really good book called “Evolution of Women’s Asylums” iirc that covers all of this, will check in a bit)

    It took feminism to actually make a political case for the significance of DV, and everything else, including acknowledgement of the problems for men, have sprung from that.

    Yes, some feminists have been demonstrably wrong on the true nature of domestic violence. Some feminists have worked hard to ensure that men couldn’t jump on the bus, as it were. But it is also impossible to ignore that the feminists pretty much built the bus in the first place.

    So, as you might say, it is complicated.

  232. Ally Fogg says

    even going as far as to make a false assertion about rape against him to smear him

    I most certainly did not.

    As for the rest, see above!

  233. Ally Fogg says

    Incidentally Sid

    What feminism has done to abuse victims is far beyond the scope what the catholic church has done

    this is perhaps the single most outrageous thing said by anyone on this thread.

    Unless you can find evidence of literally thousands of feminists who were personally sexually abusing tens of thousands of children, often in the most vicious and depraved ways, spanning decades, while their fellow feminists covered up their crimes, enabled them, moved them to other positions in the feminist movement in full knowledge of their paedophile habits…

    If all of that has happened, you might have a point. Otherwise, catch yourself on, eh? Reality calling.

  234. carnation says

    @ Sid, Cicero and other MRAs

    To prove that there is bias against fathers in the family court, a comparative study of disputed cases would have to be undertaken. There is simply not a shred of evidence to suggest that men are discriminated against.

    The myth is that evil, conniving women “steal” children from the loving, caring father. In a bureaucracy, mistakes will happen, so there will be occassional, but statistically insignificant, instances of a *parent* losing contact with a child. But nothing even approaching the scale suggested my MRAs and F4J.

    F4J are examples of what happens when MRAs enter the real world of activism. Their scare stories, faked statistics and questionable membership means that they are absolutely unable to influence policy.

    They claim 200 children a day lose contact with their father. They fail to state how many of these are as a result of a court ruling and how many are a result of the father not being interested. They also fail to offer a credible citation.

    They blamed the family court.

    They blamed the family court for the London riots.

    The propagation of the myth of family court bias is hugely damaging to men. It undoubtedly acts, and is used, as a deterrent for men who want to leave a marriage.

    TL/DR: there isn’t a shred of comparative evidence to justify the MRA myth of family court bias. The best the MRAs could come up with on here was a 2002 Telegraph article about a contentious custody battle.

    The facts are that the overwhelming majority of family court cases are undisputed. Where there is dispute, the court is bound by law to be genderblind. I know this for a fact.

    @Ally I respect your writings, but on this, you are wrong,,and potentially damagingly wrong. Just as feminists should celebrate their successes and reject victim hood, men and those interested in their well being should be honest and clear about the family court.

  235. Sid says

    @carnation

    Feminists tend to dismiss and minimise male suffering, whether its abuse victims or legal discrimination (suffering is for women you see,according to feminists and traditionalists, men that point out male suffering are illegitimate and not real). The follower drones like you that don’t really know what they are talking about do it and its done at higher level too for example, here is how american feminists misrepresented data in 1989 to cover up biases in custody decisions.

    http://www.breakingthescience.org/SJC_GBC_analysis_intro.php

    And here is the national parents organisation on the national organisationfor womens opposition for shared parenting.

    https://www.nationalparentsorganization.org/blog/20980-as-it-was-and-ever-shall-be-now-opposes-equal-rights-for-fathers

    I await your mental gymnastics and denial, because men are invulnerable and only women can experience hardship.

  236. carnation says

    @Ally

    Getting back to the original point of this article, MRAs need an “other” to justify their anger and bitterness. Some separatists make no effort to hide their misogyny, they declare themselves mgtow. Others, on avfm for example, dedicate their life to blaming feminism for literally everything from 9/11 to historic wars. But Elam is denying his own history. For them, blaming women isn’t acceptable, so they invent an all seeing, all powerful enemy. They claim it has government influence, family court influence, they say it’s wellfunded, that it promotes murder and eugenics, even social engineering.

    MRAs, almost exclusively, are conspiracy theorists, extremists.

    But they serve a function. They motivate radfems and give them something to rally round. Follow radfem blogs and you’ll see how much more active they’ve become, now they have real, live, loud misogyists to “fight”.

    More than that, they’re introducing a whole new generation of women to feminism. Their angry words and ridiculous anecdotes offend women. I’ve seen this happen on Facebook, AVfM articles with comments reiterating “this is why we need feminism”

    MRAs range from the comically absurd (Tom Martin, John Hembling) to the honest rightwinger (Bernard Chapin) and take in a whole lot of angry and inept voices in the middle.

  237. Sid says

    @Ally

    >I most certainly did not.

    You tried to paint him as revelling in stories about rape, as if he was a sadistic pervert.

    >Unless you can find evidence of literally thousands of feminists who were personally sexually abusing tens of thousands of children, often in the most vicious and depraved ways, spanning decades, while their fellow feminists covered up their crimes, enabled them, moved them to other positions in the feminist movement in full knowledge of their paedophile habits…

    Again, its different when women do it.

    Feminism is the womens movement, it covers up abuse by women.

    The Catholic Church covered up abuse by its priests.

  238. Sid says

    @Ally

    Feminism uses methods to cover up abusers, they move around the statistical data and deny the abuse, the RC moves around the priests and denys the abuse.

    The fact that you think these things are not comparable is your bias showing.

  239. carnation says

    @ Sid

    You’re a typical MRA fantasist, life’s too short to bother with your lame and irrelevant evidence.

    If you can provide me with the evidence required to prove the MRA myth that men have their children stolen from them by the state, at the behest of lying women, then I’ll read what you have to say.

    Ally humours you, I won’t. I think you have immersed yourself so absolutely in fantastical MRA “theory” that it’s kinder to ignore you.

  240. Sid says

    @carnation

    What you mean is that your commitment to an ideology that you don’t know much about at all trumps evidence.

  241. Sid says

    Here is Michelle Elliot talking about feminist trying to cover up female perpetrated child sex abuse.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yPDL78e8UAs&feature=PlayList&p=E3ACFBB3E7EEB762&playnext_from=PL&playnext=1&index=26

    Doesn’t really matter though does is feminists, its a female movement and the pedohphiles are female, its not at all the same thing as a male movement and male pedophiles.

    And anger at the millions of feminists and (non feminist profeminists like Ally Fog) that minimise and down play all this is totally unwarranted!!.

  242. Schala says

    Yes, some feminists have been demonstrably wrong on the true nature of domestic violence. Some feminists have worked hard to ensure that men couldn’t jump on the bus, as it were. But it is also impossible to ignore that the feminists pretty much built the bus in the first place.

    Patriarchy built that bus line, the bus frame, hired the engineers to design the bus and paid for the bus.

    Patriarchy has NO PROBLEM AT ALL acknowledging women as victims. It wasn’t that hard to push beyond that token resistance of not taking “private” issues into the public. Patriarchy offered very little resistance to the idea that men beat women up at all though.

    From no shelter at all, to thousands per country (all public funded) and laws to prevent violence against women – you think this would have happened at all if patriarchy was against it? No chance.

  243. Sid says

    >But it is also impossible to ignore that the feminists pretty much built the bus in the first place.

    Erin Pizzey starting building the bus for everyone to get on. Feminists hijacked the bus made it for heterosexual women only and covered up the fact that most of the women that go to shelters are violent themselves and many that bring children in with them were child abusers too.

    Stop making excuses.

  244. Ally Fogg says

    @carnation (253)

    I respect your writings, but on this, you are wrong,,and potentially damagingly wrong.

    Here’s my problem with this. I mentioned the Norgrove Report earlier, but there was another MoJ research study commissioned a couple of years ago. When it came out, the minister reponsible was all over the news saying it proved there was no evidence of bias or serious problems in the family courts.

    So I went and read it at the time. Just dug it out again. It was long. And it was absolutely chock-a-block with evidence of bias and serious problems. The authors interviewed loads of solicitors and magistrates, many of whom gave extensive testimony of problems. Then there were other comments, either from other interviewees or the authors themselves saying “yeah but this could have been because of XYZ or ABC, so the problem might not be as bad as it looks….”

    Some of those ‘yeah buts…’ were quite convincing. A lot of them weren’t. The worst example was the chapter on failed enforcement. From their sample of cases, more than half of those who went back to court did not secure proper contact as a result. That’s an appalling failure. But then in the commentary, the authors said something like “yeah but lots of the resident parents said they were worried about the non-resident parent being violent or absconding with the children.” To which I could only think, but they would say that, wouldn’t they?

    That seems to be typical of the “proof” that family courts work just fine. I quite agree there is little evidence of widespread systematic discrimination in the system. But that doesn’t mean it can’t happen and it certainly doesn’t mean there is proof that it works just fine.

    Oh, and just for the record, I can imagine no reason why feminism has anything to do with all of the above. It looks to me a classic case of institutions protecting their own and saying “nothing to see here, move along now.”

    Link: http://dera.ioe.ac.uk/9145/1/outcomes-applications-contact-orders.pdf

  245. Ally Fogg says

    Sid (255)

    Feminism uses methods to cover up abusers, they move around the statistical data and deny the abuse, the RC moves around the priests and denys the abuse.

    The fact that you think these things are not comparable is your bias showing.

    You seem to be conveniently ignoring that it was priests of the catholic church – the very human body of the church itself – that was actually doing the abusing, which was a pretty fucking big part of the equation.

    Thousands and thousands of priests were not denying that sexual abuse took place or didn’t count as a problem. Thousands upon thousands of priests were PERSONALLY ABUSING CHILDREN.

    If you can’t notice the difference in those two examples, well, I don’t think you should really be complaining about anyone else’s “bias.”

  246. carnation says

    @ Ally

    Thanks for your response.

    Thing is, men can not comply as easily as women. Maybe even more so, given that they are generally more of a physical threat. The family court is imperfect, but every single problem it has affects mothers the same as fathers.

    Would you agree that it is extremely unlikely for a parent to be denied contact with their child, without there being documented, conclusive evidence that the child would have been in a lot of danger?

    This is one MRA myth that has the power to damage men, quite considerably.

  247. redpesto says

    @N4M (186)

    As Ally says, the Guardian relies on churnalism’ from the like of the Fawcett Society, Eaves and Object, in the same way that the Daily Mail uses Migration Watch or the Taxpayers Alliance. Incidentally, I wouldn’t call Jessica Reed a ‘radical feminist’ if she was prepared to interview porn actor James Deen and *not* reduce it to a ‘you’re a rapist’ level of debate. There are others who work at or contribute to the paper who would’ve gone for that argument in a heartbeat.

  248. carnation says

    @ Ally

    I’m animated about this because I’ve firsthand experience. The father lied about the mother being into drugs, having mental health problems, neglecting the children. None of it was true. CAFCASS investigated, including drug testing, the father was shown to be lying. He also admitted assaulting the mother in front of the children on one occasion, and a further two assaults. Despite his lies, and his admitted violence, he was still awarded 50/50 residency. The mother’s solicitor warned that it was because of accusations of anti male bias that 50/50 was stuck to so rigidly. He has gone on to break contact arrangements repeatedly.

    So the system can be abused. But in all but a statistically insignificant number of cases, an accommodation is reached.

    Enforcement is most definitely an issue, but one that is very difficult to, literally, police, without police officers getting very involved, with the potential for disrupting and upsetting the children.

    As I said, the family court is imperfect. But the machinery can be abused and exploited by mother or father.

  249. Sasori says

    /Ally Fogg: 248
    fair enough, apologies for misrepresenting you.
    I agree that if Elam was to have any power his statements would be worse but he seems not to.
    I suspect you could find vague corollaries to his ludicrous statements on Tumblr and in the writing of some of the more ‘snarky’ adjective prone internet feminists like Twisty Faster, Sadye Doyle and Amanda Marcotte. But you would have to go back to the 70’s and 80’s, when leading militant feminist figures didn’t have the respectability of somewhat mainstream success, to find direct equivalents. I think Elam’s statements don’t exist in a vacuum. Given his rhetorical style, I suspect he has been reading various statements from 70’s feminists (as well as right wing demagogues), noting their effectiveness and copying them.

    I acknowledge that feminist ideology was central to the formation of a lot of policy and treatment of domestic violence, but that does not mean modern day feminists like ChakraAborty don’t have regressive ideas. The works of the Greek philosophers were revolutionary and provide the basis for much of philosophical thought, but past a certain point (of evidence contrary to his ideas) somebody advocating for Aristotelian perfection or the five elements would be regarded as regressive. I don’t think that Aristotle’s ideas should get any special treatment because he was the first to think of several concepts. You can acknowledge the work of feminists and point out the regression, as I think you do most of the time. Also your ‘they built the bus in the first place’ argument is incredibly similar to arguments made in various historically ‘male’ industries/spaces about their openness to women, interesting.

    Obviously this is hypothetical guff, but I think that there probably would’ve been treatment centres for domestic violence without the particular kind of feminist ideology that was involved in their creation. There has been a trend in western society towards the extension of law and state to things that were previously considered in ‘the private sphere.’ I’m also aware of the history of domestic violence being resolved by families and friends and will take a look at the book you site if I can find it [ used from £33.31 or new from £221.82!].
    Also AFAIK Pizzey’s argument is that (some, a lot of ?) the feminist domestic violence movement retarded the growth of treatment for men and a gender neutral frame, it seems not without foundation to me. Reading a description of a presentation to a (publicly funded iirc) domestic violence organisation by Nicola Graham Kavan, where people in the audience became ‘visibly uncomfortable’ when presented with evidence that domestic violence may be gender neutral, was depressing evidence of this for me.

    /Copyleft: 245
    I hope what you say will come true but I suspect there will be little acknowledgement any time soon on the left of male specific gender issues let alone a gender neutral ‘egalitarian’ movement, and this will cede ground to people like Elam. I don’t know how popular somebody like him can be in the end though in normal conditions.

    /Schala: 246
    I will defer to your greater knowledge, but in my experience the (right) libertarian faction of MRA’s is very large, and the celebration of traditional male roles and deployment of various evolutionary psychological arguments explaining why gender roles are hard coded seem common.

  250. Schala says

    Would you agree that it is extremely unlikely for a parent to be denied contact with their child, without there being documented, conclusive evidence that the child would have been in a lot of danger?

    At the moment? Mere allegation is enough to remove contact at least until the claim is proven unfounded (which can take weeks). Such allegations could be done against the mother, but when made against the father are taken as more credible – because it’s taken as common sense that “mothers wouldn’t do that”, not at all that “fathers wouldn’t do that”.

  251. Sid says

    @Ally

    You are arguing that mra’s believe that feminists invented male circumcision.

    Is that lie your own or are you repeating lies that you heard elsewhere in good faith?

  252. Sid says

    Ally

    >You seem to be conveniently ignoring that it was priests of the catholic church – the very human body of the church itself – that was actually doing the abusing, which was a pretty fucking big part of the equation.
    Thousands and thousands of priests were not denying that sexual abuse took place or didn’t count as a problem. Thousands upon thousands of priests were PERSONALLY ABUSING CHILDREN.
    If you can’t notice the difference in those two examples, well, I don’t think you should really be complaining about anyone else’s “bias.”

    Ally, in order for you to prove that that what the catholic church was worse than feminism, would have to prove that the catholic church covered up millions of abuse victims instead of 1000s, and you would have to prove that ordinary catholics chanted “what about the children lol!” in the victims faces,you seem to be conveniently ignoring that fact.

    In order for you prove the moral ground you imagine that feminism has, you have to prove that catholics did not aggressively disrupt meetings for the victims of priests.

    Anyone can goal set Ally.

    I could start minimizing and making excuses for the catholic church to satirise you Ally, but if I did that I’d lose the moral high ground, I’ll leave the minimizing and making excuses for movements that cover up abuse to you and the other pro feminists here.

  253. Schala says

    /Schala: 246
    I will defer to your greater knowledge, but in my experience the (right) libertarian faction of MRA’s is very large, and the celebration of traditional male roles and deployment of various evolutionary psychological arguments explaining why gender roles are hard coded seem common.

    Many are libertarian, but I think this will be owed to the rock-and-a-hard-place situation of the US.

    Be too lefty and you’re a communist/socialist (which is inherently evil, because Russia cold war propaganda), and support people (including feminists) who do nothing but demonize you. Feminism using class A vs class B Marxist class warfare comparison to situate women as a class as oppressed by men as a class (in a bourgeoisie vs proletariat way) is only reinforcing the opposition.

    Be too righty and you’re a conservative, and support people (including right-wing nuts) who do nothing but demonize you.

    Libertarian is that center thing. People there don’t tend to demonize men for an accident of birth.

    Personally, I’m a socialist (and in Canada, that’s not demonized, Canada has a universal healthcare), and completely disavow the feminist view of sexes as akin to proletariat vs bourgeoisie. I view gender roles this way though. With men as the proletariat, the working class, the manual laborers, and women as the aristocracy, those who have people working for them (never work themselves manually) and who show off in expression (clothing, hairstyle, make-up). This is a recent thing. Genders used to both be poor (and wearing rags) and both be aristocrats (and showing off), but our mode of living in the 20-21st century has changed things.

    And when MRAs use evolutionary biology arguments, it’s to explain how things became this shitty. Not to justify continuing it (as traditionalists would).

  254. Arkwright says

    “Every hour spent angrily obsessing over the words and deeds of feminism, past or present, is an hour that could be spent making a positive difference. That so many men waste so much anger is, I believe, something to get angry about.”

    Hmm…hang on a bit.
    Christine Lagarde made the comment “if Lehman Brothers had been “Lehman Sisters,” today’s economic crisis clearly would look quite different”. Implication being of course that testosterone and finance make for a expolsive combination.
    That’s quite a statement to make and from someone with a very substantial influence on world opinion

    But this comment is essentialy ‘hate the player not the game’ (testosterone doesn’t effect financial decision making, it’s far more likely to be affected by dopamine) and diverts attention away from the real culprit of the incumbant global financial systems, which offers people all the long term security of a frenzied poker game.

    I think It’s hard to deny that feminism didn’t influence Christines comment and I also think it’s hard to deny that fem-friendly media platforms (such as the Guardian) didn’t support it.

    I reckon getting angry about that particular sexist comment will be an hour well spent, wouldn’t you agree Ally?

  255. Ally Fogg says

    @carnation

    i think most family court sessions are dealing with exceptionally messy and difficult cases with either one or both parties being entirely unreasonable, dishonest or so wrapped up in bitterness and so convinced their ex is the devil incarnate that it is impossible to do the job without creating accidental victims.

    I’ve also been closely involved with people going through the system. I’ve never seen a case identical to the one you describe but I am sure they are commonplace.

    I have seen close up cases where the father has been left completely and unfairly hung out to dry by the system, and he (and more importantly his kids) deprived of opportunities to maintain proper contact.

    To be fair, I’ve also seen a case where the mother was behaving irresponsibly, bizarrely and unreasonably, at one point making false allegations of sexual abuse against the kids and domestic violence against her. They were properly investigated and when her story was revealed to be a pack of lies and paranoid invention (which she admitted when confronted with the evidence.) The court ruled that the father should have primary residency. So courts can get it right sometimes too.

    I think the big problem is that the system is so opaque (largely of necessity) and the cases so complex and messy it is exceptionally difficult to know whether a right or wrong decision has been reached.

    But to return to the original point, whether or not one accepts that there is systematic discrimination in the system, I think fathers’ rights are a perfectly legitimate topic of concern, and within the broader political / social debate, fathers need advocates and supporters to put their case.

  256. Sasori says

    carnation: 253

    ‘Men going their own way’ puzzled me for a while, that is until I saw the the Google analytics for the MGTOW forums, go there then click the ‘audience’ tab.
    http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/mgtowforums.com
    The audience for these forums are primarily males who are in the age range 25-34, have no children, have no college education and browse this site from home. I suspect that MGTOW is a response to the way the labour market, great recession have destroyed the traditional route into marriage for working class men without giving them anything else.

  257. Sasori says

    Ha. well obviously I messed up my last comment (273). the only part I meant to quote is this “Some separatists make no effort to hide their misogyny, they declare themselves mgtow. ” from Carnaton

  258. N4M says

    But I would ask you whether any of those stories made a blind bit of difference in the real world?

    Actually, Ally, as it happens, you yourself have written that you believe deliberately misleading research often has precisely that impact.

    If you can remember, you wrote that newspapers stories which misuse and abuse statistics to create a certain narrative often affect social policy; in other words, they are not just wrong because they are dishonest and manipulative.

    To quote directly from you, here:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jan/14/ethics-domestic-violence

    Misquoting a statistic is as unethical and reprehensible as misquoting a witness.
    Then,
    Bad data mean bad policy, which inevitably means worse governance and a worse society.

    That being the case, I don’t think that setting out to peddle all those falsehoods can be passed off as innocuous as you’ve been suggesting here in this thread.

  259. Paul says

    @251 Carnation

    The Family Courts tend to discriminate in favour of the primary carer of children who in most cases is the mother. And even when a man is the primary carer there’s no guarantee he’ll be awarded custody. And if the mother proves obstructive in anyway with regard to access she almost always gets away with it because Family Courts almost never enforce access orders.

    One of the reasons most men don’t go to Family Court is because they know the odds are stacked heavily against them. For men who do take mothers to a Family Court run the risk of losing contact with their children altogether and if that happens there’s nothing they can do about it.

    I think you’re wrong to say that Family Courts don’t discriminate against fathers.And that the Fathers Rights Movement are scaremongering etc .In fact many fathers fighting for even basic access would i’m sure be highly offended at the suggestion.

    I do however agree with you that given the opportunity both sexes can abuse the system. But the fact is this country has one of the highest proportions of children raised in families where their biological fathers are either absent or only play a peripheral role in their childrens lives.And this cannot be attributed to most of them being either feckless or abusive.

    I’m involved in the Fathers Rights Movement and i most certainly don’t consider myself to be a rabid scaremongering MRA. I have however spoken to countless men who’ve either lost contact with their children altogether or who have very basic access and are not allowed any input into the decisions that are made about their children’s lives because the mothers won’t let them. I ‘ve also spoken to countless men who say mothers have either made false accusations of dv and child abuse at the Family Courts and the Judges have believed them even though they’ve provided no evidence because there isn’t any. And as a result they feel penalised and again there’s nothing they can do about it .

    What we need in this country is an assumption of co-parenting irrespective of whether parents are living together or not. We also need to move away from both the traditionalist view that children are best suited by being with women. And the view of some feminists who claim that children are safer being with women. Also that all women have the right to be mothers and at the same time view men as being optional extras.

    Gender equality cuts both ways in my opinion and that needs to be reflected in Family Law and at the Family Courts. For in most cases what’s in the best interest of most children is to have regular contact with BOTH their parents and far too often that isn’t happening in this country.And one of the reasons it isn’t happening is because simply t being male puts you at a disadvantage when it comes to trying to assert your right to equal custody rights of children with mothers.

  260. Copyleft says

    Carnation @253: “Some separatists make no effort to hide their misogyny, they declare themselves mgtow.”

    I’m curious… what do you see as ‘misogynist’ about MGTOW?

  261. carnation says

    @ Paul

    Thanks for your measured response. However, you still can’t provide actual evidence of bias.

    I’m not against a presumption of co parenting, I’m against a presumption of 50/50, for obvious reasons.

    Your first two paragraphs are precisely the types of MRA scaremongering that could well leave men in miserable or dysfunctional relations because they’re scared of losing contact with their children.

    Once again,it is exceptionally rare for a parent, who isn’t a danger to the child, to be denied access to the child.

  262. Copyleft says

    That wasn’t the question… the question is what do YOU see as misogynist about MGTOW?

  263. Sid says

    Anyone says there isn’t discrimination in the family courts doesn’t know what they are talking about. The person that is not the main caregiver has no automatic custody rights, they have to be applied for as sole custody rights are automatically bestowed on the main caregiver.

    If the person that is the main caregiver is high conflict or just wants to cut the person who is not the main care giver out, they have the upper hand as a starting point.

    Likewise anyone that says that feminist lobby groups haven’t been opposing reform to a situation where there is shared custody as a starting point doesn’t know what they are talking about.

    Its ridiculous that this even has to be argued about. If one parent is given automatic rights and the other isn’t, its discrimination.

  264. Sid says

    >I’m not against a presumption of co parenting, I’m against a presumption of 50/50, for obvious reasons.

    No one is advocating for presumption of 50/50. Thats just lie that NOW circulated to add weight to their opposition of shared parenting.

  265. Copyleft says

    Oh, come on, Carnation… surely you don’t think you can just make a claim and then say “it’s obvious” when asked to back it up? Not here, surely.

    Now, what do you see as misogynist about MGTOW? Be specific; give some examples. Better yet, submit the statistical study you’ve done on all these blogs.

  266. carnation says

    @ Copyleft

    No idea what your agenda is, but debating with MRAs is mostly a waste of time. I imagine it’s the same with mgtow. Incidentally, I don’t really believe that mgtow exist in large numbers. I do however believe that, like MRAs, keyboard warriors are legion within the ranks and that many online profiles exist that treat the ‘online gender wars” like a mmorpg.

    Numerous examples here: http://manboobz.com/category/mgtow/

    I’m going to ignore all further messages from you.

  267. Schala says

    “Ha. well obviously I messed up my last comment (273). the only part I meant to quote is this “Some separatists make no effort to hide their misogyny, they declare themselves mgtow. ” from Carnaton”

    MGTOW are not MRAs, similar to PUAs are also not MRAs.

  268. Paul says

    @ 278Carnation

    Once again,it is exceptionally rare for a parent, who isn’t a danger to the child, to be denied access to the child.

    If that were the case there wouldn’t be a Fathers Rights Movement. Unless of course you believe that all the men in the Fathers Rights Movement are a danger to their children which in the overwhelming majority of cases isn’t the case. Mothers are actually involved in most of the child deaths that take place as a result of abuse in this country. And the most dangerous type of family for a child is one headed by a biological mother and a cohabiting stepfather.

    i don’t know exactly how many men choose not to go to Family Court to either get custody or improve access because they know the odds are stacked against them .What i do know is that in over 90% of cases that make it to the Family Courts custody is awarded to the mother and contact orders secured by fathers are rarely enforced. And that fathers who take a mother to a Family Court run a real risk of losing contact with their children altogether and there’s nothing they can do about it.

    At present far to many men in this country are either excluded or marginalized in the lives of their children once the relationship with the mother breaks down. Hence we have a growing and diverse Fathers Rights Movement seeking to address that. And not meaning any disrespect to you but i think that anyone who can’t see the discrimination that fathers face in this country is either genuinely out of touch with what’s going on or has an agenda which is anti-male.

  269. Copyleft says

    Carnation: Thanks for illustrating (yet again) that radical feminism is an anti-reason and antifactual dogma unsupported by facts.

  270. carnation says

    @ Paul

    We are going in circles. You have no tangible evidence to back up your claims.

    Almost no parents will lose contact without their child without extremely compelling reasons. Fact.

    No credible evidence exists that proves men are more at risk of wrongly losing all contact with their children. Fact.

    The word of one parent alleging abuse, of spouse or child, is not accepted in a court without independent verification. Fact.

    The family court enables and encourages mediation at every stage of proceedings. Fact.

    F4J deliberately obfuscate in their publicity materials. The family court is very obviously NOT to blame for “200 children a day losing contact with their father” (I’d be very surprised is 200 did every week, for all reasons, including the family court). Fact.

    F4J members have been reported to have had restraining orders against them, been neglectful parents etc:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hereford/worcs/6480011.stm (this from a very quick Google search, plenty of others available).

    F4J are dedicated to enhancing the media profile of their founder and his wife. On the F4J Facebook page, there is no helpline number for fathers, but there is a “media line”. Fact.

    F4J tried to cash in on Mumsnet popularity with a ludicrous campaign, accusing M & S of supporting “hate” against men and boys. This despite the fact that Matt O’Connor’s ice cream business used Mumsnet for marketing purposes. The advertising standards agency upheld complaints about F4J. Fact.

    The facts are that F4J is an organisation, with at least some very dubious members, promoting extremely dubious statistics, for very questionable reasons.

  271. Sid says

    @carnation

    restraining orders are abused by high conflict people in high conflict divorces. It stands to reason that people in F4J would have restraining orders against them, fathers rights in response to women abusing the family courts.

    I take it you are what the grey lining blog called a free thought baboon, all you seem to do here is fling feces.

  272. Sid says

    So the takeaway here is

    Ludacris David Futrelle style strawmen ie. MRAs talk about conscription, therefore they blame feminism for conscription. Mra’s think feminism is responsible for male circumcision.

    Male emotion is not allowed.

    Mras are made of snails and puppy dogs tails no matter what, feminists are made of sugar and spice, even when the are hatful, dishonest and callous.

    Baseless claims by feminist trump evidence.

    Feminists feel entitled and justified in taking ridiculous sounding and pretentious superior tones.

    Women are weak and pathetic and morally pure, men are sinister, strong and invulnerable.

    Same old story.

  273. Paul says

    @Carnation 285

    Where to start ? This is only the third time i’ve posted to you so what’s with the comment about going round in circles ?

    You accuse me of not providing any evidence to support my claims but then declare as ”facts” a number of claims you haven’t supported with any evidence.So i’m afraid you’ve rather shot yourself in the foot there.

    Your entire focus on the Fathers Rights Movement in this country has been on F4J. But you are surely aware that F4J is just one of a number of groups supporting fathers who’re either marginalized or excluded from their children lives.? Yet you seem to be hellbent on demonising the movement in its entirety by either concentrating on a selection of activities of members of F4J or suggesting that no father would be prevented from having access to his children unless he was a danger to them. Which is actually highly offensive because in one full swoop you’re in effect implying that all the men in the Fathers Rights Movement are potential child abusers.

    It’s a fact that in over 90% of custody cases that reach Family Court custody is awarded to the mother and from men i’ve spoken to there seems to be a problem of mothers making false allegations of dv and child abuse and judges giving them the benefit of the doubt even though there’s no evidence. Additionally i’ve spoken to men who admit they were violent but claim the mother was just as violent. And men who claim they weren’t violent but the mother was violent yet she still got custody. On top of that there’s a real problem of men being granted contact orders but the mother ignoring them and the Family Courts refusing to enforce them.And fathers losing all contact with their children as a result. Surely you don’t think those contact orders would have been granted if the Family Court seriously thought the fathers posed a risk to their children ?.

    As i tried to explain earlier going to Family Court is extremely risky for men given that custody rarely goes to the father and contact orders are rarely enforced.Which is why there are probably many men who’ll accept whatever access the mother is prepared to give them even if they think she’s been unreasonable.Now as i also said earlier i don’t know how many men don’t risk going to the Family Court for the reasons i’ve stated.However i’ve spoken to many men who’ve either been badly stung by going to the Family Court or who are trying to get improved access without going to the Family Court and aren’t getting anywhere with it. And the fact is there’s absolutely no evidence anywhere on this planet which supports your view that most of these men are in effect missing out on their childrens lives because they pose a threat to their safety.

  274. carnation says

    @ Paul

    What you say is simply untrue and also sexist.

    You can’t prove that there is institutional bias against men. It doesn’t exist.

    Men, as much and as likely as women, can and do fail to compy with contact orders.

  275. Sid says

    @carnation

    Nobody is forcing you in the role of “I’m a feminist so I get to talk down my nose in pretentious tones”, Nobody is forcing you to prioritize ideology over evidence or to pretend that you know the topic better than you do. This behaviour is all you and your ideology. You seem to think your ideology gives you licence to be as ignorant as you like. These are your own errors.

  276. carnation says

    @ Paul

    Do you dispute any of the facts I listed?

    You list anecdotal evidence. My personal experiences contradict yours, so let’s stick to credible evidence.

  277. Jacob Schmidt says

    Schala

    MGTOW are not MRAs, similar to PUAs are also not MRAs.

    Not inherently, but there seems to be noticeable overlap, as well as similar talking points.

    RE: Misandrist feminists

    Brute Reason had a piece on this a while back. My pull quote:

    In general, men reported more BM [benevolence towards men] than women, and women reported more HM [hostility towards men] than men. This is consistent with earlier research. But when it came to feminists specifically–you already know where this is going, right?–feminists scored less on hostility toward men than did non-feminists. And it’s not because of the feminist guys in the sample, either: “The presence of feminist men alone cannot explain the relatively low levels of hostility toward men in the Feminist category because there was no significant Gender × Feminist Identification interaction on hostility toward men.”

    It would seem feminists are less misandrist than the general population. Admittedly, it was a really small sample size (I think less than 70 feminists) of college students, but there you go.

  278. Jacob Schmidt says

    *That is, feminist women seem to be less misandrist than the general population of women. There was no significant difference for feminist men.

  279. carnation says

    @ Sid

    Sensible people are talking, your presence is unwelcome. Plenty of use for you on AVfM. Off you go over there.

  280. PatrickG says

    Quoting jcaar for truth:

    That’s why so many of these comments in this thread can be summed up as “Yes, but the feminists….” type of commentary. Deflection and evasion rather than careful scrutiny. Individual feminists and some feminist arguments are indeed worthy of criticism, but overall this is just a red herring.

    @ Ally, Raging Bee, jcaar, others: You’ve got some impressive fortitude. I find It profoundly pointless to engage people like Sid, as the obsessive rhetoric and distortion is simply wearying. Obviously your mileage varies, so tip o’ the hat.

    @ Sid: The Catholic Church? Seriously? How do you expect anyone to take you seriously when you indulge in such over-the-top and ridiculous fantasies? Have a complimentary LOL.

    @ Ally: Great piece. I’m looking forward to the next installment, though hopefully the comments won’t yet again devolve into another episode of Feminists: Worse than Hitler (who was probably a feminist!!!)!!!

  281. Sid says

    @carnation

    You’re not being sensible, you are using pretentious tones in place knowledge and content and prioritizing ideology over evidence.

  282. Sid says

    PatrickG

    >@ Sid: The Catholic Church? Seriously? How do you expect anyone to take you seriously when you indulge in such over-the-top and ridiculous fantasies?

    The comparison can’t be taken seriously in feminist areas because of sexism.

    Its not a fantasy that the catholic church and feminism can both be demonstrated to cover up abuse.

  283. Jacob Schmidt says

    jcaar

    That’s why so many of these comments in this thread can be summed up as “Yes, but the feminists….” type of commentary. Deflection and evasion rather than careful scrutiny. Individual feminists and some feminist arguments are indeed worthy of criticism, but overall this is just a red herring.

    Another thing I noticed is the ways that feminists fucks up are inconsistent. NOW takes a fairly strong stance against joint custody, while German feminists presume joint custody. Some German feminists argued that women were too weak to fight in the military, and therefore shouldn’t be conscripted. NOW is totally against conscription in any form, but argues that if there is conscription it should be agendered. Feminists in India seem to have argued that men can’t be raped (I haven’t actually checked this one out yet; I’m assuming it’s true). Try that argument on FTB and you’ll get verbally smacked down by nearly everyone.

  284. Jacob Schmidt says

    Sid

    The comparison can’t be taken seriously in feminist areas because of sexism.

    Its not a fantasy that the catholic church and feminism can both be demonstrated to cover up abuse.

    The latter was not your original statement. Lookee here:

    What feminism has done to abuse victims is far beyond the scope what the catholic church has done, and average catholics haven’t been chanting “what about the children lol!!” in the faces of the child abuse victims and what Paul Elam has done to draw attention to how feminism covers up abuse, is miniscule compared to what feminism does.

    Let’s assume your characterization of feminism is right. The Catholic church has actively contributed to the abuse of children, women, men, fucking everyone. The Catholic church is responsible for lies about condom effectiveness in Africa, leading to millions of preventable deaths from STD’s. The members of the Catholic church have been raping children for decades, with the church actively covering it up. That’s no where near dismissing male victims. They have not been actively victimizing them, then covering up the incident through a massive organisation. I don’t even think Feminism is theoretically capable of doing what the catholic church has done.

    The comparison can’t be taken seriously because it’s asinine.

  285. Sid says

    @Lucy @ 214

    >’d just like to point out that a high proportion of male victims of domestic violence are being attacked by male relations and partners.

    Gay male relationships have the lowest DV, followed by hetersexual with lesbian relationships showing the highest results.

    Was your claim based in any data or was it just based in hatred of men and denial of female agency to do wrong? Feminists, so ptriarchal!

    http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/trauma-and-violence/newer-perspectives-domestic-violence

    @Lucy @215

    That study on the titanic was shown to have been misprepresented by the feminists that handled the data.
    http://www.feministcritics.org/blog/2012/04/19/more-on-the-%E2%80%98women-and-children-first%E2%80%99-era-noh/

  286. Sid says

    @JacobSchmidt

    Both ideologies can be shown to have covered up abuse. When feminists took over the domestic violence they suppressed the information that the women using the shelters were violent more often than not, and when they had children in tow they were often abusing them.

    Later on, feminist researchers biased the research data to hide and minimise female perpetration. Feminist intervention services treat abuse as if its gendered. Feminist PSAs mislead about the nature of abuse, covering most of it up. Follower feminists attack and dismiss and minimise talk about it.

    This is actively perpetuating the cycle of abuse, the RC did the same thing when they covered up the abuse in its culture.

    It seems a bizarre comparison to pro feminist people, because they have difficulty conceptualizing feminism or women having the agency to do wrong.

  287. Jacob Schmidt says

    Sid
    .
    Again, even I assume everything you said is true, it doesn’t address the ridiculousness of your comparison. Are you aware how arguing works?

  288. Sasori says

    /Jacob Schmidt 298
    That is an interesting post you link to. I’m not sure if it proves as much as you or the OP think.
    That study asked 500 people, the number of people who identified as feminist was 15% and the number of people who identified with the kind of feminism seen on various community websites was far smaller I imagine. The upshot was something that will surprise nobody, that people with liberal or left of centre views report less gender hostility and have a less rigid view of gender roles.

    I’m not sure that it disproves the lack of empathy seen in the writing of many major feminists commentators. I think that many mens rights internet communities are somewhat similar, looking at the ‘MGTOW forums,’ there is regularly a lack of empathy for women and leading mens rights commentators regularly blame women, or attribute malice to women for cultural conventions in the same way that in lots of feminist communities, men are blamed, malice is attributed and worst possible motivations are ascribed to male cultural conventions.

  289. Jacob Schmidt says

    Sasori

    The upshot was something that will surprise nobody, that people with liberal or left of centre views report less gender hostility and have a less rigid view of gender roles.

    What? No. It was a comparison of feminist college students to other college students. Even if college students tend to be centre left or liberal, and even if this has a lessening effect on how sexism one is (I’m willing to grant both these assumptions), centre left college feminist women were less hostile towards men in comparison to other centre left college women.

    I’m not sure that it disproves the lack of empathy seen in the writing of many major feminists commentators.

    I generally distrust such statements. I’ve seen a lot of feminists be very rude and insulting to men trying to discuss men’s issues, but said men often seem to be derailing and trolling, while making false comparisons. Non of these feminists deny that the problem exists, or that it should be dealt with. I’m not saying it doesn’t happen; it just seems overblown to me. And whenever I ask for examples, they often seem to be less damning than the other commenter thought.

  290. Sid says

    JS

    >Again, even I assume everything you said is true, it doesn’t address the ridiculousness of your comparison. Are you aware how arguing works?

    The ridiculousness you perceive, I perceive as you looking through an ideological and patriarchal lens.

    “but the RC is made of snails and puppy dogs tails and feminism in made of sugar and spice, the RC covering up abuse and and feminism doing it are not comparable at all” sort of thing. In the same way that a Muslim cleric might see something in a different religion as totally different by someone observing from outside the religions might see them as more similar than different. Perspective, its hard to see from inside.

  291. Maureen Brian says

    Cicero @ 290,

    The fact that someone stands up in Wesminster Hall and says something does not make that something proven scientific fact.

    There are credible statistics within that debate which would make it quite simple to present exactly the opposite case and if Philip Davies chose to he could make that opposite case or go a long way to convince his audience that the earth was flat, should he choose!

    He has a powerful voice, speaks fast and loud, tosses facts about at speed and keeps going regardless. He shares with most MPs a terrible incompetence with statistics and with other right-wing Tories a fear that one day his basic assumptions will be challenged. Some of his skill is in the fact that much of the time his style is defensive – for just that reason.

    What Philip Davies MP is not is a neutral source of carefully evaluated and double-checked data.

  292. Jacob Schmidt says

    Sid

    The ridiculousness you perceive, I perceive as you looking through an ideological and patriarchal lens.

    I didn’t merely perceive it, I demonstrated it. What evidence do you have that I perceive through a patriarchal lens? Or are you just making convenient assumptions?

  293. PatrickG says

    @ Sid:

    Later on, feminist researchers biased the research data to hide and minimise female perpetration. Feminist intervention services treat abuse as if its gendered. Feminist PSAs mislead about the nature of abuse, covering most of it up. Follower feminists attack and dismiss and minimise talk about it.

    This is actively perpetuating the cycle of abuse, the RC did the same thing when they covered up the abuse in its culture.

    This right here is why I consider you blinkered, at best. By your argument, femInists:

    – engaged in flawed research methodology and/or biasing data
    – make bad assumptions about victomology
    – aired misleading media regarding abuse
    – minimized talk about some forms of abuse

    Whereas, ordained members of the Catholic Church:

    – actively and directly, physically and sexually abused children.
    – engaged in criminal activity, to whit, said abuse.
    – conspired to not only hide abuse, but reassigned abusive priests to new parishes
    – lied repeatedly in criminal investigations, to the families of victims, and to the public at large
    – hid and even destroyed evidence of criminal behavior
    – continues to blame the victims for “enticing” priests. Hell, they blame feminists for that whole sexual revolution thing, too.

    To be absolutely clear: Catholic priests sexually assaulted children. Feminists (allegedly) biased some data. And you think the two are the same, if only in that they perpetuate a cycle of abuse. The same. Are you daft?

    We’re supposed to think you have even an iota of introspection, or the most basic of ability to think rationally? In addition to the complimentary LOL I gave you earlier, I’ll throw in a slow, pitying shake of the head, absolutely free. Call now, and you can get me to point and laugh at you, but supplies of me giving a shit about what you say are rapidly running out!

    I’d call you a joke, but that’s an insult to humor.

  294. Schala says

    Not inherently, but there seems to be noticeable overlap, as well as similar talking points.

    Just as there’s overlap between me, feminists, and MRAs. I’m still not feminist and not a MRA. I’m an egalitarian. So of course, I’ll have some in common with egalitarian feminists and egalitarian MRAs (and not at all with extremists on both sides).

  295. Jacob Schmidt says

    Schala

    Just as there’s overlap between me, feminists, and MRAs. I’m still not feminist and not a MRA. I’m an egalitarian.

    You seem to have mistaken me. I didn’t mean overlap in ideology. I meant that there are men who identify as MGTOW and MRA. There PUA’s who also identify as MRA. They represent MRA’s when they do so.

    So you may be mistaken were you to say that a MGHOW isn’t an MRA.

    (there’s too many acronyms in this post)

  296. Paul says

    ‘@carnation 297

    . My personal experiences contradict yours, so let’s stick to credible evidence.

    Let me get this straight. You think your personal experiences are enough to give credibility to your view that fathers don’t face discrimination in this country ?.And that those fathers who are either marginalized or excluded from their childrens lives only have themselves to blame because they must be a danger to them ? Are you serious ?

    I think it’s best we agree to differ and leave it like that.

  297. carnation says

    @ Paul

    You listed your personal experiences as evidence for your assertions. I wouldn’t expect you to accept what I said without proof, so don’t expect me to accept what you say.

    You still haven’t been able to refute anything that I’ve said.

    What I am clearly saying is that the fathers you’re talking about weren’t discriminated against because they were fathers. And you can’t prove that they were.

    It’s an MRA article of faith that family courts are run by feminists and designed to steal children and money from men. It is nothing but a load of absolute gibberish.

  298. Paul says

    @ 318 carnation

    Now you’re shifting the goal posts to suit your own agenda. And you’re making it up as you go along. For i didn’t say anything about feminists running the Family Courts and looking to steal children and money from men.It might help if you actually read what i wrote rather than trying to put words into my mouth.

    You stated a number of things as facts when they weren’t facts at all.They were in fact your subjective opinions which may or may not have been based on personal experience. However what i find inexcusable is the way you sought to demonise the whole of the Fathers Rights Movement by implying that the only men who have trouble getting access/custody of their children are those who pose a danger to them.For that is actually a highly offensive thing to say and you should withdraw it.

  299. Sid says

    Jacob Schmidt

    I never said the two ideologies committed identical crimes, obviously there are differences.

    I said both ideologies cover up abuse, feminism needs to cover up abuse to make patriarchy theory seem correct and keep the money flowing in, the RC covered up abuse for different reasons and in different ways.

    You can list things that the RC did that feminism didn’t, I can list things that feminism did that the RC didn’t

    For example.. The pressure on Michelle Elliott to stop talking about female pedophiles and the disruption of meetings for female pedophiles, the death threats against Erin Pizzey, the later bomb threats against an american researcher, the false accusations of sexual misconduct against Murray Straus.academic fraud, attacking the scientific research, whoozles, average feminists gleefully chanting “what about teh menz (that have been abused)LOL” etc.

    Were this a male movement covering for male abusers, people would take a very different view of the behaviour. When its women doing wrong and female abusers victims of female abusers that are being covered up, it won’t seem as bad to feminists or traditionalists and other mainstream people, due to patriarchal and feminist views.

  300. carnation says

    @ Paul.

    I didn’t say that.

    Do you disagree that;

    Almost no parents will lose contact without their child without extremely compelling reasons.

    No credible evidence exists that proves men are more at risk of wrongly losing all contact with their children.

    The word of one parent alleging abuse, of spouse or child, is not accepted in a court without independent verification.

    The family court enables and encourages mediation at every stage of proceedings.

    F4J deliberately obfuscate in their publicity materials. The family court is very obviously NOT to blame for “200 children a day losing contact with their father” (I’d be very surprised is 200 did every week, for all reasons, including the family court).

    F4J members have been reported to have had restraining orders against them, been neglectful parents etc:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hereford/worcs/6480011.stm (this from a very quick Google search, plenty of others available).

    F4J are dedicated to enhancing the media profile of their founder and his wife. On the F4J Facebook page, there is no helpline number for fathers, but there is a “media line”.

    F4J tried to cash in on Mumsnet popularity with a ludicrous campaign, accusing M & S of supporting “hate” against men and boys. This despite the fact that Matt O’Connor’s ice cream business used Mumsnet for marketing purposes. The advertising standards agency upheld complaints about F4J. Fact.

    The facts are that F4J is an organisation, with at least some very dubious members, promoting extremely dubious statistics, for very questionable reasons.

  301. Jacob Schmidt says

    Sid

    So the answer is no, you don’t know how arguing works. Again (for the 3rd time), even if I agreed to everything you said, it doesn’t address the stupidity of your argument. The catholic church both victimizes and covers it up on a scale much greater than feminism ever could. Your original claim that “What feminism has done to abuse victims is far beyond the scope what the catholic church has done…” is asinine. Admit to this and we’ll talk.

  302. Sid says

    Jacob Schmidt

    I never said the two were identical. I said they both covered up abuse.

    The catholic church doesn’t go out to deliberately abuse,it covers up the abuse in its ranks to protect itself.

    Feminism didn’t set out to abuse, but it deliberately began covering up abuse to protect itself.

    Both movements perpetuate abuse and cover it up.

    Your argument that that comparison is asinine because they don’t cover up abuse in identical ways, is asinine hair splitting.

  303. Sid says

    >far beyond the scope what the catholic church has done

    Feminism covers up and minimises most abuse that exists and blocks a holistic approach to stop abuse, the RC covers up for a insignificant amount of abuse by comparison.

  304. PatrickG says

    What feminism has done to abuse victims is far beyond the scope what the catholic church has done

    Comment #247, Sid. I’ll grant you didn’t say they’re identical. You said feminism was worse. Stop lying.

    Really, if you’re going to assert that “the catholic church doesn’t go out to deliberately abuse”, are you really going to argue that priests aren’t agents of the Catholic Church? Or were they just accidentally abusing children? Or are you claiming that feminists have individually abused children (personally, mind you) “far beyond the scope” of what Catholic priests have done?

    Inquiring minds want to know!

    As an aside, here’s a fun topical story:

    A regional province of the Capuchin religious order that had fought allegations of sexual abuse for decades decided last year to open its files dating to the 19th century to three independent auditors, in what the order claimed to be a first in the long-running Roman Catholic Church abuse scandal in the United States.

    The auditors’ report, released on Tuesday, found that sexual abuse by friars in the St. Joseph Province of the Capuchin Order was discussed at meetings as far back as 1932, the first year for which minutes of meetings were available.

    But those feminists were teh worstest! Christ on a cracker, Sid.

  305. Sid says

    PatrickG

    Here is what I mean by scope.

    Women are the predominant abusers, most child abuse because they are main caregivers, and half of the domestic violence. (Jury is still out on sexual abuse because we have neglected to study female perpetration and envelopment is not counted as rape)

    This means that women are contributing most abuse and violence to society and always were, because everything starts at home. Abusive homes make violent and / or addicted adults.

    The scope of the damage that feminism is doing by misrepresenting abuse as mainly a male perpetrated thing is huge, its very profitable and the movement would fall apart if it didn’t do it, but the damage is very wide ranging.

    The RC is serious too, but its not on the same scale at all.

  306. Jacob Schmidt says

    Sid

    Feminism covers up and minimises most abuse that exists and blocks a holistic approach to stop abuse, the RC covers up for a insignificant amount of abuse by comparison.

    Really? The catholic church’s cover ups are insignificant? Resedential schools in Canada victimized the children of native communities for nearly a century. They covered it up. The church spent decades (if not, centuries) kidnapping the infants of non catholic mothers, telling them the infants had died. They did this in both Spain and Australia, and probably others that have escaped my memory. They covered it up. Mother fucking Teresa abused her charges. They beatified her. They church has been victimizing children and enabling the victimizers since at least the 1930s. They covered it up.

    Nothing feminism has done is anywhere near this. There’s nothing but ignorance in your statements.

  307. Schala says

    You seem to have mistaken me. I didn’t mean overlap in ideology. I meant that there are men who identify as MGTOW and MRA. There PUA’s who also identify as MRA. They represent MRA’s when they do so.

    Like being democrat and student and plumber. They can both be held at the same time without contradiction. They only concern similar things in as much as they concern mostly men.

  308. PatrickG says

    Think I’m done here, but must quote Jacob Schmidt for motherfucking truth:

    There’s nothing but ignorance in your statements.

    Sid’s using dangerous levels of idiocy, almost weapons grade. I almost expect him to argue that a tactical nuclear strike would be less damaging than feminists, because only several million people would die and feminists are responsible for abuse of BILLIONS. BILLIONS, I TELL YOU. Plus, they probably dropped the bomb!

    Yeesh.

    Anyway, time to go make a delicious lemon-herb chicken with some roasted potatoes on the side. Salad TBD. Add that to the list of feminism’s crimes: A MAN forced to cook dinner for not one, but TWO WOMEN (and another man, but whatever. And by forced I mean I like to cook). This particular snark, while unrelated to the topic at hand, was brought to you by your abusive feminist overladies.

    Have fun Jacob et al.

  309. Jacob Schmidt says

    Schala

    Like being democrat and student and plumber. They can both be held at the same time without contradiction. They only concern similar things in as much as they concern mostly men.

    C’mon. Look at your claim:

    “Ha. well obviously I messed up my last comment (273). the only part I meant to quote is this “Some separatists make no effort to hide their misogyny, they declare themselves mgtow. ”

    -Carnation

    MGTOW are not MRAs, similar to PUAs are also not MRAs.

    So in response to someone pointing out a significant misogynist contingent within the MRA group, you claimed that they weren’t MRAs. This is false. They certainly can be. Further, you’ve already admitted to some overlap in ideology. Comparing that to the categorical differences between political parties and professions is just disingenuous.

  310. says

    Call me crazy, but isn’t there a categorical difference between a hierarchical organization actively protecting its subordinate members from even seeing trial and shuffling predators around to unsuspecting diocese and certain influential members of a loose organization that often do not agree with each other or work in tandem messing with statistics to make already known abuse seem less severe and advocate hypotheses which would make already known abuse “not count”? That’s not to say the latter isn’t horrendous, but using those examples to suggest all feminism is equally malevolent is much the same as when creationists use Haekel as proof of universal “evolutionist” dishonesty. Or to use an analogy from the other perspective, it’s telling the Jains that their religion is violent because all those Islamic terrorists were religious just like them. Even if you disagree with a position, surely it’s obvious why such an argument fails.

  311. Sasori says

    Jacob Schmidt: 310
    I am not sure from that post that the study had any categories other than ‘feminist’ or ‘non feminist,’ unless you’ve read it and know more we are both projecting our own confirmation biases on to it. I’m happy to be corrected.
    In my experiences irl, identifying as a feminist most of the time doesn’t carry any further connotations about gender ideas than the wider community you belong to.

    Some examples of the lack of empathy you are unsure about, off the top of my head; Laurie Penny taking 1/3rd of an article on ‘the crisis of masculinity’ to explain ‘women’ have it worse and feminism is 100% not to blame, the general internet feminist reaction to the book ‘the second sexism’
    (this Feminise article is a good illustration)
    http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2012/06/10/all-hail-the-matriarchy-and-a-note-to-the-dudebros/
    (and here is Ally Fogg’s more neutral take on it)
    http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/lifestyle/2012/05/second-sexism-dont-judge-book-its-press
    Deborah Orr’s article the other week,
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/mar/29/good-bad-parent-deborah-orr
    (to be fair it was a sort of ok article, but it contained this casual statement. “If full-time parenthood was as completely and unfailingly fulfilling as its cheerleaders suggest, then men would have been falling over themselves through the ages to try it out.” Which to me is a good illustration of what I’m talking about). Another good example is Alyssa Rosenberg’s disturbing lack of empathy over the date rape scenario in ‘Louie’ http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2012/07/06/louis_c_k_and_melissa_leo_take_on_sexual_reciprocity_on_louie_.html

    There are lots and lots of examples. Here is a good article on the lack of coverage or debate about a similar case in ‘Mad Men’ http://www.theatlantic.com/sexes/archive/2013/06/don-draper-was-raped/276937/ and I’m not even getting on to the more ‘snarky’ feminist commentators and communities or the examples of bias in sexual and domestic violence.

    To be fair, most of these examples were contradicted by other feminists on the internet, but these were not major (or majority) figures which helps give the impression that feminists have a pronounced lack of empathy for men.
    I also think that regular people who are feminists are often more empathetic irl than people who have a job as ‘professional’ feminists.

  312. Schala says

    So in response to someone pointing out a significant misogynist contingent within the MRA group, you claimed that they weren’t MRAs. This is false. They certainly can be. Further, you’ve already admitted to some overlap in ideology. Comparing that to the categorical differences between political parties and professions is just disingenuous.

    Then claim that a subgroup of MRAs are misogynist, I won’t deny that. Wether they also are PUA or MGTOW is neither here nor there.

    Do I care if radical feminists are members of the Diner’s Club? No, I don’t. Even if only the most misandrist ones are.

  313. Schala says

    @the feminism vs catholicism

    We get it, feminism and what was done in its name is not as bad.

    Now stop nitpicking over how many angels dance on a pin…the discussion is going nowhere on that front. It’s all a “is so the same” vs “is not the same” back and forth for at least 30 comments now.

  314. Sid says

    @PatrickG

    PatrickG

    >Sid. I’ll grant you didn’t say they’re identical. You said feminism was worse. Stop lying.

    If you go back and read it, I said to Ally was that if I wanted to I could also list things to show that feminism was worse too, after he published a list of things the RC did that made it so different – to illustrate a point, I didn’t intend on getting onto moral superiority olympics.

    Both Ideologies cover up abuse, they did things differently, both worse and better than each other in some ways.

    Thats all, there is not need to get aggressive. Sorry about your sacred cows. Women and feminism do not have have the agency to do wrong, thats for men!

  315. carnation says

    Sid is an excellent example of an MRA theorist. If he believes what he says, and I have difficulty in accepting anyone can be that deluded, then he is a glowing example of why the MRM as it stands will continue to be an ineffectual laughing stock.

    It’s easy to spot a diehard MRA, they’ve absorbed the victim complex and prepared themselves with “tools” to debate their positions, fanciful comparisons, lurid and exceptional examples and academic sounding, usually incorrectly used terminology (fallacy etc).

    It’s bet to ignore intellectual troglodytes like Sid and Cicero. They aren’t succinct, they derail with obtuse, overly long and irrelevant nonsense pasted from other blogs.

    @ Paul, I don’t include you in this, you’re measured and polite.

  316. Gjenganger says

    @Ally Fogg

    Even without being angry at feminists, there are still some reasons to be fighting them.

    You are right, of course, that feminists are not that heavily represented in government. And anyway, Hilary Clinton and Diane Abbott make for a piss-poor counterexample. But it is rather a stretch to go on to claim that they have no significant influence. You are also right that none of the male problems you cite were caused by feminists. But surely that is largely because you have carefully selected which male grievances deserve to be included.

    Gender relations have changed enormously over the past few generations: political rights, economical rights, laws agains rape in marriage, laws against sexual harassment, norms for public language and behaviour, down to the retirement of the humble word ‘chairman’ from public life. The result is a society that is more just, and that is less congenial to males. The naive interpretation would be that feminism has been enormously influential and highly successful. If feminism had no important role in all these changes, why did they happen? Claiming that “Nobody did it, it did it by itself!” is not really convincing. And besides it makes a mockery of the very idea of political activism.

    Besides, blaming a group of people for something they did not cause is pretty well established in feminism, which is likely where a lot of MRAs picked it up. To start with. the root cause of all gendered ills is patriarchy, which of course means men. If women get fewer directorships than men, the cause is conscious or unconscious discrimination, the old-boy network, again men. The cause of rape is rape culture, which comes from men. All men, not just the minority who actually rape. You regularly hear voices in the debate saying that “Rape is caused by men! and men should solve it!!!“. It is not enough to be neutral, either. If you are not actively fighting for the right things, you are an enemy by default. If I do not rape, harass, or joke about rape, but hear a rape joke without challenging it, I am still actively promoting rape, apparently.

    So it is not surprising if MRAs take it as enemy action if feminists refuse to fight their fight. After all, that is the kind of thing feminists are telling others. Of course it would be better to fight against the exaggerations of feminism rather than taking over their tactics, but regrettably that is not what happens.

  317. chrisdevries says

    It seems to me, after reading 150 comments, that people are talking past each other, that the word “feminist” seems to have connotations for some people that bias their perspective in this debate, and that there is an issue with people taking a few comments from a few “leaders” of feminism or the MRA movement, and attributing such perspectives to all people who consider themselves part of that community.

    Setting aside for the moment the fact that bad actors on both sides of this issue have clearly said and done things that have tainted the debate, I think we need to find some common ground, things we all agree on. Firstly, our culture, as it exists now has characteristics that harm both men and women: there are expectations of men and women that are assigned to individuals based on their gender for no other reason that this is what has always been done. I think we can all also agree that things ARE getting better, and that women still get hurt worse by our culture than men (on average). We can also probably agree that race, class, sexual orientation, etc. increase the problems any individual (man or women) has in our society. And finally, I think we can all agree that we are in favor of giving all individuals equal opportunity in our society, that we need to take away the barriers that impede the success of less advantaged members of society so that they can actually end up as fulfilled as the average person with the fewest barriers in his life.

    This last bit means that while Caucasians and males will still have problems in their lives worth solving, our focus as a society needs to be primarily on those who have more problems on average, those who right now do not have equal opportunity. To do this, we must dispel the myth of earned privilege, the idea that success is down to hard work and ambition. Human beings do not have “free will”. Everything we are, we have been made to be by our genes, our family, and the culture by which we have been shaped. And our culture, as it stands right now, gives white men the best chance of success, on average. The path to success we white men have needs to be the path that everyone else walks who wants the same kind of success. There will always be barriers, but it is our duty to remove the barriers that are systematic in nature. Additionally, different people may have different concepts of what it means to be successful; our society needs to ensure that an individual can define his/her own version of success, and that their path to this is free of systematic speed bumps. This is what it means to be a pluralistic culture; people have the right to live the life they desire as long as it doesn’t harm others.

    So let’s stop pretending that feminism, or MRA, has “leaders” and that we all are diligently spouting off their opinions as our own. Let’s acknowledge the history of patriarchy and especially acknowledge that it hurts nearly everyone in some way. And let’s find some common ground so that we can fight for true equality.

  318. unfamiliar w/ your ways says

    Ally, great article, and kudos for taking on these gentelmen in this forum. I had heard about MRA trolls here at FtB, but I hadn’t seen them come out of the woodworks like this before! Fascinating.

    For the few claiming the conscription charge is a feminist strawman, please remind Cicero, circa post 19 of this. He seems to have mistaken it for a legitimate argument. I served 8 years in the United States Army, never saw a male soldier have to pick up slack for a female soldier, on any grounds other than injury (gender-unrelated, that is to say).

  319. carnation says

    @ chrisdeveries 338

    The problem is that MRAs, by their very definition, are “fighting” (via the unusual method of blogging and invading comments sections) an “enemy” that they have invented. To be an MRA, you have to accept that there ia huge, well funded monolith, dedicating to enslaving, imprisoning and, perhaps, killing en masse all men and boys.

    For those of us who identify as feminists, work or volunteer for the fulfilment of feminist ideals (often alongside men) and oppose patriarchal attitudes because of the damage done to men and women, MRAs appear like the very definition of a lunatic fringe.

    Ally is correct on a number of points in this article. Some men have a right to be angry, those men need a voice. That voice is being drowned out with the mediocre, paranoid and delusional rumblings of a semi organised collection of bloggers pretending to be a “movement”.

    I have mentioned repeatedly that no credible, comparative evidence exists that demonstrates that men are discriminated against in the family court on the grounds of their sex.

    Why aren’t MRAs lobbying for this?

    Whilst stigma is attached to all fictions of sexual abuse, it seems that male victims experience particular trauma around sexuality dysfunction, and find it more difficult to access services for survivors.

    Why do MRAs focus, fanatically, on the need for victims of sexual abuse to be treated suspiciously, instead of lobbing for male focused services, or setting some up themselves?

    The overwhelming majority of victims of violent attacks are young men. The perpetrators other young men. Assaults, stabbings, shootings, murders are all commonplace.

    Why aren’t MRAs looking at reducing this violence?

    Most alcoholics and drug addicts are men.

    Why do MRAs ignore this, beyond stating that it’s another reason men are victims do the all powerful feminist government of our time.

    Most feminists have never heard of the MRM. The vast majority of people haven’t heard of them. All the MRM has to offer its “activists” is something to do whilst sitting at their computer, angry.

  320. N4M says

    There seems to me a fairly extreme paradox at the heart of this debate.

    It’s namely this: it would be possible to accept Ally’s belief that ‘feminism’ has no major impact on UK policy making if, and only if, you do not consider policy making to do with gender a serious aspect of public life.. Lots of people certainly hold this belief (that it is trivial, it’s completely inconsequential,, so it makes no difference to them what happens in these sort of matters. .)

    Funnily enough, this would be a bit daft in the context of this blog, whose very existence is predicated around the notion that policy decisions around gender should be taken seriously. Therefore, if Ally’s belief were actually to be accepted, it would undermine the whole validity and purpose of this blog in many respects! :-)

    However, if, on the other hand, you believe that gender policies matter, then a whole series of problems with Ally’s viewpoint start to arise. Why in the UK, a Minister for Women, but no minister for men? Why a Women and the Workplace Committee (to examine how women can get the most out of work), but no equivalent committee for men? Why have Women and Equality Questions in the commons, rather than just ‘Equality Questions’? Why have a Gender Budget Group which only analyses the impact of economic policies from women’s perspective? Why have all the equality ministers from all the major parties put on a big public meeting with the Fawcett Society, just before the election, but have no similar high profile meetings with respectable men’s groups like Parity? Why have Maria Miller sending out ‘information packs’ to foster girls’ career ambitions, but have no similar initiatives for boys, to say that their ambitions should matter just as much?

    Further, all these phenomena appear to join up all too obviously in one unfortunate sense:
    it is pretty much impossible to divorce the fact of all the Equality Ministers meeting with, and obsequiously pandering to, a group like Fawcett, with all these policies and attitudes I have described.

    In other words, there is no getting away from the blindingly obvious truth that all these policies and approaches completely encapsulate the whole Fawcett Society mentality: that men are always privileged and advantaged, and for ‘equality’ to be achieved, these advantages need to be taken away, and women must be compensated when they do not match men 50/50 in all ‘desirable’ areas of the public life..

    Trouble is, the modern world is so competitive that people often need some sort of advantages just to get by. (Just as in evolutionary theory, you take away genes which are advantageous from one species and that species will quickly perish – the whole ‘Red Queen’ phenomenon). So ultimately, you can’t very well just ignore the advantages enjoyed by one group, whilst seeing any possible natural advantage of their counterparts as a ‘problem’ which needs to be tackled.

    All in all what it’s not possible to do, it seems to me, is simply to deny that these influences are there, and to deride anyone who thinks they might be a problem as ‘stupid’, just because you have chosen to turn a blind eye to them. Sorry, but I don’t think that’s on at all.

  321. Gjenganger says

    @carnation 340

    MRAs appear like the very definition of a lunatic fringe.

    You have a point there. Even so, you are effectively asking why these men are angry about the things they are angry about, instead of being angry about the things you think they should be angry about. Not the most productive starting point. Just two specifics:

    no credible, comparative evidence exists that demonstrates that men are discriminated against in the family court on the grounds of their sex

    Is it not true that women disproportionately get custody? There may not be any gold-standard, peer-reviewed research results to prove that this is caused by active discrimination, but that did not always stop the women arguing for boardroom quotas or all-woman short lists either. Is it not reasonable to note that in this area women get what they want rather more than men, and objectively men are getting a raw deal? That is no less true even if this is unavoidable, and the family court decisions are mostly sensible (as I think they are).

    Why do MRAs focus, fanatically, on the need for victims of sexual abuse to be treated suspiciously, instead of lobbing for male focused services, or setting some up themselves?

    For a man, the idea of being accused of sexual abuse tends to be more scary than the idea of getting abused. Which is surely reasonable, considering that prosecutions for sexual abuse most commonly involve female accusers and male accused. It is hardly surprising that men make a different trade-off between the rights of the accused and the rights of the accuser, when their risk of ending up on one side or the other is so different from that of women.

  322. Schala says

    I think we can all also agree that things ARE getting better, and that women still get hurt worse by our culture than men (on average)

    No, we can’t all agree on that. This is NOT something that can be possibly measured.

    We can possibly agree that more fundamental freedoms are curtailed in Middle-East countries, and that this makes them definitely more oppressed. But here? There are no fundamental freedoms curtailed in women but not in men.

    How can we measure the likeliness of being a CEO vs the likeliness of going to prison. The likeliness of getting default custody of children following a relationship vs the likeliness of being presumed more competent than average on the job. The availability of abortion, vs the “keep it in your pants or you’re a dad” policy on fatherhood.

    None of these things can be compared in a apple vs apple way. And there are many many more of those.

    Typically, male privilege amounts to a slight boost in professional career, if you’re ambitious (more respect if you achieve it).. And typically, female privilege amounts to a somewhat better safety net, should you fall through the cracks (more sympathy if you need it).

    Doesn’t it come down to what you personally value, security vs ambition? If you play Wall Street, do you go for the highest interest unstable fund or the surefire won’t-collapse fund (such as government bonds)? It really comes down to this. Except you don’t pick which kind of help you’re given.

  323. Gjenganger says

    @carnation 340

    Most alcoholics and drug addicts are men.

    Why do MRAs ignore this, beyond stating that it’s another reason men are victims do the all powerful feminist government of our time.

    I think the logic goes more or less like this. Through most of my lifetime the dominant political current has been that women are obviously disadvantaged, for this and that and the other reason, and therefore we need various rule changes and positive discrimination policies to bring women up to equality with men. Which has the side effect of making you, as a man, feel that it is all your fault, and that you should disregard your own needs in favour of women’s needs. Now that a lot has changed in society, people are looking at the effect of gender roles on both sexes, and noticing that men have their disadvantages and women have their advantages as well. It is no longer that obvious that men are overall winners and women are overall losers. Personally I think this point is pretty clear. It is less clear what should happen next.

    One conclusion is to start alleviating the male-specific problems. As indeed we should. But what can you actually do to reduce male drug use, homelessness, or violence? How much of the violence comes with the testosterone levels? And what would the changes entail? If the advice translates as “Women are better off – become like a woman and you would not have these problems” many men will prefer not to take it.

    Then, if you believe that all the problems are caused by a convenient abstract evil like patriarchy, or capitalism, it is axiomatic that men can get everything they need, women can get everything they need, and abstract evil is the only loser in the game. If you think that sounds too good to be true, you have to consider trading female interests and male interests off against each other.

    Actualy I think the MRA position is rather something like this: “We have made all these changes and accepted all these backward steps because we kept hearing that women had it so much worse than we did. Well, look, they don’t. So enough of that! Stop hectoring us, stop pushing us, and learn to live with the inconveniences of your gender role, like we have learned to live with ours!” It may or may not be the best available policy, but it is not necessarily inconsistent.

  324. carnation says

    @ Gjenganger 343

    Thanks for your response.

    The point I was making was that MRAs are angry about things (often myths rather than reality) but direct their anger at people who had nothing whatsoever to do with it. That’s why I gave the examples that I did.

    So, for example, you’re correct. Studies have shown that women are more often given residential status. What we don’t know is how many of these cases were contested – how many men argued for them to be given residential status. What we do know, however, is that the vast majority of cases aren’t contested – the parents agree that residency with the mother works best. What we also don’t know, is in what percentages of contested cases, where one or other parent is an addict, criminal, or otherwise not generally suited to parenting, whether sex has an effect on the family court’s decisions.

    So if the scale and problem is as severe as MRAs/F4J suggest, then why aren’t they attempting to prove it? Instead of indulging in laughably obtuse, headline grabbing factoids (200 children a day lose contact with their father). F4J have been around for more than ten years and have achieved absolutely nothing, except headlines. They have, presumably, a budget (they certainly have money for adverts) and have been granted, arguably, a disproportionate amount of time with politicians.

    And still, despite all of that, and despite the MRA myths, there still isn’t a shred of credible evidence that suggests the family court is biased against fathers, on the grounds of their sex, in contested cases.

    Ask yourself why.

    As for your second point, it’s entirely subjective, so difficult to ascertain. But you’re repeating an MRA standard, that it is worse to be falsely accused of a crime than it is to be sexually assaulted. Again, no evidence exists that proves this, and a comparative study would need to be carried out, but let’s allow ourselves some anecdotal leeway.

    Prisons and institutions have a depressingly high number of sexual abuse survivors. Many men suffering mental health and addiction issues have been sexually abused. Many violent men have been sexually abused. Many men struggling with guilt and shame about their sexuality have been abused. I think it’s fairly safe to assume that the numbers of men who have experienced sexual abuse as children is considerably greater than the numbers of men who have been falsely accused of sexual crimes.

    Prominent MRAs claim that the overwhelming majority of complainants of sexual abuse are lying. Others believe that rapists on trial should not be convicted of their crimes, regardless of the severity of the crime or the weight of the evidence.

    Why aren’t MRAs screaming from the rooftops about a situation whereby male survivors of sexual abuse are overrepresented in prisons? Why instead do they ridicule sexual abuse survivors and treat abusers as political offenders?

    I’d like to say to Paul that I apologise if my tone has been overly combative, there’s a need for greater civility and I should practise what I preach.

  325. carnation says

    @ Gjenganger 345

    Alcoholism and drug addiction existed throughout history, from overtly patriarchal society, through to three waves of feminism and beyond. It’s been around during world wars, recessions, depressions and boom years. So why has there consistently been more male than female addicts?

    For me, it’s because of patriarchal attitudes, common amongst men. Suffer in silence, bottle up the hurt, emotion or anger. Crying’s for girls. Be a man.

    How about this? Accept and challenge the patriarchal assumptions that men should be stoic, not emotional and be physically tough and financially successful, as well as sexually prolific.

    Challenge those that say “man up”, “grow a pair” or insult men by using gendered/heteronormative insults for displaying “unmanly” traits (including, but not especially, the laughable MRA mainstay “mangina”).

    How much is caused by testosterone? Frankly, I don’t know, but what I do know is that possession of testosterone doesn’t guarantee, or even make likely, a propensity towards violence. So it’s attitudes that have to change. I’ve seen very violent men change their actions by challenging their thinking (and violent, controlling women do the same).

    And who started challenging patriarchal attitudes and assumptions? Feminists. Who started this conversation? Feminists.

    The MRA position is that feminism is a global, well funded conspiracy, dedicated to marginalising, victimising, enslaving (economically or otherwise), imprisoning and killing men and boys. This is literal, “mainstream” MRA opinion. It is completely devoid of reality.

    The MRM does nothing positive for men.

  326. Sid says

    @carnation

    The entire thread is dedicated to dealing with your mudslinging and strawmanning and ignorance.

    All feminism is not good, all mens movement is not bad. This isn’t religion.

    >Why aren’t MRAs screaming from the rooftops about a situation whereby male survivors of sexual abuse are overrepresented in prisons? Why instead do they ridicule sexual abuse survivors and treat abusers as political offenders?

    Don’t make false accusations about rape.

  327. Schala says

    Challenge those that say “man up”, “grow a pair” or insult men by using gendered/heteronormative insults for displaying “unmanly” traits (including, but not especially, the laughable MRA mainstay “mangina”).

    Mangina is not meant to mean anything feminine. It’s supposed to mean someone who ignores their self-interest in favor of pandering to women, simply because they’re women (not because the cause itself is worthy).

  328. Gjenganger says

    @carnation 346

    And still, despite all of that, and despite the MRA myths, there still isn’t a shred of credible evidence that suggests the family court is biased against fathers, on the grounds of their sex, in contested cases.

    Ask yourself why.

    Well, Ally seems less convinced than you are about the complete lack of credible evidence. But anyway, I think it is fairly obvious why. These are people who have experienced (what they feel is) an injustice, and who want to stop these injustices happening. They choose the tactics that they think will help. So does the Poppy project, and others on either side of the debate. Your statement is quite narrowly defined. It is hard to prove, either way, and even if it cannot be proved as it stands, that does not mean that men are not getting off rather worse than women. I am open on how much is an injustice against men, how much is the residue of bitter disputes without a good solution, and how much is an unavoidable side effect of the most common division of labour betwen the sexes, but I canot see anything strange in the choice of tactics by fathers rights activists.

    you’re repeating an MRA standard, that it is worse to be falsely accused of a crime than it is to be sexually assaulted.

    Actually, I do not agree with that. It might be worse to be convicted of an assualt than to suffer one, but this kind of point scoring does not make sense even in that case. Both are awful. What I do say is 1) that whatever the actual risks, the fear of being accused is more psychologically present for a man that has never been abused himself than the fear of being abused. It is a situation that is easier to imagine. 2) That the relative risks are objectively different for a man and a woman, and therfore the two sexes will have different views about the right balance between protecting the accused and giving credence to the accuser.

  329. Sid says

    @carnation

    “So why has there consistently been more male than female addicts?”

    Men experience more abuse and hardship and aren’t supposed to have or talk about problems, prime examples are the feminist push back against the men movement, “what about teh menz” shaming and mocking of abuse victims and the older more traditional version of the same thing, the “man up” bullshit.

  330. Sid says

    @Gjenganger

    There isn’t much point in typing out long responses to that poster. Their beliefs are set in stone.

    RE. false accusations ‘s assault.

    I’ve been assaulted and falsely accused.

    I have more PTSD effects for being falsely accused, but that just my experience. Some assaults are worse, some false accusations are worse.

    False accusations can result in PTSD, years of prison and repeated rapes and even murder while there, some rapes can lead to a prison of PTSD outside prison.

    Some false accusations can be easily found out and dropped before there is damage, most people that show up as raped in stastical data don’t report damage.

    Basically, its not a black and white issue and shouldn’t be an olympic competition, I sometimes wonder if we’ll ever get beyond the OO.

  331. carnation says

    @ Sid – go away, grown ups are talking. My engagement with you is over.

    @ Schala – “mangina is not meant to mean anything feminine” You’re being wilfully ignorant and cognitively dissonant. It’s obvious to everyone, except (some) MRAs, that it is an insult against men by reducing their status as men, by including a slang term for vagina. If you don’t realise this, subtly is lost on you,

    @ Gjenganger

    Now we’re getting to some nuts and bolts. Here’s the thing, as anyone with experience in this area will understand. Changing laws is at least as difficult as changing prevalent attitudes. It’s hard, it’s a long slog, but it’s possibly. Now, for a change to family court law to happen, it would first need to be demonstrated that there is a problem. Studies would have to be carried out, findings examined, policy proposals discussed and law, finally, enacted. At the very best, several years of dedicated hard work.

    OK, so F4J got a lot of attention and promoted an idea that men are denied access to their children. In that respect, they were a success. But frankly, that’s useless when it comes to tangible results, because civil servants and politicians need evidential basis for changing existing laws, particularly ones as controversial as family law decision. Pressure groups need to demonstrate that a problem exists. F4J have failed, in a very striking manner. I contend that they have failed because the problem of men being denied contact with their children because of their sex is at best vastly overstated.

    I realise that Ally doesn’t agree with me, he is partly informed by his personal experience, I am informed by mine.

    And I will reiterate, the Family Court gets it wrong and has severe limitations, but women can be unjustly and unduly affected by these, too. And, let’s not forget, so can children.

    Given the prevalence of casual sex in this country, and the number of men who happily and eagerly look for and take part in it, I think it’s safe to say that the fear of being falsely accused isn’t really much of an issue, amongst non MRAs at least (the overwhelming majority of men in the country).

    Now, what is a concern to me is the enthusiasm with which the police are arresting celebrities involved in the Saville scandal. Jim Davidson, for example. Too many similarities with the drug squad of the 60s arresting Rolling Stones members in a very public manner. Ironically, I find myself agreeing with some of what Richard Littlejohn said about this.

  332. carnation says

    @ Sid my previous post was written before I read your most recent one. I would like to express my sympathy at your experiences, whilst still maintaining that I see no point in debating with you. My apologies if my curt tone caused you offence, given your most recent disclosure.

  333. Sid says

    @carnation

    You’re not a grown up, your content here has been for the most part ideological mud slinging, demonizing, igorning evidence and talking down your nose in pretentious tones.

    Speaking in a grandiose and pretentious manner might make you feel better in a tempory way, but it doesn’t deal with the underlying self esteem issues, which can be helped in a more permanent way with CBT.

  334. Sid says

    @Crnation

    >@ Sid my previous post was written before I read your most recent one. I would like to express my sympathy at your experiences, whilst still maintaining that I see no point in debating with you. My apologies if my curt tone caused you offence, given your most recent disclosure.

    Your tones are ignorant and offensive regardless of my experiences.

    BTW, the mens movement is full of traumatised people. If you don’t want to speak like that to people that have experiences trauma, you might want to rethink the way you see fit to speak to mras.

  335. Gjenganger says

    @carnation 347.
    Not being part of any mens rights movement I have no opinion either way on MRM.

    I do feel pretty strongly, however, that both gender roles contain an important part of the human potential, and that both have something to take with them to the future. You could say that I have a vested interest in thinking that masculinity, such as I know it, is not a horrible mistake that should be effaced as soon as possible. What I hear from you sounds too much like ‘If everybody was like me everybody would be much happier’.

    So, is the occational alcoholism a side effect of being stoic and tough? Maybe. Is stoicism, toughness, fitting into hierarchies, good or bad? Depends on the environment, surely. Is it not nice to have a few people like that handy for the next Afghanistan, or Fukushima?

    ‘Financially Successful’? Well, success, or rather status, is the common currency of male interaction (look the work of Deborah Tannen if you want details). Trading off status is what boys do instead of fretting because Lucy keeps sitting down besides me when I prefer Mary, and when I gave Heather those lollipops she should not have given Lucy one. Nothing wrong with either, but getting rid of status means getting rid of male culture entirely. Besides, success, financial or otherwise, is one way of contributing something to your marriage, and one of the more reliable ways of attracting the WAGs. Those gender roles are set and maintained by both sexes, rememeber. If you want men to stop competing for success, what better way than proving that poverty, failure, and lack of confidence increases your mating chances?

    ‘Sexually Prolific’? Well, sorry, men seek sex for a lot of reasons. It feels good, it is exciting, it affirms your worth. The problem of feeling forced to do it pretty insignificant besides the problem thta there is never enough available.

    Sorry for the generalisations. These are my personal feelings – classify them as anecdotical.

  336. carnation says

    Gender roles can be wonderfully positive things, I agree. But to rigidly (as a society) create impossible expectations is to create people who see themselves as failures ( this applies to, for example, single/childless women, too).

    I’m glad you’re not part of the MRM.

    ” Is stoicism, toughness, fitting into hierarchies, good or bad? Depends on the environment, surely. Is it not nice to have a few people like that handy for the next Afghanistan”

    Absolutely not, it’s a tragedy for the people of Afghanistan, and for those occupying it, that the army is able to recruit.

  337. Sid says

    @Ally Fog.

    I’m going to take this opportunity to show have feminists have generated so much anger in the last few decades.

    You have all these guys that are traumatised.

    Lost their children mabey, falsely accused, financially ruined, marginalised sex abuse victims whose abusers aren’t being counted by the sexual abuse industry, domestic abuse victims that were arrested for trying get help, people that were mocked by the help lines they called … and so on.

    Then they turned to feminism because its billed as the obvious place to go with these open wounds and what they got was callous, nasty women (and some men) treating them like dirt, invalidating their trauma, gaslighting them, mocking them etc and over time a very bitter resentment built up.

    @Ally fog,

    if you are going to talk about the mens movement, David Futrelle and other feminists aren’t the source to gto o,all you will get are silly strawmen, “they talk about conscription and mgm, therefore they think feminism created them” and the like.

    You need to be interviewing Paul Elam or someone like that,or reading genderratic to get it. You will probably balk at the idea of that, you are too good for him or some other notion, but if you get along just fine with the manhaters you work with at the Guardian, you can get along fine with someone that pokes sacred cows for rhetorical effect like Paul Elam.

  338. Schala says

    @ Schala – “mangina is not meant to mean anything feminine” You’re being wilfully ignorant and cognitively dissonant. It’s obvious to everyone, except (some) MRAs, that it is an insult against men by reducing their status as men, by including a slang term for vagina. If you don’t realise this, subtly is lost on you,

    If you call a woman a dick, or a slang term of a dick, it is reducing her status as a woman.

    Similar to calling trans women men, it is meant to reduce their status as women.

    Why does it work on both sides? Because it is about hindering someone’s identity, not about who or what is superior and desirable. Being outside your role, by itself, is considered extremely undesirable. It is enough to insult someone by calling them the other sex.

  339. Illuminata, Genie in the Beer Bottle says

    Mangina is not meant to mean anything feminine

    The third most ridiculous thing said on this thread. You invent a word rhyming with and obviously derived from the term for part of female genitalia, but it’s not meant to mean anything feminine?

    LOL oh you MRAs. Always hilarious.

  340. Schala says

    The third most ridiculous thing said on this thread. You invent a word rhyming with and obviously derived from the term for part of female genitalia, but it’s not meant to mean anything feminine?

    LOL oh you MRAs. Always hilarious.

    Did I invent the term? No, obviously.

    I’m explaining the meaning behind it’s usage.

    A term’s definition is referred to by its common usage.

    I prefer white knight, as it doesn’t need any gendered connotation to show what it really means (though it still mostly/only applies to men who bend over backwards for women, for no other reason than them being women).

    As in the sentence:

    Hugo Schwyzer is a white knight.

  341. Schala says

    ““Knight” doesn’t have gendered (and class) connotations?”

    Not nowadays.

    It’s a chess piece. It’s someone riding a horse. And it’s someone defending someone they perceive to be weaker. Ie paternalism.

    Patriarchy all over again.

  342. N4M says

    Does strike me also that this is an area where all the tawdry tactics of Gramsci’s ‘organic’ folk often come into play. (In the earlier piece, Ally admitted that today’s organics are basically the liberal commentariat.)

    Course, the worst of these tactics is to dismiss opponents’ positions, not on the basis of evidence or reason, but simply because you’ve got far greater media power and social prestige than your adversaries.

    ( A prime example of this was when John Harris did a video blog from the Labour Women’s conference, yet again seeing gender issues only through the prism of women’s interests, which is arguably a bit limited.. In that blog, he specifically implies that men who do not like Harriet Harman and her politics are basically sub-literate Daily Mail readers.
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/video/2010/sep/28/labour-conference-women
    I’m sorry to mention it, but that’s the stark reality of the kind of sneering condescension on the part of Guardian intellectuals that I’m talking about!)

    Now Ally is a good guy, but I think he should check his privilege and just make sure he has not fallen into the trap of doing this kind of thing himself. In other words, if he has evidence that all the instances of institutionalised sexism I outlined in 342. were more driven by ‘patriarchal conspiracy’ then by gender feminist politicians who have openly expressed their enthusiasm for the values of the Fawcett Society, then let us hear it!

    Otherwise, all this stuff about how he holds those who blame gender feminism for the nature of current public policies in disdain and contempt, and implying that they are ‘so mind-shrivelingly stupid I rarely bother to engage with [their arguments]’ might actually start to ring a bit hollow. ;-)

  343. Schala says

    “@ N4M

    Gender feminism is a nonsense term, primarily used by hysterical MRAs.”

    Says a troll.

  344. Ally Fogg says

    N4M

    Oh go on then, I can never resist a challenge. Let’s go through your earlier post

    It’s namely this: it would be possible to accept Ally’s belief that ‘feminism’ has no major impact on UK policy making if, and only if, you do not consider policy making to do with gender a serious aspect of public life.. Lots of people certainly hold this belief (that it is trivial, it’s completely inconsequential,, so it makes no difference to them what happens in these sort of matters. .)

    Funnily enough, this would be a bit daft in the context of this blog, whose very existence is predicated around the notion that policy decisions around gender should be taken seriously. Therefore, if Ally’s belief were actually to be accepted, it would undermine the whole validity and purpose of this blog in many respects!

    Well, it’s my view that gender impacts upon pretty much all aspects of life, and most aspects of life influence gender roles to some extent or another.This blog is more of a braindump than anything, it’s meant to reflect my thoughts on how to understand the world, which may occasionally lead to policy conclusions, but that’s not the primary purpose.

    Feminists have been fairly successful in some areas of policy – eg domestic and sexual violence. It’s failed dismally in other respects (eg preventing the spread of porn / sexualised images of women)

    Where it has been influential in the bigger political scene – economy, social policy etc – it has tended to be where the demands of feminism have coincided with capitalist interests – eg getting women into the workplace has increased the labour pool and (arguably) pushed down wages.

    Feminism, as a social project, has also been pretty successful in winning the original arguments about gender equality – equal rights, equal opportunities etc. There’s very little opposition to those ideals now, at least in theory, even among MRAs etc, and that’s because their arguments were basically unarguably right.

    That’s all part of the democratic process, and must be welcomed. Someone puts forward an idea, if people like it and it generates sufficient public support, then political support then it might eventually become policy.

    In that sense, feminist ideas are only as powerful as they are convincing. There’s nothing sinister or unreasonable about people winning a political argument.

    However, if, on the other hand, you believe that gender policies matter, then a whole series of problems with Ally’s viewpoint start to arise. Why in the UK, a Minister for Women, but no minister for men? Why a Women and the Workplace Committee (to examine how women can get the most out of work), but no equivalent committee for men? Why have Women and Equality Questions in the commons, rather than just ‘Equality Questions’? Why have a Gender Budget Group which only analyses the impact of economic policies from women’s perspective?

    Well let me preface this by saying, personally, I think it would be better to just have a Minister for Equalities for all sorts of reasons, and a more gender-neutral approach to issues. But that said, it is wrong to think that the existence of a Women’s minister or a Women’s working group on this and that necessarily means women have excess power. It is much more likely that this is a recognition of relative weakness, the powers that be throwing a bone from the table to make up for the fact that there are so few women in positions of actual power. it also offers no guarantee that a Women’s Minister or a workplace committee can actually do anything seriously influential. There’s a minister for disabled people. That doesn’t mean that disabled people have any meaningful influence on policy.

    Further, all these phenomena appear to join up all too obviously in one unfortunate sense:
    it is pretty much impossible to divorce the fact of all the Equality Ministers meeting with, and obsequiously pandering to, a group like Fawcett, with all these policies and attitudes I have described.

    Except you haven’t demonstrated that they have pandered to Fawcett in any meaningful way at all. You’ve demonstrated that women are considered a special case with special needs, but that is not the same as demonstrating they have power or influence. What policies have Fawcett proposed recently that have been adopted by reluctant politicians? The one usually mentioned is the parental leave thing, where Fawcett kicked up a huge stink about it having an undue effect on mothers. Except a few months later the policy was agreed, pretty much exactly as originally announced, and Fawcett’s objections had been completely ignored.

    I think this is typical of the debate. People mistake visibility for power. Feminism is visible. It has platforms. It is given a lot of lip service, largely because not many politicians want to be seen as anti-women. That does not make them powerful.

    There is only one recent case I can think of that would demonstrate power. When the coalition first came in, they raised the possibility of anonymity for rape defendants, and were beaten down very quickly and effectively. But that just underlines my point that things like rape and DV policies are the one area where feminists are influential.

    Now it could be argued that New Labour was the most pro-feminist government in British history. It probably was. What did feminists actually achieve during that time? Just about the sum total was the Equalities Act, which was condemned as a useless bit of window dressing by most feminists at the time. it was a heavily watered-down damp squib.

    Ironically, in the context of this discussion, it was also the single most important piece of legislation ever for male victims of domestic violence. It was the Equalities Act that obliged public services to provide services for men, which in turn obliged many of the agencies (including Women’s Aid) to start offering services to men to continue to meet their public sector equalities duty.

    All of this echoes your earlier point about the Guardian and their gendered coverage of economic issues. You notice the bits of media coverage that are explicitly gendered and feminist. You fail to notice the overwhelming majority of other media coverage (in all the right wing papers, for starters) is not remotely concerned with impacts on women, and is vastly more influential on government due to the size and circulation of the papers.

    Most power, real power, is invisible and usually goes unnoticed.

  345. Schala says

    But that said, it is wrong to think that the existence of a Women’s minister or a Women’s working group on this and that necessarily means women have excess power. It is much more likely that this is a recognition of relative weakness, the powers that be throwing a bone from the table to make up for the fact that there are so few women in positions of actual power. it also offers no guarantee that a Women’s Minister or a workplace committee can actually do anything seriously influential. There’s a minister for disabled people. That doesn’t mean that disabled people have any meaningful influence on policy.

    Except that the disabled and women’s ministers might not affect overall policy on everything, but they do affect policy on the disabled and on women.

    It’s stupid to think that the majority-men in power are trying to affect policy on men positively when they have no such mandate and no such incentive. They’ll give themselves perks, as the 1%, not as males.

  346. carnation says

    @ Ally Off topic, where in Scotland are you from?

    @ Ally – My contention is that the MRM as it stands is so unstable, ridiculous and reactionary as to be useless, in fact counterproductive, for men.

    Am I wrong?

  347. Ginkgo says

    Ally @ 270 -“In that sense, feminist ideas are only as powerful as they are convincing. There’s nothing sinister or unreasonable about people winning a political argument.”

    This sounds innocuous and obvious but it can be toxic. The proponents of Jim Crow and the oppenents of marriage equality and gay rights in general won the political argument for decade after decade.

    A poltical argument is deeply convincing when it builds on the biases and bigotries people already cherish.

    “Where it has been influential in the bigger political scene – economy, social policy etc – it has tended to be where the demands of feminism have coincided with capitalist interests – eg getting women into the workplace has increased the labour pool and (arguably) pushed down wages. ”

    Nancy Fraser makes this argument very clearly. She says feminism of that time was addressing a problem in society, women’s exclusion from full economic participation, just at a time when a new order was coming along to take advantage of women’s labor. So this was a case of pushing against an open door.

    And it’s not the only case. Capiltaizing on men’s chivalrous instincts feminists have been able to push a far-rangng agenda on domestic violence and rape, sometimes in comntradiction to their admirable stated principles. Advocacy is like that, it’s politics or making sausage, and maybe half a loaf half mixed with chivlarous crap is better than no progerss at all. But that does not put it above criticism of being unprincipled, self-serving or gender bigoted.

    People doing the right thing for the wrong reason usually turns the wrong thing eventually.

    “You’ve demonstrated that women are considered a special case with special needs, but that is not the same as demonstrating they have power or influence. ”

    In a culture that fetishizes “white lady tears” it pretty much is.

  348. N4M says

    Ally, many thanks for the response. Don’t really have time to pen a reply right now, but will try and get round to it. Suffice to say, still don’t entirely agree! ;-)

  349. jcarr says

    @Schala

    Patriarchy all over again.

    Are you agreeing with Sid that patriarchy either doesn’t exist or its effect is marginal? If you are, I have about two hundred or so links to research that I’d like to show you…

    I initially thought you were just a men’s issues advocate, which is a very good thing, who simply disagreed with feminist ideology. The more you post, and the more you keep insisting that men have it just as bad in our male-dominated society as women, the more I’m beginning to think we’re about to see your true colors any moment now…

    Blaming feminism for men’s issues and problems is akin to white men in the southern states blaming blacks for their impotence. All the arguments I hear against feminism have been used before….during the Civil Rights movement. Let’s get over our blame game, shall we, guys?

  350. Schala says

    @jcarr

    If you haven’t read how I feel about now, you haven’t really read those threads.

    I’ve read every single comments on those threads, skimming faster over those by WithinThisMind, Raging Bee and carnation, since they’re often content-free ad hominem, and even more often trolling.

  351. Ginkgo says

    jcarr @ 375 – “I initially thought you were just a men’s issues advocate, which is a very good thing, who simply disagreed with feminist ideology. The more you post, and the more you keep insisting that men have it just as bad in our male-dominated society as women, the more I’m beginning to think we’re about to see your true colors any moment now…”

    These are Schala’s true colors – she is a trans woman who grew up as a boy. She alone on this board is in a position to compare how society treats males and femlaes. She lives what Norah Vincent experimented with, only in reverse. She has seen gender roles from both sides and knows from both sides how society treatas men and boys and how it treats women and girls, and she draws her own conclusions.

    She speaks from lived experience, not from catechisms memorized in Gender Studies classes. And one thing she has experienced repeatedly, and even ehre on this blog, is people trying to deny her gender, often to dismiss her views on how women have it in society.

    Those are her true colors. What were you trying to insinuate?

  352. says

    I would agree with the basic premise of the article; that most of the things MRAs complain about being “discrimination against men” are rooted in patriarchy, not feminism. This then makes the constant MRA bashing of feminism odd since MRAs and feminists have a lot in common politically. The MRA will say that feminists want patriarchy based privileges for women and feminist style “gender equality” at the same time; that feminists are unprincipled and want whatever is best for women ultimately making feminists female supremacists. At the same time get an MRA to talk about specific examples of men being discriminated against and the source of discrimination cited is almost always patriarchy. Many MRAs explain this by saying that patriarchy itself is an expression of female supremacy; that traditional patriarchy is the true ultimate source of female privilege.

    I’ve seen the idea that MRAs and feminists should join in an alliance many times and it does make a lot of sense considering how they both champion so called gender equality. The problem with a hypothetical MRA / feminist alliance is that the MRA only cares about male concerns while the feminist only cares about female concerns; they’re both gender supremacists just on opposite teams. This is why an alliance between the two cannot work, because they will both be focused on trying to take away from the other for their own benefit.

    Patriarchy represents both male privilege and female privilege based on natural male strengths and natural female strengths. Traditional patriarchy is the only social model that is fair to both sexes and takes both men’s and women’s needs into account; this is why patriarchy is the means by which both sexes can come together in common cause for a common purpose, that common purpose being the raising of children and providing for the future.

  353. Sans sanity says

    People bring up “women have it worse” like it is a truism in no need of support. But when you try and look at gendered disprivleges you run into a ton of examples on either side, and they are often very difficult to compare. I mean, key issues by which we consider black people oppressed compared to whites are incarceration, income, and life expectancy; so, two issues in which men are disadvantaged compared to women, and one where women are disadvantaged compared to men.

    In the absence of a study that comprehensively looks at and evaluates the relative statuses of men and women, with the different aspects weighted fairly, anyone who tries to bluntly claim that either men or women have it worse has frankly failed at scepticism. The best that can ever be said should be “based on my experience X seem to have it worse.” And even then that person should consider that the things which they may value (say increased safety from violence) may not be the same as what others value (say less restrictive social expectations).

    We just don’t have the evidence to make any stronger a claim.

  354. Danny Gibbs says

    Society treats men and boys in many ways that are unfair, unjust and harmful. Some of these are institutionalised and formal
    Well speaking as a pro-mra type myself I have to point out that while you say this later on in your post…

    Feminists did not invent male-only conscription or circumcision. Feminists didn’t mould the hegemonic cultures of violent masculinity and male disposability. It wasn’t feminists ordering women and children first onto the lifeboats (if that did indeed ever happen.) It isn’t feminists who decide that teachers and child carers should be predominantly women, and it wasn’t feminists who designed the national curriculum. It certainly isn’t feminists running the banks, the IMF and the policies of globalisation that devastated the industries upon which working class men once depended.
    It is indeed feminists that vehemently argue that the unfair ways in which boys and men are treated (and that’s if you’re lucky enough to be talking to one that can actually acknowledge this) are not institutionalized (or at best it will be acknowledged in a redirective manner that will invariably result in tracing that harm back to some unfair treatment of girls/women as if that’s the root of all evil).

    So I think some of the anger that is pointed at feminism is quite understandable and logical. It’s hard to get along with a person that starts off declaring that as a male you suffer no institutional harms.

    But try to go off on your own direction and all of a sudden you’re wrong because you’re not a feminist.

    And to me its not that feminism created these issues but seems to have no problem with these problems when it suits them.

    There is nastiness/dismissal/disrespect on both sides of the divide and until both sides cop to it and start working on it rather than just hiding behind “____ aren’t all like that” it will be a hard road for everyone.

    @378:
    Patriarchy represents both male privilege and female privilege based on natural male strengths and natural female strengths. Traditional patriarchy is the only social model that is fair to both sexes and takes both men’s and women’s needs into account; this is why patriarchy is the means by which both sexes can come together in common cause for a common purpose, that common purpose being the raising of children and providing for the future.
    The problem is the explanation we get from either side of the MRA/feminist divide is one where somehow only the suffering of either men or women is mentioned or that the suffering of one is more important than the other or that the suffering of one is the direct cause of the suffering of the other therefore their side should get all the attention and focus.

  355. AndrewV69, Visiting MRA, Purveyor of Piffle & Woo says

    @Ally Fogg #87
    I reported your challenge in the Slymepit and got the following response:
    _http://slymepit.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=101893#p101893

    I don’t have a dog in that fight, but curiosity will be the death of me. Tell Ally Fogg that his conditions were to f’ing easy.

    _http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/1g7fxq/the_injustice_of_lifetime_alimony_the_exwife/

    It took me about 15 minutes, but only because my curiosity issue led me to read a couple of main stream media articles in the process, and the first hit I had led me to internally debate if he would accept a linked article under /r/MensRights with more than 12 comments so I opted not to use it. I also read through a few comments on some other posts there which reminded me why I don’t like to subscribe to nor read the gender angst sites that he mentioned. And then of course I needed to read through the whole post with comments to ensure neither feminism, feminists nor any feminist organizations were mentioned. The “FLS” organization mentioned in the person’s post is Florida Legal Services.

  356. Ginkgo says

    Jesse Powell @ 378 – “I would agree with the basic premise of the article; that most of the things MRAs complain about being “discrimination against men” are rooted in patriarchy, not feminism. ”

    Quite a number of MRAs agree even if they reject the specif term “patriarchy” and prefer “traditionalism’ and its varinats instead. Their complaint about feminism is that it is traditionalist in its assumptions about gender relations, at least as these assumptions play out in actual advocacy.

    As Danny gibbs @ 380 syas “And to me its not that feminism created these issues but seems to have no problem with these problems when it suits them.”

    And it goes farther than that, it extends to condemning chivalry and then making appeals to male protection a la “Only men can stop rape.” and a relaince on the power of the patriarchal state when it comes to rpae and DV and reproductive rights. It’s one thing to demand, quite properly, police protection for abortion clinics and resistance to state laws that have the effect of closing these clinics down, and quite another to demand that all these clinics be state funded and that other people should pay for you life choices. (Abortion for the sake of tthe health or the life of the mother is not a “life choice”.)

    “I’ve seen the idea that MRAs and feminists should join in an alliance many times and it does make a lot of sense considering how they both champion so called gender equality. The problem with a hypothetical MRA / feminist alliance is that the MRA only cares about male concerns while the feminist only cares about female concerns; they’re both gender supremacists just on opposite teams.”

    This is an important point. If it’s a matter of relative emphasis, that’s fine, but where it gets exclusionary, it’s stupid. But in fact this isn’t the whole story. It’s not unusual for feminists to su[pport MRA issues and on feminist grounds:
    http://www.genderratic.com/p/1764/misandry-encouraging-sign-noted-feminist-demolishes-pro-circumcision-arguments/
    And there are MRAs who point out their assualt on traditional gender roles will beneift women as much as men:
    http://www.genderratic.com/p/716/women-do-not-benefit-the-science/
    http://www.genderratic.com/p/793/women-do-not-benefit-ideal-innocent/

  357. Ally Fogg says

    gingko

    making appeals to male protection a la “Only men can stop rape.”

    that’s a complete misunderstanding of what is meant by slogans like “only men can stop rape.”

    It’s nothing to do with male protection, and everything to do with male perpetration.

    (and I’m not remotely getting into the rights and wrongs and usefulness of that particular slogans, just a statement of fact that it doesn’t mean what you’re claiming it means.)

  358. Schala says

    It’s nothing to do with male protection, and everything to do with male perpetration.

    It’s asking some men (who don’t rape) to stop other men (who do rape). So I think it can very much be about male protection.

  359. Woo_Monster, Sniffer of Starfarts says

    The slogan, “only you can prevent forest fires”, is not asking you to physically go around stopping people who might start forest fires. It is asking you to take personally responsibility for your actions. Just like the slogan in question is asking men to take responsibility for avoiding raping people.

  360. Schala says

    The slogan, “only you can prevent forest fires”, is not asking you to physically go around stopping people who might start forest fires. It is asking you to take personally responsibility for your actions. Just like the slogan in question is asking men to take responsibility for avoiding raping people.

    It’s always been explained, by feminists no less, as meaning that you, who is pervy to men making rape jokes and participating in rape culture, have a responsibility, as someone with a penis and influence on men (because you’re a man), to stop them from doing it.

    The same for men who you know are going to physically rape someone. You are, as a man, responsible to stop them. And disavow all acquaintances and friends who do or did so as well.

    Same as Mark Steyn condemnin the men in the Polytechnique massacre for not intervening to save those 14 women – because men have to protect women (he’s very much a conservative racist, but his idea aligns with feminists on the “protect women” front).

  361. Schala says

    What I said in #386 presumes that

    1) Only or mostly men rape, only or mostly women.
    2) Stranger men have actual influence on other men by virtue of having a penis.
    3) Men in general have a collective responsibility to stop a crime from being committed by people who share nothing but sex with them, something which women never have for any crime whatsoever.

  362. sasori says

    Woo_Monster, Sniffer of Starfarts: 385

    I think that the premise of the ‘men can stop rape’ campaign, that attitudes of ‘male dominance’ etc are related to the rate of rape (rather than mental health, child abuse or other things which can cause people to have reduced empathy with others) imho, is not proven sufficiently.

    Also the NISVS 2010 report, which seems to have found that a large percentage of rapists may be women, undermines the ‘male dominance’ argument, if male dominance or other male specific attitudes is correlated with rape or responsible in some way for the creation of rapists then why does it seem there are so many rapists. I also dislike the way in which it frames this as some kind of moral obligation. I think the old ‘the black community can stop mugging/streetcrime’ campaigns were based on a similar premise and were similarly (not very) effective.

  363. Sasori says

    whoops! in my last comment I should’ve said “then why does it seem there are so many female rapists”

  364. says

    @ Ally Fogg #383

    I’m pretty sure the feminist slogan “only men can stop rape” is meant to convey the message “women cannot stop rape” meaning that women have no responsibility for their actions and only men should be viewed as responsible parties. This is part of an overall feminist mentality that men are 100% guilty and women are 100% innocent and that it is men’s job to serve women in whatever women want to do and however women want to act.

    It is fair to say that rape is a uniquely male crime; that 99% of all rapes are committed by men. I am also totally in favor of Chivalry, that it is men’s responsibility to protect women from rape; that good men must protect women from bad men. However in order to stop rape or at least minimize rape the good men need women’s cooperation. Women have a responsibility to minimize the likelihood of rape and to cooperate with male efforts to punish rapists without ensnaring innocent men in the process. The fact that only men commit rape does not mean that only men can stop rape. Both men and women can stop rape and both men and women have a responsibility to do their part in stopping rape.

  365. Schala says

    It is fair to say that rape is a uniquely male crime; that 99% of all rapes are committed by men.

    Only if we think of rape as definitely needing the usage of a penis of the perpetrator.

    If we define rape as non-consensual sex act. Then men are 60% of all rapists.

    I am also totally in favor of Chivalry, that it is men’s responsibility to protect women from rape; that good men must protect women from bad men.

    Restrictive gender role: by definition it has to go.

  366. says

    @ Schala #391

    I think that something like 99% of all people in prison for rape are male. It definitely makes sense from an evolutionary point of view that rape is a specifically male crime. Women can get sex easily as they are the ones who have to put in all the reproductive work of carrying the pregnancy and giving birth (giving birth being dangerous before modern medicine made it safe). It makes no sense for a woman to “steal sex” from a man as a man will give away sex for free since the sex act costs him nothing and provides him an opportunity to “spread his seed around.” The reverse is totally different; men have a high incentive to “steal sex” from a woman to force the woman to bear the cost of having his child with no effort being put in on his part. This is why men rape women and not the other way around.

    On the issue of “restrictive gender roles,” I am totally in favor of restrictive gender roles. If you are going to oppose Chivalry simply because Chivalry entails restrictive gender roles then we have a major philosophical difference on that issue.

  367. Maureen Brian says

    Sorry, sasori,

    I don’t want you looking after me: I am not a child.

    I don’t want you advising me on my behaviour, my dress or my deportment: I am not mentally incompetent.

    I don’t want you guilt tripping me into thinking that somehow I can prevent rape by following some formula: I cannot be expected to take responsibility before the fact for some crime which may never happen and whose perpetrator cannot be identified in advance.

    If I should come to harm – rape, car accident, fall into the canal – I do not want you going through a catechism of things I might have done wrong some time in the last 71 years which has caused this to happen: that’s abusive behaviour so either support me or belt up.

    I do not want you to spread lies about who gets raped, by whom and where: an honest person would stick with the facts.

    I do not want more generations growing up afraid to report and seek help if they are raped because you prefer not to accept that the person responsible for a rape is the rapist – and only the rapist.

    And, hooray! I’m really glad to see that Schala and I are on the same page with this one.

    (Chivalry, in case you really are that ignorant, was a set of fictions made up both to amuse the relatively rich and keep the lower orders in their place during feudalism. And we ain’t going back there!)

  368. Schala says

    I think that something like 99% of all people in prison for rape are male. It definitely makes sense from an evolutionary point of view that rape is a specifically male crime.

    Oh, definitely, men are more ARRESTED and CONVICTED for rape, that’s for sure. They’re also more arrested and convicted for pedophilia, yet I’m sure they’re not 98-99% of pedophiles.

    Women can get sex easily as they are the ones who have to put in all the reproductive work of carrying the pregnancy and giving birth (giving birth being dangerous before modern medicine made it safe). It makes no sense for a woman to “steal sex” from a man as a man will give away sex for free since the sex act costs him nothing and provides him an opportunity to “spread his seed around.”

    And there you go, rape of men is positive, they get to “spread their seed”, so why do they care about free sex? Right?

    On the issue of “restrictive gender roles,” I am totally in favor of restrictive gender roles. If you are going to oppose Chivalry simply because Chivalry entails restrictive gender roles then we have a major philosophical difference on that issue.

    I oppose restrictive gender roles on the basis of them being restrictive and prescriptive. Quite easy to understand. Let people do as they will, based on their individuality and personal capacity, not based on bits between their legs.

    I love how Centrum now with “for men” and “for women”. And then say its “personally tailored to their needs”. Because 50% of the population is personally tailored nowadays.

    Hint: It’s not. One size fits all is only slightly worse than two sizes fits all. We need millions of sizes. Basically, if it was a prescription, you’d need to be examined by the doctor, checked for symptoms and all that. You’d end up with a prescription based on your personal needs, if your doc is competent. Not needs of half the people on the planet.

  369. Maureen Brian says

    Sorry, sasori,

    I misattributed the Chivalry thing. The bit in brackets was for Jesse Powell.

  370. Ginkgo says

    Ally @ 383 – “that’s a complete misunderstanding of what is meant by slogans like “only men can stop rape.”

    It’s nothing to do with male protection, and everything to do with male perpetration.

    (and I’m not remotely getting into the rights and wrongs and usefulness of that particular slogans, just a statement of fact that it doesn’t mean what you’re claiming it means.)”

    In view of the historical (the KKK’s lynching campaigm, Scottbsoro boys and the general severity of sentencing for rape as a function of patriarchal state power) and poltical (Eric Holder’s “Dear Colleague” letter) context, it’s pretty specious to try to separate the two.

    I recognize that the slogan is more in lione withn those “Don’t Be That Guy” posters, which do foscus on male perpetration; it’s just that i find the distinction bogus to the point of disingenuousness in view of the contest.

  371. Woo_Monster, Sniffer of Starfarts says

    Women have a responsibility to minimize the likelihood of rape and to cooperate with male efforts to punish rapists without ensnaring innocent men in the process.

    Fuck this victim blaming bullshit. Maureen Brian already addressed you well, but I just wanted to qft that the person responsible for a rape is the rapist – and only the rapist.

  372. aspidoscelis says

    My $.02:

    I suspect that a lot of male opposition to feminism in particular (rather than to problems in broader society) has to do with #2 from the list in the first Malestrom post:

    The feminist stranglehold? It is often argued that by controlling the reins of gender issues, feminism actively works against the gender-specific interests of men and prevents issues like those outlined above being adequately addressed. Is this true or fair?

    Personally, I would not argue that feminist control of gender discussions actively works against specifically-male issues. However, can one advocate for specifically-male issues without either explicitly identifying as a feminist (and having that identification believed) or facing very vocal opposition from feminists?

    The first of those options is problematic. Male self-identification as a feminist is likely to be perceived as disingenuous without the proper bona fides–a demonstrable history of advocating whichever specific viewpoints are considered appropriate by whichever feminists happen to be in the audience. Establishing those bona fides may be inconsistent with advocacy of specifically-male issues (or, at least, inconsistent with a primary focus on those issues rather than viewing them as worthwhile but subsidiary goals).

    AFAICT, one either allows feminists (of whichever strain(s) are involved in a particular discussion) to dictate the terms of discussion and advocacy, or one faces vocal feminist opposition. Given that many venues for discussion of gender are heavily dominated by feminists (in this thread, for instance, there don’t seem to be any traditionalists), it seems understandable that feminists would be perceived as a particularly serious threat by many advocates of specifically-male issues who are unwilling to accept those dictates.

  373. aspidoscelis says

    The tl;dr version of the above is that although feminists are not causing (or certainly not the primary cause of) the problems to which “meninists” object, if they form the most vocal opposition to “meninism”, it’s unsurprising that they are viewed as a particularly formidable threat.

  374. Sasori says

    Maureen Brian: 393
    I was confused by your post until I saw your later comment, I assume that you were talking to /Jessie Powell: 390 for the whole of your post, am I correct.

    aspidoscelis: 399
    I don’t agree 100% but you make some good points. I think another reason ‘meninists’ don’t have male specific social attitudes as their main (or a more major) enemy is a similar one to the general rule modern feminists have not to critisize the actions of ‘women’ (as a collective or major subsections of like stay at home mums etc) When feminists regularly did this in the 80’s it made them quite unpopular.

    Also, I would draw a distinction between respectable mens issues campaign groups and popular internet websites. I’m sure the campaign groups have biases (just like feminist ones do) but they don’t generally seem to have primary enemies.

  375. aspidoscelis says

    Sasori, 400:

    I don’t agree 100% but you make some good points. I think another reason ‘meninists’ don’t have male specific social attitudes as their main (or a more major) enemy is a similar one to the general rule modern feminists have not to critisize the actions of ‘women’ (as a collective or major subsections of like stay at home mums etc) When feminists regularly did this in the 80′s it made them quite unpopular.

    That would make sense. It’s always easier to go after the other group, regardless of what that other group is… and regardless of whether or not you really have that much in common with members of your own group.

    Also, I would draw a distinction between respectable mens issues campaign groups and popular internet websites. I’m sure the campaign groups have biases (just like feminist ones do) but they don’t generally seem to have primary enemies.

    If nothing else, they would be more reluctant to publicly admit to those enemies. :-)

    Admittedly, most of my experience is in the online world. It’s too big a hornet’s nest to kick in “real life”.

  376. Schala says

    in this thread, for instance, there don’t seem to be any traditionalists

    Jesse seems to obviously be a traditionalist.

    Now wether they’re a MRA troll looking their worst for MRAs, or a feminist trolls looking their worst for feminism, or a mix of the two, or neither is still up to debate.

  377. aspidoscelis says

    Schala:

    I guess I hadn’t read Jesse’s posts too carefully. Reading them again now, he kind of wanders between a bunch of feminist jargon, a seemingly misandrist little evolutionary just-so story, generally being kind of obnoxious but noncommittal and… oh, what’s this in the last two sentences of post 392? I believe you are correct.

  378. Gjenganger says

    @Schala 402
    I am a traditionalist, of sorts. I just try to be intelligent about it, which leads me to disagree with Jesse Powell.

  379. Gjenganger says

    @Schale 391

    If we define rape as non-consensual sex act. Then men are 60% of all rapists.

    That would rather depend on how you define ‘non-consensual’. AFAIAC, if you are under threat of violence or arrest, physically forced, or too drunk to take decisions, that is rape. If you are under threat of embarrassment, looking ridiculous, or letting your girlfriend down, that is not rape – even if it might be quite nasty of your sexual partner to take advantage of it. Low-level power moves – payment, offering or refusing favours in exchange, making unpleasant scenes, threatening to leave – are standard currency in human interaction, even among people who care for each other. Consider the moves you might employ to to convince your husband to take out the garbage, or your teenage son to clean his room. The question is not whether you are trying to influence the decisions of other people (to have sex, for instance), the question is where you draw the line, whether the other person has a real choice or is compelled.

    Given the above, I rather doubt that women cause as much as 40% of non-consensual sex. Men are generally stronger, after all. Could you give your definitinos, or, better yet, some kind of statistics, so we can see what we are talking about?

  380. Sid says

    Ally@383

    Men can stop rape is about men calling out other men and intervening, and it denies women’s agency in the cycle of abuse by treating it like it doesn’t exist.

    Sound familiar?

    It does to me, its basically re take on the chivalric code as it pertains to the protection women with pro-feminist men as the knights.

    http://www.mencanstoprape.org/Our-Mission-History/

  381. Sid says

    Jesse Powel @378

    >I would agree with the basic premise of the article; that most of the things MRAs complain about being “discrimination against men” are rooted in patriarchy, not feminism

    The mens movement is attacking traditionalism (patriarchy) and feminism which it sees as more as a rejigging of traditionalism to women’s advantage than an undoing of it. Most of the legislation the mens movement is mobilised against is feminist. The movement also views feminism as taking pre existing problems and making them worse or perpetuating them, covering up female abuse and running intervention services as if abuse were gendered, for example.

  382. carnation says

    @ Schale

    Yes, any evidence for your assertion that 40% ofmrapistsmare female? One of the most ridiculous MRA factoids I’ve read for some time, though not as ridiculous as the claim that half of all paedophile s are women.

    Just to add, the percentage of rapists/paedophiles in the male population is tiny, all/most men are NOT rapists, or violent.

  383. Sid says

    @carnation

    >though not as ridiculous as the claim that half of all paedophile s are women.

    This is a false claims about pedophilia, that claim is not made because there is no conclusive data to support it, I think the estimate is 25% – 40% according to Michelle Elliot.

    >Yes, any evidence for your assertion that 40% of mrapistsmare female? One of the most ridiculous MRA factoids

    Even though I know facts have not impact on your hate, its not a factoid, its from the CDC 2010 12 months data – women made up around 40% of those that forced others to have sex. You can read about it here.

    http://www.genderratic.com/p/836/manufacturing-female-victimhood-and-marginalizing-vulnerable-men/

    The Liask / Miller predator theory study on american male college studys and this study on female sexual aggression came up with similar estimates for the number of rapists in the male and female population.

    >“..as many as 7% of women self-report the use of physical force to obtain sex, 40% self-report sexual coercion..50% self-report initiating sexual contact with a man while his judgement was impaired by drugs or alcohol ..” From Deviance to Normalcy: Women as Sexual Aggressors – Electronic Journal of Human Sexuality, Volume 5, October 23, 2002
    http://www.ejhs.org/volume5/deviancetonormal.htm

    As for the number of female pedophiles, we have no real way of knowing because like with female rapists, we have not been counting them.

    Michelle Elliot observed

    >“Whilst there are reasons why feminists limit discussion on the subject of women abusers, these reasons are valid only to feminism.”

    Female Sexual Abuse of Children edited by Michele Elliott
    http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=zrhafV2NTU4C&lpg=PP1&pg=PA100#v=onepage&q&f=false

    Going by your contributions here, you are a petty and small minded, sexist, ignorant and hateful individual.

  384. Schala says

    Given the above, I rather doubt that women cause as much as 40% of non-consensual sex. Men are generally stronger, after all. Could you give your definitinos, or, better yet, some kind of statistics, so we can see what we are talking about?

    In there

    http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/nisvs_report2010-a.pdf

    For the last 12 months:

    1,270,000 female victims of rape.
    1,267,000 male victims of being forced to penetrate

    99% of rapists with female victims are male.
    80% of rapists with male victims are female.

    Note that by their own criteria, female rapists of female victims will be undercounted, if counted at all (because if they require either that the female victims is penetrated or made to penetrate, they’re only going to condemn strap-on and fingering female rapists). I’ll admit I don’t know much about female-female sexuality, but I’m pretty sure there is no need to require penetration of either party. Clitoral stimulation would not be counted, for example.

    For obvious reasons, the numbers for the last 12 months are more reasonable than the lifetime numbers. Who can easily be biased by a selective memory and cultural negating (ie culture said it wasn’t rape when it happened, so memory retroactively decides it wasn’t rape when you were raped at 18, when you’re now 40).

  385. Dinner4Schmucks (N4M) says

    Ok, Ally well I’ve re-read your post and thought about it quite a lot, and I think now I’m able define why I’m still unconvinced by your argument(s)
    First off:

    Feminism, as a social project, has also been pretty successful in winning the original arguments about gender equality

    But Ally, sorry, not having this: it is quite clear that the most dominant strand of political feminism
    is actively opposed to equality between men and women. It has become a rhetorical ploy, occasionally used as a smokescreen, not a genuine aspiration on the part of its most high-profile proponents.

    Who can forget all the feminist pressure groups excitedly exclaiming on their websites, the Corston slogan, that prison is a system ‘designed by men for men’. In other words, ‘ It’s for them, not for us!’ What on earth could be more gender-bigoted than that?

    Or take this kind of article here in the Guardian, entitled

    ‘Penal reform must not be gender neutral’
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jun/22/penal-reform-women-prison
    Of course, this was pretty standard fare at the time, a well-paid feminist journalist, commissioned by influential feminist editors, for one of Britain’s biggest national newspapers, putting forward those kind of views.

    And again, only last week on Radio 4’s main gender-issues show, a group of feminist sympathisers were discussing prison reform, and they kept on repeating this idea/meme that women’s needs in the justice system ‘are being neglected’ because they constitute only a minority of the prison population, and thus they are getting overlooked by politicians. I mean, holy sh*it, what hideously twisted logic is that (as well as being so blatantly untrue)?
    Unfortunately, this has now become the most powerful & dominant form of feminism in this country. It is not to say you might not be able to find a low-profile blogger or inter sectional twitterer who has raised an eyebrow to these things, but that’s surely a bit like saying the Conservative Party as a political force is socially just and compassionate, on the basis you can find some rare, humble backbenchers who dissent from cabinet press-releases.

    But what I do find quite funny here is that you’ve finished the post absolutely confirming the very first point of mine that you brought up in it:

    You notice the bits of media coverage that are explicitly gendered and feminist. You fail to notice the overwhelming majority of other media coverage (in all the right wing papers, for starters) is not remotely concerned with impacts on women, and is vastly more influential on government due to the size and circulation of the papers.

    But FFS, that is precisely what I was saying! :-)
    If you regard policies around gender as being an important aspect of politics (yes, there are some of us sad & deluded enough to do this), then the form of identity politics advocated by gender feminists is having major (often adverse) effects in these areas. For instance:

    When you yourself have written about the learning fund in your own area accessible to everyone except able-bodied white blokes;

    When you write here how
    http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/it-is-time-to-stop-violence-against-children-8665516.html
     There are extensive efforts to provide teaching time and resources to educating on violence against women and girls, no equivalent focus on violence against children, far less gender-specific violence against men and boys.

    When we have prison reform for women but not for men;

    These are all examples of public policies which are deliberately skewed in favour of one group against another, and done so on the basis of an assumed privilege which is misleading.

    It is only if you completely dismiss the impact of policies to do with gender, that they have ‘no real influence’. Which is, surely, totally at odds with the mission of this blog, which is to suggest that thinking about gender does indeed matter in the context of social policy !

    It’s the ultimate patriarchal assumption, surely, to suggest that only policies to do with macro-economics or foreign affairs (the kind of apparently ‘genderless’ policies you’ve mentioned), count as significant or important, because they are supposed to be ‘men’s issues’ worthy of ‘serious discussion’. Who in their right mind would buy that argument?

    No, there are real problems here with how professional feminism is conducting its affairs.

    For us to create a more just society, these attitudes and beliefs need to be actively taken on, not just ignored, or marginalised as ‘trivial’ or ‘insignificant’.

    In other words, to get angry about them is surely not just rational, but completely and unavoidably necessary.

  386. carnation says

    @ Sid you’re wasting your time directing messages at me. You are too far gone o engage with

    @ Schala Will ave a look.

  387. carnation says

    @ Schala

    You linked to an entire report, with no specific citation. However, I have noticed this study championd in other MRA blogs.

    Do you have an academic background? If you did, you would realize the devastating and crass stupidity of using a single study to justify a statement as contentious as women perpetrating 40% of non consensual sex.

    Here’s a study, found in 3 minutes, that refutes your assertions:

    http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/SOO.PDF

    “Overall, an estimated 91% of the victims of rape and sexual assault were female. Nearly 99% of the of- fenders they described in single-victim incidents were male.”

    You, in common with almost all MRAs, would do well to read about confirmation bias.

  388. Schala says

    ““Overall, an estimated 91% of the victims of rape and sexual assault were female. Nearly 99% of the of- fenders they described in single-victim incidents were male.””

    When rape and sexual assault are 1) reported to the police 2) involve penetration of the victim.

    For sure women penetrate men less. What are you getting at?

  389. Schala says

    You, in common with almost all MRAs, would do well to read about confirmation bias.

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    the irony

  390. Gjenganger says

    @carnation 413
    The results of the survey Schala quotes surprised me, and I would welcome any light thrown on them. But it is worth noting a few things first: This is a population study – they seem to be considered more reliable than studies of police reports. They analyzed 16500 interviews total. The US Center for Disease Control is about the most authoritative source you can think of. They were specifically asking about not just rape, but sexual coercion of various kinds. I should be happy to take on board any critical comments, but it will take more than a single report with a different conclusion to shake this one. Can you do better than this?

  391. carnation says

    It’s so ludicrous it’s really not worth engaging with.

    Sexual abuse, like the overwhelming majority of violent crime, is perpetrated almost exclusively by men. A significant proportion of the victims of this crime are men. My belief is that they can and do suffer distinct, adverse effects, alongside those experienced by women. I further believe that the are not served adequately by the state and charity sectors. I further believe that MRA obfuscation would, if they actually had any influence, make this situation far worse.

    A quick perusal of crime statistics, studies, prison records, agencies such as Just Detention and commentary by police agencies confirms all of this.

    MRAs deal in nonsense, spun to suit their inane political platforms.

  392. DeepThought says

    @Jesse Powell:

    Thanks for very clearly articulating the flip side, complete with evo-psych pseudo-justifications. I say thanks, because it very clearly articulates the need for a third way, and clearly articulates the ways in which traditionalists and feminists actually share some of the very same attitudes (which you have written a few articles about on your blog).

    I’m pretty sure the feminist slogan “only men can stop rape” is meant to convey the message “women cannot stop rape” meaning that women have no responsibility for their actions and only men should be viewed as responsible parties.

    It is partially meant to combat the atrocious idea that women can be responsible (to some degree) if they are raped, not that they have no responsibility for their actions in general. In this feminists are correct. Yet, the phrase is still quite offensive, because feminists know well that only a minority of men rape, but they are implying it is the responsibility of other men (but not women) to protect them, and that other men have the power to do so. You of course entirely agree.

    How about a “revolutionary” new idea: the primary moral opprobrium for rape and responsibility for preventing it belong to the persons who rape, and secondarily, to anyone who aids, abets, or encourages it by a specific action (and no, merely being a man is insufficient, and the allegation of promoting “rape culture” must be supported by specific evidence). These are the people, and the only people, who can stop rape (and yes, some of them are women).

    This is part of an overall feminist mentality that men are 100% guilty and women are 100% innocent and that it is men’s job to serve women in whatever women want to do and however women want to act.

    As opposed to patriarchy where it is men’s job to serve women in whatever way men (which means the most rich and powerful men) decide is best for women.

    How about a “revolutionary” new idea: it is not men’s job to serve women, in the abstract.

    It is fair to say that rape is a uniquely male crime; that 99% of all rapes are committed by men.

    The statistics don’t bear this out (a 99% number) in cases of sexual assault, but I’ll concede the majority is committed by men. But it’s really irrelevant.

    I am also totally in favor of Chivalry, that it is men’s responsibility to protect women from rape; that good men must protect women from bad men.

    But you are not in favor of real chivalry, which states the strong must protect the weak, regardless of sex (another “revolutionary” new concept). You apparently don’t think it men’s responsibility to protect other men from rape or anything else at the hands of bad men or bad women. Nor do you apparently think it women’s responsibility to protect anyone else from anything, except perhaps children. This attitude is exactly why there’s a men’s rights movement. You likely simply dishonestly deny (as do some feminists) that men are not always strong and powerful, but can be weak and vulnerable, and if they ever show any vulnerability or pain you tell them to not be a “sissy” and to “man up”. This is also (attention Ally) why many men (including myself) are so angry.

    However in order to stop rape or at least minimize rape the good men need women’s cooperation. Women have a responsibility to minimize the likelihood of rape and to cooperate with male efforts to punish rapists without ensnaring innocent men in the process. The fact that only men commit rape does not mean that only men can stop rape. Both men and women can stop rape and both men and women have a responsibility to do their part in stopping rape.

    I’ve already commented on the victim-blaming BS. I would actually agree with the last sentence as written, though not exactly what you mean. Women can and do contribute to rape culture, by saying she is a slut who was asking for it, just as men do, and can thus be guilty of abetting and encouraging. I do not hold them blameless for this.

    I think that something like 99% of all people in prison for rape are male. It definitely makes sense from an evolutionary point of view that rape is a specifically male crime. Women can get sex easily as they are the ones who have to put in all the reproductive work of carrying the pregnancy and giving birth (giving birth being dangerous before modern medicine made it safe). It makes no sense for a woman to “steal sex” from a man as a man will give away sex for free since the sex act costs him nothing and provides him an opportunity to “spread his seed around.” The reverse is totally different; men have a high incentive to “steal sex” from a woman to force the woman to bear the cost of having his child with no effort being put in on his part. This is why men rape women and not the other way around.

    So in other words, men are presumed to be in a state of continual consent to sex. You’re a pathetic rape apologist. But this flows logically from your evo-psych just-so story, so I’ll start there. Of course the just-so story must have an element of truth to be believable, and yes it is true the cost-benefit ratio for sex is better for men, evolutionarily speaking (since women bear children and therefore there is more risk involved). However, you just naively assume the cost for men is zero, when it wasn’t then, and isn’t today; and you overstate the risks for women and benefits to men. Specifically, you don’t take into account: 1) Sexually transmitted diseases, which would select against a large number of sexual partners; 2) The fact that women are not always fertile, making sex relatively less risky for about half the time; 3) The fact that, at least for many animals, sex is not for reproduction only, but also has a societal aspect to it (e.g. to foster social cohesion; bonobos being the most popular example); and most importantly 4) You are abstracting as though men and women didn’t exist in communities, but existed only as individual entities; which is clearly not true, and too sexually promiscuous individuals may suffer the fate of social ostracism together with a loss of future mating opportunities. Put all these together, and the story becomes a lot more complex than your ridiculously over-simplified example.

    On the issue of “restrictive gender roles,” I am totally in favor of restrictive gender roles. If you are going to oppose Chivalry simply because Chivalry entails restrictive gender roles then we have a major philosophical difference on that issue.

    This wasn’t written to me, but obviously we do. The strong should protect the weak, yes; your error is in equating masculinity with “strength” and femininity with “weakness”. You see gender as a binary distribution whereas in fact there are highly overlapping bell curves.

  393. Schala says

    It’s so ludicrous it’s really not worth engaging with.

    Tell me about it. I’ll take your advice and not engage with you anymore.

  394. Paul says

    About 8 % of of those convicted of sexually abusing children in the UK are female .However there is some research which suggests that up to 25% of paedophiles in this country may be women .But as it’s a crime which is widely perceived to be overwhelmingly committed by males those abusers who’re female are more likely to slip under the radar and therefore escape detection.

    Rape is also a crime which is overwhelmingly committed by men .And in America it’s thought that men run a greater risk of getting raped than women given the incidence of male rape in prisons there. Don’t know of the incidence of male rape in the UK athough around 8% of rape victims who secure a conviction are male. .Whether women can rape either men or other women is up for debate. Also there needs to be recognition that women can set up other women to be raped by men. Certainly it’s something i’ve heard plenty of stories about but i don’t know of any research to show how common it is.

    Rape is rape and blaming those who’ve been raped is wrong.However i think both sexes need to be educated that rendering yourself drunk and incapable can increase the likelihood of becoming a victim of a variety of crimes of which rape is just one. After all crime prevention plays it’s part in reducing overall crime levels .

  395. carnation says

    @ Paul. 421

    I tend to agree with most of your comments, except:

    Prison sexual abuse in America has been decreasing, bizarrely, George Bush jr enacted progressive legislation. However, the threat of sexual abuse in the American penal system is staggeringly high. In the UK, it’s still considered transgressive amongst the prison population, but does occur. A recent study but the instances of it in very low single figures. Children in institutions, boys and girls, were at more risk.

    TV campaigns, popular discourse, the Daily Mail etc make great play of the “drunk and incapable” risks. However, far more important, in my opinion, is the teaching of healthy sexual and relationship attitudes in schools. Sex education should go beyond biology. Porn myths relating to bodies should be dealt with, boys and girls should understand that their bodies are normal. Stalking/controlling behaviour should be discussed, boys ad girls, and the importance of consent, and legal liability, particularly where intoxication is concerned.

    Put bluntly, boys and girls should have an awareness of unhealthy and dysfunctional behaviour in relationships. Vulnerable children even more so.

    Incidentally, and I risk the ire of some feminists, I think that in areas of high teenage pregnancy, long term contraception, such a injections, should be financially incentivised.

  396. N4M says

    This is the kind of official approach we are up against (in England at any rate) :-

    A video created by the Government’s Equality Office, this very month
    http://vimeo.com/67317780#

    in which girls outperforming boys in various aspects of education is presented implicitly as being welcome and desirable, and a sign of ‘progress’. Just says it all really…

  397. Sid says

    @Paul

    >Rape is also a crime which is overwhelmingly committed by men

    Of course it is, its defined by penetration.If we defined it by envelopment instead all of a sudden it would be a crime overwhelmingly committed by women.

  398. Sid says

    @Ally Fogg

    If someone showed up here as hateful and bigoted towards women and feminists as carnation is towards mras and men and as blatantly and deliberately dishonest would they be held to a different standard of accountability or would then just be allowed to spew hate and dishonesty all over the thread too?

    If you held women and feminists to the same standards of behaviour as men are, then the quality of the discussion would improve here.

  399. Paul says

    @ N4M 423.

    n which girls outperforming boys in various aspects of education is presented implicitly as being welcome and desirable, and a sign of ‘progress’. Just says it all really…

    That pisses me off as well.Some feminists are quick to see any under-achievement by females as being problematic -which it often is- whilst simultaneously viewing any under-achievement by males as being either proof that females are better or that it’s the fault of males because they’re not more like females.

    I can’t remember who conducted it but i remember seeing a report a while back which suggested that by primary school age both sexes have already internalised the belief that girls are better than boys.And that amongst boys of primary and secondary school age there’s also a belief that girls behave as badly as boys but are more likely to get away with it or if caught are likely to receive a more lenient punishment than boys.

    There is now growing reognition that white working class boys in particular are under-achieving in UK schools and that needs to be addressed .Although there’s a also a problem with some ethnic minority working class boys under-achieving as well.Plus there are those who feel that boys of all ages-and working class boys in particular- are suffering because they don’t have daily contact with positive male role models.That they come from homes and go to schools which are dominated by women and where it’s not unusual for adult men to be routinely demonised by the women.Nobel Prize winner Doris Lessing for instance once spoke out about the extent to which she had witnessed women teachers promoting the female good/male bad dichotomy.And in her words this left the girls smug with complacency whilst the boys were left feeling confused and unsure of themselves.

  400. Schala says

    Nobel Prize winner Doris Lessing for instance once spoke out about the extent to which she had witnessed women teachers promoting the female good/male bad dichotomy.And in her words this left the girls smug with complacency whilst the boys were left feeling confused and unsure of themselves.

    When it’s the dominant attitude on both the left and the right, it becomes very easy to justify jumping on the bandwagon.

  401. carnation says

    @Sid You’re lying. Point out one instance of me implying, suggesting or hinting that I hate men.

    I’m starting to think you’re a radfem troll… I’m incredulous that someone with your base level of presentation, analytical and conceptual skills actually tried to engage in debate. You are th embodiment of “hysterical hyperbole” that keeps MRAs on the outer reaches of the lunatic fringe.

  402. Schala says

    I’m starting to think you’re a radfem troll…

    There’s plenty of those. Amazon Heart aka Heart. dirtywhiteboi. Cathy Brennan. And mandrea.

    All radfem trolls.

    You can read their words, and note that they are definitely anti-trans and all extremely avowedly anti-men. I don’t think Sid qualifies.

  403. says

    “the legality of male genital mutilation.”

    The suggestion that male circumcision is the same as female genital mutilation is quite grotesque. To make this suggestion is a denial of the purpose of FGM and the life threatening and life long problems it causes to those girls who are forced to undergo this barbaric “operation”.

    Is it small wonder that attempts to save girls in the UK from enduring this practice have been so appallingly ineffective, when a prominent social commentator provides the pro-FGM lobby with an such an alibi?

  404. Schala says

    The suggestion that male circumcision is the same as female genital mutilation is quite grotesque. To make this suggestion is a denial of the purpose of FGM and the life threatening and life long problems it causes to those girls who are forced to undergo this barbaric “operation”.

    The purpose of MGM.

    Here:

    Page 609:

    Similarly with regard to circumcision, one of the reasons for it is, in my opinion, the wish to bring about a decrease in sexual intercourse and a weakening of the organ in question, so that this activity be diminished and the organ be in as quiet a state as possible. It has been thought that circumcision perfects what is defective congenitally. This gave the possibility to everyone to raise an objection and to say: How can natural things be defective so that they need to be perfected from outside, all the more because we know how useful the foreskin is for that member? In fact this commandment has not been prescribed with a view to perfecting what is defective congenitally, but to perfecting what is defective morally. The bodily pain caused to that member is the real purpose of circumcision. None of the activities necessary for the preservation of the individual is harmed thereby, nor is procreation rendered impossible, but violent concupiscence and lust that goes beyond what is needed are diminished. The fact that circumcision weakens the faculty of sexual excitement and sometimes perhaps diminishes the pleasure is indubitable. For if at birth this member has been made to bleed and has had its covering taken away from it, it must indubitably be weakened. The Sages, may their memory be blessed, have explicitly stated: It is hard for a woman with whom an uncircumcised man has had sexual intercourse to separate from him. In my opinion this is the strongest of the reasons for circumcision.

    Tell me again MGM is not about diminishing pleasure. Maimonides was from 12th century. So this notion of weakening male pleasure and lust is not new at all.

  405. Tamen says

    Is it small wonder that attempts to save girls in the UK from enduring this practice have been so appallingly ineffective, when a prominent social commentator provides the pro-FGM lobby with an such an alibi?

    This speaks volumes as to how this person thinks nothing of the right to bodily intetgrity by infant boys when an anti-circumcision statement turns into a pro-fgm statement in their head.

    I used to quite often encounter a related and equally revealing argument when I brought up the issue of male rape and was accused of bringing up the issue of male victims as an argument _for_ raping women! The only way that would make sense was if the person putting that argument forth thought that male rape was ridiculous and that I was putting forth a reductio ad absurdum argument.

  406. Adiabat says

    Michaelbrew (198): I know the thread has moved on but I promised a reply.

    “The OP explicitly states that there are feminists who are behaving in a very poor manner by perpetuating male stereotypes and downplaying men’s issues; yet I see many poster’s trying to argue that this is the case as if Ally didn’t just acknowledge it.”

    I think it’s the differences between admitting that, as Ally puts it, “a certain proportion of the members of any group of people are invariably unpleasant or fucking idiots” and admitting that those unpleasant fucking idiots are the ones running the show, and it’s the reasonable ones that have no power or influence in the movement.

    I’ve said before on here that I don’t care if some insignificant feminist blogger posts rants on the internet on behalf of men’s rights. I do care that the most influential feminist organization, and Fawcett isn’t the only feminist organization doing this, is trying to block the assumption of shared parenting. I do care that the government listens to them because they claim to represent the ‘feminist view’. I I don’t care if you think that they can’t do that; all that matters is that the government think they do. And I also care that any attempt to criticize them is met with unending sarcasm and insults from the so-called “reasonable” feminists who care more about the ‘brand’ than they do about doing the right thing. These are the feminists who are not only unwittingly giving influence to these organizations through identifying as a feminist, but also provide cover for the shit they do by denying and deflecting any criticism for them.

    “Why are you not directing it at the people who actually hold these positions to which you object rather than the one’s who seem to agree with you”

    Do they? All I’ve seen on this thread is insults and denials from feminists. I’m sure on a theoretical, abstract level they agree, but they seem to care more about the label than actually doing something about it. I guess that’s why they are the insignificant feminists compared to the ones that do things.

    It would be nice if we didn’t have to point this stuff out to feminists who seem largely ignorant of what goes on in feminism’s name. Something like a statement from a rival feminist group stating that they disagree with the Fawcett Society on shared parenting would be nice as well.

    *tumbleweed*

    “This is made worse due to the fact that the majority of “activism” I see MRAs engaging in has nothing to do with advancing men’s rights but with denying that women have issues worth resolving altogether.”

    I have no idea, I’m not an MRA and I only drop into sites likes AVFM every now and again. Last I saw they were campaigning against Toronto University’s Student Union decision to stop students from starting a group to discuss Men’s issues. Suppression of Freedom of Speech in Universities and all that. It seemed like valuable activism to me, even if you disagree with their particular beliefs.

    And considering how uninfluential MRA’s are, in terms of the various gender issues, I generally hold them to a lower standard than National Feminist organizations receiving public money.

  407. thomasmorris says

    Great article by Ally, but wow – this thread is headache inducing. I particularly like the parts where one of the few rational posters in this thread is called a “troll.”

    With that said, it’s nice to see an acknowledgement that men do, indeed, experience some problems. As a former MRA turned sort-of feminist, when I look back it’s pretty clear that most MRAs aren’t very good thinkers (at least when it comes to issues of gender) – but at the same time, I do think that SOME of their concerns are valid (they just blame the wrong people.) I don’t think it does anyone any good when such concerns are waved away with “Oh, PHMT” or “lolz, crybaby menz has problems too.”

    Fortunately, in spite of the allegations that feminists only care about women, I’ve found that most feminists that I’ve met in real life are very much open to discussing the issues that affect men too. It’s only a problem when you try to shoehorn it into every conversation – as in “yeah, I guess that’s a bad thing for women, but look at what problems I have as a man!!!!” There’s a time and a place for everything, and hijacking every discussion of issues of women’s issues to talk about men’s issues is lame and inappropriate.

  408. Schala says

    Fortunately, in spite of the allegations that feminists only care about women, I’ve found that most feminists that I’ve met in real life are very much open to discussing the issues that affect men too.

    Too bad your real life feminist friends don’t govern feminist policy and DV policy and the likes. So people who oppose feminists who don’t care about male victims are opposing people who have a bit more political weight than a blog or worse just commenters (and yes, I’ll admit my own political weight is negligible).

  409. says

    Adiabat @ 434

    I could understand that, though the example of the Fawcett Society doesn’t really have much impact. Again, I don’t really follow UK politics, so while I have to take your word for it that they have specifically blocked bills that would help along shared parenting specifically because of a patriarchal belief that females are the only gender suited to be caregivers, their own stated beliefs on their site suggests that they want to see increased paternity rights, if only because automatically burdening women with sole parental responsibility strongly contributes to discrimination against females in the workplace. This at least suggests that the idea of these feminist organizations as misandrist hive minds is something less than complete.

    Further, I wouldn’t characterize the feminists on this blog as “insignificant feminists” who “don’t do things.” They’re skeptic feminists, which may mean that their influence is more restricted to what is already a minority, but several have certainly had much influence there, among the skeptic community, whether you think it’s for better or worse. As for their attitudes toward anti-feminists… well, it’s understandable, to me. They derail conversations about women constantly and marginalize those issues by saying, “yeah, but look at how bad us men have it.” That’s all well and good, but you’ll find that feminists are far more willing to talk about that stuff when it’s not being used to take the focus off of a conversation about women, in it’s own space. This is the general attitude I’ve seen among feminists, anyway.

  410. Adiabat says

    Michaelbrew: “This at least suggests that the idea of these feminist organizations as misandrist hive minds is something less than complete.”

    Jeez, is this the source of the feminists’ attitude on here? Can’t we have a discussion about a particular topic where feminists are screwing over men without my arguments being misconstrued as claiming all feminists are Eviiil misandric “Hive Minds”! No wonder you all seem so irrational if you jump to that strawman every time someone brings something up. At least you’re being polite and are trying to be reasonable; a rose amongst thorns unfortunately.

    Just to clarify some misconceptions that seems to be in your post:

    1) The Fawcett Society, and other feminist organizations, did delay a change to parental leave, causing the government to redraft that section. However to their credit they changed their position quickly after it was pointed out to them how the change will benefit women. They changed their position for the wrong reasons but at least they changed their position, meaning that the re-draft hasn’t had to be that drastic, in fact it was changed for the better as the government took the opportunity to lower the period before it can be shared! So some good came from Fawcetts Eviiil! at least; for the wrong reasons. That’s not the issue I’m bringing up anyway, which is a proposal in a bill for family courts to start from an assumption of shared parenting after separation…

    2) The Fawcett Society hasn’t blocked the shared parenting parts yet, as it’s still to be further consulted on, passed etc. But they are campaigning against it (Actually campaigning, which in my view trumps some blurb on their website as to their true beliefs on the topic) using very sexist arguments about men being abusive, while ignoring the abusive women (who commit most child abuse). I’m not saying that they are all powerful either but there’s a good chance they’ll get their way; it’s not exactly unheard of for Feminists to enact change in legislation around family law. Surely there is nothing irrational or evil about me challenging something they are currently doing that will screw men over in the legal system and actually work against equality? Something that you claim all the feminists on here agree with me on yet seem to be fighting me on at every turn, even covering up for the Fawcett Society by blanket denying everything for them and bringing up irrelevant non-binding blurbs on a website to distract from an official statement made to the government . Which brings me to:

    3) I recognize that you and the feminists on here disagree with the Fawcett Society’s position on shared parenting. Yay! And I repeat: I am not saying you are a hive mind who all agrees. But that doesn’t compensate for the facts that i) you (general you) aren’t exactly doing anything about it, like making it known in any significant way to those in power that you disagree with the Fawcett Society ii) you’re covering for them, making it seem to care more about the feminist label than about the things feminists are actually doing and iii) by identifying with them you are giving them credibility in the eyes of the government. What other group demands to same extreme level of equivocation as feminists? For every other (voluntarily joined) group we judge them by the words and actions of those who seem most influential, why should feminism be any different?

    “Further, I wouldn’t characterize the feminists on this blog as “insignificant feminists” who “don’t do things.””

    I agree it’s rude and inflammatory. But how else can I get you all to understand that it makes not one jot of difference to me that you disagree with the Fawcett Society and it’s “all a big tent” (see point 3 above). All I care about when judging feminism is what prominent feminist groups and individuals do. I really couldn’t give a shit whether in the tenth wave a bust up occurred over the definition of ‘sausage’ leading to two groups called “Lincolnshire Feminists” and “Cumberland Feminists”.

    “As for their attitudes toward anti-feminists… well, it’s understandable, to me. They derail conversations about women constantly and marginalize those issues by saying, “yeah, but look at how bad us men have it.” That’s all well and good, but you’ll find that feminists are far more willing to talk about that stuff when it’s not being used to take the focus off of a conversation about women, in it’s own space.”

    This isn’t their space this is Ally’s space who’s not a feminist and, to his credit, welcomes contributions and opinions from everyone. This particular thread is about men and why they are angry about feminism. I fail to see how your argument applies here.

  411. says

    Adiabat @ 438

    Don’t misconstrue my statements as applying specifically to this blog and these people. The problem does exist and is significant enough in feminist circles, however, that I certainly can’t hold it against them that they refuse to entertain any “what about men” comments in pists on women’s issues. On a post or blog like this one, it’s fair game because it’s meant for that.

    As for your issues with the Fawcett Society, well, you did make it sound as if you thought they were practically a hate group. Your own descriptions make them sound generally reasonable, however, even if some of their ideas may require more rigorous examination. Whatever anyone, even some feminists, may think, the goals of feminism are contingent on true egalitarianism. This is why it’s unreasonable to condemn feminism in general for the faults of influential but poorly executed feminism. Hollywood science is, sadly, much more influential in policy-making than actually researched science, but we don’t find it reasonable to treat all scientists as if they’re quacks. Why treat all feminists as if they’re Hollywood feminists? That’s the major problem with this male anger being misdirected.

    Further, I’d like to point out that feminists shouldn’t be obligated to campaign for men’s issues if they want to deal with women’s issues. Many feminists feel those issues are more important to them, and that’s understandable given that gender inequalities, even those that favor women, primarily come from the assumption that femaleness is inferior to maleness. I think that’s fine, and if you believe that men’s issues are more important to you, that’s okay, too. It’s when men start feeling that advocating male rights means tearing down or steamrolling over efforts to advance women’s rights that the anger, rightly directed toward patriarchy, is misdirected. The same applies in reverse, but it appears to me that MRAs have a much bigger problem with this at the moment.

  412. Schala says

    Hollywood science is, sadly, much more influential in policy-making than actually researched science, but we don’t find it reasonable to treat all scientists as if they’re quacks. Why treat all feminists as if they’re Hollywood feminists? That’s the major problem with this male anger being misdirected.

    Most scientists will denounce Hollywood science, whatever its supposed to be. Feminists will silently support Fawcett and NOW as if they were not only benign but positive forces, for all (men included).

  413. Adiabat says

    Michaelbrew: “As for your issues with the Fawcett Society, well, you did make it sound as if you thought they were practically a hate group”

    Hmm, can you point to the parts of my comments which give this impression? I think I’ve been relatively clear and precise in my comments, assuming the reader was reading is with an open mind and without preconceptions about what I was saying. If not then I’ll work on that.

    As for Fawcett seeming reasonable, I think that is displaying a bias on your part. I’ve shown that they will only support men’s issues when it’s shown that it will benefit women. I’ve shown that what they actually do when it matters runs counter to their website, which basically makes their website propaganda. And I’ve shown that when they do oppose something that will work towards equality they use very sexist reasons for opposing it, displaying almost an antipathy towards men in general.

    “Whatever anyone, even some feminists, may think, the goals of feminism are contingent on true egalitarianism.”

    The goals of feminism are what feminists say and do when it matters, not some token catchphrase they don’t actually follow. I’ve shown that the most influential feminist group in the UK isn’t working towards true egalitarianism, as they are happy to work against it when it doesn’t go in women’s interest.

    “This is why it’s unreasonable to condemn feminism in general for the faults of influential but poorly executed feminism. Hollywood science is, sadly, much more influential in policy-making than actually researched science, but we don’t find it reasonable to treat all scientists as if they’re quacks. Why treat all feminists as if they’re Hollywood feminists? That’s the major problem with this male anger being misdirected.”

    As Schala says, Real Scientists distance themselves from Hollywood Science, they make it clear that they do not endorse it. Plus Hollywood Science is presented as fiction and not representative of Real Science. This is the exact opposite of the advocacy of prominent feminist groups who represent “Feminism”.

    And feminism as executed by feminists is feminism. There is no external standard to say that any particular part is “poorly executed”. So I don’t see it as unreasonable to judge feminism by the things that feminists say and do, with more weight given to those feminists who are most influential.

    “Further, I’d like to point out that feminists shouldn’t be obligated to campaign for men’s issues if they want to deal with women’s issues.”

    How about they just stop defending and covering for those feminists they disagree with anyway, just to deflect any criticism of the feminist label? That would be a good start. Plus some acceptance from them that they are voluntarily and intentionally associating themselves with people who are working to screw over men and are working against equality.

    “that’s understandable given that gender inequalities, even those that favor women, primarily come from the assumption that femaleness is inferior to maleness.”

    I reject all of that. Hitchen’s Razor.

    “It’s when men start feeling that advocating male rights means tearing down or steamrolling over efforts to advance women’s rights that the anger, rightly directed toward patriarchy, is misdirected.”

    I must say that I haven’t seen this. The only occasions I can think of that that might be interpreted this way is if feminists are working towards something that will help women but at a greater detriment to men. That is, they are engaging in women’s advocacy that runs counter to equality and egalitarianism.

    “The same applies in reverse, but it appears to me that MRAs have a much bigger problem with this at the moment.”

    Have you seen the other Malestrom thread where Ally has pointed out that Feminists have systematically covered up domestic abuse where men are the victims for the past 30 years?

  414. Adiabat says

    Michaelbrew: Oh, and thanks for keeping this polite. I much prefer an actual discussion rather than the trolling I received upthread; not that I can’t give as much as I get.

  415. says

    Adiabat @ 441

    Hmm, can you point to the parts of my comments which give this impression?

    Nothing really explicit. I think that impression mostly comes from your using it as the example for the reasons you’re antifeminist and that you condemn those who support the organization at all. It honestly seems a bit disproportional to me given that they seem to be genuinely receptive to criticism, having changed their positions on issues when there’s been a push-back. Also, when I say “practically a hate group” I’m not thinking of anything like the KKK or even the FRC. I was thinking more Salvation Army: kind of unrepentant haters toward a certain group, but kind of indirect and quiet about it since their focus is on something different (and beneficial).

    As for Fawcett seeming reasonable, I think that is displaying a bias on your part. I’ve shown that they will only support men’s issues when it’s shown that it will benefit women. I’ve shown that what they actually do when it matters runs counter to their website, which basically makes their website propaganda. And I’ve shown that when they do oppose something that will work towards equality they use very sexist reasons for opposing it, displaying almost an antipathy towards men in general.

    Like I said, I don’t know anything about them. I know what I’ve managed to read on their website, what I’ve Googled, and what you’ve said. I may have missed the post in which you provided proof that they’ve actually pushed for laws that are harmful for men, but I have yet to actually see you show anything. Honestly, though, I can’t say that it’s a point that really matters in the larger scheme of things.

    The goals of feminism are what feminists say and do when it matters, not some token catchphrase they don’t actually follow. I’ve shown that the most influential feminist group in the UK isn’t working towards true egalitarianism, as they are happy to work against it when it doesn’t go in women’s interest.

    That’s a problematic way to define feminism. This basically makes “feminism” as a concept completely amorphous depending on the actions of whoever happens to call themselves feminists. I prefer the dictionary definition: “The advocacy of women’s rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men.” Another apt definition is from Cheris Kramarae: “Feminism is the radical notion that women are human beings.” There are many feminist movements, and they take many different avenues toward this goal, some completely off-track. I’m not saying that those who dump on the male half of the population in pursuit of equality aren’t true feminists, but I will say that they’re really crappy feminists who are working against their own goals. There are also a large number of people who are feminists or pro-feminists (even if they don’t call themselves that because of the stigma of Hollywood’s infamous Straw Feminist) and work against these kinds of misconceptions about males. What does your definition say about these people? They don’t exist? They’re No True Feminist?

    As Schala says, Real Scientists distance themselves from Hollywood Science, they make it clear that they do not endorse it. Plus Hollywood Science is presented as fiction and not representative of Real Science. This is the exact opposite of the advocacy of prominent feminist groups who represent “Feminism”.

    Not really. Hollywood Science generally refers to something presented as real science that is actually quite false. Look at Goal Oriented Evolution and Evolutionary Levels. These, and many subtropes like it, are very popular ideas about what actual science claims among the public. I talked with someone just the other day who believed that Goal Oriented Evolution was actually a thing among scientists. Obviously, if Real Scientists are trying to make it clear that they don’t endorse this stuff, it’s not working so well. Besides that, it should be noted that feminism isn’t a science, but a civil rights movement. There’s research to support feminist ideas, granted, but the heads of major activists organizations are likely not experts in feminist theory, but simply very passionate laypeople. As such, the prominent feminist groups can’t be expected (even if it would be nice if they could) to be the gold standard of what is Real Feminism as one can with scientists in general (though not necessarily in particular) and Real Science.

    And feminism as executed by feminists is feminism. There is no external standard to say that any particular part is “poorly executed”. So I don’t see it as unreasonable to judge feminism by the things that feminists say and do, with more weight given to those feminists who are most influential.

    Well, it’s “feminist activist,” I suppose. Let me go with another analogy with the atheist movement. Would you say that atheism as executed by atheists is atheism? If so, then there have definitely been some very influential atheists such as Kim Jong Il, Benito Mussolini, Mao Zedong, Pol Pot, and Joseph Stalin. These guys were pretty horrible, and part of that was suppression of religion in order to promote atheism. Given that these were the despotic leaders of whole countries, which is quite a bit more influential in my book than a mere lobby, does that mean that we should define the atheist movement as the attempt to forcibly and often violently suppress religions? Heck, if all the major atheist advocacy groups decided to take some crazy pills and adopted the belief that all theists should be executed, would that justify judging any atheist joe off the street the same?

    How about they just stop defending and covering for those feminists they disagree with anyway, just to deflect any criticism of the feminist label? That would be a good start. Plus some acceptance from them that they are voluntarily and intentionally associating themselves with people who are working to screw over men and are working against equality.

    Okay. I mean, I haven’t seen any feminists do that, personally. In fact, I’ve seen feminist bloggers specifically call out other feminists or organizations for just that kind of thing. If you come across someone who is supporting a person or organization that you know disagrees with their stated values, by all means bring it up. I’m sure, so long as you aren’t confrontational about it, they’ll be happy to have it brought to their attention, and if they’re not then they obviously aren’t great at the skepticism thing. So it goes.

    I reject all of that. Hitchen’s Razor.

    I find that troublesome. Let me start with an example similar to what we’ve been discussing: parenting rights. Now, just last night my wife and I were out with another couple, and she and the female half of the other couple spent much of the time talking in Mandarin, of which the male of the other couple and I understand little. Turns out, as my wife relayed later, that part of what they were talking about is how tired her friend is from taking care of their baby. She said that she’ll ask her husband to take care of their kid for an hour so she can rest, and his response will basically be “I worked all day, I just want to rest when I’m home.” She tells her own parents about it and they respond with “He works and you just sit around the house all day doing nothing, so why should he help you?” Her response to that, of course, was “If taking care of our baby is doing nothing, why is it such a problem for him to do nothing for an hour so I can take a break?” A valid criticism. This isn’t an isolated thing, either, as I’ve talked to many men in my company who are married with children and if I ask them if they go home and take care of housework or take care of the kids at all, their general response ranges from “Hell no, I work all day and she sits on her fat ass and doesn’t do squat” to a noncommittal “I might wash the dishes or something.” So the task of raising children and doing domestic chores, which I don’t think I have to convince you are gendered as “female,” are seen as “doing nothing,” while the male activity of working is seen as laudable and deserving of a break with no concern given to the fact that his wife probably worked just as hard for even longer. Further, men who are stay-at-home dads are usually criticized as lazy bums who need to get off their asses and support their families, while women are still generally expected not to work, at least once they have kids. It’s not too difficult to find research that supports the view that women are basically viewed as less competent than men (by both men and women), even when actual achievements are equal, and furthermore that they are not held to the same expectations of achievement and power that men are, instead being held to standards of warmth, caring, passivity… all the characteristics of the ideal subordinate, basically. Do these perceptions of women as the meek submissive favor them at times? Sure, because if you think of women as weak little children, then of course they can’t possibly harm a man so why would you believe a man when he says his wife is abusing him? He’s supposed to be the dominant, powerful, alpha-male. That doesn’t change the fact that this comes from a view of women as inferior, though, and I don’t see how anyone could honestly claim otherwise given the pervasive evidence throughout the societies of the world.

    I must say that I haven’t seen this. The only occasions I can think of that that might be interpreted this way is if feminists are working towards something that will help women but at a greater detriment to men. That is, they are engaging in women’s advocacy that runs counter to equality and egalitarianism.

    I note you have some rhetorical wiggle room with that statement. I’ve certainly seen many attempts to undermine legitimate women’s issues framed as being in defense of men’s issues, but I often don’t see it. One example that I’ve seen is the practice of going into any thread discussing FGM and crying about male circumcision, often with the implicit or explicit suggestion that anyone who campaigns against FGM must devote time toward campaigning against circumcision. Philosophically, I would agree that those opposed to one should be opposed to the other; however, there’s a huge practical disconnect there in that activists should not be expected to campaign against everything they think is wrong or provide equal time to all their issues. If you find it important, you go do something about it and don’t smear people or organizations for not going after your pet issue instead of or in addition to your own. Another thing I’ve seen is the huge uproar about providing very basic sexual harrassment policies at conventions. Plenty of MRAs were howling about how their rights as men were being infringed, even though there was a documented problem of women being harrassed. Sure, their “free speech” was being curtailed a little bit, but how having to watch your mouth and/or behavior at the risk of being asked to kindly stop by security if you don’t or be removed from the premises if you continue or your behavior is especially heinous is a worse violation of a man’s rights than being sexually harrassed and in some cases sexually assaulted is of women’s rights is beyond me. Further, there’s also been plenty of talk coming from that side that women who report domestic violence or rape are “probably” lying. That is exactly the wrong answer. We do have an ideal in which people are considered innocent until proven guilty, but that does not mean that we should consider those who bring charges as liars until proven truthful. The point is to suspend judgment until conclusive evidence is found, but the common refrain I see from MRAs and other antifeminists seems like more victim-blaming.

    Have you seen the other Malestrom thread where Ally has pointed out that Feminists have systematically covered up domestic abuse where men are the victims for the past 30 years?

    I have, and I believe I made a comment concerning that somewhere, though I’m loathe to go through the trouble of looking it up among the figurative skyscraper of comments (I believe there was some point where it was being compared to the Roman Catholic Church, a comparison which really falls flat). Again, though, that kind of behavior is wrong and certainly runs counter to the achievement of the basic goal of feminism since it perpetuates the stereotype of women as weak and inferior. Other feminists recognize this and have pointed out the hypocrisy of just this kind of behavior.

    Anyway, I’d love to expound more on this topic, but it’s eaten up three hours of my day already, so I’ll just leave it at that.

  416. Adiabat says

    Michaelbrew: Wow, long comment. I hope you don’t mind if I don’t respond to every point. Though let me know if there’s some specific point I miss that you want a response to.

    Nothing really explicit. I think that impression mostly comes from your using it as the example for the reasons you’re antifeminist and that you condemn those who support the organization at all. It honestly seems a bit disproportional to me given that they seem to be genuinely receptive to criticism, having changed their positions on issues when there’s been a push-back.

    Antifeminist is a bit strong. I think there are serious problems with feminism as it currently manifests itself, and I don’t see it as getting any better on its own without significant outside pressure. My own view is that I would rather see a reformed feminist movement than a prominent men’s movement as they already have the infrastructure in place and the influence.

    As for the Fawcett Society changing position: this was only as a result of it being shown how the changes helped women; they were, and still are, happy to screw over men. I can’t believe you don’t have a problem with this.

    I may have missed the post in which you provided proof that they’ve actually pushed for laws that are harmful for men, but I have yet to actually see you show anything. Honestly, though, I can’t say that it’s a point that really matters in the larger scheme of things.

    I linked and quoted their official statement to the government regarding a bill that will, among other things, establish an assumption of shared parenting in the family courts. They oppose that and give a sexist reason about men being abusers. (Post 44)

    As for that last line, well it matters to men, to fathers who aren’t happy in a relationship but who are scared of losing contact with their kids just because they went out to work instead of stayed home and worked, and I think that line from you saying it doesn’t matter epitomizes my main criticism of feminism. Providing the means to buy food is just as loving and valuable to a child as being the one who cooks it. I think there’s a massive double standard at work when people see work outside the home as somehow “less valuable” than work in the home, when it comes to caring for your family.

    That’s a problematic way to define feminism. This basically makes “feminism” as a concept completely amorphous depending on the actions of whoever happens to call themselves feminists.

    That’s the way it is for all other groups , why should feminism be any different?

    The Labour party in the UK is supposed to be about representing the interests of the working class. If I use the fact that they haven’t actually done that for the last 30 years to criticise them they don’t get to quote definitions at me or direct me to their “about” on their website to deflect the criticism. As it stands, due to the actions of the prominent members of the labour party their “actual definition” has changed from their “formal definition”.

    I’m not saying that those who dump on the male half of the population in pursuit of equality aren’t true feminists

    And that’s a major problem with feminism today.

    There are also a large number of people who are feminists or pro-feminists (even if they don’t call themselves that because of the stigma of Hollywood’s infamous Straw Feminist) and work against these kinds of misconceptions about males. What does your definition say about these people?

    That they don’t matter. That the harm they do by giving credibility to, and covering for, the powerful feminists who screw men over outweighs the good they do. If they were more influential in the movement they might matter more.

    Not really. Hollywood Science generally refers to something presented as real science that is actually quite false.

    It’s fiction. I think you give the average movie-goer a disservice if you think they believe everything that’s in a film. People know that Laser guns and spaceships aren’t real science, yet. They also know that you can’t drill down to the core and set off a nuke, possibly encountering dinosaurs on the way (I think I’m mixing my films up :)).

    If you come across someone who is supporting a person or organization that you know disagrees with their stated values, by all means bring it up.

    Urm, Michael… you are one of those feminists I’m pointing this out to, and you are defending the feminist group instead of criticizing them.

    RE: ‘Women seen as inferior’ theory, with childcare as example.

    In your own example you’ve shown that people in your country think that childcare is easy, but have also shown that they think this whether it is a man or woman who is providing this childcare. This doesn’t support your theory that women are seen as inferior, just that people are ignorant of how hard childcare can be.

    And I don’t see how men being forced to do, what is perceived to be, more demanding work is evidence for the “women are seen as inferior” argument. For millennia it has been the peasants who have been forced into demanding work and the aristocracy who have been allowed to “sit on their fat asses”. Your example just positions women as an aristocracy being provided for by the labour of the peasants, in the eyes of society. So women aren’t seen as inferior, but superior. The irony is that childcare is actually hard and we are all peasants.

    Your theory depends on defining ‘superior’ and ‘inferior’ certain ways which all but guarantees that when you apply the definition to cultural norms it returns the result you want: that women are seen as inferior. It’s the same cultural-relativism problem anthropologists have when determining which culture is “superior” or “inferior”. If you define it one way, prioritising technology for example (“a culture is superior if it is more technologically advanced”), you get one answer and if you prioritise, say happiness (“a superior culture is one where people are happiest”), you may get the opposite answer.

    In your case you are prioritising things typically associated with male, such as a willingness to sacrifice family life to gain more earning power and status, while downplaying things associated with female, such as being the primary influence on the next generation.

    Perhaps we should start from the beginning: what do you mean by inferior?

    As this post has already got long enough I’m going to leave it there.

  417. says

    Re: “Only men can stop rape.”

    Yet, the phrase is still quite offensive, because feminists know well that only a minority of men rape, but they are implying it is the responsibility of other men (but not women) to protect them, and that other men have the power to do so. You of course entirely agree.

    I think this still misunderstands what the phrase was meant to convey. I have never heard anyone make a statement about this that implied that it had anything do with men protecting women until today. I never thought it had anything to do with other men, outside of the potential rapist, having the power to stop it or to protect women. Isn’t the point of this phrase similar to the “Don’t be that guy” campaign in Canada? It is poorly phrased and somewhat inaccurate, but I do not think it means what many people think it means.

  418. Sid says

    Travis – the men can stop rape campaign is all about recruiting and training men to challenge other men and protect women, its like a updated version of aspects of the knights/gallantry code.

    Its pretty disgusting and irresponsible given that the science us telling is IPV is not gendered and highly correlated with adverse childhood experiences.

  419. Isaac Evans says

    Why is the family court patriarchal, when it harms both women and men with its prejudice? Men are deprived of child rearing rights, women are defined as mothers – this doesn’t really seem to me like one gender dominating another. One set of ideas dominating everyone, with gendered effects, but not a set of ideas that necessarily originates or benefits one side entirely.

  420. says

    Anyone that advocates genital mutilation of EITHER sex of infant or helpless children in general deserves to be tortured to death. Genital mutilation of children is EVIL ! And so are the “people” doing, and advocating for it. Time to take those mentally ill defectives out of the Gene Pool once and for all !!!

Trackbacks

Leave a Reply

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

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