The horrors of home circumcision and why intactivists share the blame »« This week’s witterings at large

Can you make me shut up for a few hours?

Silence is not golden. Silence is corrosive, toxic, deadly.

Looking at the theme and nominated target areas for this year’s International Men’s Day, this Tuesday, 19th November, it occurred to me that this was a common theme running through most of the issues.

The theme for 2013 is, “Keeping Men and Boys safe” and the nominated target areas are:

  • Keeping men and boys safe by tackling male suicide;
  • Keeping boys safe so they can become tomorrow’s role models;
  • Tackling our tolerance of violence against men and boys;
  • Boosting men’s life expectancy by keeping men and boys safe from avoidable illness and death;
  • Keeping men and boys safe by promoting fathers and male role models.

It is well established that men and boys are less likely than their female equivalents to seek help and support with their physical and mental health; they are less likely to report being the victims of domestic or sexual violence or to seek help and advice afterwards. They are less likely to report bullying; less likely to report abuse; less likely to turn to friends or family to offload in times of crisis or loneliness.

This is not a random product of chromosomes or some bizarre genetic mutation. It is actively manufactured by our society, beaten into us, both emotionally and physically from the day we are born,  and frankly, it sucks.

Nor is it just individuals. Men, collectively, are bloody awful at standing up for our needs. We’re men. We don’t need help. What kind of wimps do you think we are? The consequence of that is to actively discourage those individuals who do need help from seeking it. Man up. Boys don’t cry. Take it like a man. Be strong. Be brave. Literally destroy yourself before admitting to a weakness.

Well fuck that for a game of soldiers.

So when a brilliant charity on my own doorstep, Survivors Manchester, decided to mark IMD13 with a sponsored silence to raise both funds and awareness for male victims of rape and sexual abuse, it struck me as a profoundly brilliant, if rather ironic gesture. It is particularly timely, as I have recently been badgering a few politicians about the ineligibility of Survivors Manchester and similar organisations for the government’s Rape Support Fund. This week my MP forwarded on a letter to me from Chris Grayling, Justice Secretary, which boasted that through the Witness and Victim General Fund, support services for male victims of sexual assault and domestic violence across England are being funded by the government to the tune of £580,000 per year. His letter did not mention that the Home Office’s Violence Against Women and Girls programme is funding similar projects to a total of nearly £40 million over three years. (That is still not enough, I hasten to add)  Meanwhile Survivors Manchester gets by largely on the goodwill of volunteers, private donations, a wing and a (secular) prayer. To get a sense of the importance of their work, I urge you to browse their brilliant recent booklet: Breaking the silence

So, it’s time to put your money where my mouth is, if you know what I mean.

Since I work from home, and rarely speak a word to a human being until the kids get home, I’m taking the much more challenging (for me) commitment that for six hours on Tuesday 19th November, from 9am-3pm (GMT) I will maintain complete internet silence. No Tweets, no updates, no blogging, no arguing below the line, no commenting, no trolling politicians for lulz. Nada. I might just burst.

 

Survivors Manchester tell me that:

£55 can provide a peer-support group session for up to 12 male victim of sexual abuse or rape.
£35 can provide a counselling session for a male victim of sexual abuse or rape.
£20 can help to pay for a peer support session for survivors
£10 can buy the first positive step for a male victim in need – telephone support
Enjoying the blissful silence of an Ally-free internet for only a penny per minute would cost you just £3.60.

If you could spare a any amount to make the stress worth my while, we’d all be really grateful. The giving page is here. 

Thank you.

Ally
x

 UPDATE 19/11/13

Well, I made it.

It actually turned out to be more difficult than I imagined – I had forgotten that International Men’s Day is also one of my most demanding Argue-With-People-On-the-Internet days of the year! So I spent my six hours of exile productively, doing a post for the Independent that covers much of the same ground as above, with a few added digs at the cynics.

More importantly, I raised loads of money to Survivors Manchester. I’ll be honest, when I first thought of doing this, I hoped I would raise at least £50 – anything less would have felt slightly underwhelming. I secretly hoped that I might raise £100 which – considering that it was just a little sponsored silence at a few days notice – would have been fantastic.

Well, at the time of writing I have actually raised over £150 which I’m absolutely delighted with. Thank you so much to everyone who chipped in and coughed up, or who helped to share the link or just offered support. It is hugely appreciated. You are all wonderful. When I find out the total raised by the whole IMD Break The Silence team I’ll let you know.  And if you never got around to it… the donation  page will remain open not just for the rest of today, but until the end of the year.

In the meantime, happy International Men’s Day to you all.

Comments

  1. pikeamus says

    That’s a hard sell right there, you are asking us to donate money to something which is against our interests. After all, we benefit from your internet output :)

  2. 123454321 says

    Brilliant and thank you. Nowhere near enough funding yet but that’s down to several factors including lack of communication across media platforms (except for the internet where these male issue discussions are rife), feminist dominance (those who shout loudest, strength in numbers etc.) and people’s unfortunate levels of tolerance or acceptability when it comes to male suffering.

    Love the article. Spot on.

  3. says

    Ally, thanks for this, I’ll put a link to the piece on our blog. There is of course a ‘chicken and egg’ situation here. One reason men often don’t seek help is that they’ve learned that when they do, there’s little or no support available – certainly true of the state, but often from families and friends too, including male family members and friends, it has to be said. On one of our blog pieces a (female) social worker reported that when a homeless woman contacts her on a Friday afternoon she’s required to supply her with what she requests of the following – accommodation, clothing, food, money. When a homeless man contacts her, she’s required to sent him back to the street with NOTHING. Homelessness is of course a major risk factor for suicide, 90% of homeless people are men, and British men are three times more likely than British women to commit suicide. It’s not too hard to join up the dots, is it?

    Mike Buchanan

    JUSTICE FOR MEN & BOYS
    (and the women who love them)

  4. John Morales says

    Mike Buchanan @3:

    JUSTICE FOR MEN & BOYS
    (and the women who love them)

    I take that’s a sig; but I wonder justice for others is on your radar.

    (JUSTICE FOR THE JUST!
    and those who love them)

  5. says

    John Morales @4

    I haven’t the slightest idea what a ‘sig’ is, nor why you might ‘wonder justice for others is on your radar’. Perhaps you’d be so good as to enlighten me, as well as others who follow Ally’s blogs with interest? Thank you.

  6. mildlymagnificent says

    OK. My credit card is strong enough to take a little hit for a good cause. (Though I suppose I should find out what’s around in Oz as well.)

  7. John Morales says

    [OT]

    Because you ask, Mike, I here elucidate: when you quantify only a subset of the population for your advocacy, it implies that such advocacy is not extended to the superset, else you’d not employ such qualification.

    (Yes, I understand that you probably intended to indicate that your stated subset was in particular need of justice within the scope of your concern on a comparative basis)

    Regarding the meaning of ‘sig’, that is internet slang for a signature block.

  8. Peter L says

    Hi John Morales
    I believe I’ve got your gist about selective advocacy, I only wonder whether you’ve applied the same argument to a militant feminist outlook, if not, why not?

  9. John Morales says

    [OT]

    Peter L, my response @7 was couched in general terms and did not rely upon an extrapolated attribution of any particular outlook, but rather upon the semantics of the exhortation, so that if a militant feminist exhortation were to parallel its form, then my contention would perforce equally apply to it.

  10. says

    Men, collectively, are bloody awful at standing up for our needs. We’re men. We don’t need help. What kind of wimps do you think we are? The consequence of that is to actively discourage those individuals who do need help from seeking it. Man up. Boys don’t cry. Take it like a man. Be strong. Be brave. Literally destroy yourself before admitting to a weakness.

    There’s survival value to this behavior, Ally.

    I’m not saying the behavior isn’t damaging, but there is survival value there.

  11. Ally Fogg says

    JohnMorales (and everyone)

    No offence John, but we recently spent three blogposts and about a thousand comments picking apart the details of Mike’s politics and his organisation – the threads are still open if you look and you want to post there, or you could click through on Mike’s log in to go to his own site and discuss it there.

    Given the nature of this thread, can I ask that it doesn’t get derailed into that argument again? Thanks all.

    (That was the polite version, the abrupt version is that any more posts about J4MB will be deleted)

  12. Ally Fogg says

    Oh and thanks to everyone, including Mike who have helped to spread the word or already donated. Much appreciated.

    A
    x

  13. Lucy says

    @Ally Fogg,

    Sounds like a good initiative.

    @Mike Buchanan

    “There is of course a ‘chicken and egg’ situation here. One reason men often don’t seek help is that they’ve learned that when they do, there’s little or no support available – certainly true of the state, but often from families and friends too, including male family members and friends, it has to be said. ”

    *Including* males family members?! Well, that’s big of you.

    If a man is in need of help and goes to a female friend or relative, he’s likely to get it. Women up and down the country are driving themselves into an early grave supporting unemployed, studying, depressed or ill husbands and boyfriends; caring for their sick and disabled children (often alone); and elderly relatives while their brothers might stretch to having them over for Christmas dinner. They do this for either no remuneration at all (because as we are already aware from the motherhood example, this is not an economically or socially valuable social service), or for a negligible full time carer’s benefit. 58% of carers in the UK, both professional and those doing it for free because nobody else will, are women

    Also, in the professional sphere, Canadian research found that female GPs tended to spend longer with patients, were more likely to prescribe recommended medication and referred more patients for further examinations.

    “On one of our blog pieces a (female) social worker reported that when a homeless woman contacts her on a Friday afternoon she’s required to supply her with what she requests of the following – accommodation, clothing, food, money. When a homeless man contacts her, she’s required to sent him back to the street with NOTHING. ”

    An anecdotal report from somebody purporting to be a female and a social worker working for a (state run?) homeless shelter is *required* to send homeless men away with nothing? If she’s genuine, it’s more likely that what she is required to do is prioritise the most vulnerable people seeking limited charitable resources.

    “British men are three times more likely than British women to commit suicide.”

    Three times more successful not three times more likely to try; reported suicide attempts and thoughts are much more common among females than males.

    Females attempt suicide at a higher rate than males, but they are more likely to use methods that are less immediately lethal such as overdose. Males frequently complete suicide via high mortality actions such as hanging, carbon-monoxide poisoning, and gun violence.

    Schrijvers, Didier. “The gender paradox in suicidal behavior and its impact on the suicidal process”. Journal of Affective Disorders 138 (2): 19–26.

  14. sirtooting . says

    Who kills millions of men? oh yeah millions of men.. who kills millions of women? .. oh yeah, millions of men.

    He man, macho man, loves his violent video war games, he loves the idea he is a hero .. And to be classed a hero, first he needs someone to save..
    The smell of burning martyr .. Resonates in the air ..

    He man, macho man, armed himself to the teeth and HE decided in times of his wars, woman shouldn’t be.
    He was all in favour in not arming her just as much as he was in favour of killing her whilst unarmed.
    Men had the Male privilege of dropping bombs on women.

    He man, macho man, loves playing the martyr.
    Men act in dramas of their own making, they design the sets, write the scripts and tell women.. no no .. you have no parts in our plays, except one role we have designated yours & only yours .. and you will be trees .. observe us in our plays .. we write all the lead roles for ourselves, we men will play everyone of them .. watch us do this & that .. no no we already said, you can’t have any involvement and you can’t participate, these plays are about men and men’s potential and women’s are just irrelevant in our plays .. you are there to applaud us, and nothing else .. we will take our bows, and you just applaud or else..

    He man, macho man had all the space in the world for his potential to flourish, and he made sure, he had all the space he needed, by pushing woman’s over a cliff.
    He sacrificed it, he suffocated it, he stifled it, he made damned certain it would never have the chance to flourish.
    Women are supposed to adapt themselves to what the male wants, in his world, where he barely tolerates the trees, especially when the trees begin to uproot and move from here to there and flower, not happy with that, the macho man calls out quick start chopping of their branches, they are getting to big for their roots ..

    He man, macho man, is helped every day, by his mother, sisters, wife, partner, but they are roles he man doesn’t acknowledge as existing, as relevant in his fantastical he man macho world, because that would make them heroic, not him.

  15. Lucy says

    The role that gender plays as a risk factor for suicide has been studied extensively. While females tend to show higher rates of reported nonfatal suicidal behavior, males have a much higher rate of completed suicide. A 2008 study of suicide attempts by gender found that females have a higher rate of suicide than males earlier in life, which decreases with age. For males the rate of attempted suicide remains fairly constant when controlled for age. Males and females also tend to differ in their methods of suicide and responses to suicidal feelings.

    Factors

    Many researchers have attempted to find explanations for why gender is such a significant indicator for suicide. One common explanation relies on the social constructions of hegemonic masculinity and femininity. In a review of the literature on gender and suicide, male suicide rates were explained in terms of traditional gender roles. Male gender roles tend to emphasize greater levels of strength, independence, and risk-taking behavior.

    Reinforcement of this gender role often prevents males from seeking help for suicidal feelings and depression.
    Numerous other factors have been put forward as the cause of the gender paradox. Part of the gap may be explained by heightened levels of stress that result from traditional gender roles. For example, death of a spouse and divorce are risk factors for suicide in both genders, but the effect is somewhat mitigated for females. In the Western world, females are more likely to maintain social and familial connections that they can turn to for support after losing their spouse. Another factor closely tied to gender roles is employment status. Males’ vulnerability may be heightened during times of unemployment because of gendered expectations that males should provide for themselves and their families.

    It has been noted that the gender gap is less stark in developing nations. One theory put forward for the smaller gap is the increased burden of motherhood due to cultural norms. In regions where the identity of females is constructed around the family, having young children may correlate with lower risks for suicide. At the same time, stigma attached to infertility or having children outside of marriage can contribute to higher rates of suicide among women.

    In 2003, a group of sociologists examined the gender and suicide gap by considering how cultural factors impacted suicide rates. The four cultural factors; power-distance, individualism, uncertainty avoidance, and masculinity, were measured for 66 countries using data from the World Health Organization. Cultural beliefs regarding individualism were most closely tied to the gender gap; countries that placed a higher value on individualism showed higher rates of male suicide. Power-difference, defined as the social separation of people based on finances or status, was a negative correlate to suicide, however countries with high levels of power-difference had higher rates of female suicide. The study ultimately found that stabilizing cultural factors had a stronger effect on suicide rates for women than men.

    Methods of suicide are frequently correlated with both with traditional gender roles and availability of different methods. Females may tend towards less lethal methods of suicide because of gendered ideas about attractiveness.

    What’s your position on individualism, Mike?

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

  16. says

    Lucy, I hadn’t planned to post any more comments in this comment stream, but you’ve forced my hand. I’ve written extensively about gender differences with respect to suicide, most notably in my last book, and I’m really not prepared to simply type out the same points for the 100th time. But I will say this. British women ‘attempt’ suicide 3x more frequently than British men, but the latter are ‘successful’ 3x more often. So the ‘completion rate’ is 9x higher. Researchers in this field know very well that a far higher proportion of women than men ‘attempt’ suicide as a cry for help, in the confident expectation the state and/or family and/or friends will rally around – because society CARES about women, in a way it doesn’t care for men.

    You write:

    “Females may tend towards less lethal methods of suicide because of gendered ideas about attractiveness.”

    Oh, right, so a woman who genuinely plans to commit suicide won’t (say) jump off a tall building, or throw herself under a train, because of ‘gendered ideas about attractiveness’?

    Every suicide is a tragedy, and I’ve personally known several women who’ve ‘attempted’ suicide. In most cases the ‘attempt’ was a small overdose of pills – typically paracetamol – then a swift call by them (or a friend or family member) for an ambulance. All got the support they wanted, and none suffered any health damage.

    As far as I’m concerned, blaming men for their failure to act like women at times of crisis – or ‘gendered ideas’ or ‘gender expectations’ – is akin to kicking their corpses. I have nothing more to say on the subject.

  17. carnation says

    @ Mike Buchanan

    I’m just about to make my first donation.

    I will donate a further £27.50 if you do the same, and together we will have provided enough for a support session? We were, after all, going to split the cost of Ally’s electoral deposit not so long ago!

    Interested?

  18. Lucy says

    @Mike Buchanan

    Researchers know that women attempt suicide more often as a cry for help?

    A) that was entirely predictable of you.
    B) which researchers?
    C) you are falling into exactly the trap of gender stereotyping that suicide researchers (actual researchers) point to as being responsible for some of the discrepancy in male and female recorded rates: ie. suicide carrying more stigma for women, health professionals and coroners not recording it as such.

    “Oh, right, so a woman who genuinely plans to commit suicide won’t (say) jump off a tall building, or throw herself under a train, because of ‘gendered ideas about attractiveness’?”

    No, she will generally take either prescription or household poison for a variety of reasons ranging from availability, lower levels of aggression and tolerance for violence, precedent, stigma, concerns for those who will find her body, to ideas about attractiveness.

    Payne, Sarah, et al. “The social construction of gender and its influence on suicide: a review of the literature”. Journal of Men’s Health 5 (1): 23–35.
    Schrijvers, Didier. “The gender paradox in suicidal behavior and its impact on the suicidal process”. Journal of Affective Disorders 138 (2): 19–26.

    And I really don’t think it’s for you to determine what counts as a genuine suicide attempt, do you? Particularly when you are using the inherently flawed benchmark of one gender’s typical behaviour to make that judgement.

    “Every suicide is a tragedy, and I’ve personally known several women who’ve ‘attempted’ suicide. In most cases the ‘attempt’ was a small overdose of pills – typically paracetamol – then a swift call by them (or a friend or family member) for an ambulance. All got the support they wanted, and none suffered any health damage.”

    Oddly I only know one. And I don’t consider it in the same light.

    “As far as I’m concerned, blaming men for their failure to act like women at times of crisis – or ‘gendered ideas’ or ‘gender expectations’ – is akin to kicking their corpses. I have nothing more to say on the subject.”

    Where did I do that?

    The only person I’m blaming round here is you for trying to score cheap points over suicide rates based on poor. anecdotes, apparently poor understanding of the research, sexist prejudice and unimaginative assumption.

    If high male suicide rates were a genuine concern of yours, you wouldn’t be pushing an individualistic social agenda and traditional gender roles, because those, not homelessness and not (alleged) charitable workers, are the main causes.

  19. 123454321 says

    “Who kills millions of men? oh yeah millions of men.. who kills millions of women? .. oh yeah, millions of men.”

    …which leaves one wondering why millions of Mothers from past generations had no reservations bringing up their Sons to be big and strong in order to go down mines, shovel shit, build our infrastructure and, oh yeah, unreservedly send them into battle in order to protect and save the sisterhood.

    You whine about men being involved with violence but I rarely see Mothers discouraging their Sons from playing with violence-related toys or games. In the most part they let them carry on. It’s probably all in the genetic programming, but it stinks all the same.

    Besides, you’re wrong. Far more men get injured or killed than women. It’s always been like that.

    It’s called evolution, Sirtwating, and, unfortunately for the male, they always get the the shitty end of the stick!

    Time for a change, me thinks. Or at least educate people to understand what the truth is and stop bullshitting.

  20. Lucy says

    People who’ve survived suicide attempts have reported wanting not so much to die as to stop living, because life has become unbearable. Professionals talk in terms of risk factors rather than causes, and those are:

    Mental disorders, including major depressive episodes leading to disordered thinking
    Substance misuse, including alcoholism, most significant during withdrawal phase
    Medical conditions
    Rational
    Problem gambling
    Psychosocial states which can create poor impulse control
    Media, suicide contagion

    There are 10-20 million non-fatal suicide attempts each year with 800,000 “completed” ones.

    In light of this, other than in the rational category, it doesn’t even make sense to talk about “genuinely” wanting to die. In any field of health and psychosocial experience or behaviour it certainly doesn’t make sense to use generic indicators between males and females as their physical and mental biology and social behaviour is markedly different. In most definitely doesn’t make sense to use the male template of poor impulse control as the universal benchmark of what is “genuine”.

  21. Lucy says

    “…which leaves one wondering why millions of Mothers from past generations had no reservations bringing up their Sons to be big and strong in order to go down mines, shovel shit, build our infrastructure and, oh yeah, unreservedly send them into battle in order to protect and save the sisterhood.”

    Save the sisterhood? 90% of casualties in male cluster-carnage are civilians.

    It’s bad enough that men insist on having violent meltdowns perpetually somewhere in the world, every single day since the beginning of recorded history (and no doubt before), bad enough that they invest billions of pounds in doing it bigger and better, bad enough we pay them a salary for it rather than expecting them to do it for love like child rearing, bad enough that they want to be awarded medals for it, bad enough that the country had to grind to a halt each year to indulge it, but now you want to palm it off on women?!? Well you’ve got style, I’ll give you that.

    And for the last time: women mined too. And children. They just got paid half the men’s salary for doing it. I went on a mine tour recently, so I know this.

    Women are much less responsible for raising big burly sons than fathers are. As is evidenced by the single-mother, unburly son phenomenon.

    “You whine about men being involved with violence but I rarely see Mothers discouraging their Sons from playing with violence-related toys or games. In the most part they let them carry on. It’s probably all in the genetic programming, but it stinks all the same.”

    Well you rarely see mothers, let’s face it.

    Mothers gave no flippin idea what’s in those psycho, sociopathic computer games (built by men).

    “Besides, you’re wrong. Far more men get injured or killed than women. It’s always been like that.”

    Oh god, I warned people this would happen. Do you see now?

    “It’s called evolution, Sirtwating, and, unfortunately for the male, they always get the the shitty end of the stick!
    Time for a change, me thinks. Or at least educate people to understand what the truth is and stop bullshitting.”

    Well stop attacking each other then, problem solved. And women can come blinking out into the sun, which will be a bonus.

  22. John Morales says

    [meta]

    None taken, Ally (@11), and I apologise for inadvertently derailing this thread. I hadn’t read those posts (because I’ve only resumed reading this blog at the “witterings” post) and therefore I was ignorant of who Mike is or that he represents a political organisation or that the snippet that irritated me was that political organisation’s name.

  23. Unphysicalism says

    Of course males are more often the victims of violence. It’s natural selection. The physically inferior males deserve to be killed and/or maimed because only genetically superior breeding stock should be allowed to pass on genes. Those men who are victims of violence or rape deserve no sympathy. It’s just nature doing what it does.

    Female victims of serious violence, on the other hand, are typically a waste of resources. Unless the female is genetically defective, which few females tend to be, killing one actually lowers the reproductive capacity of the population. Males are the ones with larger variance. They are the ones that nature tends to select upon. Only rarely do females turn out to be defective enough to deserve the violence that happens to them.

    Simple efficiency. Give the money, energy, and effort toward the victims that will actually better society. That means females. The rare incident of a genetically superior male falling victim to violence is too exceptional of a case to worry about. Computation is also a limited resource, after all.

  24. John Morales says

    Unphysicalism @23, I suspect you’re trying to be satirical towards some un-named group, and indeed social darwinism is not just a discredited pseudo-science, but an amoral and pernicious one to boot which has generally been used to justify the status quo by those who are favoured by it.

    Whatever the etiology of the current situation in England, if social support services are disproportionately skewed towards women and girls, then to seek to redress that inbalance (as the inititiative to which the OP refers does) is the properly egalitarian and humanist approach.

  25. 123454321 says

    “90% of casualties in male cluster-carnage are civilians.”

    Thanks for that factoid of the freakin’ decade, which is completely false and has absolutely zero credibility in the real World. Show me official numbers for male and female deaths as a result of war.

    “bad enough we pay them a salary for it rather than expecting them to do it for love like child rearing”

    And there’s the clincher. The one, single line that says it all. You actually EXPECT men to go and fight wars for NOTHING. Says it all really, doesn’t it!

    “And for the last time: women mined too. And children. They just got paid half the men’s salary for doing it. I went on a mine tour recently, so I know this.”

    Look, there were a very small percentage of women who were actually on the coal face. Most were on the surface fulfilling safer duties. These tour guides are usually full of shit like this. Go look up how many men have been killed in mining compared to women.

    “built by men”

    …and popped in the Asda shopping trolley by Mommy.

    “Well stop attacking each other then, problem solved.”

    Cleopatra
    Aefelflaed
    Matilda of Tuscany
    Joan of Arc
    Boudica
    Queen Victoria
    Margaret of Anjou
    Lakshmibai
    Margaret Thatcher

  26. says

    And for the last time: women mined too. And children. They just got paid half the men’s salary for doing it. I went on a mine tour recently, so I know this.

    I was forced to do military duty and believe me payment did not cover the ensuing cost. Your view of the world is warped.

  27. says

    Sry quoted the wrong segment. Wanted to respond to Lucy’s very unkind characterization of men in the military, who at least historically often had no choice in the matter.

  28. sirtooting . says

    “Besides, you’re wrong. Far more men get injured or killed than women. It’s always been like that.”
    Yes it’s always been men doing the majority of the killing by 99% ..

    In the ratio of killings by gender for every one woman killed by another woman, men Statistically kill 25 men.
    Men are 24 more times likely to kill their own gender than women and it is virtually the same ratio for men killing women by the same degree.

    A total of 4,486 U.S. soldiers were killed in Iraq between 2003 and 2012.

    The Americans weep, when they hear this news, but in exactly the same period, 11,000 women in America were murdered by their husbands & partners, few weep for them with the same vigour.

    The estimated death count in the Iraq war so far range from 500,000 to 750,000.

    In March 2012, the Baghdad Provincial Council estimated, “the overall number of orphans across Iraq to be no more than 400,000,” while a UN report from 2008 estimated the number to be around 870,000.
    A large scale survey of Iraqi households by UNICEF, published in 2012, found that between 800,000 and a million Iraqi children under 18 or about 5% of Iraqi children – have lost one or both of their parents.
    Remember that is women and men killed, by men and their children are now orphans.

    Women in Iraq don’t have their basic human rights, men won’t allow them to have them & women they have died by their thousands, this doesn’t include those that are raped, kidnapped, tortured, injured, amputees, left homeless, & poverty stricken.
    He man, macho man, arms himself to the teeth and He decides in times of his wars, woman shouldn’t be.
    He man is all in favour in not arming her just as much as he is in favour of killing her whilst unarmed.
    The Male privilege, He man, Macho man, thinks very highly of himself & full of himself, full of self absorbtion, falls over himself in the rush to take us over a cliff.
    He wants to own a gun, he must own one, he loves it, it makes him feel the big I am, it makes him feel fullfilled, all cosy & warm inside..
    He wants it, Nah he needs it, it’s a He man’s must have accessory, to fire it and kill with it, it is one of his deepest desires & when he kills, he yells look at me, I am the king of the hill.
    Laughing and giggling, delerious with power and as arrogant as hell, with an over bloated ego & over estimation of his own self worth, he sees himself a hero, nay not a hero, a martyr, brave beyond compare.. Where others only see a self-centred, selfish, egocentric, egomaniacal, self-interested, self-seeking, self-regarding, self-absorbed, self-obsessed, self-loving, narcissistic, vain, conceited, self-important; drivel bound bullying self righteous violent THUG.

    The smell of burning martyr resonates in the air ..

    What’s He man got to complain about, absolutely fuck all, he thinks himself hard done by, when he doesn’t get his applause he feels certain he is due, from those he trampled on, cornered, and forced into submission by his fist he admires so much.

    It is He man, Macho man who denied another gender their rights. It is He man, Macho man who denied the female gender the chance to participate in her culture.
    It is He Man, Macho man, who denied, deny, denies women their equal rights.
    He men, Macho men all across the world, scream it from their soap boxes, you ain’t as good as us, you ain’t as valuable as us, we drum the drum, and drum it into you, we are the kings of the castle, we own everything you see .. we had a fist, a useful tool, to punch you into next week, and we did we did & still do

    It is He men, Macho men who do all the killing, try stopping them, try stopping them .. there isn’t any chance of that, absolutely none, so proud of themselves, so full of themselves, try stopping the arrogant self absorbed conceited control freaks all wound up & primed ready to kill to indulge themselves in a sadistic little thrill.

    It is He, who decided how it was all going to be, it was he who decided to control the world by violence, it was he who denied others their basic human rights, it was he, not she and she was thought irrelevant, her potential and her opinons and her value by he, and anything she ever did, was despised by he, and he called her contribution menial and trivial, and demeaned & belittled her with zeal.
    He pushed her into corners, he beat her, he raped her, he limited her opportunities, he left her with no room to manouvre, he created a cage for her, without any means of escape.
    The choice of jobs on offer to her, were limited by what he would allow & he paid her the least, because he said that was all she was worth. He denied her promotion, that was male privilege, for he man and his mates. He denied her education & access to universities, He denied she, her role models, all the female scientists, engineers, inventors, explorers, discoverers, architects, business leaders, polticians were all suffocated into oblivion by he, who denied them the space for their potential to flourish, he stifled it and said it was irrelevant, compared to his brotherhood of small minded men & he.

    He man, Macho man will deny the above, he will say he protected she and that is his propganda, the myth he wants to promote, but he only ever protected his own self interests, because it is a he man, macho man’s world, where she and her potential was thought irrelevant, and was never allowed to flourish by he.

  29. Lucy says

    @123454321

    “Thanks for that factoid of the freakin’ decade, which is completely false and has absolutely zero credibility in the real World. Show me official numbers for male and female deaths as a result of war.”

    Be reasonable, I’m not going to go through the 14.500 major wars that men have had since the beginning of recorded history (around 3700BC) which have killed about four billion people, and tell you how many of the casualties were female. The stats don’t even exist until women started having political influence and headed up NGOs and started recording them.

    I can tell you that the wars that took place in the 20th century killed around 200 million people; in the Second World War, 66 million died, compared to 15 million in the First. And that since the Second World War, there have been on average about 30 armed conflicts ongoing every year. 90% of casualties in these conflicts have been civilians, compared to 50% in the Second World War and 10% in the First. 128 armed conflicts since 1989 have resulted in at least 250,000 deaths each year.

    I can also tell you that for the most recent Iraq war, the Iraqiyun estimate is 55 percent of those killed were women, and children aged 12 and under.

    “bad enough we pay them a salary for it rather than expecting them to do it for love like child rearing”

    And there’s the clincher. The one, single line that says it all. You actually EXPECT men to go and fight wars for NOTHING. Says it all really, doesn’t it!”

    I don’t expect men to do a damn thing. But I certainly don’t think I should subsidise them if they insist on doing it. Rutting each other every Spring should be a non-remunerated hobby. In fact they should he paying the rest of us reparations.

    “Look, there were a very small percentage of women who were actually on the coal face. Most were on the surface fulfilling safer duties. These tour guides are usually full of shit like this. Go look up how many men have been killed in mining compared to women.”

    Go look up how many women get killed in childbirth compared to miners. Where are their medals, salaries and annual remembrance services?

    Right, mine tour guides are full of shit, but you are to be trusted. Women were down the mines, and above ground doing gruelling work of pulling the coal trolling and shovelling and sorting the coal, and have been for hundreds of years. They were smaller and lighter of foot like kids and they were cheaper.


    “built by men”

    …and popped in the Asda shopping trolley by Mommy.”

    Don’t be silly, Asda doesn’t even stock most of them. They are bought online by boys and men or boys and men queue for them overnight so they can get the new release (made and distributed by men).

    “Well stop attacking each other then, problem solved.”

    Cleopatra
    Aefelflaed
    Matilda of Tuscany
    Joan of Arc
    Boudica
    Queen Victoria
    Margaret of Anjou
    Lakshmibai
    Margaret Thatcher””

    Boudicca was flogged and her daughters were raped by an invading army (of thousands of imperialist men)
    Matilda was attacked (by an army of imperialist men) because the king didn’t approve of her marrying somebody she wanted to,
    Aefelflaed lands were invaded and razed (by an army of imperialist men)
    Joan of Arc lead an uprising of beleaguered people after a Hundred Years’ War fought by two armies (of imperialist men)
    Lakshmibai lead an uprising, against the British army of imperialist men
    Margaret Thatcher was defending British subjects against an invasion (by an army of imperialist men)
    Victorian wars were decided by parliament (exclusively male, mostly imperialists) not by Queen Victoria.
    I’ll give you Margaret of Angou, although to be fair, she was Queen consort, married as a teenager to a mad King, and probably had very limited influence over an exclusively male parliament, civil service and military high command.

    I wouldn’t have to say these ridiculous things if men like you didn’t say such ridiculous things you know.

  30. Lucy says

    @sheaf

    “Sry quoted the wrong segment. Wanted to respond to Lucy’s very unkind characterization of men in the military, who at least historically often had no choice in the matter.”

    A lot more choice than the unarmed civilians they displaced, raped and killed. Just following orders doesn’t really cut it does it?

  31. says

    Lucy,

    You have no idea what it is to be trapped in a military authority structure. 0 choice describes the idea absolutely. The psychological mechanisms in place are incredibly powerful, they have to be as they condition unwilling individuals to fight to their death.

  32. says

    Lucy @31:

    I can tell you that the wars that took place in the 20th century killed around 200 million people; in the Second World War, 66 million died, compared to 15 million in the First. And that since the Second World War, there have been on average about 30 armed conflicts ongoing every year. 90% of casualties in these conflicts have been civilians, compared to 50% in the Second World War and 10% in the First. 128 armed conflicts since 1989 have resulted in at least 250,000 deaths each year.

    I can also tell you that for the most recent Iraq war, the Iraqiyun estimate is 55 percent of those killed were women, and children aged 12 and under.

    I am not sure how you define civillian, perhaps its like in this study where it was defined as woman, girls and boys younger than 16 and men older than 50:

    http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/319/7207/410 :

    Subjects: 18 877 people wounded by bullets, fragmentation munitions, or mines. Of these, 2012 had been admitted to the hospital in Kabul within six hours of injury.

    See table 1 of the paper above where 26.4% of all casualties (and 18.7% of bullet casualties) are “Women and girls, boys (under 16), [and] men over 50″. If the unstated (but presumably non-zero) number of men over the age of 50 are excluded, then the figures for “women and children” must be lower.

    In short, a man between 16 and 50 cannot be a civillian by definition.
    A definition Obama recently used when counting civillian deaths from strike zones:

    Mr. Obama embraced a disputed method for counting civilian casualties that did little to box him in. It in effect counts all military-age males in a strike zone as combatants, according to several administration officials, unless there is explicit intelligence posthumously proving them innocent.

    http://www.juancole.com/2012/05/how-obama-changed-definition-of-civilian-in-secret-drone-wars-woods.html

    How male (men and boys) victimization in war are underplayed by media can be illustrated by this article:

    An annual U.N. report on civilian casualties in Afghanistan showed a 12 percent drop in civilian deaths in 2012 to 2,754, from 3,131 in 2011.

    But despite the good news, the United Nations said there had been a 20 percent increase in the number of Afghan women and girls killed or injured in 2012, with more than 300 women and girls killed and more than 560 injured.

    Which means that while 300 women and girls were killed 2,454 civilian men and boys were killed. Yet those aren’t mentioned with a word in the headline, nor in the article itself. Effectively erased.

    Which again reminds me of this interview by activist Christine Schuler Deschryver who in this interview said this:

    CHRISTINE SCHULER DESCHRYVER: They usually come at the end of the day or during the night. They just come and circle the villages. Most of the time, they killed all the men, and they take all the children, the girls, the mothers, the grandmothers as the sex slaves into the forest and steal—what can I say—everything they have…

    CHRISTINE SCHULER DESCHRYVER: Yeah, it’s a femicide, because they are just destroying the female species, if I can talk like this, because can you imagine now—in Africa, woman is the heart of family.

    Completely erasing the men who were killed – the victims of the real meaning of gendercide and even blatantly othering men by stating that women are it’s own species (“the female species”). Femicide is a popular word used about the ongoing horrible situation i Democratic Republicc of Congo – for instance by Eve Ensler and also her V-Day organization.

    Yet, when it comes to the issue of conflict rape noone seem to be particulary interested in acknowledging that:

    Women reported to have perpetrated conflict-related sexual violence in 41.1% of female cases and 10.0% of male cases.

    http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=186342

    Back to the issue of who is affected by war/conflict:

    The World Health Organization estimates that about 310 000 people died from war-related
    injuries in 2000. 0.8% of male deaths were due to war while 0.3% of female deaths were due to war. Men: 1 % of all “disability adjusted life years” (DALY) due to war, women: 0.4% of all DALY due to war. – http://www.who.int/violence_injury_prevention/violence/world_report/en/annex.pdf (page 32)

    http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/315/7120/1417?ijkey=c2f345b68b3d06eab31bf5979a239b0866455490 :

    Subjects: 2332 people who received weapons injuries during the conflict or post-conflict periods and were admitted to hospital within 24 hours of injury.

    94% (during the conflict period) and 97% (during the non-conflict period) of casualties were male. See Table 1.

  33. says

    Another interesting example where male victims of war are important not because of their own sake, but for the impact their deaths have on women (Apparently male lives has no intrinsic value.) – this time from :the UN WOMEN – United Nations Entity for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women:

    We know that in armed conflicts, it’s women who pay the highest price. Women do not ask for war. Women do not make war. Yet women are the principal victims of war: women and their children, women and their spouses, women and their siblings. With every death, it’s the parents, sibling, child or husband of a woman. So women are at the heart of the matter.

    http://www.unwomen.org/2013/05/girls-receive-a-visit-from-a-different-man-every-night-a-new-husband-saran-keita-diakite/

  34. sirtooting . says

    “Look, there were a very small percentage of women who were actually on the coal face. Most were on the surface fulfilling safer duties. These tour guides are usually full of shit like this. Go look up how many men have been killed in mining compared to women.”

    It was he who denied others their basic human rights, it was he, not she and she was thought irrelevant, her potential and her opinions and her value by he, and anything she ever did, was despised by he, and he called her contribution menial and trivial, and demeaned & belittled her with zeal.

    The choice of jobs on offer to her, were limited by what he would allow & he paid her the least, because he said that was all she was worth.
    He denied her promotion, that was male privilege, for he man and his mates. He denied her education & access to universities. He denied she, all her role models, all her role models were suffocated and stifled and buried without a trace.
    He man, couldn’t allow the female and her potential space to flourish, that would have destroyed he man’s propaganda, to allow her credit and recognition gave a value to she, she who must be promoted as worthless compared to he

    And anything she ever did, was despised by he, and he called her contribution menial and trivial, and demeaned & belittled her with zeal.

    Male Propaganda, Promote the Male, Masculinity and all things Male and anything outside of that belittle, and treat with contempt and patronise and keep drumming into them how worthless you believe they are compared to you.

    We are supposed to be in awe of the male gender, whilst they despise ours. Those days are over.

  35. sirtooting . says

    “We know that in armed conflicts, it’s women who pay the highest price. Women do not ask for war. Women do not make war. Yet women are the principal victims of war:”

    He wants to own a gun, he must own one, he loves it, it makes him feel the big I am, it makes him feel fullfilled, all cosy & warm inside..
    He wants it, Nah he needs it, it’s a He man’s must have accessory, to fire it and kill with it, it is one of his deepest desires & when he kills, he yells look at me, I am the king of the hill.

    Laughing and giggling, delerious with power and as arrogant as hell, with an over bloated ego & over estimation of his own self worth, he sees himself a hero, nay not a hero, a martyr, brave beyond compare.. Where others only see a self-centred, selfish, self-obsessed, self-loving, narcissistic, vain, conceited, self-important; drivel bound bullying self righteous violent THUG.

    The smell of burning martyr resonates in the air ..

    It is He men, Macho men who do all the killing, try stopping them, try stopping them .. there isn’t any chance of that, absolutely none, so proud of themselves, so full of themselves, try stopping the arrogant self absorbed conceited control freaks all wound up & primed ready to kill to indulge themselves in a sadistic little thrill.

    It is He, who decided how it was all going to be, it was he who decided to control the world by violence, it was he who denied others their basic human rights, it Was He, Not she.

  36. sirtooting . says

    A woman who other homeless people steal from, who is constantly badgered for sex, who is harassed and abused by men. And despite that, must seek out the company of men for protection from men.
    A compromise between degrees of abuse.
    This is what a male run totalitarian traditional culture looks like and that is it’s foundation, it is the glue that holds it together, the male collusion to maintain their power base.

    Laughing and giggling, delerious with power and as arrogant as hell, with an over bloated ego & an over estimation of his own self worth, he sees himself a hero, nay not a hero, a martyr, brave beyond compare.. Where others only see a self-centred, self-obsessed, conceited, self-important; self seeking drivel bound bullying self righteous violent THUG.

    Becoming emasculated is one of the worse fates one can suffer in a patriarchal society because it removes you from the realm of power and control.

    “Most men fear getting laughed at or humiliated by a romantic prospect while most women fear rape and death.”
    ― Gavin de Becker, The Gift of Fear: Survival Signals That Protect Us from Violence

  37. maudell says

    Wow, I guess I’m too used to hanging around feminists who question binding gender roles regardless of one’s sex. Seriously, sirtooting and Lucy, care to have a bit of empathy for a minute? This is a post about men victims of sexual abuse. Not exactly the place to write 10 posts about how male suicide or murder is ok because reasons. Your argument (men are murdered by men) is the gendered equivalent of ‘black on black crime’ arguments racists love so much.

    If you can’t see (or care) that men victims of rape carry a special burden in our culture, you are truly blinded by ideology. For anyone with actual empathy, your comments are bigoted, hateful, and seriously offensive.

  38. Zyzle says

    @maudell 39 Thank you I’ glad someone else noticed. My response to them was going to be “What about teh wimmenz!” but I didn’t think that was particularly helpful, you’ve said what I’ve been feeling reading this far more eloquently than I could have.

    @Ally Great post, definitely a cause worth supporting. I think it says a lot too that IMD has had (at least as far as I can tell) 0 media coverage and I’m sorry to admit that if it wasn’t for this post I wouldn’t have known about it either.

  39. says

    So the idea is on international men’s day, which not many people know about, you’re going to bring attention male abuse survivors and issues with boy by remaining silent?

    It’s a clever idea, but an effective one?

    Moreover, what’s with all the Social Darwinist stuff in the comment thread!?!?! Even if it is true that men’s issues are natural selection at play, we don’t need to let evolutionary pressures determine our values.

  40. Unphysicalism says

    Eugenics was never discredited. It was simply rejected by feel-good liberals. All the true leftist intellectuals supported in in the past. Adolf’s unscientific approach and irrational behavior attempting to kill off the most intelligent race on the planet (Ashkenazi Jews), simply soured the idea within the halls of academia.

    While it was true that some eugenicists went to far in overestimating the heritability of certain traits, it is nonetheless true that selective breeding and eugenics can work if done properly. Only irrational human exceptionalism could conclude otherwise, given its success with domesticated flora and fauna.

  41. Copyleft says

    A very good cause. The idea that men are expendable is one of the most toxic (and relatively unchallenged) sexist attitudes in modern society, and “shut up and take it like a man” is one of the most common ways to silence those who dare to point it out.

  42. sirtooting . says

    I don’t know how there can be any Male rape victims, when there can’t be any Female victims, according to Warren Farrell, ..
    Mr Fogg claims Warren Farrell no longer holds the views that fathers raping their daughters is A OK, and he has stipulated that several times.. in support of him.
    But Mr Farrell hold the view that, women’s experience of rape, is exactly the same as that of their rapists, (which is a good positive experience, according to Mr Farrell) , and women crying rape is just remorse.
    Mr Fogg & Warren Farrell can’t have it both ways ..

  43. 123454321 says

    #41

    “Even if it is true that men’s issues are natural selection at play, we don’t need to let evolutionary pressures determine our values.”

    Well put.

    And if they (Lucy Sirtooting and others) like to write about all this male negativity (some of which I agree with), then I ask them how THEY propose to help make things better for the majority of men who in the main are good citizens, good Fathers, Brothers, Husbands etc. living in a ‘supposedly’ modern-thinking, civilised World where they are currently treated with utter contempt?

  44. carnation says

    @ 43

    The idea that men are, indeed, expendable as a generic class is idiotic. Standard MRA fare, but idiotic.

  45. says

    carnation,

    Can you elaborate what you mean by idiotic? I ca think of many examples were men are put in riskier position than females like forced conscription in my country of birth.

  46. says

    I’ve been lurking as a reader for a while and finding your posts interesting, Ally. Have now donated and also done a small bit of signal-boosting via a post on my website. I’m a feminist, but I accept that sometimes men have particular problems that need specific targetting, and providing tailored help for male victims of sexual abuse seems like an obviously good thing. So best of luck raising money and awareness for Survivors Manchester.

  47. carnation says

    @ Copyleft

    Which feminists support the idea that men, as a generic class, are expendable? Please give examples, and discuss how these feminists consolidate this alleged expandability.

    @ Sheaf

    ” I ca think of many examples were men are put in riskier position than females”

    Yes, so can I. This isn’t, quite obviously, because they are, as a generic class, expendable. To believe that is to subscribe to the most foolish and lurid of MRA juvenila. Copyleft has added a bit of spice to this MRA fantasy with a claim that (as yet unnamed) feminists collude and support in this plot of male expandability.

    This particular theoretical folly should be filed alongside Farrell’s “bodyguard” halfwittedness.

  48. says

    caration,

    You offer no argument i your response, other than alleging: “To believe that is to subscribe to the most foolish and lurid of MRA juvenila.”

  49. carnation says

    You contend that men, as a generic class, are deemed expendable. Such a boisterously nonsensical premise is not for me to dissect but for you to defend.

  50. John Morales says

    [meta]

    sheaf @53, that seems rather sophistic: it’s tantamount to claiming you don’t know what may be wrong with that idea — and it certainly commits you to not holding the opinion that it is not the case that “men, as a generic class, are deemed expendable” — which is clearly a viewpoint about it.

  51. says

    Morales,

    sheaf @53, that seems rather sophistic: it’s tantamount to claiming you don’t know what may be wrong with that idea

    Sophistic? Are you joking? I do not know what is wrong with the idea, that is why I am asking. Claiming this behavior to be sophistic is beyond me.

    and it certainly commits you to not holding the opinion that it is not the case that “men, as a generic class, are deemed expendable” — which is clearly a viewpoint about it.

    It commits me to do this? Not at all. I could have e.g. played devils advocate to sharpen carnations senses or mine or simply be annoyed by unevidenced assertions. In this particular case this is not true: While I flinch at viewing men as political class, my everyday experience is that the vast majority of men are treated as more expendable than women, with mandatory military service and bodily disfigurement (circumcision). I am not sure about this, however, as there could be important metrics I am missing.

    Is it a viewpoint about it? This is debateable. Not holding a specific opinion is not necessarily a viewpoint, but a range of viewpoints or opinions. Like in classic philosophical terminology nontheism described theological noncognitivists and atheists alike.

  52. John Morales says

    sheaf, for this purpose, you are declaring yourself agnostic about the contention*.

    Unavoidably, you perforce do not believe in that contention’s verity.

    Not holding a specific opinion is not necessarily a viewpoint, but a range of viewpoints or opinions.

    You seem ignorant, and therefore I here introduce you to tone three-valued logic, where the truth-value of propositions is one of [true, false, unknown].

    (It is not insignificant that you don’t have an opinion about the matter; clearly, you haven’t given it particular consideration hitherto, else you’d be able to ascribe either ‘true’ or ‘false’ to that proposition; or, agnosticism by virtue of ignorance is no virtue :) )

    * Though not an argument as per your #51 but rather, an assertion.

  53. John Morales says

    [meta]

    Hm.

    I occurs to me that my previous is timestamped at November 19, 2013 at 10:23 am (UTC 0), and that Ally wrote “this Tuesday, 19th November”.

  54. says

    Morales,

    sheaf, for this purpose, you are declaring yourself agnostic about the contention*.

    Unavoidably, you perforce do not believe in that contention’s verity.

    Up to (55) I had not clarified on my epistemic position regarding the contention. A fortiori I did not declare myself agnostic up to this point, making my remarks in (55) correct.

    You seem ignorant, and therefore I here introduce you to tone three-valued logic, where the truth-value of propositions is one of [true, false, unknown].

    I prefer a baysian approach were statements are given probabilities and uncertainty is measured in probabilities of corresponding meta statements. But this is completely beside the question in any case. As for my ignorance on such topics: People who know me would be laughing their asses of right now.

    It is not insignificant that you don’t have an opinion about the matter;

    I do have an opinion on the matter. I am uncertain if it is correct. (< see: probability ad metaprobability)

    clearly, you haven’t given it particular consideration hitherto, else you’d be able to ascribe either ‘true’ or ‘false’ to that proposition;

    Your statement in general is false (before you get on my case here: I take false to mean: has vanishingly small probability of being true) as if the topic is sufficiently complex even with particular consideration informed opinions would take long to manifest, i.e. whats your opinion on entities o this list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsolved_problems_in_mathematics

    agnosticism by virtue of ignorance is no virtue

    No vice as well, if the ignorance is due to the nature of the problem rather than intellectual laziness.

  55. John Morales says

    [OT + meta]

    This really is out of topic and very meta, and in particular since I believe that Ally is now braving out the challenge of silence, so I shan’t be surprised if these comments get deleted as the noise they are in terms of the post itself.

    ( I’m taking a punt that I’m not over-testing his patience)

    So: sheaf @58, since you intimate you’ve considered the matter, I note that this further implies* that if there were anything right with the idea, there would necessarily have to be something wrong of equal weight in order for you to remain undecided regarding its wrongness.

    That is, I infer that you think there’s nothing right with the idea — if so, then what sort of merit is there in an idea which has nothing right about it? ;)

    * I’m charitably granting you honesty, since were you to be aware of anything wrong with it, then your asking your interlocutor to provide an example of such before criticising it would still seem sophistic.

  56. says

    Morales

    since you intimate you’ve considered the matter, I note that this further implies* that if there were anything right with the idea, there would necessarily have to be something wrong of equal weight in order for you to remain undecided regarding its wrongness.

    My internal probability ascribed to the idea of male desposability is >50%. I said so in my post (55). So there has to be nothing wrong of equal weight (why equal? my priors would not be 0.5 for the truth of any particular cultural theory). I am acutely aware that I could be missing metrics and therefore my certainty about this probability not being subject to strong future changes given further investigation is low. Excluding metastatements about the certainty and inductive meta statements of the same quality, this is the totality of the position I have.

    I’m charitably granting you honesty, since were you to be aware of anything wrong with it, then your asking your interlocutor to provide an example of such before criticising it would still seem sophistic.

    Why?

  57. John Morales says

    [ongoing OT]

    sheaf @60,

    My internal probability ascribed to the idea of male desposability is >50%.

    So, you’re not committed to any provisional belief about it other than that on the balance of probability and given your knowledge-base it is more likely to be true than not, yet you don’t consider that to be a viewpoint to which you are committed.

    OK.

    (Do you have an “internal probability” about the likelihood of female disposability, too?)

    I am acutely aware that I could be missing metrics …

    Care to specify some of the metrics that you’re not missing?

  58. says

    Morales,

    So, you’re not committed to any provisional belief about it other than that on the balance of probability and given your knowledge-base it is more likely to be true than not, yet you don’t consider that to be a viewpoint to which you are committed.

    Yes. I am not committed to any viewpoint in this sense. But my comment about commitment in (53) was regarding to the fact that I made of assertions in either direction in that debate so far.

    (Do you have an “internal probability” about the likelihood of female disposability, too?)

    Of course I do. The probability for it is smaller than 50% for trivial reasons.

    Care to specify some of the metrics that you’re not missing?

    Sure:
    Males around the world are liable to conscription while females are not.

    In most western countries males are more likely to be mutilated.

    Men are more likely to be the target of violence.

    Violence against women is seen as worse than violence against men.

    Sexual abuse of males is not taken seriously. (“you were raped? Was she hot?”)

    Males live shorter lives than females in most western societies, despite the fact that the gap is low to non existent if one controls for environmental factors like monestaries.

    Each of these facts increases the probability that the explaining hypothesis: Men are seen more expendable than women is true. In absence of other explanatory hypotheses this one seems pretty strong.

  59. sirtooting . says

    @123454321
    No.45

    http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/womens-blog/2013/nov/15/female-students-misogyny-british-universities-sexism-stirling

    “And if they (Lucy Sirtooting and others) like to write about all this male negativity (some of which I agree with), then I ask them how THEY propose to help make things better for the majority of men who in the main are good citizens, good Fathers, Brothers, Husbands etc. living in a ‘supposedly’ modern-thinking, civilised World where they are currently treated with utter contempt?”

    Utter contempt eh?

  60. sirtooting . says

    @123454321
    No.45

    http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/womens-blog/2013/nov/15/female-students-misogyny-british-universities-sexism-stirling

    Laughing and giggling, delerious with power and as arrogant as hell, with an over bloated ego & over estimation of his own self worth, he sees himself a hero, nay not a hero, a martyr, brave beyond compare..
    Where others only see a self-centered, self-absorbed, self-obsessed, self-loving, bullying self righteous violent THUG & he & his mafia gang penis back slap back each other whilst denigrating women for a sadistic little thrill ..

    “Most men fear getting laughed at or humiliated by a romantic prospect while most women fear rape and death.”
    ― Gavin de Becker, The Gift of Fear: Survival Signals That Protect Us from Violence.

    How do you make thing better? by stamping out tribalism, by denying it space to flourish, by challenging their perspective of themselves.

  61. 123454321 says

    sirtooting, please quit with this garbled nonsense. Ok, so you post a link to a video of a bunch of lads behaving badly. So what! I could just as easily post 100 videos of women behaving badly. There are plenty out there.

    Then you post this:

    “by challenging their perspective of themselves.”

    100% agree, and you have fell straight into my hands. Now go figure how why MRAs like Mike Buchanan and co. are challenging society to in order to overturn the thoroughly indoctrinated view that men and boys are the worthless and expendable gender. Mike is doing and encouraging EXACTLY what you suggested.

    If men had more attention paid to them with respect to political policies inc. health, education, media portrayal, family/child custody rights, law, welfare, homelessness, suicide, domestic violence etc. then our next generation of men might stand a chance of respecting themselves and others. Respect starts with yourself. It’s progressive from there on. So i’m agreeing with you.

    Boys and future generations of men don’t know it yet, but they are explicitly reliant on today’s MRAs in using the internet as a collaboration tool to stamp out feminist tribalism in the first instance. It is feminists who have had too much space to flourish, pervading every source of social media with their deep-rooted man-bashing agendas. It’s gone too far and the backlash is coming. Men of today’s generation need to be treated with the same respect as women. The rest is progressive evolution.

  62. sirtooting . says

    It was he who denied others their basic human rights, it was he, not she and she was thought irrelevant, her potential and her opinions and her value by he, and anything she ever did, was despised by he, and he called her contribution menial and trivial, and demeaned & belittled her with zeal.

    The choice of jobs on offer to her, were limited by what he would allow & he paid her the least, because he said that was all she was worth.
    He denied her promotion, that was male privilege, for he man and his mates.

    “Boys and future generations of men don’t know it yet, but they are explicitly reliant on today’s MRAs in using the internet as a collaboration tool to stamp out feminist tribalism in the first instance”.

    Well, no change there then ..
    He denied she, all her role models, all her role models were suffocated and stifled and buried without a trace ..
    He couldn’t allow the female any recognition in a culture set up to promote the male, that would have given value to she.

  63. says

    …which leaves one wondering why millions of Mothers from past generations had no reservations bringing up their Sons to be big and strong in order to go down mines, shovel shit, build our infrastructure and, oh yeah, unreservedly send them into battle in order to protect and save the sisterhood.

    Right…the men order and commit most of the violence (and nearly all of the large-scale violence), but it’s MOTHERS who get the blame? Thank you, number-twit, for showing how irredeemably stoopid (and fucking useless) the “men’s movement” can get. (Remind us again which “sisterhood” benefits from the total destruction of civil society and the means of production that tends to happen in war? I don’t see any Russian or Afghan “sisterhood” profiting from the Soviet-Afghan war.)

  64. Adiabat says

    Well done Ally!

    As soon as payday comes round and my wallet recovers from Christmas shopping expect a few more pennies in the pot.

  65. 123454321 says

    Feminist tribalism, by the way, would have been significantly advantageous to society had it not focussed explicitly on women’s issues at the expense of men and ignoring their issues. The pendulum swings and what goes up….

  66. 123454321 says

    Yes, you’re right, Sirtooting, men did indeed keep women and children in the caves and didn’t let them out for fear of danger. All in the name of privileged protection, I might add. It must have been great sitting in that nice comfy cave, all nice and warm, being brought food by those prehistoric men slaves. Then the day comes whereby civilisation matures, protective measures get put in place, legal systems become established, infrastructure is built, communication channels strengthen, the World matures and women come out of the caves.

    Then feminists exploit the power of female collaboration as well as the well-established male protection/ self-expend gene in order to have their cake and eat it.

    it may have worked for a while but it sucks and those days are numbered.

  67. 123454321 says

    raging bee – trust me, women have profited far more than men during the evolutionary term. no doubt.

  68. 123454321 says

    “(Remind us again which “sisterhood” benefits from the total destruction of civil society…”

    I think you’ll find that overall humanity has ‘constructed’ civil society rather than ‘destructed’ it. Look around you and compare against a couple of thousand years ago. Which era would you rather your Sister live in?

    “I don’t see any Russian or Afghan “sisterhood” profiting from the Soviet-Afghan war.”

    You speak of just one war. That’s just a minion in the whole scheme of things. You need to think a bit deeper and wider rather than cherry-picking evidence to suit your narrow-minded arguments.

  69. 123454321 says

    “Why should I trust you in ANY matter? It’s not like you’ve proven yourself trustworthy.”

    Spend long enough with me and I will change the way you think. Shame I don’t have much time for you.

  70. ildi says

    It must have been great sitting in that nice comfy cave, all nice and warm, being brought food by those prehistoric men slaves. Then the day comes whereby civilisation matures, protective measures get put in place, legal systems become established, infrastructure is built, communication channels strengthen, the World matures and women come out of the caves.

    Too funny! This would make a great diorama at the Creation Museum.

  71. says

    How does that work, number-twit? Are you more intelligent and honest face-to-face than you are here? It’s a pity you didn’t use your precious spare time more honestly; you might have been more convincing.

  72. sirtooting . says

    @123454321 ~ 72

    It was HE who denied others their basic human rights, it was HE, NOT SHE and SHE was thought irrelevant, her potential and her opinions and her value by HE, and anything she ever did, WAS DESPISED BY HE, and he called her contribution menial and trivial, and HE DEMEANED & BELITTLED HER WITH ZEAL.

    Of course this is what happens when a species history is 99% written by only one half of it ..

    The choice of jobs on offer to her, were limited by what he would allow & he paid her the least, because he said that was all she was worth.
    He denied her promotion, that was male privilege, for he man and his mates. He denied her education & access to universities. He denied she, all her role models, all her role models were suffocated and stifled and buried without a trace.

    Who’s history do we have? The males .. it’s full of male role models, males love to quote & praise..
    Whilst the same males, suffocated and stifled and buried females role models without a trace ..

    Men stole everything from women, their role models, their history, they denied them their human rights, they raped them, beat them cornered them and patronized them..
    Why would they do that?
    Your history books with your male role models aren’t worth spit.. they are written by self centered self worshiping conceited Criminals, with over bloated ego’s .. Praise the male whilst despising the female, force her into a corner and rape her.. that is the history we have.. that’s your male history .. The history of the conceited rapist .. There ain’t no hero’s in it
    Only a long line of conniving bullies & thugs.. Criminals who pretended to be civilized.. but they didn’t know the meaning of the word, whilst they robbed women blind..

    The history of a species written by only one half, is a one sided history, & written by Criminals to flatter villains & thugs & to praise & admire each other by.. The male mafia,

    Laughing and giggling, delerious with power and as arrogant as hell, with an over bloated ego & over estimation of his own self worth, he sees himself a hero, nay not a hero, a martyr, brave beyond compare..

    Where others only see a self-centered, self-absorbed, self-obsessed, bullying self righteous violent Criminal & THUG & he & his mafia gang penis back slap back each other whilst denigrating women for a sadistic little thrill ..

  73. sirtooting . says

    Of course this is what happens when a species history is 99% written by only one half of it ..

    The distortion of the truth becomes accepted over time as a truth and they fall over themselves to buy in to it, to believe it, because it flatters their ego’s..
    That half starts laughing and giggling, & become delirious with power and as arrogant as hell, with an over bloated ego & over estimation of their own self worth, begin to believe themselves heroes, not a bunch of Criminals, villains and thugs

    What’s that coming over the hill
    Is it a gang of monsters? Is it a gang of monsters?
    What’s that coming over the hill
    Are they monsters? monsters? Delirious with power and as arrogant as hell, & over bloated ego’s & over estimation of their own self worth. They see themselves as heroes, when all they really are, are Criminals, a Mafia gang, an old boys network, a bunch of villains and thugs, who only ever protected their own self interests

    What’s that coming over the hill.. Is it a male with an over bloated ego & so full of himself..
    What’s that coming over the hill, is it gang of Criminals, bullies, thieves, villains and thugs..
    You can bet your life it is ..
    “Boys and future generations of men don’t know it yet, but they are explicitly reliant on today’s MRAs in using the internet as a collaboration tool to stamp out feminist tribalism in the first instance”

    No change there then.. it’s nothing new..

    What’s that coming over the hill
    Is it a gang of monsters? Is it a gang of monsters? Delirious with power and as arrogant as hell, & over bloated ego’s & over estimation of their own self worth. ..
    You can bet your life it is..

  74. sirtooting . says

    Oh yeah, and don’t forget 99% of all the history you read is written by the male..

    “Boys and future generations of men don’t know it yet, but they are explicitly reliant on today’s MRAs in using the internet as a collaboration tool to stamp out feminists”

    No change there then.. Nothing new to report .. It’s all old news .. .. Move on .. There is nothing new to see here..

    What’s that coming over the hill
    Is it a gang of monsters? Is it a gang of monsters? Delirious with power and as arrogant as hell, & over bloated ego’s & over estimation of their own self worth. ..
    You can bet your life it is..

    “Men of today’s generation need to be treated with the same respect as women” “http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/womens-blog/2013/nov/15/female-students-misogyny-british-universities-sexism-stirling

    That much eh, LMAO ..I am sure women will be happily falling over themselves to oblige ..

    We are supposed to be in awe of the male gender.. Who are nothing more than a bunch of apes on a testosterone filled rampage .. I’M FIRST.. NO I AM FIRST .. NO NO , MOVE OUT THE WAY .. I’M FIRST .. move out the way OR THERE IS GOING TO BE A. PUNCH UP .. Fight , fight .. Fight .. Stomping over each the thieves split up their swag .. And pleased with themselves, they penis back slap each other.

    The Male history, a story of penis back slappers all congratulating each others crimes.

  75. sirtooting . says

    Oh Look, They find murder and rape humorous, and they believe themselves civilized, well don’t believe that hype..

    Laughing and giggling, delirious with power and as arrogant as hell, with an over bloated ego & over estimation of his own self worth, he see no evil. hears no evil and he speaks no evil, after all that would be criticizing his own gender .. it would be a criticism of himself.. so he laughs it off .. the criminal dismissive of his crimes .. oh is that all you are complaining about . I thought it was something important .. well actually. now you come to mention it .. lets look at your crime sheet .. now where shall we start .. oh you are having a laugh, there are no crimes worth mentioning.. oh no you are having a laugh .. now let look deeply into what you have done..

  76. 123454321 says

    Sirtooting,

    Show me empirical evidence of feminist collaboration having used their power to seek a desired outcome, in a particular area, which was designed to explicitly benefit men at the expense of women.

    Cuz there’s lots of examples the other way around.

    And cut with the crap because it’s wrong and boring and your stereotypical attitude that men are egotistical, power-crazed, criminals is creepy and representative of narrow-mindedness and a dysfunctional personality.

  77. sirtooting . says

    Tell us about this marriage vow? .. the wife must obey the husband .. not a relationship intended to be between two equals, but a master and slave relationship..

  78. JT says

    @sirtooting

    Did you force your wife to utter those words? How misogynist of you! All we did was make sure I knew the proper vow. “Happy wife, happy life”. :)

  79. 123454321 says

    Tell us about the marriage etiquette where a man has to get down on one knee as if he’s begging for her acceptance to marry him.

    Tell us about who has most of the spending power in the marriage.

    Tell us who has had a better deal when it comes to parental leave.

    Tell us who gets supported more by the family courts with regards to custody rights.

    Tell us who in the marriage is more likely to engage with dirty, dangerous, unsociable work.

    Tell us who from the marriage has been subject to forced conscription.

    Tell us who ends up benefiting the most from divorce.

    I could go on….and on….and on….

    Are you sure you have the master/slave relationship the right way around?

  80. sirtooting . says

    We are talking about history now, you know the 99% of it written by the male?
    So let’s look at the history of this marriage vow and how it affected women in marriage, that was not intended to be a relationship between two equals, but a master and slave relationship.

  81. JT says

    @Toot

    You should read this.

    Yesterday Today and Tomorrow

    There are two days in every week
    about which we should not worry,
    Two days which should be kept free of fear and apprehension.

    One of these days is YESTERDAY,
    With its mistakes and cares,
    Its faults and blunders,
    Its aches and pains.
    YESTERDAY has passed forever beyond our control.

    All the money in the world cannot bring back YESTERDAY.
    We cannot undo a single act we performed;
    We cannot erase a single word we said.
    YESTERDAY is gone.

    The other day we should not worry about is TOMORROW
    With its possible adversities, its burdens, its larger promise.
    TOMORROW is also beyond our immediate control.

    TOMORROW, the sun will rise,
    Either in splendor or behind a mask of clouds,
    But it will rise.
    Until it does, we have no stake in TOMORROW
    For it is as yet unborn.

    This leaves only one day – TODAY.
    Any man can fight the battles of just one day.
    It is only when you and I add the burdens of those two awful eternities
    – YESTERDAY and TOMORROW -
    That we break down.

    It is not the experience of TODAY that drives men mad.
    It is remorse or bitterness for something which happened YESTERDAY
    And the dread of what TOMORROW may bring.

    Let us, therefore, live but ONE day at a time.

    My wife is not a slave nor am I a master. Today we are equals!

  82. 123454321 says

    “We are talking about history now, you know the 99% of it written by the male?”

    Means nothing. Absolutely Jack shit.

    “So let’s look at the history of this marriage vow and how it affected women in marriage, that was not intended to be a relationship between two equals, but a master and slave relationship.”

    No. Let’s look at today and what we’re all going to do to straighten up the inequalities for men and women which will pave a better future for the next generations.

    Stuff history. It’s over. Very interesting, can learn from it somewhat, but over all the same. Move on.

  83. sirtooting . says

    This is not yesterday, this is today

    “Men of today’s generation need to be treated with the same respect as women” “http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/womens-blog/2013/nov/15/female-students-misogyny-british-universities-sexism-stirling.

    And you found it so amusing ..
    And would you have found it ajust musing if those singing, were a group of priests, singing about when they sexually abused children .. would you laugh then?

    How far back does yesterday have to be for it not to be today.. when it is happening today .. and tomorrow..
    and what about the past being part of the present.. hmm

    http://manboobz.com/category/edmonton/

  84. 123454321 says

    And once you’ve watched the video, re-read Ally’s words:

    “It is well established that men and boys are less likely than their female equivalents to seek help and support with their physical and mental health; they are less likely to report being the victims of domestic or sexual violence or to seek help and advice afterwards. They are less likely to report bullying; less likely to report abuse; less likely to turn to friends or family to offload in times of crisis or loneliness.
    This is not a random product of chromosomes or some bizarre genetic mutation. It is actively manufactured by our society, beaten into us, both emotionally and physically from the day we are born, and frankly, it sucks.”

  85. 123454321 says

    And here:

    “Nor is it just individuals. Men, collectively, are bloody awful at standing up for our needs. We’re men. We don’t need help. What kind of wimps do you think we are? The consequence of that is to actively discourage those individuals who do need help from seeking it. Man up. Boys don’t cry. Take it like a man. Be strong. Be brave. Literally destroy yourself before admitting to a weakness.
    Well fuck that for a game of soldiers.”

    And i say fuck that for a game of soldiers, too, as do many other men who are wising up to all of this shit.

  86. sirtooting . says

    You seem to be claiming something .. oh what is it? .. hmm .. oh yeah now I remember. a straw man .. what’s a straw man.

    Referring to an exception, rather than the rule, and inferring that the exception is the rule. And in your video clip, we did see women intervene and in my video clip, a woman also tried to intervene, but in both video clips, no men did ..
    Hey that is probably why so few intervened especially men, because they didn’t see those men, being in any danger..

    So explain to us, men’s violence and their irrational behaviour that leads to murder ?.. go on, have a stab at it ..

    it was striking how recognisable many aspects of the situation were. The bravado and pack culture of the “lads” shouting their song regardless of the feelings of the many other, clearly uncomfortable, people on the bus. The young woman in the forefront of the shot who sits tight lipped, checking over her shoulder now and then, evoking an all-too-familiar sense of trapped, fearful tension. The student union officer who has now apologised , and was not involved in the chanting, but can be seen walking away at the beginning of the video rather than making any attempt to challenge the misogynistic behaviour. The passive bystander.

    Then there are the lines from the song itself, each evoking an aspect of student sexism that might sound shocking to some, but will be wearily familiar to so many young women.

    The idea that sexually assaulting a woman by groping her without her consent is a big joke: “A lady came into the store one day, asking for some material … felt, she got.”

    And, finally, the joyful abandon with which painful realities are turned into a great big, “banterous” joke at women’s expense: “A lady came into the store one day, asking for a lady train … a miscarriage she got.”

    This is not a one off. This is not even unusual. In the last month alone, the Everyday Sexism Project has received more than 100 reports of similar incidents from students at universities up and down the country. It is becoming the background noise to their education. And many of these reports reflect exactly the same attitudes that emerge in the Stirling video. The message is loud and clear: sexism and sexual violence is a joke, and woe betide you if you dare to object, you frigid, uptight bitch:

    This happens every day,

    In a ratio of killings by gender for every one woman killed by a woman, men Statistically kill 25 men.
    Men are 24 more times likely to kill their own gender than women and it is virtually the same ratio for men killing women by the same degree.

  87. sirtooting . says

    @ JT ~ No. 98
    This is not manboobz ~ this is a conversation aired on a radio station, promoting men’s rights, you should be pleased such men air their views on rape.. oh yes what is the mra’s agenda on rape.. maybe it is this below..

    MRA SHITE ..
    Chatter chatter
    Nick Reading: No never means no. It only means yes. That’s an understanding that we have within the patriarchy.

    Karen Straughan: It is.

    Alison Tieman: That’s true. Actually “no” should be stricken from the English language because it simply makes no sense. How could any woman ever say no to the holy phallus unless she was criminally insane?

    Nick: Criminally insane, yes.
    Della Burton [?]: Criminally, yes.

    Karen: But, but we shouldn’t strike “no” from all the dictionaries and the lexicons of language simply because there are numerous times in the course of a day when a man loves to say “no” to a woman.

    Nick: I would almost insist on striking it from the non-male vernacular but if they didn’t scream it, how else would I get an erection?

    [Awkward pause]
    [Laughter]
    Della [?]: Oh my goodness.
    Karen: Right, you’re right.
    Della: I hadn’t even thought of that.
    Karen: So no is still in.

    @123454321
    “Show me empirical evidence of feminist collaboration having used their power to seek a desired outcome, in a particular area, which was designed to explicitly benefit men at the expense of women.”

    Yep, this is definetly one of them

    The morally bankrupt & the rape apologists ..flock together, like, flies spinning around shit..

  88. sirtooting . says

    Tell us about the marriage etiquette where a man has to get down on one knee as if he’s begging for her acceptance to marry him. ~ hmm, is this what you call oppression? LMAO

    Tell us about who has most of the spending power in the marriage. ~ hmm, is this what you call oppression?. LMAO
    Well if they are both working, both of them

    Tell us who has had a better deal when it comes to parental leave. ~ hmm, is this what you call oppression?. LMAO
    A woman puts her life & health at risk for 9 months when she decides to have a baby & the man drinks a pint of beer in celebration ~ & most women will carry on working virtually up to the day of the birth in order to have as much time to recover as possible via maternity leave & the EU recent ruling. gives fathers the exact same leave

    Tell us who gets supported more by the family courts concerning custody rights. Hmm, is this what you call oppression?. LMAO
    The courts decision is based solely on what is best for the child .. Judge,. And tell me MR Smith what arrangement did you have between you & your ex wife whilst married .. Well, Judge, my ex wife sacrificed her career & financial independence to become the main carer of our kids & I supported her financially & the kids & I was able due to this arrangement to continue to focus fully on my career.. Judge, Ah so your were happy with that arrangement .. Mr Smith’s reply .. Yes Judge .. Judges reply .. Well, Mr Smith, after considering everything, and to cause as little disruption to your children’s lives as possible and as they are use to a routine where their mother cared for them, we don’t see any need to change the agreement you had with your wife whilst married .. Your wife will continue to be the main carer & you will continue to financially support them, this then will cause the least disruption in your children’s lives and routine & you can continue to fully focus on your career & your ex wife no doubt will be in the position of being at the bottom if the employment ladder and having to start over again .. you are very lucky Mr Smith, not to be in the position your wife is now in, financially broke & at the bottom of the employment ladder & your financial independence is still in tact & so is your career & you won’t be juggling child care with your job. Good day Mr Smith .. Next..

    Tell us who in the marriage is more likely to engage with dirty, dangerous, unsociable work. ~ ooh. hmm
    Women ~ shitty nappies ~ buckets of vomit ~ cleaning toilets ~ getting up in the middle of the night ~ on call 24/7 and no respite .. no clocking in or out .. on call 24 hours a day ~ 7 days a week @ the beck & call of a helpless baby, who can’t be left alone for a minute

    Tell us who from the marriage has been subject to forced conscription. ~ Ha, obviously the woman, she is the one expected to relinquish her career to become a full rime carer of children because the husband says he is exempt & it is menial & beneath him & because he won’t take a fair share of this role, she is forced to, because there ain’t no one else willing to do it .. she would go to war as well, but she would have to juggle the child care around it .. as hubby said he is exempt from that role & he doesn’t want to have a baby strapped to his back whilst digging the trenches, but he could use the babies vomit as a projectile, if it came to the worst..

    Tell us who ends up benefiting the most from divorce. The answer is easy ~ Men ~ when men become fathers, they remain financially independent, they still have a full time career it is never ruined or sacrificed, they never juggle their children’s care with their careers .. They never end up at the bottom of the employment ladder. They don’t deal with shitty nappies, or buckets of vomit, or listen all day to a babies cries & tantrums or spend their time focusing on babies needs 24/7.. no they are free, they go to work, clock in, have lunch with their mates, socialize & relax, then back to work & clock out, They go home and rest, or play sports with their mates & their time is their own their evenings are free.. no such.

    So tell us about this Marriage vow.. where women have to obey men?

  89. Stacy says

    You left something out of your analysis, Ally.

    Men, collectively, are bloody awful at standing up for our needs. We’re men. We don’t need help. What kind of wimps do you think we are? The consequence of that is to actively discourage those individuals who do need help from seeking it. Man up. Boys don’t cry. Take it like a man. Be strong. Be brave. Literally destroy yourself before admitting to a weakness.

    And why? Because men, by and large, still define themselves against “femininity.” And femininity is to be despised.

    Women need help. Women are weak. Women aren’t brave. To be a Real Man is to be as unlike a stereotypical “woman” as possible.

    It’s awful when men suffer, only to have their suffering compounded by gender expectations (“Man up! Don’t cry!”) But as long as the “Men’s Right’s Movement” is about expressing contempt for women and feminism rather than actually helping men and working to undermine gender expectations, they’ll be a liability in the fight for a humane and equal society.

  90. says

    And why? Because men, by and large, still define themselves against “femininity.” And femininity is to be despised.
    Women need help. Women are weak. Women aren’t brave. To be a Real Man is to be as unlike a stereotypical “woman” as possible.

    It is clear that having stereotypical female attributes as a male will make your life as man hell (at least in some areas). So not defining yourself such is quite enforced on men. This gender role cannot be easily layed down by choice. So formulating your response to Ally in terms of male responsibility is unhelpful. Men suffer from their gender role, but individuals who dont follow it suffer even more. Movements were men abandon their gender role are attacked and mocked as are the individuals (see public and in many cases feminist attitudes towards MGTOW or trans individuals).

    But as long as the “Men’s Right’s Movement” is about expressing contempt for women and feminism rather than actually helping men and working to undermine gender expectations, they’ll be a liability in the fight for a humane and equal society.

    I don’t have the impression that the mrm is what you say. Can you give evidence that it is? AFAIK there are a view lunatics out there, but major players like Warren Farrell or Karen Straughan are not about expressing contempt for women, factually wrong as they may or may not be. You can actually test that belief. Try posting misogynist shit on /r/mensrights. It will be downvoted and attacked most of the time.

  91. says

    But as long as the “Men’s Right’s Movement” is about expressing contempt for women and feminism rather than actually helping men and working to undermine gender expectations, they’ll be a liability in the fight for a humane and equal society.

    I found this somewhat amusing considering that the only person on this thread who has openly expressed contempt for any gender is sirtooting who identifies as a feminist and wrote this:

    We are supposed to be in awe of the male gender.. Who are nothing more than a bunch of apes on a testosterone filled rampage

  92. Mr Supertypo says

    ” It’s awful when men suffer, only to have their suffering compounded by gender expectations (“Man up! Don’t cry!”) But as long as the “Men’s Right’s Movement” is about expressing contempt for women and feminism rather than actually helping men and working to undermine gender expectations, they’ll be a liability in the fight for a humane and equal society. ”

    Not true, Mens right movement, has fought against this for decades, they are also pioneers in the DV against men and rape. Something only recently feminist’s are getting aware of. There is far to much disinformation on MRM and most of it is pure voluntary ignorance. Stop slandering and lying, and educate yourself please. Sure there may be some extreme self proclaimed MRA who hates women, but we cant ignore there are also bunch of self proclaimed feminists who hate men. So what a individual claim is hardly any representative of both movements. BTW Avoice for men, is exactly that, a voice for men, not THE voice for men. There are plenty of moderate MRA outhere, and they are not hard to find.

  93. freja says

    Just donated. Between Christmas coming up and the hurricane in the Philippines I had less to give than I’d like, but everything counts I guess.

  94. freja says

    @106, sheaf

    It is clear that having stereotypical female attributes as a male will make your life as man hell (at least in some areas). So not defining yourself such is quite enforced on men. This gender role cannot be easily layed down by choice.

    And yet, the strictest enforcers of this are men,whether seriously or humourously, and they frequently show aggressive contempt for women too. I absolutely agree that you can’t simplify it down to choice, but it is telling when the people who claim to advocate for men (i.e. MRAs) are much more prone to complain about society being too ‘feminised’. And it’s pretty obvious that by ‘society’ they mean ‘men’, because most of them are quick to mock women who don’t fit the typical feminine ideal.

    Movements were men abandon their gender role are attacked and mocked as are the individuals (see public and in many cases feminist attitudes towards MGTOW or trans individuals).

    Do you have any proof of this? Feminists talk more about trans people and trans issues because they talk more about gender in general, but I’ve met more trans people among feminists than anywhere else. MGTOW are mocked because they’re hypermasculine caricatures who centre their lives around hating women, not because they’re feminine. Quite the contrary, if they embodied more feminine characteristics, like the Japanese phenomenon of herbivore men, things would be very different. Remember that feminists weren’t the ones to come up with the term ‘mangina’, and they’re still not the ones using it.

    I don’t have the impression that the mrm is what you say. Can you give evidence that it is? AFAIK there are a view lunatics out there, but major players like Warren Farrell or Karen Straughan are not about expressing contempt for women, factually wrong as they may or may not be.

    It depends on what views you consider to be lunacy. If finding out exactly how big of a whore the female victim of a male rapist was, in order to decide how much of it was her fault, is considered moderate and not expressing contempt for women, and if suggesting that the problem with Afghanistan is that women are held in too high regard, and that people need to stop helping women and focus the help on the much more deserving and oppressed men, is considered common sense and not bigoted at all, then you have a point.

    The problem is that not everyone agrees with your definition of not-lunatics and not-contempt. People here were defending the idea (suggested by that very same Karen Straughan) that women in Afghanistan were privileged and that help should be spent on men. That is considered an extreme position that even many openly sexist men will not endorse, but in the MRM, it’s the most moderate mainstream position found.

  95. JT says

    The problem is that not everyone agrees with your definition of not-lunatics and not-contempt. People here were defending the idea (suggested by that very same Karen Straughan) that women in Afghanistan were privileged and that help should be spent on men. That is considered an extreme position that even many openly sexist men will not endorse, but in the MRM, it’s the most moderate mainstream position found.(freja)

    @freja

    Another part of the problem is who gets to decide what and who an mra is? In my experience the term mra is usually used as a slur. In other words, link someone to that title and they are considered an extremist. I find many people do the same with the term feminist, though it doesnt have the quite the same tone as when used with mra. There are a lot of moderate voices out here on the web, the BIG problem is the squeaky wheel not only gets the grease it also gets most of the airplay. This is why nuts on both sides are continuously quoted while each side has people screaming “those are the extremists, were not like that”. Unfortunately this pattern wont be changing anytime soon, afterall, most people like to be right rather than happy.

  96. says

    freja,

    Since my first response got lost in limbo, I will give the quick and dirty version.

    And yet, the strictest enforcers of this are men,whether seriously or humourously, and they frequently show aggressive contempt for women too. I absolutely agree that you can’t simplify it down to choice, but it is telling when the people who claim to advocate for men (i.e. MRAs) are much more prone to complain about society being too ‘feminised’. And it’s pretty obvious that by ‘society’ they mean ‘men’, because most of them are quick to mock women who don’t fit the typical feminine ideal.

    Men are the strictest enforcers of this? Not in my experience. Care to give evidence?

    Being feminised is used in the context of giving people with predominantly female traits better treatment, has nothig to do with men being allowed to cry for help.

    As for mockig of women who dont fit the feminine ideal: Maybe? This has nothing to do with the topic with men not crying to help when it is needed.

    Do you have any proof of this? Feminists talk more about trans people and trans issues because they talk more about gender in general, but I’ve met more trans people among feminists than anywhere else.

    Gogle TERF?
    As for MGTOW: Yeah they are ridiculous. I just googled a few websites and they are facepalmworthy.
    But I dont think herbivores would be treated well in our society.

    Remember that feminists weren’t the ones to come up with the term ‘mangina’, and they’re still not the ones using it.

    No they use “beard tears” and a”fee fees” to shame men into order.

    Re Afghanistan: As I said this is a factual disagreement blowing up and calling it misogyny is both unhelpful and shameful.

    Re “finding out exactly how big of a whore the female victim of a male rapist was, in order to decide how much of it was her fault,” Who the fuck said that?

  97. sirtooting . says

    What, no reply from you @ JT
    This is not manboobz ~ this is a conversation aired on a radio station, promoting men’s rights, you should be pleased such men air their views on rape.. Oh yes what is the mra’s agenda on rape? Maybe it is this below..

    MRA SHITE ..
    Chatter chatterNick Reading: No never means no. It only means yes. That’s an understanding that we have within the patriarchy.

    Karen Straughan: It is.

    Karen: But, but we shouldn’t strike “no” from all the dictionaries and the lexicons of language simply because there are numerous times in the course of a day when a man loves to say “no” to a woman.

    Nick: I would almost insist on striking it from the non-male vernacular but if they didn’t scream it, how else would I get an erection?

    Is this an MRA rapist talking, and is this Karen Straughan Stroking his male ego.
    and what about Warren Farrell .. what does he have to say about the rape of females by males ..oh he thinks women who are raped are lying about their experience, because he says men enjoy raping them, so women must enjoy being raped and when women cry rape, they are only doing it out if remorse, he also says boys who are raped by their mothers and presumably anyone else, male or female, the boys are not traumatised by it at all, if fact they love being raped, especially be priests maybe and those boys who have been raped by priests are only making false rape claims & Mr Farrell & Ms Straughan are the leading guru’s for MRA’S .. Well, we know plenty of men love committing rape and obviously those men have a platform for their views via Warren Farrell & Ms Straughan, who in themselves are morally bankrupt ..

    The voice for men’s rights to rape.. they fall over themselves to find ways to justify it, to themselves.
    Well they ain’t justifying it to us..

    http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/womens-blog/2013/nov/15/female-students-misogyny-british-universities-sexism-stirling

  98. says

    Sirtooting,

    Since this appears some degree of response to my post can you please rewrite it in a way my feeble male brain can understand using structure, explanations and coherency as tools to accomplish such feats?

  99. JT says

    @Toot

    I dont follow AVFM. If you choose to lump me in with any extremist I will take the position that you are one yourself and not worthy of anything more than laughter. You sirtoot are an extremist in every sense of the word.

  100. Mr Supertypo says

    All this talk around MRA’s….please.

    I tell you one thing, I have a hard time to see any difference between a extremist MRA and a extremist feminist. They are both disgusting, and on the same plane I put people who are willing fully ignorant, how come I can see both sides have some good points and you cant? how come? simply because you dont want to see. Its easier to point the finger at someone and say he/she/it is the bad villain, rather than use the brain. IMO a big factor in the MRA vs Feminist is psychological and that because the opponent challenge your belief forcing you out of your confort zone. And this is a big no for most people. A small analogy? here is it.

    The people who follow the tv show, ‘the walking dead’ know that there are a villain who disappeared in the third season, and now has returned (weather you follow the show or not is not important, but this is helpful in any circumstances). In the return episode, we see him suffering and doing a lot of work for helping a group of survivors. We see a picture of him in a non negative way. And guess what on twitter and other commentaries sections, lots of people complain and are angry about this. Why because they simply want somebody to hate, the naivity of hate is somebody is evil and cannot be anything else than evil. Hate doesent allow room for complexity, the banality of hate.
    The same thing happens on the tired and boring jihad of MRA vs Feminists, the MRA is evil and dumb PERIOD, feminists are manhating angry lesbians PERIOD:

    Stop with the stupidity people, grow up and start looking for a healthy debate, and stop humiliating yourself exposing your ignorance. There are plenty of moderate MRA outhere so go look for them, and avoid the voice for men or manboobs. Or at least stop talking about them, because its annoying. Beside its also OT since the topik is not Mens Right Movement.

  101. says

    Mens right movement, has fought against this for decades, they are also pioneers in the DV against men and rape. Something only recently feminist’s are getting aware of.

    Men were fighting rape culture before women? That’s fucking ridiculous.

    I have a hard time to see any difference between a extremist MRA and a extremist feminist.

    Care to name at least a handful of REAL feminists whose behavior is as disgusting and dishonest as that of the MRAs I’ve encountered? If you can’t, then your “symmetry” argument is as bogus as it always has been.

  102. says

    Care to name at least a handful of REAL feminists whose behavior is as disgusting and dishonest as that of the MRAs I’ve encountered?

    Sirtooting, for example? Honestly if you hang around a bit you will see a lot of ugliness on both sides of this debates.

  103. freja says

    @111, JT

    ==Another part of the problem is who gets to decide what and who an mra is? In my experience the term mra is usually used as a slur. In other words, link someone to that title and they are considered an extremist.

    […]

    There are a lot of moderate voices out here on the web, the BIG problem is the squeaky wheel not only gets the grease it also gets most of the airplay.

    ==

    @115, JT

    ==I dont follow AVFM. If you choose to lump me in with any extremist I will take the position that you are one yourself and not worthy of anything more than laughter.

    ==

    @116, Mr Supertypo

    ==I tell you one thing, I have a hard time to see any difference between a extremist MRA and a extremist feminist. They are both disgusting

    ==

    The thing is, every person here who have expressed support for a specific MRA site have chosen “It’s not rape if she was a whore who deserved it/Women in Afghanistan are such privileged princesses/Joking about torturing, oppressing, and raping women is so much fun” as a shinning example of reason and justice within the MRM. This is the mainstream ‘moderate’ MRA view, the very best and most woman-friendly they can come up with. The rest is worse.

    The issue is not the extremist MRAs (or feminists for that matter), the issue is that kind of ‘moderate’ MRAs we keep hearing about hardly seem to exist, let alone have webpages or prominent speakers. It’s not about the existence of extremism and misogyny in the MRM, it’s about the lack of anything else.

  104. JT says

    It’s not about the existence of extremism and misogyny in the MRM, it’s about the lack of anything else.(freja)

    If you base your viewpoint only by individuals who post on certain websites then maybe that is what you will see. Technically Ally Fogg is an MRA if you take the title at face value. Lol, he even tried to get us all to donate for some men’s issues. ;)

  105. JT says

    @freja

    I have an interest in men’s issue’s and my daughter loves to poke fun at me by calling me an “MRA”. She knows the baggage that comes with the title. I tease her back, “Youre a Feminist” and she says “No way”. Why not, honey? “Twitter Feminists cured me of that Dad! Im an equalitarian”. Its nice to see when your kids learn and apply stuff. :)

  106. freja says

    @112, sheaf

    Men are the strictest enforcers of this? Not in my experience. Care to give evidence?

    I already gave two examples, but frankly, anything I say will be just anecdotal evidence, just like yours would. All I can say is that those examples have matched my personal experience and that statistics about who carries out the most violence against LGBTQ individuals, particularly gay men and trans women who’re perceived by their attackers to be men (albeit not real men), backs this up. This has been so common that defence attourney’s even invented a name for it, gay panic defence, to justify why men would react with extreme violence towards gay men.

    The institutions most likely to condemn perceived effeminacy in men and telling them to “man up” and not seek help are usually the male-dominated ones, such as the military and the most patriarchal churches (read more on this site for examples). The conservatives who’re (unsurprisingly) more conservative about gender roles and get the most upset about people breaking them, such as the ‘gender bending’ J. Crew ad, are also mostly men (and typically anti-feminist).

    Being feminised is used in the context of giving people with predominantly female traits better treatment, has nothig to do with men being allowed to cry for help.

    There are also plenty of cases where people exhibiting more masculine traits get preferential treatment and masculine characteristics are held in higher regard. But those who see it as a problem (such as many feminists) usually see the solution as being a mix between no longer punishing women who exhibit these traits, and questioning the value attributed those traits on an individual basis, rather than demanding women to receive the best possible treatment simply for acting feminine.

    As for mockig of women who dont fit the feminine ideal: Maybe? This has nothing to do with the topic with men not crying to help when it is needed.

    But it tells us that these people don’t see mandatory femininity as a bad thing, they just want it imposed exclusively on women.

    Gogle TERF?

    That’s not exactly proof. We know that bigotry can be found everywhere, including among feminists, but it doesn’t tell us how common and accepted it is. Feminists talk a lot about gender and transgendered individuals are common in the feminist movement, so it’s only natural that feminist anti-trans bigots will be more public with their bigotry. An average sexist bro making a comment about a “disgusting tranny” will go unremarked and unnoticed, but a feminist expressing a similar level of bigotry in his/her activism will be noticed. Not to mention that the bro doesn’t have to actively take a stand and deal with transgendered individuals and LGBTQ issues on a regular basis, so most people aren’t likely to know his specific attitude towards it.

    As for MGTOW: Yeah they are ridiculous. I just googled a few websites and they are facepalmworthy.
    But I dont think herbivores would be treated well in our society.

    I don’t think so either, I just don’t think feminists would be the ones to tell them they needed to be real men and go out and chase women. In fact, I’ve never met a feminist who was against the idea of MGTOW, whether it was “Good for them for defying expectations! No one should be defined by their romantic relationship” or “Men leaving me alone? What a great idea!”. The issue is that MGTOW seem to spend most of their time obsessing over women (instead of GTOW) and what gold-digging whores they are, and insist on constantly telling women about it.

    No they use “beard tears” and a”fee fees” to shame men into order.

    I haven’t heard “beard tears” before, but “fee fees” is used about both genders and doesn’t refer directly to sex.

    Re Afghanistan: As I said this is a factual disagreement blowing up and calling it misogyny is both unhelpful and shameful.

    It wasn’t a factual disagreement because GWW was lying, simple as that. Arguing whether a rape that hasn’t been proven/disproven took place is a factual disagreement. So is arguing about the prevalence of street harassment, whether someone got their job because of or despite of their gender, and even whether men who harassment women on the street are insecure and well-meaning or misogynist and motivated by homosocial goals. But saying that women were safer than men under the Taliban and didn’t/don’t need jobs because they have male relatives looking out for them is just factually wrong.

    Re “finding out exactly how big of a whore the female victim of a male rapist was, in order to decide how much of it was her fault,” Who the fuck said that?

    I was referring to JudgyBitch, a blogger who is also a contributor for A Voice for Men. On her blog, she has an entry titled “Why don’t we have a Dumb Fucking Whore Registry? Now that would be justice” where she writes the following about the Steubenville rape*:

    “Comparing a stupid, drunk, helmet-chasing whore who gets fingered while passed out to an actual rape victim is completely and utterly absurd.”

    “Now, the girl in Steubenville is claiming she didn’t actually drink all that much, and someone must have drugged her!  Toxicology tests?  NEGATIVE.

    Oh my!  You mean she’s a lying little tramp desperately trying to avoid ANY culpability for what happened to her?  Well color me shocked.”

    “Her life is not ruined in the slightest.  LittleTramp is free to go about her life, getting as drunk as she likes, chasing after any high-status males she likes, and securing criminal convictions against men who treat her like the whore she is.”

    “If sex offenders are registered for the protection of all women, then why not register drunk whores for the protection of all men?”

    “No one got raped in Steubenville.  Someone got humiliated, and she participated willingly and readily in her own humiliation.  Turning stupid decisions made by high-school students into criminal acts with consequences that will follow only ONE party for their rest of their lives is deeply unfair, and when fingering a slut at an alcohol fuelled party is put in the same category as violent sexual assault, the real victims are drowned in a chorus of pathetic mewlings of women who didn’t get to bag the star.”

    Do I need to explain why this is problematic? And what bothers me the most is that these things are never acknowledged by MRAs. I’ve never heard one of them say “I recognise that there are serious  problems with regard to the misogyny of some of its contributors, but I still think this article from AVfM brings up some good points”. It’s always “AVfM is so great/AVfM is leading the fight for male equality/the MRM isn’t extremist, just look at AVfM”. But AVfM is exactly what I look at when trying to figure out what the MRM is about because it’s as moderate as it gets, so when they praise someone like JB and post her articles on their site, I have a hard time believing in their non-misogyny.

    *In a stunning display of hypocrisy, JudgyBitch later posted an article arguing that the “Don’t be that guy” posters were offensive, claiming that it was obvious that you shouldn’t have sex with a girl who was passed out and that guys already knew that.

  107. freja says

    @123, JT

    If you base your viewpoint only by individuals who post on certain websites then maybe that is what you will see. Technically Ally Fogg is an MRA if you take the title at face value. Lol, he even tried to get us all to donate for some men’s issues. ;)

    I base my viewpoint on what people who identify as MRAs say and do. I use AVfM men because it’s the least controversial and most mainstream MRA site out there, and I want to give the MRM the benefit of the doubt by not choosing a site like the Spearhead (though I do take it into account in my overall estimation). Not to mention that this is the site most non-feminist commenters here have praised and uncritically recommended.

    I’m with you in regard to labels, if you’re not an MRA, then you’re not an MRA. Even if you were an MRA, holding you personally responsible for all their crap is just unfair. But I don’t buy the argument that the MRM is OK if you just count a bunch of people who never identified with it in the first place as being representative of it.

  108. says

    I already gave two examples, but frankly, anything I say will be just anecdotal evidence, just like yours would. All I can say is that those examples have matched my personal experience and that statistics about who carries out the most violence against LGBTQ individuals, particularly gay men and trans women who’re perceived by their attackers to be men (albeit not real men), backs this up. This has been so common that defence attourney’s even invented a name for it, gay panic defence, to justify why men would react with extreme violence towards gay men.

    So we are at a stalemate empirically. I think you should retract the statement that males are the strictest enforcers of such roles then.

    There are also plenty of cases where people exhibiting more masculine traits get preferential treatment and masculine characteristics are held in higher regard. But those who see it as a problem (such as many feminists) usually see the solution as being a mix between no longer punishing women who exhibit these traits, and questioning the value attributed those traits on an individual basis, rather than demanding women to receive the best possible treatment simply for acting feminine

    This may or may not be the case. It is irrelevant to the question what MRAs understand the term feminisation to mean, which I was responding to.

    It wasn’t a factual disagreement because GWW was lying, simple as that. Arguing whether a rape that hasn’t been proven/disproven took place is a factual disagreement. So is arguing about the prevalence of street harassment, whether someone got their job because of or despite of their gender, and even whether men who harassment women on the street are insecure and well-meaning or misogynist and motivated by homosocial goals. But saying that women were safer than men under the Taliban and didn’t/don’t need jobs because they have male relatives looking out for them is just factually wrong.

    Yes factually wrong. Does not mean she is lying. It is therefore a factual disagreement, were you are right. Calling it misogyny without evidence is immoral.

    re JudgyBitch: Never heard of her. Does she have large clout with the mrm? In any case, most moderate and largest conglomeration of MRAs is probably /r/mensrights.

  109. sirtooting . says

    @ Freja, You don’t need AVFM, you can search closer to home ..

    just look on, Justice for men and boys website and the first thing you will see
    The Fraud of Feminism’ (1913)
    ‘Women Against Feminism’ (83 videos)

    2015 general election: candidates sought
    24 January 2014: a debate at Durham University
    A. Voice for Men
    About Mike Buchanan
    Ally Fogg (Guardian journalist) attacks our public consultation document, then publishes his own manifesto for men and boys
    An invitation to all feminists, everywhere
    Feminism is the hate-driven pursuit of female supremacy
    Not all feminists are like that
    Our open letter to David Cameron (March 2013)
    Our public challenges of prominent feminists (and their collaborators)
    The Alternative Sexism Project

    The Whine Club
    What feminism is really about, and why anyone who values freedom should fight against it

    The pretence of these men, that they don’t hang on every word of Karen Straughan and Warren Farrell and their like, is laughable,.
    They are all the same and I have seen Ally Fogg quoting Warren Farrell virtually verbatim on many things and that is why he won’t denounce him as a paedophile.
    These men are no different to those on AVFM or anywhere else, because they are these men on AVFM

    People like JT pretend they don’t look at these websites, so when you point out how vile they really are, they can say, oh are they, i wouldn’t know .. Of course they know, they are the very ones commenting on them .. What liars these men are, they whole heartedly agree with them, because they are them.

  110. JT says

    People like JT pretend they don’t look at these websites, so when you point out how vile they really are, they can say, oh are they, i wouldn’t know .. Of course they know, they are the very ones commenting on them .. What liars these men are, they whole heartedly agree with them, because they are them.(Toot)

    Wow, really? I was wrong. I thought you were off your meds, now I know you havnt even started them.

  111. sirtooting . says

    Yeah you are the person who thinks, when rapists get found not guilty, those that accused them of rape, should then be arrested and charged with perjury, even though the rapists got off the hook, not because they were innocent, but because, there was insufficient evidence to convict them.

  112. sirtooting . says

    Mike Buchanan thinks “state-sponsored feminism” is ruining society and women are defying their “natural instincts” by going to work. Terrifyingly, some people are taking him seriously.

    Oh look, men would have full employment if only women didn’t work in a paid job,
    yeah men think women should be prepared to accept something far less for themselves than men, and step aside, so men can take their pride of place .. a job that is unpaid,
    omg housework .. that is beneath men .. they don’t want partners, they want unpaid skivvies, willing to accept to spend their lives cleaning up after men, whilst men go out into their world and do their manly jobs .. you know, the ones that aren’t menial and beneath them, because men have vilified those kind of jobs so much, those jobs hold no status for them except an inferior one, which they don’t want to be associated with. .
    Well, if it is not good enough for a man to want to do, presumably because it is regarded beneath him, then by golly, it has to be beneath a woman to want to do.
    Men don’t think women’s potential is relevant and they regard their own as paramount and they expect women to accept less for themselves, why is that?

    Mike Buchanan has written a book called Feminism: The Ugly Truth ooh it’s a lovely charming cover.. Not.

    Feminism attracts little serious opposition in the developed world,” the book begins, “which is extraordinary given that it’s systematically and progressively assaulting men, women, marriage, the family, government, the legal system, the media, academia, capitalism and much else.” Thank God Mike’s spotted that one, guys, because we almost wasted a shitload of resources on kidding ourselves into thinking that problems with the government, the media, and the legal system run deeper than the pursuit of gender equality.

    Now that we’ve realised the true extent of our destruction, we’re both personally willing to retire to the kitchen without further ado (because feminism is – direct quotation – “forcing [women] to go against their natural instincts and rely on the world of work for their economic survival”.)

    What rocks do these dinosaurs crawl out from under ..

    Some men are absolutely fcking demented, and so up their own arses, self important and self obsessed .. I’m in charge, make way .. I’m in charge, I’m in charge .. Move I’m firrrst .. Why?. Because I Mike Buchanan said so..

    The hatred of women, is overwhelming, predictable and they trundle out the same dribble over and over again..
    The self important, the nobodys who are desperate to be somebody’s..

    I just wonder if all this money he asking for in donations, is actually going towards helping men, or just being used to help him and his political aspirations .. hmm .. i hope he good at keeping accounts.

  113. says

    sirtooting

    Ally Fogg (Guardian journalist) attacks our public consultation document, then publishes his own manifesto for men and boys

    Which public consultation document is that? Can you provide a link?

  114. Ally Fogg says

    Just as a word to everyone…

    I’ve been pretty lax in moderation of this thread, in large part because I can’t really pick out who is more to blame, several people involved seems to be roughly equally responsible.

    But it has got pretty messy and ignominious over the past couple of days.

    This is meant to be a blog where people of various ideological perspectives can discuss, debate and argue about the issues. It is not a place provided for people to brainlessly insult each other, whether individually or collectively.

    I remind you, I do have commenting guidelines and I will enforce them when I need to.

    Your co-operation is appreciated.

  115. freja says

    @127, sheaf

    So we are at a stalemate empirically. I think you should retract the statement that males are the strictest enforcers of such roles then.

    Stalemate? I didn’t realise this was a game we were supposed to win. In any case, your claim about what MRAs and others really mean when they complain about feminisation isn’t backed up by evidence either, it’s all personal observation and speculation. That doesn’t mean we can’t question the validity and relevance of those personal observations, but I wont retract my views simply because they’re based on personal observation and social trends unless you can offer more convincing evidence to the contrary.

    This may or may not be the case. It is irrelevant to the question what MRAs understand the term feminisation to mean, which I was responding to.

    Not really. If they’re OK with masculine traits being valued higher than feminine traits in certain contexts but not vice versa, it indicates a contempt and devaluation of femininity in general. Combined with their ideas that men and women are inherently different and that women shouldn’t try to be men, it also indicates a pretty strong contempt for women.

    Yes factually wrong. Does not mean she is lying. It is therefore a factual disagreement, were you are right. Calling it misogyny without evidence is immoral.

    In the same vein, you can also refer to the MGTOW statement that women are gold digging whores as a factual agreement rather than a statement of misogyny. After all, if most women really did exchange sex for money and tried to get rich men to buy them stuff it would just be a statement of fact, and the fact that it isn’t true doesn’t take away from that.

    re JudgyBitch: Never heard of her. Does she have large clout with the mrm? In any case, most moderate and largest conglomeration of MRAs is probably /r/mensrights.

    She’s written for AVfM (as has her husband) and also been praised and linked to on the site, so she seems pretty non-controversial there. Again, I chose AVfM because that’s the site most commenters here praise and link to, and because they’re among the MRAs who come closest to doing real life activism. You even mentioned a prominent AVfM contributor as an example of an MRA that wasn’t about expressing contempt for women yourself. I haven’t looked much at /r/mensrights because it rarely seems to be quoted or referred to outside reddit itself, but a quick look at Manboobz confirms that it has some serious problems with misogyny.

    Anyway, I didn’t mean for this to turn into a conversation about MRAs, I merely observed that a lot of them, like in most patriarchal and conservative circles, seem to subscribe to the idea that femininity in men should be frowned upon (at best) and that the biggest problem for men is not their lack of freedom to act feminine (e.g. admitting victimisation) but rather they “aren’t allowed to be men”.

  116. says

    Freja,

    Stalemate? I didn’t realise this was a game we were supposed to win. In any case, your claim about what MRAs and others really mean when they complain about feminisation isn’t backed up by evidence either, it’s all personal observation and speculation. That doesn’t mean we can’t question the validity and relevance of those personal observations, but I wont retract my views simply because they’re based on personal observation and social trends unless you can offer more convincing evidence to the contrary.

    You stated them as fact and you are unable to support them to a meaningful degree. lol

    Not really. If they’re OK with masculine traits being valued higher than feminine traits in certain contexts but not vice versa, it indicates a contempt and devaluation of femininity in general. Combined with their ideas that men and women are inherently different and that women shouldn’t try to be men, it also indicates a pretty strong contempt for women.

    Most MRAs holding a view that society is feminzed factually disagree with you on “masculine traits being valued higher than feminine traits in certain contexts” or at least in the majority of contexts.

    In the same vein, you can also refer to the MGTOW statement that women are gold digging whores as a factual agreement rather than a statement of misogyny.

    Nope. GWW statement has not even remotely similar connotations. She disagrees with you on the status of women in Afghanistan, i.e. the circumstances surroundng certain women, not on the nature of women in a way that strongly implies women to be inferior to men. This is not a hard distinction to make. Calling the first one misogyny is a disgrace. It is like saying that someone making a mistake in a presentation regarding the gap between black and white prison sentences is a racist. You should definitely retract that statement.

    She’s written for AVfM (as has her husband) and also been praised and linked to on the site, so she seems pretty non-controversial there. Again, I chose AVfM because that’s the site most commenters here praise and link to, and because they’re among the MRAs who come closest to doing real life activism. You even mentioned a prominent AVfM contributor as an example of an MRA that wasn’t about expressing contempt for women yourself. I haven’t looked much at /r/mensrights because it rarely seems to be quoted or referred to outside reddit itself, but a quick look at Manboobz confirms that it has some serious problems with misogyny.

    You mean a site with more than 80 000 subscribers will not have a few nuts that Futrelle can snipe? In the sad history of online epistemology this is another low point.

  117. freja says

    @139, sheaf

    You stated them as fact and you are unable to support them to a meaningful degree. lol

    I stated it no more as fact than you did your assertions.

    Most MRAs holding a view that society is feminzed factually disagree with you on “masculine traits being valued higher than feminine traits in certain contexts” or at least in the majority of contexts.

    What was that again about fact? Do you have any proof of this? And this wasn’t your argument before, you claimed that it was irrelevant whether there were contexts in which society valued masculine traits higher than feminine traits. And that leads us back to my previous post in which I mentioned that when people see a masculinity being valued higher than femininity in certain contexts and don’t approve, they tend to work on making it more acceptable for women to behave in ways previously labeled masculine, and they question the individual value of certain highly appreciated masculine traits, they don’t just flat-out declare that women aren’t allowed to be women anymore. The people who do that tend to be patriarchal conservatives.

    Nope. GWW statement has not even remotely similar connotations. She disagrees with you on the status of women in Afghanistan, i.e. the circumstances surroundng certain women, not on the nature of women in a way that strongly implies women to be inferior to men. This is not a hard distinction to make.

    Then you need to amend your argument by saying that disagreement about fact doesn’t count if the facts you’re disagreeing about have to do with people’s skills, personalty, and behaviour. But even then, I think you’ll find yourself on thin ice. Larry Summers’ uninformed opinion about the alleged inferior ability of girls and women to do math has been framed as a disagreement about facts too.

    Calling the first one misogyny is a disgrace. It is like saying that someone making a mistake in a presentation regarding the gap between black and white prison sentences is a racist. You should definitely retract that statement.

    There’s a difference between a mistake and an assumption. GWW chose to overlook facts that were easily available to her (such as women having a lower life expectancy than men under the Taliban, which she never addressed) and chose instead of make stuff up. She started with the assumption that all cases of patriarchal oppression are actually cases of men being oppressed for the benefit of women, and then she made up stuff to confirm it which is not only untrue, but so self-contradictory that it would hardly be possible in real life.

    ‘Facts’ like that would like me saying that there’s no problem with male suicide because compared to women, men hardly ever take their own lives, or that we should cut funding for boys to go to public schools because unlike girls, they didn’t actually need it. It’s totally unsupported, but if I just make up stuff, it magically ceases to be sexist and just becomes a factual disagreement.

    You mean a site with more than 80 000 subscribers will not have a few nuts that Futrelle can snipe? In the sad history of online epistemology this is another low point.

    I’m not just looking at statements, I’m looking at the amount of support they get vs. the amount of support opposing statements get, as well as the site policies, like what gets and doesn’t get you banned. I also look at whether I can find similar statements about male inferiority and advocates for violence against men (and its opposition) on similar feminist sites, as well as the examples of reasonable and non-misogynist MRAs people present me with.

    Your argument, on the other hand, seem to be that since there are things to criticise on both sides, it must mean MRAs can’t be that bad and that feminists must have done something you can blame them for. You bring up feminist attitudes against MGTOW as if they were about men eschewing their gender roles, and transphobia as if it was more common among feminists, with no proof of either, and yet you implicitly claim that you’re speaking about facts here.

  118. says

    Freja, this is getting tedious.

    I stated it no more as fact than you did your assertions.

    Which assertion? Usually I retract my unevidenced assertions. You should do the same.

    What was that again about fact? Do you have any proof of this?

    Of what?

    And this wasn’t your argument before, you claimed that it was irrelevant whether there were contexts in which society valued masculine traits higher than feminine traits.

    Yes, because I was not arguing for feminisation as a coherent concept because I dont think it is! Just because I disagree with you does not mean I support them. You claimed that this feminisation idea is against men being allowed to hlp. I started arguing that it is not. It is completely irrelevant f believe that the concept is any good.

    Then you need to amend your argument by saying that disagreement about fact doesn’t count if the facts you’re disagreeing about have to do with people’s skills, personalty, and behaviour.

    I will amend the argument in the following way: Being wrong about peoples circumstaces is not evidence of misogyny. Claiming so is immoral. Note that your attempt to fix the argument fails as well: If I disagree with you about the ability of women to compete with men at the olypmics I am not a misogynist.

    But even then, I think you’ll find yourself on thin ice. Larry Summers’ uninformed opinion about the alleged inferior ability of girls and women to do math has been framed as a disagreement about facts too.

    What is the thin ice here? If there are differences i ability, then so be it? This is an empirical question, not something that has anything to do with hate of women or seing them as inferior (fun fact I am good at math and dont see the rest of the world as inferior because of it). In any case if there si a difference in average ability it has to be very slight. One of the best mathematicians I ever worked with is female and she is head above most males I ever saw.

    There’s a difference between a mistake and an assumption. GWW chose to overlook facts that were easily available to her (such as women having a lower life expectancy than men under the Taliban, which she never addressed) and chose instead of make stuff up. She started with the assumption that all cases of patriarchal oppression are actually cases of men being oppressed for the benefit of women, and then she made up stuff to confirm it which is not only untrue, but so self-contradictory that it would hardly be possible in real life.

    So her research and methods bad? Maybe this is the cause f her being wrong? What has that to be with being an misogyist? What selfcontradictions did she make?

    ‘Facts’ like that would like me saying that there’s no problem with male suicide because compared to women, men hardly ever take their own lives, or that we should cut funding for boys to go to public schools because unlike girls, they didn’t actually need it. I

    And everyone who would call you a misandrist for that would be an irrational asshole.

    t’s totally unsupported, but if I just make up stuff, it magically ceases to be sexist and just becomes a factual disagreement.

    Nope not at all. If you are confronted with fats on te matter, and you have no reponse other than lying about it then you are a sexist. But before that? People are wrong about others all the time, often in quite spectacular ways. Does not mean others are seen as inferior or hated. I am ot sure what you are trying to tell me?

    I’m not just looking at statements, I’m looking at the amount of support they get vs. the amount of support opposing statements get, as well as the site policies, like what gets and doesn’t get you banned. I also look at whether I can find similar statements about male inferiority and advocates for violence against men (and its opposition) on similar feminist sites, as well as the examples of reasonable and non-misogynist MRAs people present me with.

    Site policies:

    Overview of Mod Policy:

    No advice animals, rage comics, or other low-effort image posts. Mods may remove these at their discretion.

    No linking to SRS or affiliated subs, or Gawker Media websites.

    Spam/Off-Topic posts will be removed. Use self-posts for related topics, justifying their relation.

    Facebook posts must be done w/ screenshot & blanked names.

    Absolutely no doxxing will be tolerated.

    Advocating for violence/illegal acts may be removed.

    Links to other subreddits must use NP format (“np” in place of “www”). Cross linking to submissions from other subreddits with fewer than 30,000 members within the first 24 hours is prohibited.

    Young accounts are given no tolerance.

    /r/MensRights strongly supports principles of free speech. People posting here are sharing their opinions. Opinions will not be removed, but actions may (see above rules)

    Regarding upvotes: Strogly misogynistic ad misandric comments are most of the time downvoted. You can test this yourself by creatig a throwaway and posting a strongly misogynistc line ala “this proves that women are inferior” or “I hope someone cuts off her tits”. It wont get many upvotes. Things that feminists call misogyny or that have weak but real misogynistic undertones may on occasion be upvoted, but will often be critizised by the more thoughtful members.

  119. sirtooting . says

    Women in Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia are held captive by violent rapist thugs .. Aka Misogynists.
    Women’s freedoms and rights are determined by what the rapist thug will allow her.

    HE CAGES HER IN . He corners her .. And he rapes her of all her rights ..

    AVFM .. The voice for men

    MRA SHITE ..
    Chatter Chatter
    Nick Reading:
    No never means no. It only means yes. That’s an understanding that we have within the patriarchy.

    Karen Straughan:
    It is.

    Karen:
    But, but we shouldn’t strike “no” from all the dictionaries and the lexicons of language simply because there are numerous times in the course of a day when a man loves to say “no” to a woman.

    Nick:
    I would almost insist on striking it from the non-male vernacular but if they didn’t scream it, how else would I get an erection?

    Is this an MRA rapist talking, and is this Karen Straughan Stroking his male ego?
    OH YES IT IS ..

    and what do we have regarding Mike Buchanan, a Male Supremacyst

    “Woman’s world is her husband, her family, her children and her home. We do not find it right when she presses into the world of men.”
    Mike Buchanan – aka – Adolf Hitler
    Mein kampf

    Heil Hitler..

    JT “Another part of the problem is who gets to decide what and who an mra is? In my experience the term Mra is usually used as a slur.” .. Really , I can’t imagine why and that is why you choose to pretend you are not associated to them, when you are.

    When you can’t defend them, then you want to disassociate yourself from mra’s, because your aim is never to be in a position of having to question or criticise them.
    Disassociating yourself from them, is a way of avoiding all responsibility for things mra’s say, which you can’t admit you agree with, as it would reveal you as a male supremacist.
    So you choose to disassociate yourself from them, thus avoiding the issue of confronting the very real offensiveness of your own beliefs.

    MANBOOBZ is a website that dIssects what the MRA are saying on theirs and highlight the rape chatter amongst them.
    It is quite a light hearted site considering what it is dealing with, and they don’t tear into men with vicious sadistic verbal attacks, which is the exact opposite of the mra sites

    What did MRA’S have to say about saving a 4 year old girl if she was drowning?
    Hmm, the overwhelming view of these mra’s was .. Nope we don’t think we would bother .. She might grow up to be a C*UNT.
    They have been called hate groups for good reason, because that is exactly what they are.
    Some of these Mra sites have offered rewards to other mra’s to find out addresses and phone numbers of certain feminists they hate, so they can display their addresses on their sites, inviting mra’s to harass them, this is putting peoples lives in danger, and they don’t care & who knows what violent male supremacyst psychopaths and nut-jobs these sites are attracting.

    Hark! Hark! the Dogs Do Bark,
    The Misogynists Are Coming To Town
    All full of hate, All Full of Themselves,
    Rabid, All Frothing From Their Mouths

  120. sirtooting . says

    Hey Sheaf
    “So her research and methods bad? Maybe this is due to her being wrong? What has that to do with being an misogyist? What selfcontradictions did she make?”

    Karen Straughan AKA girlwriteswhat advocates violence against women ~ Quote from a conversation she had with someone on the internet.
    “Correct me if I’m wrong, but a good summary of what you’re saying is “Violence isn’t right but a slap here & there is better than the guy taking all of her nagging & exploding in such a way that he beats her within an inch of her life”.

    girlwriteswhat reply 8 months ago
    That’s pretty much it.

    Karen thinks men are so pathetically unstable, they need a male privilege, a special dispensation to accommodate their inherent lack of self control.

    Karen believes if men aren’t allowed the option of being able too use a controlled amount of violence in stressful situations to ease their tension, then men will rapidly become totally irrational & uncontrollably violent towards those causing them stress, possibly causing them fatal injuries in the process.

    Karen advises men to physically assault their partners, and she explains this then would help men to ease their own stress levels.
    I wonder if she would advise men to do the same when they are at work, dealing with customers who stress them out, or men who work in the teaching profession dealing with noisy kids, or men who are doctors and nurses dealing with patients who stress them out, or is she just advising men to physically assault their partners behind closed doors where no one can see them committing a crime.

  121. sirtooting . says

    An extract From the Survivors Manchester Booklet.

    STEP BACK AND THINK
    THINGS OVER

    Me and my partner have grown to love each other deeply,
    but every so often we can go into horrific verbal battles
    Over any number of issues.
    Sometimes we can struggle to give each other “space” during
    An argument insisting we solve the issue immediately.
    Needless to say, this is a dangerous practice as it can
    escalate levels of anger even further and cause us to do and
    say things we don’t really mean and may later regret!
    To avoid losing control either physically or verbally, it is
    Often best to take a temporary “time-out”—and leave. This
    tool of anger management works much better if (a) you commit
    to return within a reasonable amount of time to work things
    out, and (b) you work on your “self-talk” while trying to
    cool down.

    Karen Straughan is a nut-job who recommends men use violence against their partners, a DV advocate, and a popular speaker for the Mra’s.
    She is A voice for men, who tells men to physically assault women.

    I wonder how many of these men who hang on her every word, follow her abysmal advice? And I wonder how many women have been beaten by their partners due to it?

    We are never going to know are we?
    And this is just one example of her many farcical ideas that leads directly to others suffering abuse.

    She ought to be locked up, to stop her doing any more damage.
    Inciting others to commit violence is a criminal offence.

  122. says

    Sitooting, (144)

    You relate the following written by Straughan:

    “Correct me if I’m wrong, but a good summary of what you’re saying is “Violence isn’t right but a slap here & there is better than the guy taking all of her nagging & exploding in such a way that he beats her within an inch of her life”.

    Ths seems to be a correct statement. You then take this to mean that Karen believes something completely different:

    Karen thinks men are so pathetically unstable, they need a male privilege, a special dispensation to accommodate their inherent lack of self control.

    Karen believes if men aren’t allowed the option of being able too use a controlled amount of violence in stressful situations to ease their tension, then men will rapidly become totally irrational & uncontrollably violent towards those causing them stress, possibly causing them fatal injuries in the process.

    This i no way follows from the above passage. I do not think that she advocates this in any way shape or form and the quite you provide is not evidence that she does.

  123. sirtooting . says

    Karen confirms that the guys interpretation of her words is correct.

    “Correct me if I’m wrong, but a good summary of what you’re saying is
    VIOLENCE isn’t right BUT A SLAP here & there IS BETTER than the guy taking all of her nagging & EXPLODING in such a way THAT HE BEATS HER her within an inch of her life”

    girlwriteswhat REPLY 8 months ago
    THAT IS PRETTY MUCH IT.

    Pretty much it, means she agrees with the guys interpretation of her own words. She is fully agreeing that “a slap here & there is better than the guy taking all of her nagging & exploding in such a way that he beats her within an inch of her life”
    A slap here than there to reduce his stress levels is better than becoming violently out of control & beating his partner to death.
    That is pretty much it.. she says .. let him slap her as it is preferable to him losing all self control.

    Well, if you can interpret it in a different way, then explain that, because it seems perfectly plain to me, she is advising men to use a limited amount of violence to solve their stress levels.
    If you are employed in any job where you deal with customers, if your customers stress you out for any reason, you can’t go around thinking you can slap them to ease? your stress because that would be regarded as a physical assault, wouldn’t it?

  124. says

    Sirtooting,

    Interpret it in a different way? Making a value judgement of the for “x is better than y” does not imply: “You should do y” or “men must do y, because they are weak”. You interpret it that way which is not warranted.

  125. says

    Sry meant to say:

    Interpret it in a different way? Making a value judgement of the for “x is better than y” does not imply: “You should do x” or “men must do x, because they are weak”. You interpret it that way which is not warranted.

  126. sirtooting . says

    You have given no other interpretation, because there isn’t one.
    Karen quite clearly states .. “VIOLENCE isn’t right BUT A SLAP .. is acceptable .. here & there… IS BETTER… than the guy taking all of her nagging …. & EXPLODING in such a way … THAT HE BEATS HER … her within an inch of her life”

    That is pretty much it.. she says .. let him slap her as it is preferable to him losing all self control.
    Pretty much it, … Her very own words, .. are confirmation, that a slap is preferable .. she is AGREEING THAT IS WHAT SHE IS SAYING .. AND quite clearly advising men to slap their partners to reduce their own stress levels.

    There is no X & Y..
    There is only Karen advising men to slap their partners when they are being nagged by them .. slap them she says, “VIOLENCE isn’t right BUT A SLAP .. is acceptable .. here & there..

    We are talking about Karen and the advice she is giving to men to reduce their stress levels.
    Karen is in favour of using violence and is advising men to do that very thing.
    three worries: arrogance on her the part , in providing stupid advice; ideological enthusiasm at the behest of demagogy, and finally, do-goodery that takes on a bad problem and makes it worse, when she ought not to have interfered on a presumption of having the normative high-ground.

    Karen is in favour of violence, she has confirmed that very thing, to leave us without any doubt whatsoever. ” “VIOLENCE isn’t right BUT A SLAP .. in this situation is acceptable ..
    Karen’s reply .. yeah “THAT IS PRETTY MUCH IT.” .. you got my gist,.. your understanding of what i am proposing is correct and I can’t argue with it, because, “THAT IS PRETTY MUCH IT.”

  127. sirtooting . says

    It is Karen who has assumed men lack self control, and due to this false belief, she offers this terrible advice to anyone who is willing to listen to her.
    When you have an equation and the very first part of the it is wrong, then you will never achieve a correct answer.

    Karen believes she is the right person to offer advice to people, because she has all the answers, except her answers are reliant on her false beliefs, therefore all her answers from the out set, are as false as all her beliefs.
    False in one, false in all.

  128. sirtooting . says

    LMAO ..
    Until someone comes along and proves it false, it’s true,

    It’s true, you don’t need to give another interpretation, and man I just want to let you know, just to clarify the matter. I wasn’t looking for one because I already have the correct one here..

  129. says

    Until someone comes along and proves it false, it’s true,

    This is completely false. Statemenets are not correct until they are proven false.

  130. freja says

    @142, sheaf

    Mhm, googling about feminisation it seems I got the word usage wrong and Freja is right about it.

    Let me just say that I appreciate that you hold yourself to the same standards as others. I still disagree vehemently about your way of distinguishing factual disagreements from bigotry, but I respect that you’re consistent about it, which is a rarity.

    @141, sheaf

    Which assertion? Usually I retract my unevidenced assertions. You should do the same.

    Such as your assertions about what MRAs mean when they complain about ‘feminisation’. You made that with no proof, and while I respect that you retracted it when you found evidence to the contrary, I have found no evidence to the contrary of my assertion that men tend to be the strictest enforcers of masculinity.

    You claimed that this feminisation idea is against men being allowed to hlp. I started arguing that it is not. It is completely irrelevant f believe that the concept is any good.

    My claim was that the framing of femininity as inferior and/or wrong and unnatural in men made it harder for men to ask for help, since this is seen as a feminine/weak thing to do, which men are shamed for

    I will amend the argument in the following way: Being wrong about peoples circumstaces is not evidence of misogyny. Claiming so is immoral. Note that your attempt to fix the argument fails as well: If I disagree with you about the ability of women to compete with men at the olypmics I am not a misogynist.

    Abilities are not circumstances, so clearly circumstances are not the only thing you can be wrong about. And if assertions about ability (or lack of same) can’t be bigoted even if they’re false, why not assertions about personality traits and temper? The reason you’re not a misogynist is that your assertion is based on fact, not bigotry. There is obviously no hard rule about when something is fact vs ideology, just as there is no hard rule about whether a piece of satire is punching up or down, but that’s why we discuss these things.

    What is the thin ice here? If there are differences i ability, then so be it? This is an empirical question, not something that has anything to do with hate of women or seing them as inferior

    People’s assertions about facts can be sexist if they’re based on or coloured by sexist ideology, and the vast majority of oppression carried out has been justified by seemingly common sense (but in retrospect immensely stupid) statements of alleged facts, such as how women’s lower intelligence and incapacity of rational thought meant it was in their own best interest to have men govern their lives just as adults governed the lives of children, and how blacks didn’t have the mental capacity to form societies of their own and needed benevolent slave owners to order their lives.

    So her research and methods bad? Maybe this is the cause f her being wrong? What has that to be with being an misogyist? What selfcontradictions did she make?

    She haven’t used bad research methods, because that would require her to do actual research. As I said before, statements of alleged facts motivated by bigotry are still bigotry. Also, her statement that support for a man would mean support for his whole family, while support for a woman would just go to supporting that woman is very much an assertion about the morality of women.

    It’s especially ironic because I recall MRAs complaining about misandry because some organisations and government agencies delivering emergency aid in third world countries to the oldest woman in each family and let her distribute it, rather than delivering indiscriminately to everyone around. In these cases, it was based on actual experience (men would tend to fight each other and women and children for the food to get more for themselves, whereas women would stand in line and wait for their turn), but it was still labeled misandry. In contrast, GWW has no basis for the assumption that women wont share their wealth with relatives but men would, and yet she insists on it anyway.

    And everyone who would call you a misandrist for that would be an irrational asshole.

    So saying that free public schooling should only be made available for women isn’t sexist? Well, at least you’re consistent, but we’ll have to disagree on that. Out of curiosity, what would be sexist to you?

    I’m not just looking at statements, I’m looking at the amount of support they get vs. the amount of support opposing statements get, as well as the site policies, like what gets and doesn’t get you banned. I also look at whether I can find similar statements about male inferiority and advocates for violence against men (and its opposition) on similar feminist sites, as well as the examples of reasonable and non-misogynist MRAs people present me with.

    Site policies:

    The person posting the comment I linked to wasn’t banned. Also, linking to anything associated with Gawker Media is forbidden (which I recall became pretty problematic when redditors worked themselves into a frenzy over a fake screenshot of a Jezebel article, with no link to the real site), but they value free speech? And I’m supposed to believe they’re nto sexist because they have an official policy saying they’re not? Colour me unimpressed.

    Regarding upvotes: Strogly misogynistic ad misandric comments are most of the time downvoted. You can test this yourself by creatig a throwaway and posting a strongly misogynistc line ala “this proves that women are inferior” or “I hope someone cuts off her tits”. It wont get many upvotes.

    Again, it depends on your definition of misogyny. The piece of Anders Breivik’s manifesto which was posted there received more upvotes than downvotes until the MRAs realised what they were upvoting.

    Things that feminists call misogyny or that have weak but real misogynistic undertones may on occasion be upvoted, but will often be critizised by the more thoughtful members.

    You’re making one assertion, I’m making another, and none of us has any way of proving it because the place is vast and unstructured, meaning that we can find misogyny being both praised and criticised. It’s more of a message board than a site actual articles and contributors supported by the site owners, so you can probably find almost anything there with no sure indication of how widely and officially supported and approved it is. For my part, I’ve seen enough misogynist and irrational blaming of feminists (including for things predating feminism) there and not nearly enough of anything else to hold it in very high regards, but if you have some great examples of non-bigoted activism for men going on there, feel free to share.

  131. freja says

    @149, sheaf

    Interpret it in a different way? Making a value judgement of the for “x is better than y” does not imply: “You should do x” or “men must do x, because they are weak”. You interpret it that way which is not warranted.

    The implication of “x is better than y” is that either x or y is inevitable. She could have said “If you can’t control yourself enough to avoid doing either x or y, you should get therapy and avoid putting yourself in situations where you’d be tempted to do x or y in the meantime”. If the only alternatives for a guy in a relationship is to either beat his partner mildly or beat his partner badly, he should not be in that relationship to begin with. By not even considering the option of the guy realising that violence has no place in a romantic relationship, she makes violence into the norm for guys, rather than something they can change or avoid.

    Furthermore, her claim that it’s less problematic and somewhat consensual because men report getting better sex afterwards is asserting that the benevolence and consensuality of violence against women should be judged on whether or not it gets men what they want. It’s pretty much what misogynist PUAs say when they defend abusing women – if women didn’t want to be abused, they’d resist more and prevent men from benefiting from it.

  132. says

    Freja(155)

    I’m not just looking at statements, I’m looking at the amount of support they get vs. the amount of support opposing statements get, as well as the site policies, like what gets and doesn’t get you banned. I also look at whether I can find similar statements about male inferiority and advocates for violence against men (and its opposition) on similar feminist sites, as well as the examples of reasonable and non-misogynist MRAs people present me with.

    Site policies:

    The person posting the comment I linked to wasn’t banned. Also, linking to anything associated with Gawker Media is forbidden (which I recall became pretty problematic when redditors worked themselves into a frenzy over a fake screenshot of a Jezebel article, with no link to the real site), but they value free speech? And I’m supposed to believe they’re nto sexist because they have an official policy saying they’re not? Colour me unimpressed.

    Due to formatting errors I am not entirely sure what you are getting at. You did not link to any comment to my knowledge (May be an oversight on my part). But this irrelevant as I proposed an experiment to drectly test the claims in question, making predictions of claims to fact regarding the outcome. Since you did not ammend or comment on it I decided to do it myself instead. I created the reddit throwaway right_in_the_stunt. I have to stress: None of the views espoused by this handle are my own, in fact my own views are completely opposed to them and I am disgusted by these statements. To test how the /r/mr community reacts toward misogyny I posted 4 statements that were strongly hostile towards women. I only got downvotes as of this writing. I planned to make a few weakly hostile statements next, to test the other predictions. it did not come to that: I was banned. So I think the claim that misogyny is tolerated there is rather untrue.

    Such as your assertions about what MRAs mean when they complain about ‘feminisation’. You made that with no proof, and while I respect that you retracted it when you found evidence to the contrary, I have found no evidence to the contrary of my assertion that men tend to be the strictest enforcers of masculinity.

    Not sure what you are trying to say: That you will keep making unevidenced assertions, because I did so? When I did, I was wrong in doing so.

    A small re regarding feminization: Searching the mensrights sub using the reddit search function, the term has 19 hits, compared to “false rape allegation” clocking in at 146 hits or “draft”, producing 124 hits. This indicates that while the sentiment exist it is not a very popular talking point among MRAs.

    Abilities are not circumstances, so clearly circumstances are not the only thing you can be wrong about.

    Yes. My last response completely sidestepped the issue of abilities: It took the form :”I will amend the argument in the following way: Being wrong about peoples circumstances is not evidence [I now think a better formulation would be proof in this case, but the reasons for this change in formulation are technical] of misogyny.”
    This says nothing about abilities. Or even what would be misogyny. It just says that what Straughan did was not enough to establish the allegation you made.

    And if assertions about ability (or lack of same) can’t be bigoted even if they’re false, why not assertions about personality traits and temper?

    Nope I do not think I said that those can be bigoted. I dont believe female and male population averages are the same when it comes to all character traits and I think it is unreasonable to expect they would be if both were treated exactly the same. The problem comes from seeing these differences as normative inferiority.

    The reason you’re not a misogynist is that your assertion is based on fact, not bigotry.

    Given the actual definition you are a misogynist if yu hate women and think they are inferior. If you have true or false believes about them is irrelevant.

    There is obviously no hard rule about when something is fact vs ideology, just as there is no hard rule about whether a piece of satire is punching up or down, but that’s why we discuss these things.

    If you use terminology without clear criteria, your whole conversation just becomes an incoherent mess. While I do not usually concern mysef with what an ideology is (I think the term is mostly useless: it is usually only use in attempts to discredit the ideas of a differet group of people with different opinions), I have given the definitions of facts much thought. For publc discourse it is best to require a verifiability criterion: I.e. A fact is a statement that is verifiably true within the cotext of the coversation.

    She haven’t used bad research methods, because that would require her to do actual research. As I said before, statements of alleged facts motivated by bigotry are still bigotry.

    First note the change of terms of misogyny to bigotry. Bigotry as defied by wikipedia: “Bigotry is the state of mind of a bigot: someone who, as a result of their prejudices, treats or views other people with fear, distrust, hatred, contempt, or intolerance on the basis of a person’s ethnicity, race, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, disability, socioeconomic status, or other characteristics.” This is a useless term. I will treat people with antisocial personality disorders with all of these except for contempt and hatred. And given the relevant statistics regarding them I dont think it is bad judgement. In any case, Straughan did not exemplify these features at all by espousing her view.

    So saying that free public schooling should only be made available for women isn’t sexist? Well, at least you’re consistent, but we’ll have to disagree on that. Out of curiosity, what would be sexist to you?

    Sexism is preferential treatment based on gender. This seems to have nthing to do with what Straughan said. I would consider the behavior sexist, but depending on your expected outcome I would not be sure if you are a misandrist, however the my probability estimate for it would be high. I would clarify on the motives of the person next.

  133. Bob says

    Re: Sirtooting

    “A total of 4,486 U.S. soldiers were killed in Iraq between 2003 and 2012.

    The Americans weep, when they hear this news, but in exactly the same period, 11,000 women in America were murdered by their husbands & partners, few weep for them with the same vigour. ”

    There are quite a number of people who are very upset by that fact. Nearly half a million die of cancer each year as well. There’s also the little known fact that multiple studies have found that, when you strictly look at intimate partner homicides, men are only slightly more likely to be the murderer. Among African-Americans, 50% of all intimate partner homicides are male killing female and 50% are female killing male. Since it’s nearly impossible to find accurate statistics regarding this kind of behavior in a society so biased against men, if the study’s findings are to be believed, for that 11,000 women murdered by husbands and partners, there were 9000+ men murdered by wives/girlfriends/partners as well. In fact, when a woman kills, she’s most likely to kill a man who has been sexually involved with her in some way. When a man kills, he’s unlikely to kill someone close to him – and far more likely to murder a male. The UK found that nearly 50% of all domestic violence victims are men. The stark reality of these statistics made me reevaluate what was formerly a very strong feminist belief that women are somehow excessively victimized in society and start looking at cold, hard facts:

    “A hitherto unremarked peculiarity of homicide in the United States is that women kill their husbands almost as often as the reverse.”
    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1745-9125.1992.tb01102.x/abstract

  134. carnation says

    Hi Bob,

    You stated that “The stark reality of these statistics made me reevaluate what was formerly a very strong feminist belief that women are somehow excessively victimized in society and start looking at cold, hard facts”

    Prior to that, though, you also stated that “it’s nearly impossible to find accurate statistics regarding this kind of behavior in a society so biased against men”

    Did you believe that we lived in a society “so biased” against men when you had your “strong feminist beliefs”? Or was that just a silly story to make your points seem better?

  135. says

    I was vvery happy to uncover this great site. I want to tto thank you for ones time just for this fantastic read!!

    I definitely liked every part oof it and I have you saved
    as a favoritte to check out new stuff on your site.

    My web-site fl.

  136. says

    I’m amazed, I must say. Rarely do I come across a blog that’s both
    educative and amusing, and let me tell you, you have
    hit the nail on the head. The problem is something that too
    few folks are speaking intelligently about. Now i’m very happy I found this during my hunt
    for something concerning this.

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>