I’m only writing this to get laid. Or am I?


Let me tell you about a stupid thing people often say to me. They’ve been saying it to me for years, and I have never written about it before, mostly because it is so full of stupid it feels almost unfair to pick it up and rattle it until all the stupid falls out – like squeezing a puppy until it poops itself or something.

It should be said, this particular little puppy is not just stupid. It is stupid, and insulting and deepy, deeply offensive, specifically to men. I know some people are suspicious of the word misandry but hey, it’s a thing, and the topic of our discussion today is absolutely rotten with loathing and contempt for the male gender.

So what is this rancid little snotbubble of idiocy? It’s the tedious cliche that says any man who says or writes something which could be perceived to be sympathetic to women or feminism must only be doing so in the hope of getting a shag.

Most of the time, the peddlers of this misandrist puppy-poop are men themselves, usually anti-feminist commentators and MRAs. Here’s a typical example from A Voice For Men
sexmotive3

However they are not the only culprits. Last week I found myself unexpectedly whelmed by a torrent of antipathy from the radical feminists of Twitter. It began with a group who simply don’t like me, don’t like my thinking, and don’t like my writing. That’s fair enough, the feeling is pretty much mutual. Along the way, I was treated to this little diagnosis of my motivations.

sexmotive1

So far, so yawn. However as the torrent turned into a tsunami, one of my detractors dug out an old tweet of mine,  referring to the vile and abusive trans-exclusionary radfem (TERF) cabal of Cathy Brennan and pals, in which I’d said that radfems like those are thankfully a dying breed. This opened up a whole new subplot, including this gem

sexmotive2

This is really world-class offensiveness. You would have to look long and far to find a message that manages to squeeze in so much transphobia, homophobia and misandry into 140 little characters.

So what is my issue with this cliche? Let’s start with the stupid.

I’m a 47 year-old father of two, who has been settled in a monogamish relationship for almost exactly 20 years now. If I want to get laid I catch up on the Hoovering and scrub the toilets, pack the kids off to their grandparents for the weekend, make my best curry (with extra ginger) make sure the cats are fed and the dog is walked and we’ve thrown enough coffee down our necks that we don’t fall asleep in front of Celebrity Knitting on Ice, which let’s be honest, we probably will. I don’t argue on the internet about feminism in order to have sex. I argue on the internet about feminism precisely because I’m not having sex, you doofuses.

At this point I was about to go into a predictable rant about how speaking or writing about feminism is an utterly abject approach to getting laid anyway. Buy a guitar or clean under your fingernails instead. Then I realised that, actually, it may not be true.

If you can find someone adequately alluring, who finds you adequately alluring in turn, and you discover a shared interest in the early writings of Shulamith Firestone, then for all I know the erotic sparks will be pinging by midnight. Go for it.  To the best of my knowledge, OK Cupid is not teeming with het-up and horny young guys and gals eager to debate Nussbaum’s theory of objectification, but if two such meteors crash on a shared stellar orbit, then good fucking luck to you both.

The much more important point is that to fall back on this lazy trope implies that the only motivation a man could have to say or do anything is to get sex. Could it be this guy has spent a long time thinking about the moral and political ramifications of various ideological positions and made a conscious (or emotional) decision to adopt certain positions as a matter of principle? Don’t be ridiculous, he’s a man, fnurr fnurr, he can only ever think with his dick, it’s what all men do, innit?

Fuck that shit, once and for all.

I don’t expect any of the radical feminists quoted above to be reading this blog, and even if they did I very much doubt they would care. The plain fact is that most of them actually do hold men in contempt and disdain, quite proudly so. They actually believe shit like this, so they are probably beyond hope.

I expect better of male readers, particularly those who fancy themselves as men’s activists or campaigners against misandry. Perhaps you believe you only think with your dick yourselves, and are holding the rest of us to your standards? Or more probably,  you just don’t have the wit or imagination to come up with rational arguments against the men you target, so fall back on hoary old misandrist cliches? Whatever your excuse, catch yourselves on. Next time it happens I’m pointing the offenders straight to this blog. You’re part of the problem.

Comments

  1. says

    Or more probably, you just don’t have the wit or imagination to come up with rational arguments against the men you target, so fall back on hoary old misandrist cliches?

    While I think the “he is doing for the chicks” explanation to be unbelievable in your case, I do not thnk you are correct on why this is done. I thnk it is more likely that people have a narrative they follow and if there is contradictory evidence to this narrative (even if it is very weak evidence) like male feminists or female mras they have knee jerk explanations for these , like “internalized misogyny” or “he is doing this to get laid”. The existence of genuine intellectual disagreement is a hard pill to swallow for a lot of people.

  2. Thil says

    Ally I think maybe you shouldn’t have talked about yourself so much in this article. It kind of comes across like your indulging in self pity and playing the victim

    “The plain fact is that most of them actually do hold men in contempt and disdain, quite proudly so”

    when you say “them” do you mean just these people who’ve been bothering you on twitter, or all radical feminists?

  3. Jacob Schmidt says

    “He’s fairly homophobic and racist, too.”

    Uh, what? Have I missed something? I don’t remember anything that could even be construed as racism or homophobia, let alone actual acts of such.

  4. Jacob Schmidt says

    I argue on the internet about feminism precisely because I’m not having sex, you doofuses.

    That’s gonna be taken out of context.

  5. Jackie wishes she could hibernate says

    Tell ‘em, Ally.

    I think those haters are so selfish, shallow and dim that they’re just projecting their own attitudes onto you. All they care about is, “What’s in it for me”.

    On a lighter note, you nailed your description of seduction in a long term relationship between parents.

  6. johngreg says

    Ally said:

    So what is this rancid little snotbubble of idiocy? It’s the tedious cliche that says any man who says or writes something which could be perceived to be sympathetic to women or feminism must only be doing so in the hope of getting a shag.

    Which brings to mind the other side of that particular toxic coin of the “radical feminists of twitter” which is when semi high-profile feminists such as Melody Hensley, for example, state that women who disagree with them do so only because they want to appease / sleep with / hang out with the men. And, by the way, that particular meme, or whatever we should call it, has become very prevalent amongst the feminists who hang out at places like Skepchick, and several FTB blogs, and is not constrained to just the “radical feminists of twitter”.

    Nasty stuff all around.

  7. says

    @johngreg, where did she say that? Oh she didn’t, just called someone a “chill girl” once. And that wasn’t for disagreeing with her but for agreeing with/ defending people who harass as something to just “chill” about. It doesn’t affect them so it shouldn’t affect others. Which doesn’t mean that at all, does it? But then it doesn’t appear you usually let facts get in the way of a good lie.

    (For the record the “girl” part of the insult is sexist so I personally wouldn’t use it.)

    As for the TERfs there is more than a little similarity between them and MRAs, when people have no rational arguments they revert to nastiness to further their ideology.

  8. Jackie wishes she could hibernate says

    Johngreg,
    That’s a nice pack of lies you got there. Too bad we can all read and know you’re full of shit.

  9. johngreg says

    Thus spake Zarathoolon, mighty white defender of truth, justice, free speech, and the Orwellian Way.

  10. says

    “I don’t argue on the internet about feminism in order to have sex. I argue on the internet about feminism precisely because I’m not having sex.”

    This is gold.

  11. says

    Thanks for linking the petition James!

    @4

    Yeah, the terf narrative (at least on twitter) right now is that their detractors are all anti-lesbian white-supremacists. It’s a thing they’ve been pushing for a while – since they accused the blocker crew of all being white men; while doxing the white cisgender men and transgender women on their website. (Ignoring, of course, the cisgender women and people of color, who are also blockers.)

    I didn’t know they were also accusing others of that – but I’m not surprised.

    Of course we’re not perfect, but they’ve forwarded this asinine idea that we’re all egregious racist homophobes.

    I think it might be some stupid, cynical attempt to discredit us due to our petitioning the SPLC – or something stupid?! I don’t know what their motivation is.

    The SPLC is going to make a decision based on the evidence, not some sort of hair-brained emotive narrative. I mean, this is what they are all about: http://sinmantyx.wordpress.com/2014/01/10/group/

    But to bring this back to the original topic – the cisgender male allies get accused of wanting to have sex with us – all the time. I don’t get this accusation because – vagina. The transgender women are accused (I kid you not) of wanting to have sex with themselves – something these bastions of pseudo-scientific asshattery call “autogynophelia”.

    Little do they know – I’m only a blocker because I find aratina incredibly sexy. /sarcasm

    Seriously – it’s just such a common and ridiculous accusation – it’s become a cliche. It seems that everyone who (most likely) has (or had at one time) a penis is accused of this. The only exception might be gay cis men but I wouldn’t even be surprised if they get accused of being fakers that just want to get in our pants when they fail to hate women sufficiently.

  12. says

    @johngreg

    ‘Uff – it’s like you can’t make claims without evidence around here and expect everyone to believe you.

    FREE SPEECH

    :P

    I have seen the accusation that some women who say sexist things against other women are doing so to gain favor with men – not get into their pants, but to gain social capital. Having navigated male-dominated rude spaces in the past; this is not always a baseless accusation. However, I think conjecture of an individual’s motivation is always a problematic road to go down. Best to just take note of what you can actually observe – what the external social mechanisms are – not the unseen psychology of an individual person that you can only guess at.

  13. Pitchguest says

    @johngreg, where did she say that? Oh she didn’t, just called someone a “chill girl” once. And that wasn’t for disagreeing with her but for agreeing with/ defending people who harass as something to just “chill” about. It doesn’t affect them so it shouldn’t affect others. Which doesn’t mean that at all, does it? But then it doesn’t appear you usually let facts get in the way of a good lie.

    (For the record the “girl” part of the insult is sexist so I personally wouldn’t use it.)

    As for the TERfs there is more than a little similarity between them and MRAs, when people have no rational arguments they revert to nastiness to further their ideology.

    Going for revisionist there, James, old boy?

    “This is what you call a sister punisher, a woman who turns on other women to gain favor of sexist men.”

    http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterfliesandwheels/2012/05/here-it-comes/comment-page-1/#comment-173203

  14. Pitchguest says

    M.A. Melby:

    Seriously? We have plenty of evidence that Melody Hensley has both used ‘sister punisher’ and supported ‘chill girl’ as an accepted epithet, to use against women who do things she disagrees with.

    One such instance is linked above, which you easily could’ve looked up yourself.

    As for ‘chill girl’, there’s a Wiktionary with several instances of it being used in various ways.

    http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Citations:chill_girl

  15. says

    We have now reached the portion of today’s program in which “You find it useful to cater to the people in power and step on those not in power to do so” is equivalent in reductionism and likelihood as “The only thing on your mind is sex.” This should be enlightening.

  16. johngreg says

    Here are a few links pointing out, specifically, Hensley’s play with the terms “chill girl” and “sister punishers”, accussing some feminists, with whom she disagrees, of only wanting to get in with sexist men, and defining what the terms mean and who they apply to (I have removed the https slashes and www bits because I do not know what Ally’s policy on links is, and I did not want to be stuck in link-moderation limbo):

    Hensley says that “Sister Punisher” and “Chill Girl” will stay in her vocabulary, and that chill girls get rewards, including getting boyfriends, for being chill girls / sister punishers:

    … twitter.com/MelodyHensley/status/244605101510119424

    Hensley and the Flame compare notes:

    … elevatorgate.wordpress.com/2013/03/18/melody-hensley-reiterates-her-affinity-for-the-chill-girl-epithet/

    Hensley insults Sara Mayhew (yet again) and puts words in her mouth, implying that Mayhew furthers her career by garnering attention and approval from men:

    … saramayhew.com/blog/index.php/2012/09/cfi-responds-melody-hensley/

    Hensley defines “sister punisher” and Abbie Smith in one fell swoop:

    … freethoughtblogs.com/butterfliesandwheels/2012/05/here-it-comes/comment-page-1/#comment-173203

    Hensley accusses Abbie Smith and Miranda Hale as only wanting to get in with sexist men:

    … saramayhew.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Photo-2013-02-17-2-04-34-PM.png

  17. Onamission5 says

    There might be a modicum of truth in there somewhere that being a feminist can make a guy more likely to be appealing to women, because he’s more likely to take her feelings and opinions seriously, respect her boundaries, and not have a ginormous, entitled chip on his shoulder when it comes to hetero relationships. Like that’s a bad thing or something?

  18. says

    “One such instance is linked above, which you easily could’ve looked up yourself.”

    Which is actually consistent with what I said – and no, it’s not my job to make other ppl’s cases for them. If you want me to do research for you, I charge by the hour.

  19. D says

    As someone who has known you (on and off) for about 10 years upon the internets and actually physically met your and your lovely wife on a handful of occasions; the notion that you are ‘doing this get laid’ delights me to point that I actually laughed out loud.

    (great post btw)

  20. abear says

    M.A. Melby wrote:

    However, I think conjecture of an individual’s motivation is always a problematic road to go down. Best to just take note of what you can actually observe – what the external social mechanisms are – not the unseen psychology of an individual person that you can only guess at.

    You appear to have made this statement while in ignorance of the facts, claiming that Pitchguest and John Greg were basing their statements on conjecture and not evidence.
    When you make a false statement is it the fault of your critics because they didn’t pay you to look to see what the facts of the situation are before you post?

  21. M can help you with that. says

    Wait, so now I’m only a devoted pro-feminist because I’m trying to get women into bed? News to me, especially considering that, y’know, I don’t pursue sex with women. And it’s not just me — my personal anecdata probably aren’t representative, but I definitely get the impression from my feminist/pro-feminist circles of friends that gay men (i.e. pretty much by definition not striking a pro-feminist pose to get laid) are over-represented among pro-feminist men.

    Gee, maybe some of us are just pro-feminist because we just don’t like to see our friends/sisters/mothers/daughters/random-strangers-who-happen-to-be-women take shit and have their options constrained, and because patriarchy generally sucks, and because the efforts of the feminist movement have collateral benefits for men who don’t fit the macho phallocratic mold…

  22. abear says

    M can help you with that wrote:

    Gee, maybe some of us are just pro-feminist because we just don’t like to see our friends/sisters/mothers/daughters/random-strangers-who-happen-to-be-women take shit and have their options constrained, and because patriarchy generally sucks, and because the efforts of the feminist movement have collateral benefits for men who don’t fit the macho phallocratic mold…

    Gee, maybe you were turned gay because you were hanging with too many feminists?
    I’m only speculating though, maybe we could hire M. A. Melby to research that ?

  23. Pitchguest says

    M.A. Melby:

    I suppose that’s as good an excuse as any for not getting your facts straight.

    The terms “sister punisher” and “chill girl” are used, in various ways, to disparage women (either by men or by other women) by implying they do things (for whatever reason) just to get affection from men. Whether it’s consistent with what you, personally, have seen is, frankly, irrelevant. They are subjective terms, that could apply to any woman regardless of their moral outlook – simply because they happen to support someone the other one doesn’t like – and they differ person to person. they Like Melody Hensley claiming Abbie Smith turns on women because she is a “sister punisher” and wants to gain the favour of sexist men.

    And on topic, don’t you think that’s akin to what Ally has been accused of? Don’t you think it’s equally sexist? Do you actually consider the term to be acceptable? Both terms?

  24. avern says

    “It’s the tedious cliche that says any man who says or writes something which could be perceived to be sympathetic to women or feminism must only be doing so in the hope of getting a shag.”

    A far more tedious cliche is the one that assumes that men who say or write things that are critical of women or feminism must only be doing so because they *can’t* get laid. Feminists brainlessly trot out this cliche at every opportunity, as they cannot argue based on the facts. It’s only logical then that MRAs would assume that feminists, especially male feminists, only understand male motivation as being sex-related. Feminist men, they conclude, must have a sex-related reason for being feminist since that’s all feminists seem to want to concentrate on regarding men.

    Ally, if you truly want to portray yourself as being men-friendly, then every time a feminist virgin-shames someone critical of feminism, SPEAK OUT against it.

  25. Ally Fogg says

    avern

    A far more tedious cliche is the one that assumes that men who say or write things that are critical of women or feminism must only be doing so because they *can’t* get laid

    Not sure about “far more” but I agree with you that this is also common and also bang out of order. It is using sexuality and sexual shaming to cast aspersions, which is a pretty shitty thing to do in any direction.

    pitchguest and others

    May I politely point out that this is not Melody Hansley’s blog, I barely know who she is, and if you have specific issues with specific individuals, this is not provided as a platform for you to pursue them.

    You might notice that even in the original tweets and messages that sparked this discussion, I went to all the trouble of redacting the user names so as not to make this about personal vendettas. And that’s when it *is* my specific issues on *my* blog, and as Thil astutely noticed, it’s all about me me me . So if I don’t name names and pursue personal vendettas here, you certainly don’t.

    I actually agree with you that there is a parallel issue of anti-feminist women (or FemRAs or whatever) being similarly abused. I’ve never heard ‘chill girl’ before, but I have seen the ‘handmaids of the patriarchy’ thing which is pretty damned offensive too.

    So I have no issue with you (or avern) raising these kinds of issues on this thread, I do have issues with you making it about specific individuals, especially those who are not even here to defend themselves.

    Understood?

  26. johngreg says

    Ally said:

    So I have no issue with you (or avern) raising these kinds of issues on this thread, I do have issues with you making it about specific individuals, especially those who are not even here to defend themselves.

    Sure, I have no problem with refraining from mentioning specific individuals in further discussion on this issue in this comment thread.

    I will note that I am guilty of being the first to bring in a specific, named individual, but, in my defence, that was done for the sake of providing a specific example (not to make it about that specific individual), rather than break the blog rule about generalisations.

    I also did so in anticipation of being called a liar, and in anticipation of a demand for specifics / citations, and to pre-emptively provide specifics to back up my claims — Ally, I have a few years more experience than you in dealing with the general FTB commentariat, so I expected to be responded to as I was, and even more so had I not mentioned a specific name.

    In that light, and I ask this sincerely, what would you like me to do when I am accussed of lying, as I have been, and need to provide specifics to back up my claims? Should I just provide links without associated specifics and names?

  27. Ally Fogg says

    johngreg

    For future reference, I would have thought this would have more than got your point across

    Which brings to mind the other side of that particular toxic coin of the “radical feminists of twitter” which is when feminists state that women who disagree with them do so only because they want to appease / sleep with / hang out with the men. And, by the way, that is not constrained to just the “radical feminists of twitter”.

  28. johngreg says

    Yes, you’re right. I could have kept it to that. Although I still think some kind of padding, albeit without resorting to specific names, is required to avoid the HetPat no-generalising rule.

  29. Pitchguest says

    Fair enough. I’ll try to remember that. I realised I was a bit off topic so I tried to steer it back. Sorry about that.

    But if you noticed, john was almost instantly called a liar for the things he said. I would argue that it’s a bit difficult to save face when that happens without providing citations to disprove it, and those citations might potentially name names. So how is that resolved? Just ignore it?

  30. leni says

    ….referring to the vile and abusive trans-exclusionary radfem (TERF) cabal of Cathy Brennan and pals…

    Why did I click that link? Why?

    That was… horrible.

    I really hope they don’t start posting here, though. It would put me the morally difficult position of having to think about who I dislike more, radfems or MRAs.

    It’s like during the summer when the spider vs. centipede war is in full swing. I don’t know whether to root for the spiders or the centipedes, but my efforts to get rid of them both never amount to much. All I can do is pick the least horrible option and silently hope they will reduce the other species’ numbers enough to make it tolerable for me and less fruitful territory for the “winners”. I guess I could get birds, maybe. Or small weasels.

    Anyway, Ally, I’m not really sure where this metaphor is going, but I hope you don’t need birds or weasels.

  31. ibbica says

    @leni (#35):

    It’s like during the summer when the spider vs. centipede war is in full swing. I don’t know whether to root for the spiders or the centipedes, but my efforts to get rid of them both never amount to much. All I can do is pick the least horrible option and silently hope they will reduce the other species’ numbers enough to make it tolerable for me and less fruitful territory for the “winners”. I guess I could get birds, maybe. Or small weasels.

    Indoor cats are (typically, there are always exceptions…) remarkably good at supplying arthropod control. They also tend to do double-duty as nighttime leg-warmers, which may or may not be useful depending on your current climate.
    Failing that, you’d be amazed at what allowing a (domestic, and neutered, please!) rat or hamster free range of the (rodent-proofed house!) can do to a local arthropod population…
    /entirely off-topic comment

  32. Ally Fogg says

    johngreg

    Yes, you’re right. I could have kept it to that. Although I still think some kind of padding, albeit without resorting to specific names, is required to avoid the HetPat no-generalising rule.

    The HetPat first directive is really quite simple.

    “I hate it when some feminists do XYZ” = fine
    “I hate how all feminists do XYZ” = not fine.

  33. JT says

    The HetPat first directive is really quite simple.

    “I hate it when some feminists do XYZ” = fine
    “I hate how all feminists do XYZ” = not fine.

    Im curious, does that work for all those nasty MRA’s?

  34. Schala says

    (For the record the “girl” part of the insult is sexist so I personally wouldn’t use it.)

    I would say ageist at best, since people who say girl to adults, also say boy to adults.

  35. leni says

    Indoor cats are (typically, there are always exceptions…) remarkably good at supplying arthropod control.

    Mine is remarkably bad at this :) He is most definitely an exception.

    @ Schala- I had a friend who did that, but he used “guys”, not “boys”. It was weird and rude. I told him so and he stopped, but still. He called Helen Mirren a “girl” and I think my jaw may have dropped. He seriously didn’t know it was rude and stopped when it was pointed out to him, but it’s still sad that he felt uncomfortable using the word “woman” until he was something like 25.

  36. Paul says

    Ally

    You’re on record as saying your best friends are women and more often than not you don’t get men.And although you’re a man yourself you often come across as being a little bit to quick to put some clear blue water between you and much of the rest of the male population. And i have a problem with that.

    I’m a man and i’m well aware that some men are total shits.But you know what i think some women are total shits as well.And whilst i support full equality between men and women i don’t think having women in control of at least 50% of the overt symbols of power in this country is necessarily going to make things better.Different perhaps but not necessarily better.

    Don’t get me wrong i often agree with you to a point on a wide range of issues.But with regard to issues relating to gender you sometimes come across as someone who’s running with the hares and hunting with the hounds.And to be honest there are times i really don’t know where you’re at.

  37. says

    Yeah, notice that James called John’s claim a lie. I pointed out that evidence was not given, but never stated that John was lying.

    I also mentioned that very thing that John pointed out (in general – not specific to a person). It is true that sometimes women do gain approval from men by saying sexist things against women; and yes, sometimes women are (rightly or wrongly) accused of this.

    This is different than the claim of someone being nice to women to just get into their pants.

    Either claim, though, is often used as a means to dismiss without evidence of any kind. It’s basically an ad hominem. You know, as if intent actually mattered anyway. What makes a claim sexist instead of simply a personal judgment is that someone is generalizing or prejudging based on sexist ideas instead of evidence.

    There may very well be some guy out there with a “This is what a feminist looks like” button on his jacket that is (in reality) just trying to get laid.

    Also, as I said, you can never know someone’s motivations; but you can point to social dynamics. That distinction is being over-looked completely by some of those commenting.

    Notice, as I said, I never made a claim that John was lying, yet I am told that I do not know what I’m talking about. I didn’t get my facts straight, etc. This is something that happens quite a bit – that I’m assumed to be some sycophant to any friendly male nearby and am targeted more harshly than any friendly male nearby for criticism.

    I’m been called a “handmaiden” more times than I can count; and accused of being some sort of property or cult member of the male allies that I work with.

    But the sex-seeking behavior has seldom been applied to me instead I’m accused of seeking approval and being a passive or submissive participate in said sex in a “critics” weird fantasy.

    I think that points to the sexist idea that men are in it for sex while women seek validation.

  38. Archy says

    I think the “getting laid” comments usually originate as there are some men who white-knight women and women’s issues quite a bit. These are men caught up in the “women are wonderful” effect, and at times will act very sorry for just being a male, they’ll bully other men to be savior to the women and are usually quite misandrist. It can appear they do it just for attention from the women. I’ve never ever noticed that from you Ally but it is a common insult to anyone that speaks on women’s issues as a man. Hell, there are some feminists who think men often come into feminist spaces just to get laid or get female attention.

  39. Lucy says

    Avern

    “A far more tedious cliche is the one that assumes that men who say or write things that are critical of women or feminism must only be doing so because they *can’t* get laid.”

    Not for free anyway.

  40. Lucy says

    “The terms “sister punisher” and “chill girl” are used, in various ways, to disparage women (either by men or by other women) by implying they do things (for whatever reason) just to get affection from men. ”

    Affection, approval, favours, proxy status.

    Offensive or not, is it true is the point. Is it the language you object to or the saying of it?

    What’s wrong with calling out women who collude with sexism for self-serving reasons? They’re part of the problem.

  41. Lucy says

    Paul

    “I’m a man and i’m well aware that some men are total shits.But you know what i think some women are total shits as well.And whilst i support full equality between men and women i don’t think having women in control of at least 50% of the overt symbols of power in this country is necessarily going to make things better.Different perhaps but not necessarily better.”

    Better for whom? They will be better for the 53% of the population who want an equal punt at the overt symbols of power.

  42. Lucy says

    M.A.Melby

    ” It’s basically an ad hominem. ”

    On occasion yes, but human beings are very good at sniffing out fraudulent behaviour and figuring out motives. It would be a mistake in my view to send that important ability to the same firey place as our ability to discriminate and prejudge. We aren’t purely rational creatures, we are emotional, instinctive ones too. Sure some people have demonstrably superior emotional intelligence, empathy and intuition to others…

    I think I could make a pretty good stab at Ally Fogg’s motives for believing and doing what he does. His rationally thinking about the issues would definitely be part of it, but it isn’t the whole picture for him or for anyone else.

  43. Ally Fogg says

    Lucy

    On occasion yes, but human beings are very good at sniffing out fraudulent behaviour and figuring out motives.

    I’m sceptical about that.

    Most research in psychology finds that human beings believe ourselves to be very good at such things, but when tested it turns out we’re pretty much useless.

    For example, most people assess themselves to be able to detect whether or not someone is lying to them. But when tested, they perform not much better than chance.

    I’d strongly suspect the same applies here.

  44. Carnation says

    @ Archy

    “I think the “getting laid” comments usually originate as there are some men who white-knight women and women’s issues quite a bit. These are men caught up in the “women are wonderful” effect, and at times will act very sorry for just being a male”

    Got any examples of these “some men”? You see, a prime example would be Ally, but then he doesn’t fit the bill as he’s already pointed out. This is an inanely dumb point propagated, as Ally pointed out, by the fools on both sides of the gender extreme.

    @ Ally

    Here’s my tuppence worth. I came of age, so to speak, in a very hedonistic time (mid/late 90s), lots of booze, drugs and excess, and sex was part of that. But I didn’t really examine particularly what, if any societal framework, all of this was happening in. Then, I went to uni later in life, studying various social sciences and started reading about feminism – and suddenly, lots of things made sense, particularly objectification and gender roles. I realised, basically, that I had absorbed, along with a fair bit of casual sexism, a warped notion of masculinity that demanded promiscuity and fostered a lack of honesty with sexual partners. In a nutshell, that changed quickly – and I started being a lot more honest, with myself about what I wanted, and with others about my intentions. Then a few surprising things started happening – I was having a lot more sex with a lot more sexual partners, and most of them were feminists, from across the spectrum of feminisms.

    But basically, reading and understanding feminism, if you’re a man, will actually lead to “getting laid more”, not because women will think you’re great for doing it, but because it changes one’s perceptions and puts one in touch with other individuals who have de and re-constructed gender roles and patriarchal assumptions about promiscuity, sex and societal expectations.

    I have never attempted to explain this online before, seeing little point in mentioning it to MRAs who, generally speaking, are defined by a crude and abjectly unrealistic understanding of feminist theory. I have to say that until this article I hadn’t noticed that some within feminism retreated in the crass intellectual gulag of such sexist assumptions either.

    Basically, if you’re an extremist with a stunted worldview, be it MRA or radfem, then a sadcase little merry-go-round that holds men as only interested in feminism because they want to get laid, makes perfect sense.

    If you’re not on the sadcase little merry-go-round, you understand that the worlds is a lot more complex than that.

    Fantastic piece Ally, brought back memories and stirred up debate. I will forward this to a few feminist acquaintances by way of a re-introduction back into their lives. If you won’t use your writing to get laid, then I might as well do it.

  45. Ally Fogg says

    Nice post Carnation.

    But basically, reading and understanding feminism, if you’re a man, will actually lead to “getting laid more”, not because women will think you’re great for doing it, but because it changes one’s perceptions and puts one in touch with other individuals who have de and re-constructed gender roles and patriarchal assumptions about promiscuity, sex and societal expectations.

    I think the key part here is “…putting you in touch with other individuals who have…”

    The bottom line, I think, is that people are attracted to diverse types, and you’ll always have more luck if you are attracted to the kind of person who is attracted to you. Being simplistic about it, if you’ve got progressive gender politics and a highly nuanced framework with which to understand patriarchal assumptions around promiscuity, sex and societal expectations, then you’re probably quite likely to meet a soulmate / bedmate at an Amanda Palmer gig, but it probably won’t do you much good at the Coconut Grove nightclub in Alderley Edge, Cheshire.

  46. Carnation says

    Thanks Ally

    Yes, you’re right. I also think that hostility, caused by a sense of inadequacy, to sexually confident young women informs a lot of the hostility to feminists.

    I haven’t been to Coconut Grove in Cheshire, though I have availed myself of the nightlife in Sale and Hale.

  47. Archy says

    “Got any examples of these “some men”?”
    Not off the top of my head, just random commenters usually on sites. The ones I did see would pretty much act like they hated men, that men are the cause of all problems, yadda yadda. To me they’re something similar to trolls.

  48. Schala says

    Julian Real is a radfem example.

    Basically, if you’re an extremist with a stunted worldview, be it MRA or radfem, then a sadcase little merry-go-round that holds men as only interested in feminism because they want to get laid, makes perfect sense.

    While I don’t know the name of any extremist faction in the MRM, you seem to imply that radical feminist and MRA unmodified are equivalents. I disagree. I’d have said radical MRAs (yes in the ‘extremist’ sense) being the equivalent, since radical feminists are often radical in both ways (at the root + extremist).

    Radical traditionalists also hold men in contempt and think sex motivates their every thought. Just watch the theory of autogynephilia, and note if it doesn’t drip with extreme contempt for people who have or have ever had a penis, from a man, no less.

  49. Paul says

    Better for whom? They will be better for the 53% of the population who want an equal punt at the overt symbols of power.

    Lucy- i absolutely agree that women should have an equal punt at the overt symbols of power.But that wasn’t the point i was making.The point i was trying to make was that simply having women holding 50% of the overt symbols of power isn’t necessarily going to make things better for anyone.Having a minority of men controling most of the overt symbols of power doesn’t necessarily benefit large swathes of the male population .So what makes you think having a minority of women controlling 50% of the overt symbolsof power would necessarily benefit the majority of women ?

  50. carnation says

    Schala

    As I have said to you before, assume when I mention MRA I mean those who agree with the theorising detailed in Spearhead, AVfM etc.

    That is indeed a stunted world view because it refuses to understand a sophisticated analysis of patriarchy, prefering rabid paranoia and scapegoating of women/feminists (confused and inappropriately conflated).

    Radfems also misunderstand patriarchy, that is their crutch/scapegoat.

    You brought thus up to wearily trot out the Agent Orange files. Please spare us your embarrassment.

  51. Schala says

    You brought thus up to wearily trot out the Agent Orange files. Please spare us your embarrassment.

    I vaguely heard about Agent Orange stuff (TV shows vaguely referred to it as existing). No idea what it is, what it was about, when it happened, etc. And I don’t care about it enough to find out, either. So I don’t get your reference.

    That is indeed a stunted world view because it refuses to understand a sophisticated analysis of patriarchy,

    I refuse to consider a sophisticated analysis of patriarchy, because it starts from a faulty premise: That we live in one. You can’t assume your conclusion, or its begging the question.

    We live in an oligarchy, where the public face happens to have a noodly appendage (yes, I love making pastafarian puns in totally serious explanations). Not in a patriarchy.

    The dominant oppression is that of the poor by the rich. And the middle class are only under the illusion of having it good. I guess the high middle class might really have it good (family with 2 doctors or 1 surgeon etc).

    The rich force the poor to work for them, under threat of starvation, for the least amount of compensation possible, betting on the supply being plentiful and fungibility to treat employees like crap and replace them like they were numbers. And then they can collect incredible amounts of money from that labor, which they can then reinvest in rich-only moneymakers, like stock options, house reselling and tax avoidance (you could buy stocks if you’re poor, but your 2 Microsoft stocks won’t make you rich). And they then complain that the poor are being leeches on the system by paying little in taxes, even though they pay little in taxes because they have very little to get by to start with. They go to places like New Hampshire, where everyone pays their own way, but that have no state sales tax or income tax. In order to conserve more of their fortune made on the back of the poor.

    THIS is much more significant than whether the rich fuck has a penis or a vagina. I don’t fucking care if they’re Wookies oppressing me. They’re not oppressing me out of their Wookieness, but out of their exploitation of poverty and the threat of starvation.

  52. johngreg says

    Carnation said (http://freethoughtblogs.com/hetpat/2014/01/11/im-only-writing-this-to-get-laid-or-am-i/#comment-30619):

    … hostility, caused by a sense of inadequacy, to sexually confident young women informs a lot of the hostility to feminists.

    Yes, well, it is also probably more true that hostility from feminists (male and female) directed rather indiscriminately toward all heterosexual men in general (and ideologically non-aligned women) informs a lot of the hostility to feminists.

    Actually, to be serious, in the real world sexually confident men tend to attract higher numbers of sexually active and/or interested women (and men) — confident and otherwise — regardless of the attracted individual’s sexual politics. And the opposite is also true, that sexually confident women tend to attract higher numbers of sexually active and/or interested men (and women) — confident and otherwise.

    We’ve got to keep in mind that the fundamental and primary characteristic/actuator of initial sexual attraction has little-to-nothing to do with politics, ideologies, or any other anthropogenic and/or intellectual phenomena.

    So far as I can determine, science, both social sciences and so-called real sciences, show us that, broadly and generally speaking (for the sake of keeping the post below 10,000 words), sexually confident people tend to attract higher numbers of sexually active and/or interested others, and sexually insecure people tend to attract lower numbers of sexually active and/or interested others. Regardless of ideologies and so on.

    Then, after the initial attraction appears, then, and only then, does the cerebral cortex take over and enable such influences as socio-political ideologies and biases guide us in our sexual decisions — except when it doesn’t enter into the equation at all, which is frequent enough as to be a meaningful set of data all by itself.

    And yes, hostility invariably stems more from some form of insecurity and/or fear and/or noncomprehension and/or ignorance and/or lack of understanding than it does from any confidence set. But that, surely, applies equally to all sexes and/or genders and all, or most, forms of attraction, sexual and otherwise.

    In my opinion, the tacit yet implicit slur in your initial point, “hostility, caused by a sense of inadequacy, to sexually confident young women informs a lot of the hostility to feminists” requires something other than your socio-political ideology to present itself as valid in any fashion other than some localized sub-cultural narrow field, or trendy SJL social media meme. A far more accurate (and honest) statement would probably be:

    … hostility, from women and men, caused by a sense of inadequacy to sexually confident women and men, informs a lot of the hostility directed toward sexually confident women and men.

    Also, if we use the feminists, both male and female, as represented by most of the commentors (and some of the bloggers) on many of the currently popular feminist Internet sites (blogs, Websites, et al), then I think equating feminism with sexual confidence is a non-starter oxymoron. What I mean is, current third-wave feminism, simmering, as it is, in the boiling soup of patriarchal blaming, victim politics, and semi-misandry, and the concept of sexual confidence, do not appear to blend well together.

    In my opinion.

    Also, I agree 100% with Schala’s post at #59. One hundred percent.

  53. carnation says

    @ Schala

    And that is why you can’t really be taken seriously. What a totally inane, self-serving and wilfully ignorant hypothesis. Cringe inducing.

    @ John

    See above. Try harder, people. I think virtually all MRA theory (and a fair bit of feminist theory) is embarrassingly deluded juvenile idiocy but I at least acquaint myself with it and don’t hide in a dumb bunker.

  54. carnation says

    @ John

    I said sexually confident young women. This, according to prominent MRAs, is where society’s power lies. In their logic, the obvious response is to start a movement to “fight” the evils of whst they claim is feminism (but clearly isn’t).

    @ Ally

    Am I within 1st Directive cllearance?

  55. Schala says

    And that is why you can’t really be taken seriously. What a totally inane, self-serving and wilfully ignorant hypothesis.

    At least I can demonstrate that even if only a small portion of rich people participate in this oppression, it benefits all rich people materially. Politics are friendly to the rich and businesses, do everything to not up taxes on them, and messages that we (society) need to be gentle with the investors, or they could go elsewhere, are extremely widespread on the right wing. Contradicting this message is seen as being pro-mediocrity and anti-meritocracy, by even center people (not by the left though)

    I’m extreme left, and lucid enough to see money speaks. And money controls politics. Not for no reason that people are cynical about politics and think one asshole is worth another, and voting for the “least worse” candidate. It’s not “for the people”, but “for the rulers”. Even though the bulk of the power is maintained by the people, as no laborers = no advancement and no economy.

    When the rich are able to completely replace the workforce with robots in every single domain, they’ll ditch them (the workers) pretty much like they did in Elysium.

  56. johngreg says

    Carnation, in reply to your, rather empty, reply to me, I can only repeat:

    … the tacit yet implicit slur in your initial point, “hostility, caused by a sense of inadequacy, to sexually confident young women informs a lot of the hostility to feminists” requires something other than your socio-political ideology to present itself as valid in any fashion other than some localized sub-cultural narrow field, or trendy SJL social media meme. A far more accurate (and honest) statement would probably be:

    … hostility, from women and men, caused by a sense of inadequacy to sexually confident women and men, informs a lot of the hostility directed toward sexually confident women and men.

    And, Carnation said:

    And that is why you can’t really be taken seriously. What a totally inane, self-serving and wilfully ignorant hypothesis. Cringe inducing.

    Nonsense. Pull your noggin out of your bifurcated fundament, and shed those blinders, or the real world will drown you (if it hasn’t already).

  57. avern says

    @Ally

    “Not sure about “far more” but I agree with you that this is also common and also bang out of order. It is using sexuality and sexual shaming to cast aspersions, which is a pretty shitty thing to do in any direction.”

    See, you so easily could have made this post about that, about how men’s arguments are refuted solely by accusing them of ulterior sexual motivations. You could have talked about how this poisons debate and affects the way men voice their opinions in public. You could also have examined the way this slander is deployed by all points on the ideological spectrum, positing your experience as simply one in a sea of many. That would have been both helpful and insightful. Instead, you decided to focus mainly on MRAs doing this specifically to male feminists when that is such a minor part of this problem.

    That’s why people don’t believe you when you claim you want to provide non-partisan analysis; you always frame your analysis in a way that is unhelpful and misses the point.

  58. Ally Fogg says

    See, you so easily could have made this post about that

    Yes, or I could have written it about how modern instant coffee jars don’t make the same satisfying ‘pop’ when you break the seal at the top that they used to.

    Or I could have written about how the Dennis and Gnasher cartoons on the telly are a disgrace to the Beano and really shouldn’t be allowed.

    I didn’t do any of those things. If you want to read a blog post about what you’re interested in, I suggest you write your own sodding blog, and leave me to get on with writing about what I’m interested in, OK?

    As it happens, within the past few days, the people who were attacking me – actually scrap that – the nasty eebul *femininsts* who were attacking me – did not do so on the basis of me not having a girlfriend, and they *did* do so on the basis of me only saying what I do in order to get laid (whether by cis or trans women.)

    So it is hardly surprising that I chose that one to write about, is it?

  59. Tauriq Moosa says

    So you dedicate a post to me and you don’t even mention that you wrote this post to get my attention? Fogg, I told you I would only even consider anything between us upon a drink and date (that you pay for).

    In all seriousness, the White Knight accusation is very boring. No doubt there was/are/will be those who use it. That is a reason, I suppose, to not say it’s completely nonsense but to highlight reasons we do these sorts of things.

    I’ve mentioned to critics that I take this same attitude to gay rights – and considering I’m not attracted to men, I wonder what my possible motivation could be. It couldn’t possibly be because I care about equal rights, undermining suffering, etc. No that’s ridiculous: it must somehow be about getting laid. As always, such bizarre accusations say more about accusers than the target.

  60. leni says

    We live in an oligarchy, where the public face happens to have a noodly appendage (yes, I love making pastafarian puns in totally serious explanations). Not in a patriarchy.

    You say this as if these things are mutually exclusive.

    The rich force the poor to work for them, under threat of starvation…

    And who do you suppose has been supplying the world with most of the unpaid labor in child and elder care, food cultivation and production and livestock care?

  61. AndrewV69, Visiting MRA, Purveyor of Piffle & Woo says

    @ johngreg #64,

    Good luck with that. In my experience carnation has communication issues where his easily pushed buttons are involved.

    In any event I suggest you ignore him in favor of people (like Ally) who while I disagre with quite frequently, you can follow his chain of reasoning so that at least you can understand where he is coming from.

  62. leni says

    I’ve have a few brief additions.

    Schala:

    The rich force the poor to work for them, under threat of starvation.

    What makes you think behavior is confined to rich people?

    We live in an oligarchy, where the public face happens to have a noodly appendage (yes, I love making pastafarian puns in totally serious explanations). Not in a patriarchy.

    Should we assume this feature is coincidental?

  63. Archy says

    Not sure about Hugo, but probably. He seemed to be lying about his credentials and had that huge breakdown but he’d probably make the mark.

  64. Archy says

    “And who do you suppose has been supplying the world with most of the unpaid labor in child and elder care, food cultivation and production and livestock care?”

    Technically correct but in the real world don’t most women or more women get payment via food, shelter, etc? My mother didn’t work for a while but her income was exactly as much as dads income, split in the middle as they shared it. Infact she had more control over finances as she was in charge of the budget. So men’s income largely isn’t just their own but the families income, and women quite often are working for the family so their income is in the form of food, shelter, using the family money to purchase stuff they need.

  65. Schala says

    And who do you suppose has been supplying the world with most of the unpaid labor in child and elder care, food cultivation and production and livestock care?

    An unknown proportion of men and women, which amounts to 99% of the people in total.

    You are aware that agriculture economies (including husbandry) have been the dominant, and sometimes only, economy for millenia, right? In poor countries that don’t thrive mostly on sweatshops, agriculture still is their dominant economic activity. Imagine that, it’s done by men, too.

  66. Schala says

    Should we assume this feature is coincidental?

    If less than 1% of people even have a shot at it. Yes, we can assume this is coincidental. Like their eye color, their hair color, or their skirt length.

  67. Schala says

    To further my point that it is coincidental. Any species where a leader is mostly of one sex, ants, bees, lions – you know what’s the common point between them?

    Only one leader.

    Being of the same sex as the leader can maybe bring you some mental comfort, but it won’t predict your chances at leadership. Class mobility is an illusion, and you’re either born with politician skills or not. It’s nice to hope, but most people won’t be the 1-in-a-100million who invents the next Facebook, or who is the next Gandhi, let alone something more mundane like being a state governor or even just mayor for a 100k+ town. You’re born rich, and then if your parents value politics, you’ll be taught how to be a good politician. And THAT, alone, will give you 1 trillion better chances than the person who has the best ideas in the universe. And this is true regardless of sex.

    I’m pretty sure ambitious women who were from the nobility found clever ways to govern from the back row. It’s being from the nobility that is rare, not being ambitious for either sex (though note that not all men are ambitious, even those who have huge power). A dominant personality, and opportunity, is all you need. And being a noble is huge opportunity.

  68. Lucy says

    Ally Fogg: “I’m sceptical about that. Most research in psychology finds that human beings believe ourselves to be very good at such things, but when tested it turns out we’re pretty much useless. For example, most people assess themselves to be able to detect whether or not someone is lying to them. But when tested, they perform not much better than chance. I’d strongly suspect the same applies here.”

    But lying once and lying on an ongoing basis are two different things.

    It’s quite easy to pull off one deceit for a few minutes and then go on your way, it’s a different prospect entirely being a fraud in your whole career such as convincing people you believe something you actually don’t or like people we don’t. I still contend that people are very good as spotting a fake because people are very good as spotting other people’s attempts to exploit them and conversely their anxiety and insecurity in order to exploit that. We wouldn’t have survived this long if we weren’t able to do this pretty well, more than 50% of the time. Have here been why studies into that?

    I think the reason that a lot of people around the world have independently, instinctively formed the view that certain women-pleasing men are self-serving and a lot of men-pleasing women are self-serving is because there’s something in that. The reason we form the view that self-serving men want sex and self-serving women need approval is because there’s something in that too.

    Sure, some people are simplistic and think that’s all there is to everyone who ever says something we disagree with. Some other people don’t think it, but say it anyway for whatever self-serving reason (maybe they aren’t getting enough sex, or approval for instance.).

    But just because there are some people (who mainly come from a a certain demographic that shall remain nameless) who often get it wrong, doesn’t mean that people (in the other demographic that shall remain nameless) do.

  69. Lucy says

    Schala

    “You are aware that agriculture economies (including husbandry) have been the dominant, and sometimes only, economy for millenia, right? In poor countries that don’t thrive mostly on sweatshops, agriculture still is their dominant economic activity. Imagine that, it’s done by men, too.”

    The majority of agricultural work done around the world, or certainly in subsistence economies is done by women. In tribal hunter-gatherer societies it’s always been the women who have brought in the most calories.

  70. Lucy says

    Carnation

    “Basically, if you’re an extremist with a stunted worldview, be it MRA or radfem…”

    Women hating men and men hating women are equivalents are they? Provocation isn’t relevant?

  71. Lucy says

    Paul

    “Lucy- i absolutely agree that women should have an equal punt at the overt symbols of power.But that wasn’t the point i was making.The point i was trying to make was that simply having women holding 50% of the overt symbols of power isn’t necessarily going to make things better for anyone.Having a minority of men controling most of the overt symbols of power doesn’t necessarily benefit large swathes of the male population .So what makes you think having a minority of women controlling 50% of the overt symbolsof power would necessarily benefit the majority of women ?”

    Well for one thing, if women had control of 50% of the overt symbols of power, I think a minority holding on to them would be a thing of the past. Women work more collaboratively than men do, they are less hierarchical in their organisation and siloed in their approach to tasks. Whereas it is a male trait to specialise, it is a female trait to generalise.

  72. carnation says

    @ Lucy

    No, provocation isn’t relevant. To hate a class of people based on the provocational actions of sone members of that class demonstrates bigotry, stupidity and an entirely stunted worldview. If you cannot see thst, you are bogitef, stupid and have an entirely stunted worldview.

    @ Schala

    I haven’t forgotten your pathetic remarks about hapless men being turned into slaves by “paternity fraud”. Bleat on about the distribution of wealth all you like, your “proud to be stupid” ignorance of patriarchy is there for all to see.

    edited by AF for personal abuse

  73. Thumper: Token Breeder says

    *Applause* Yes Ally. I was, at first, suprised to see this trope from Feminists. I’ve been accused of it quite a few times by MRAs, but never by self-described Feminists. But then RadFems are just the other end of the spectrum and just as illogical as MRAs. Much like Communism and Fascism, I often wonder wether the scale wouldn’t be better represented as a circle.

    @Oolon

    Signed!

  74. Thumper: Token Breeder says

    @Lucy

    Women work more collaboratively than men do, they are less hierarchical in their organisation and siloed in their approach to tasks. Whereas it is a male trait to specialise, it is a female trait to generalise.

    This ranks among the most utterly stupid things I have ever read. When will people, from either end of the gender debate, stop indulging this gender essentialist bullshit? The possession of ovaries or testicles does not magically endow you with certain abilities or personality traits.

  75. says

    Hi Lucy

    You say “ it is a female trait to generalise”. Well, you’re certainly good at generalising, so on a sample of one…

    Hi Ally

    My only problem with your article is that it doesn’t go far enough. You could broaden it far beyond gender, to conclude that the assignation of motive in debate is almost always an error. It is the cheapest, laziest riposte possible – e.g. “You’re only saying that because you’re a Labour/Israeli/whatever shill…” The world’s debate-site data centres are awash with cyberdribble make speculative assumptions about the onanistic tendencies, personal hygiene, integrity and appearance of people encountered online. Anything to avoid tackling the actual argument.

    (Not trying to indulge in whataboutery – just trying to contextualise)

  76. Adiabat says

    Yeah, the whole “men who defend feminism are just doing it to get laid” is one of the more idiotic MRA arguments.

    As shown in the comments above every group is guilty of these overly simplistic “analyses” of the motives behind others positions; whether the MRA’s and radfems in the OP or the “chill girl” and “fedora-wearing loser who can’t get laid” of the, supposedly, “reasonable” feminists. You also see the same in pretty much any political topic where people disagree so it’s not really something any group can really use against the others.

    I suppose whatever reasoning we have for our views is so clear and obvious to us that we must find some “other reason” why those that disagree with us do so. This should be a reminder for us all not to just dismiss groups as “illogical” or “haters” without at least trying to understand where the other “side” is coming from; and we should always consider the possibility that we may be wrong.

  77. AndrewV69, Visiting MRA, Purveyor of Piffle & Woo says

    @Thumper: Token Breeder #83

    This ranks among the most utterly stupid things I have ever read. When will people, from either end of the gender debate, stop indulging this gender essentialist bullshit? The possession of ovaries or testicles does not magically endow you with certain abilities or personality traits.

    Biology is not destiny but it is probability. It may influence our decisions/behaviours but it does not necessarily compel them. Humans are notorious for this.

    However, biological/genetically based and heritable behaviour traits are observable. While there is considerable variance on an individual level they are true enough on the whole for stereotypes to be formed. There is also considerable evidence that environmental and social conditions are significant actors. Ignore either at your peril.

  78. lelapaletute says

    Hey Ally, saw this arse-dribble on Twitter and couldn’t believe the stupid. This article pretty much sums up my feelings on how it is insulting on more or less every level and to everyone.

    And now for somethinf completely OT (sorry!), but I’d be really interested to see you write an article with a take on this Downton Bill going through the Lords at the moment: http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2014/jan/11/downton-bill-women-rights-liza-campbell

    To me it’s infuriating – surely if you’re bright (or self-interested) enough to work out that it is completely unfair for privilege and power to be given or witheld based on your sex, surely it is an infinitesimally small logical step to realise that it is just as unfair for it to be given or witheld based on who your parents are, and thus that it is the whole rotten edifice of aristocracy, rather than primogeniture, that needs legislating away? But there is the alternative view that it is possible to care about more than one issue at a time…

    Just for me, my feminism has always been tightly bound up with my lefty-ism, so find it hard to see how anyone could approach primogeniture from an equal rights perspective without it blowing open the whole issue of hereditary power…

    FYI, this is just a suggestion – I obvs don’t think you are my (or anyone’s!) dancing fucking monkey :P

  79. wtfwhateverd00d says

    “I’m only writing this to get laid.”

    Hey Fogg did you ever hear of metaphor?

    And then there is Hugo Schwyzer, who you have been compared to (though not by me) who literally admitted he wrote the crap he wrote THOUGH HE WAS MARRIED to get laid.

    And you’ve been monogamous? Hugo said the same thing.

    Also, it’s a metaphor sweet cheeks.

  80. says

    “Also, it’s a metaphor sweet cheeks.”

    lmao

    Okay – I’ll just consider everything coming out of the “you [figuratively] suck” camp as being some sort of wild most-modern performance art and delve into the symbolic esoteric deeper meaning of “….doing it to get laid.”

    It’s all so clear now.

    ***

    Oh wait, it’s just a stupid sexist insult.

  81. redpesto says

    @lelpaletute (87): it’s from the same stable as the change in UK law that ended the right of male succession to the throne. Some months later William/Kate had a boy, which means when Betty goes to the stately home in the sky the next three monarchs will all be male – but hey! Women now have equal right to be next in line for head of state if George is the father to a girl. Hereditary monarchy is clearly a key feminist battleground with the Queen in the vanguard of shattering the glass coach of the patriarchy…or some such.

  82. Copyleft says

    The counterpart, of course, is the knee-jerk reaction to any CRITICISM of women or feminism along the lines of “You’re just bitter because you can’t get laid,” “You’re a basement-dwelling loser,” “So speaks the guy with a limp/tiny penis,” etc. etc. ad nauseam.

    But I’m sure Ally is equally condemnatory of such tactics being used against MRAs or feminist critics. And rightfullly so, since it’s equally condescending, off-base, and juvenile. Surely no commenter here would indulge in such pathetic ‘argumentation’ tactics against MRAs, right?

  83. Ally Fogg says

    And now for somethinf completely OT (sorry!), but I’d be really interested to see you write an article with a take on this Downton Bill going through the Lords at the moment: http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2014/jan/11/downton-bill-women-rights-liza-campbell

    Oh god. I’d seen that and I’d be tempted to take you up on your invitation / request, but I’m not sure I could keep the vomit down long enough.

    Reading through it, I can just about keep myself together right up until the point she compares aristocratic primageniture to female genital mutilation, appearing in the text right next to a photo of the author as a little girl in the FUCKING CASTLE in which she was raised, at which point I screamed and looked around for the nearest guillotine.

  84. Jackie wishes she could hibernate says

    Copyleft,
    The difference is that MRAs, PUAs and MGTOW DO complain about not being able to get laid by who they like, whenever they like regardless of her consent. Women being autonomous beings, rather than sex slaves, unpaid domestics and baby-makers is the gripe at the heart of their so-called movements. That’s not being projected onto them. It is something they declare themselves.

  85. AndrewV69, Visiting MRA, Purveyor of Piffle & Woo says

    @Ally Fogg, #93.

    That made me LOL in real life. But if you dust off the guillotine now, what on earth are you going to do if Charles choses not to abdicate?

    @ Jackie wishes she could hibernate, #95

    Incorrect in my experience. Now it could be we are reading the same things and getting different impressions but my summary goes like this:

    MGTOW say the rent is too damm high and they are not playing.
    PUAs boast about how often they get laid and post videos of successful pickups.
    MRAs want women to be punished just as severely as men are but will settle for equivalent privileges.

  86. Archy says

    “The difference is that MRAs, PUAs and MGTOW DO complain about not being able to get laid by who they like, whenever they like regardless of her consent. Women being autonomous beings, rather than sex slaves, unpaid domestics and baby-makers is the gripe at the heart of their so-called movements. That’s not being projected onto them. It is something they declare themselves.”

    MRA’s I see mostly want pure equality, same sentencing, same repercussions, both genders protected from abuse n violence.
    PUA’s I see tend to be mostly ex-shy guys that wanted success with women, I think most just wanted a leg up to get into the door of dating and a few are players. Some of the bitter guys want to be playas but a good loving relationship I think mellows them out and undoes previous harm.

    MGTOW’s I see tend to be cautious of dating, many seem to have been screwed around by certain women and it’s left them once bitten, twice shy. They also tend to be afraid of how divorce courts will handle the split, and when 50% or so of marriage end and 70% of the initiators of divorce are female, AND the history of family courts in some countries being anti-male then they have a good point to be nervous. Not to mention in cases of female on male abuse there is still a lot of stigma where men are not believed so there is even more reason to fear dating. I think there is a large portion however who simply felt they spent too much time chasing relationships and would rather focus on other parts of life but not sure if they’re MGTOW or not. Plenty of men it seems are going on marriage strike these days, so the idea of marriage has taken a huge hit.

    I’m yet to see MRA’s who want women to have sex against their will. Think I saw one PUA who sounded like a rapist but most don’t, MGTOW’s from my limited understanding prefer women from some countries overseas with “nicer” personalities, doesn’t have to be submissive but just positive. Quite a few of all 3 groups I’ve seen do complain of the troubles of dating such as attraction, the issue of mixed messages in what women want (eg girls saying they want nice guys and dating assholes). Largely the problem is we do not teach that people are unique, that there is no one trait that either gender likes but we all like different things.

    The most cautious ones tend to have been abused or been run through the ringer by divorce courts and you can’t blame em for being cautious however there is a lot of generalization that goes on and also since many in the group may be like minded, you may get negative reinforcement of experiences if most of them have been messed over. It’s why its important to mix up your group of friends, I have female friends who experience the same neg reinf. who feel like men are pigs because they were unlucky and had terrible ex’s. I mixed up my male n female friends and any bitterness soon went away because I had positive experiences with both genders but not everyone is fortunate enough to find good friends. BTW your gross generalization of them is against the rules here isn’t it? Most MRA’s, PUA’s, and MGTOW’s don’t want to rape women or deny them autonomy. Some may gripe at mismatched sex drives and the annoyance of dating troubles but what you describe seems completely different to what I’ve seen n heard from them. I do admit some PUA’s tactics seem pretty questionable.

  87. Ally Fogg says

    Sheaf (98)

    Comment 95 is not nly factually incorrect but in direct violation of the hetpat first directive.

    I think it probably is, but I’m going to leave it up because Archy has done such a strong and extensive job of responding to it.

    Jackie – for future reference, please see the First Directive explained in the Comments on Comments. If you want to make an allegation as seriously defamatory as this:

    “MRAs, PUAs and MGTOW DO complain about not being able to get laid by who they like, whenever they like regardless of her consent.”

    Please be quite specific about who you are talking about and include links to them saying exactly that so it can be verified, otherwise I’ll delete your post and consider banning you from commenting.

  88. Adiabat says

    I wonder if Jackie’s behaviour in post 95 is worthy of a post of its own.

    If you read my past comments here you can see I’ve been convinced by MRA arguments on a couple of issues, such as legal surrender, but I have no real allegiance to the movement itself. However I see comments like Jackie’s from feminists all the time and when I go and check it out I find them largely baseless. Sometimes they’ll link to an article which, if you give it the most uncharitable reading possible, could be interpreted to support the claim. But that’s hardly a firm basis to be making the claims they do.

    It often just seems to be intentional smearing of a group they don’t like, and every time I see it and find it to be untrue my opinion of feminism gets lower and lower.

  89. WhineyM says

    Well plainly stating that you only write what you do in order to sleep with feminists is obviously a bit daft and unsubtle, Ally, yet of course there is a wider concept that sociologists sometimes refer to as ‘cultural currency’ or ‘cultural coinage.’ So, by way of example, someone might just perhaps find it a bit easier to fit into the in-group dynamics of metropolitan media circles (like, for instance, the editorial staff of the Guardian), by mouthing certain platitudes about male dominance and patriarchy, than if, say, they started to complain that the near monopoly that gender-feminists hold over gender policy in government and media discussion was unhealthy and has caused a great deal of social harm over the years.

    But then, since you’ve opened up a discussion about your motivations, Ally, might one possibly be so bold as to inquire why you do defend gender-feminist members of the establishment in the way that you do? Like, for instance, on International Men’s Day, you said you would fight tooth and nail not to let the day be used as a platform for anti-feminists to air their views. But why on earth not? If they follow politics closely, and have made an honest and sincere decision that gender-feminism is a barrier to genuine equality and progress, why not just respect that and let them put their case forward? Or then, when you declare that that the idea that gender-feminists are partly responsible for a significant proportion of men’s problems is actually a view which is so stupid that you can hardly be bothered to debate it: again, if there is a lot of evidence to this effect, then why not respectfully have the discussion in good faith, rather than going out of your way to stigmatise that position, even before the debate is held?

    I don’t know, Ally, it is true that you can never entirely know what someone is thinking or exactly what motivates them to do what they do, but sometimes I would dearly like to know why you take the side of powerful parts of the media and of the establishment, against weaker anti-establishment factions, when it’s clear to most people that they don’t even need that kind of help in the first place.

  90. lelapaletute says

    @Adiabat 101:

    I don’t know, Ally, it is true that you can never entirely know what someone is thinking or exactly what motivates them to do what they do, but sometimes I would dearly like to know why you take the side of powerful parts of the media and of the establishment, against weaker anti-establishment factions, when it’s clear to most people that they don’t even need that kind of help in the first place.

    I would, obviously, be wildly speculating as to wehter this is in part his motive, but one possible outcome of someone like Ally disassociating himself from the more extreme and vocal end of the MRA contingent is to give a voice and a platform to more moderate voices in men’s rights (who are in danger of being swamped by the more headline-catching antics of, for e.g., Fathers 4 Justice and J4MB), and thus are, to use your own assessment, weaker anti-establishment factions of their own anti-establishment faction, if that makes sense.

    Certainly, before I started reading Ally’s articles on CIF, while I firmly believed that more equality and less gender prejudice and stereotyping would be of benefit to both men and women, and that feminists could not achieve its aims by simply ignoring men, I was suspicious and sceptical of anyone flying the ‘Men’s Rights/Issues’ banner, as all I had seen of that movement hitherto were silly stunts in superhero outfits in the press, and violent misgynistic vitriol on the interwebs (oh yes, and a friend who was heavily into The Game). Someone like Ally, resolutely refusing to align himself against women or feminists as a whole or alongside these nastier elements of the MRA movement, gave me a way to access these issues in a non-defensive way.

    I like to think moderate feminists like myself who are trans allies, non-separatists etc calling out our less enlightened rad-fem sisters,and forging good relations with the likes of Ally, serves a similar function, giving the lie to those who want to say ‘feminists/MRAs are x’ when all they are talking about are the squeaky wheels – the vocal minority of extremists who get the column inches.

  91. Adiabat says

    lelapaletute (102): I believe you are responding to Whiney’s comment, not mine. Regardless:

    I like to think moderate feminists like myself who are trans allies, non-separatists etc calling out our less enlightened rad-fem sisters,and forging good relations with the likes of Ally, serves a similar function, giving the lie to those who want to say ‘feminists/MRAs are x’ when all they are talking about are the squeaky wheels – the vocal minority of extremists who get the column inches.

    And I like to think people like me who criticise feminism as a whole and aren’t willing to let the reasonable ones NAFALT away the problems the influential ones are causing are giving them a kick up the arse to get their movement sorted out.

    One of my first comments on this blog was about how I’d much rather see a reformed feminism than a completely discredited feminism. Of course if the reasonable ones refuse to sort out the ones running various influential feminist organisations and causing harm then I’ll take a discredited feminism as a runner up prize. :)

  92. JT says

    @lela

    Its true feminism isn’t a monolith, but, if you don’t call out the most vitriolic feminists then you are unfortunately going to get lumped in with them by name alone.

  93. Adiabat says

    JT (104): I question the value of just “calling out”. Usually it just means that they just post a rant on the internet then go watch a funny cat video on Youtube.

    I expect something along the lines of a rival “reasonable feminist” organisation visibly challenging the harmful ones in the media and sending counter-letters to the government telling them that they only represent a small number of bigoted feminists.

    I expect actual visible activism to oppose the harmful ones, otherwise all they are doing is NAFALTing.

  94. Adiabat says

    Sorry for double post: The word ‘visible’ above should be bolded for emphasis.

    I want to see the reasonable ones oppose the harmful ones, don’t just keep it behind closed doors in your “safe spaces”.

  95. Archy says

    Thanks Ally, avoiding generalizations is one of the best policies online.

    @WhineyM. For me personally I love egalitarian feminists, and I’m fine with those who focus on women’s issues. My only concern is when policies meant to help end up backfiring, like the duluth model in the U.S seems to have had male victims get arrested and policies by police where the bigger person gets arrested even if he is the victim. As someone who is 6’6, very large body it is scary because if I ever call the police as a victim then I may end up cuffed…but I do hope Australia doesn’t use that policy, and if the show COPS has legitimacy it seems some U.S police will have no troubles arresting the smaller female (although I think they mostly arrest both for the night to cool off?). It is my understanding that some feminists advocated for this so indirectly they’ve harmed male victims, I’m not sure it was intentional…my guess is back then people just didn’t really think men could be victims and so the law was inadequate. So it does seem sometimes feminism can harm men but I think for the most part it’s helped everyone.

    Part of the problem is one label applies to everything from egalitarian male feminists advocating for men’s issues to radical extremist feminists, some of who have tried to kill and write horrible stuff. There are some parts of feminism that disgust me and other parts I agree with and think are great. It becomes confusing like how the term “christian” can mean a wide variety of beliefs.

  96. lelapaletute says

    @Adiabat 105:

    I expect something along the lines of a rival “reasonable feminist” organisation visibly challenging the harmful ones in the media and sending counter-letters to the government telling them that they only represent a small number of bigoted feminists.

    The problem is, feminism still has a lot to do and a lot to achieve practically. There are actually bigger problems facing the movement and women (such as the continuing prevalence of sexism and misogyny in society at large, domestic murder etc) than whether or not a few high profile (not the same as influential) extremists are bringing the movement into disrepute in the eyes of some. Most grassroots activists would rather direct their energies to achieving the concrete goals of feminism, rather than arguing with those feminists whose methods and aims they disagree with. They’re not willing to drop everything else to argue the toss with the likes of Julie Burchill, just because that’s what Adiabat demands of them to restore his faith in feminism.

    Therefore it’s the half-arsed desk-jockeys like myself to whom it falls to attempt to diminish the public damage done to the movement by those extremists by ‘calling out’ on the web or in the press. This is a proportionate response, given that the extremists in my movement are mostly half-arsed desk jockeys themselves – the outrages they commit consist of little more than obnoxious tweeting and article-writing – it doesn’t warrant activism, just ridicule, and a reminder that their views are not indicative of the general aims of most feminists. When their bigotry takes practical form – for example, the banning of trans women from a radical feminist conference – the activists DO get involved.

    Also, this is not about ‘not all feminists are like that'; it’s about ‘hardly ANY feminists are like that’.

    @Archy 107: I know what you mean about the terminology; I try not to get too bogged down in it myself, as it saves time. For example, I actually consider myself a ‘radical feminist’ in the strictly literal sense, in that the feminist aims I espouse would have radical results for our society; but I know that what most people mean when they call themselves a ‘radical’ feminist, or when they refer to ‘radical feminist’, is something quite else that I want no part of – separatism, trans exclusion, and in some cases misandry. So for clarity of purpose, I call myself just plain feminist, or, of distinction is required (in conversations like this, e.g.), the rather droopy-sounding ‘moderate feminist’, just because that makes it quicker and easier for people to get where I’m coming from.

  97. Sig says

    Pot meet kettles.

    Recently saw a screen shot Ally Fogg trying to shame a large group of people on the basis that they are masturbating because they are not have sex.

  98. Ally Fogg says

    WhineyM

    to sleep with feminists is obviously a bit daft and unsubtle, Ally, yet of course there is a wider concept that sociologists sometimes refer to as ‘cultural currency’ or ‘cultural coinage.’ So, by way of example, someone might just perhaps find it a bit easier to fit into the in-group dynamics of metropolitan media circles (like, for instance, the editorial staff of the Guardian), by mouthing certain platitudes about male dominance and patriarchy, than if, say, they started to complain that the near monopoly that gender-feminists hold over gender policy in government and media discussion was unhealthy and has caused a great deal of social harm over the years.

    There’s rather a hole in that theory though… there might be “cultural currency” around the Guardian for certain viewpoints, but there is a great deal more cold hard currency for others. If I genuinely believed that “gender feminists” hold “great sway over government policy” and “have caused a great deal of social harm over the years” then I could earn a (comparative) bucketload of money expressing that viewpoint for the Daily Mail, the Daily Telegraph, the Times, the Daily Express, the Spectator or various other outlets who are far more generous (and far more numerous) than the Guardian.

    I am contracted to the Guardian because my opinions are broadly within the range of their editorial spectrum. Not the other way around. If I were to adopt certain positions for reasons of career progression and personal gain, do you really think I would choose these ones? In case you hadn’t noticed, my political and ideological standpoints are fairly idiosyncratic, iconoclastic and certainly not lucrative. I’ve lost count of how many commissioning editors refuse to employ me because I’ve pissed them off with something I’ve written over the years.

    But then, since you’ve opened up a discussion about your motivations, Ally, might one possibly be so bold as to inquire why you do defend gender-feminist members of the establishment in the way that you do? Like, for instance, on International Men’s Day, you said you would fight tooth and nail not to let the day be used as a platform for anti-feminists to air their views. But why on earth not? If they follow politics closely, and have made an honest and sincere decision that gender-feminism is a barrier to genuine equality and progress, why not just respect that and let them put their case forward? Or then, when you declare that that the idea that gender-feminists are partly responsible for a significant proportion of men’s problems is actually a view which is so stupid that you can hardly be bothered to debate it: again, if there is a lot of evidence to this effect, then why not respectfully have the discussion in good faith, rather than going out of your way to stigmatise that position, even before the debate is held?

    First of all, you’re paraphrasing me, I don’t think I’ve ever actually said what you allege I have said.

    However my position, which is entirely consistent and coherent, is that the Mens Rights Movement is rightly perceived to be so riddled with misogyny and paranoid, infantile politics that it is actively harmful to men’s interests. That’s not to say that all Men’s Rights Activists are bad people, I don’t think they are, but the movement as a whole is utterly polluted by scumbags like Paul Elam and John Hembling in promiment positions.

    An occasion like International Men’s Day has too much potential to do good for it to be left to in the hands of the Men’s Rights Movement. So yes, I will argue that case strongly and forcefully. But I’m not censoring anyone. I’m not running away from the debate. I’m more than happy to make that point completely transparently and publicly, and if anyone wants to argue back or debate the issue they are more than welcome to. Bring it on.

    I don’t know, Ally, it is true that you can never entirely know what someone is thinking or exactly what motivates them to do what they do, but sometimes I would dearly like to know why you take the side of powerful parts of the media and of the establishment, against weaker anti-establishment factions, when it’s clear to most people that they don’t even need that kind of help in the first place.

    Here’s a radical and intellectually challenging possibility for you to consider: I hold the positions I hold, write the articles I write and make the points I make, because I believe what I say.

    I sometimes agree with feminists, and will say so when I do. I sometimes disagree with feminists and will say so when I do. I sometimes agree with men’s activists and will say so when I do. I sometimes disagree with men’s activists and will say so when I do.

    I personally believe my opinions add up to a fairly coherent position that is in favour of social justice and opposed to discrimination, hatred and violence of all sorts.

    Is that so hard to believe?

  99. WhineyM. says

    lelapaletute,

    This is a thought-provoking way of framing the issue. However, one point I’d most certainly disagree with is the idea that the J4MB party are ‘headline-grabbing’ (!) Many things could be asserted about them, but they’ve only had one mention, ever, as far as I can recall in the mainstream press (o.k., aside from a small number of radio interviews), and that was in a Quentin Letts light-hearted ‘sketch’ in the Mail. Yes, sure, Fathers 4 Justice do occasionally appear in the news for their stunts and acts of civil disobedience, but on the whole, such episodes are so patchy that they could hardly be said to be dominating the news coverage in any shape of form. So the idea that Ally lending a helping hand to professional gender-feminists somehow rescues mainstream media coverage from extremist forms of politics doesn’t really seem to stack up (well, I don’t think so anyway.)

    Archy,

    yes, I agree, there are some very good individuals calling themselves feminists out there, the problems arise with professional politicians and high-profile personalities going under this banner to promote a form of politics which, in my view, is actively harmful and contrary to building a better society. So much of this particular form of politics seems to be based around positional competition, rather than trying to secure better outcomes for everyone.

    For example, the centrality of the ‘gender-pay’ gap, which has become almost like a religious creed. Obviously, this becomes a major obstacle for low-skilled working class men, for instance, because any coordinated schemes to improve their life chances will inevitably risk exacerbating these ‘pay-gap’ figures, and thus are surely likely to be rejected out of hand by many within the gender-feminist camp. Therefore, its all very well for folk like Ally to say feminism should be free to do its own thing, without needing to worry about the concerns of men, but if they control many aspects of the public discourse around gender this can quickly become a major barrier to progress – if, that is, it is gender-feminist who are in the driving seat.

  100. Ally Fogg says

    Recently saw a screen shot Ally Fogg trying to shame a large group of people on the basis that they are masturbating because they are not have sex.

    No you didn’t.

    What you probably saw was an excerpt from an argument with the guy who runs the reddit r/mensrights who about an hour earlier had posted a link to a thread on his own reddit where someone was asking for advice on the best way to masturbate.

    Then after being boneheaded, rude, ignorant and generally an utter dick to me for about ten consecutive tweets, I lost my patience and said something like “run along now, some people on your reddit need some wanking tips.”

    No shaming involved.

    For what it’s worth though, I did subsequently apologise. I wasn’t “trying to shame a large group of people on the basis that they are masturbating because they are not have sex” but I was pretty rude, it is true.

  101. Schala says

    There are actually bigger problems facing the movement and women (such as the continuing prevalence of sexism and misogyny in society at large, domestic murder etc) than whether or not a few high profile (not the same as influential) extremists are bringing the movement into disrepute in the eyes of some.

    They’re as high profile as Paul Elam is for MRAs. Except Paul Elam has about zero influence on government policy.

    People pushing for the Duluth Model of DV has extreme influence. People pushing against a presumption of joint custody have extreme influence. People pushing for stuff for women and who cares about men (while still calling it equality with a straight face), have extreme influence.

    For sure, since questioning feminism doctrine like patriarchy gets you tarred as if you were Rush Limbaugh in person. “You’re not a feminist. So you’re against equality!” is a constant, and rather mainstream refrain. Not supporting feminism, even when its actively harmful (like the Duluth Model, one-sided VAWA etc) is seen as evil, retrograde, misogyny, not a concern for true equal justice from non-partisan people.

  102. Adiabat says

    Lelapaletute (108): Aaand we get the ‘circling of the wagons’ where suddenly group cohesion is more important than doing anything about those feminist organisations that are actually causing harm. I wish I could say I was surprised by your response.

    Now tell me more about these “bigger problems”. There’s “the continuing prevalence of sexism and misogyny in society at large” which kinda sidesteps the sexism I’m referring to feminists themselves committing* (but other people’s sexism is much, much worse of course :/) and “domestic murder”. Tell me, do you say “domestic murder” instead of Domestic Violence because you know how feminists have fucked up DV research and strategies for the past 30 years, preventing the recognition of Male victims of DV (and female victims of DV commiting by women)? Is it because you know that when I say “influential feminist groups” I’m referring to organizations such as Women’s Aid who right now are spreading misinformation about the extent that DV affects men, likely to avoid fulfilling their responsibilities under the Equality Duty that would require them, by law, to provide services to Male victims of DV (as long as they keep accepting public money)?

    Seriously, what have you “reasonable feminists” actually achieved recently? Because beyond pointless Banknote Feminism all I see is the Fawcett Society (the foremost feminist organization in the UK), with their private meetings with government ministers, delaying the extension of increased parenting leave to men by a year (and they only stopped fighting it after it was pointed out how this would benefit women) and the current stalling of the assumption of shared parenting in the family courts based on the claim that “men will just use it to abuse women”.

    What good are you actually doing that requires you to ignore the things the people who are leading your movement are doing?

    Let me guess, “they’re not my leaders”, and “Most feminists don’t agree with that”. Well who gives a fuck what most feminists think? The only ones that matter are the ones actually doing something. If you think they are unfairly giving all of feminism a bad name then guess what: Not My Problem. That’s your problem to sort out by trying to stop them creating that reputation. Or you can keep NAFALTing but you’ll just get the same response: I don’t give a fuck about what the ones that don’t do anything think.

    P.S Also, in what way are they “extremists” or “radical feminists” when they are the ones running the prominent feminist organizations and performing the vast majority of feminist activism? That makes them the Mainstream and you the outlier.

    P.P.S Note that all the above claims have been discussed, and evidence presented, in previous threads here, and I know you’ve commented in at least one of those. If you need links let me know but for now I’m assuming you’ve seen it all already.

    *Also note that the sexism I refer to that feminist groups are committing includes things like fighting against a groups equal treatment under the law, and fighting against society giving fair and equal treatment to our vulnerable people: Basic principles of a modern, just society. NOT something as minor as whether some internet blogger called someone a “Bitch”.

  103. wtfwhateverd00d says

    ” In case you hadn’t noticed, my political and ideological standpoints are fairly idiosyncratic, iconoclastic and certainly not lucrative”

    Your viewpoints on feminism and men’s rights are completely standard and predictable and fit to be published in the Guardian!

    As Whiny suggests, I do want to remind you your job is to comfort the afflicted, afflict the comfortable.

    We all wish you would!

  104. 123454321 says

    “I argue on the internet about feminism precisely because I’m not having sex”

    Hmmm, I argue on the internet about feminism preciisely because it’s a f*cking stupid, hypocritical supremacy movement that gets its kicks from putting down men whilst on a privilege journey to female dominance.

    Do you know I went for an evening get-together at a friends house the other night and as the host called the guests into the kitchen to help themselves to some cracking home-made chilli con carne, some complete knob-head of a bloke stopped everyone in their tracks, blocked the way for the men, then ushered the women through the hallway with a smug look on his face accompanied by the usual “ladies first” cliche. What a f*cking knob….and where on earth do they come from? The funny thing was that behind his back all of the men made obscene gestures whilst the women moved forward silently and embarrassingly passed the knob in the hallway. What was even funnier is that I made sure I was in front of knob-man and made sure I took a double helping of chilli, leaving him none. Shame.

  105. Koken says

    ‘I do want to remind you your job is to comfort the afflicted, afflict the comfortable.’

    I’ve never really liked that, as a mission statement. Sometimes the afflicted are wrong.

  106. carnation says

    There’s discussion of what certain acronyms mean. Here’s my take on them, not the entirety of them, and I stress that this is the impressions that I have from my time spent reading their blogs.

    MGTOW – this basically doesn’t exist offline. I don’t believe that there are anything other than a statistically insignificant number of men for whom removing women from their lives is a way of life. Lots of people live out fantasy lives by believing and “supporting” this “way of life”, but it’s a cross between utopic fantasy and old school misogyny.

    PUA – they basically doesn’t exist offline. I don’t believe that there are anything other than a statistically insignificant number of men for whom sucessfully pursuing women is a way of life. Sure, some do, but they always have. There is no politics behind it, besides crude sexism and often racism. Lots of people live out fantasy lives by believing and “supporting” this “way of life”, but it’s a cross between utopic fantasy and old school misogyny.

    MRAs – they basically doesn’t exist offline. I don’t believe that there are anything other than a statistically insignificant number of men for whom “fighting feminism” involves anything other Invoves anything other than manning a keyboard. There are, of course, some who Do, but not many. Nor will there ever be many until the tactics of online vitriol are recognised as pathetically inept and counterproductive. Lots of people live out fantasy lives by believing and “supporting” this “way of life”, but it’s a cross between utopic fantasy and old school misogyny, couched in poorly plagiarised social justice discourse.

    And for the record, “gender feminism” is a term only used contemporaneously by the more deluded MRAs.

    My descriptions of these “groups” are my own speculation, but there is virtually no evidence to contradict me.

    And what do these groups have in common? And in common with radfems? The ol’ trop that men are only interesting in challenging patriarchy as a means to get laid. In thinking that they confirm that patriarchal attitudes exist and are damaging to men.

  107. carnation says

    @ 123454321

    Hail the heroic MRA!!!

    Mangina gets no chilli because feminism white knight stopped by hardy MRA soldier.

    My good man, get your activist self over to AVfM and continue your revolution.

  108. Schala says

    MGTOW – this basically doesn’t exist offline. I don’t believe that there are anything other than a statistically insignificant number of men for whom removing women from their lives is a way of life. Lots of people live out fantasy lives by believing and “supporting” this “way of life”, but it’s a cross between utopic fantasy and old school misogyny.

    Japanese grass eaters, who get plenty shamed about being insufficiently masculine already. Why wouldn’t they have a counterpart in the West?

    My descriptions of these “groups” are my own speculation, but there is virtually no evidence to contradict me.

    Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. My claim is not extraordinary, yours is.

  109. carnation says

    Sorry for multiple postings but Adiabat is on a rant and needs checked:

    “and the current stalling of the assumption of shared parenting in the family courts based on the claim that “men will just use it to abuse”

    Wrong yet again. The presumption of shared parenting is not always in the best interests of the child. As little disruption to life pre-separation is presumed. This is a very typical and easily challenged MRA diversionary scare tactic.

    And I’ll take this opportunity, again, to remind Adiabt that not a SINGLE study has ever demonstrated gender bias in contested familyr court decisions.

    Let’s sit back and wait for him to wade through statistic that are irrelevant, diversionary and straight out of the clownish F4J bag of half witted buffoonery,

  110. carnation says

    @ Schala

    “Japanese grass eaters, who get plenty shamed about being insufficiently masculine already. Why wouldn’t they have a counterpart in the West?”

    Maybe because they’re two totally separate cultures? Maybe because virtually nobody in the west had heard of them?

    And who mentioned masculinity? MGTOW is, it is claimed, a response to feminism. Societal dropouts have been a constant feature of life, from lumpen proles, to (some) hippies, to New Age travellers. A bunch of embittered people railing against an imaginary enemy on a forum doesn’t make a movement.

    Is that honestly the best you can do?

    @ Sig

    Are you Sid but you spelt your name incorrectly?

  111. Schala says

    Yes, yes, we know, in your universe, men get joint custody and sole custody exactly 50% of the time, and have no problem getting free attorneys to vouch for them in court so they can do this. Right?

  112. Schala says

    Maybe because they’re two totally separate cultures? Maybe because virtually nobody in the west had heard of them?

    Opting out from traditional male obligations is a worldwide phenomenon in the first world. Sorry to be the newsbringer. The rewards of the arrangements have been mostly removed, lots of drawbacks were added, and…why not just enjoy life instead of trying to go against a system not caring one bit about your wellbeing unless you reach the top?

    Sure sounds like a reasonable course of action, past breaking point, to me.

  113. carnation says

    @ Schala

    In your universe you start an argument by accusing someone of saying something that they didn’t.

    Enjoy your delusions. I’m off out x

  114. Schala says

    Didn’t you just say men had a fair deal re-custody and why are they whining anyways?

    Sure sounded like it.

  115. Paul says

    MRAs

    And as certain as night follows day we can be certain that Carnation will continue to (mis)use the term MRA by applying it to any poster who happens to disagree with him/her.This being the same Carnation who demands evidence from other posters at the drop of a hat but who is known to refuse to provide it to support his/her own views.An example of this being his/her view that the Family Courts never discriminate against fathers.And that the whole of the Fathers Rights Movement is a sham underpinned by MRA conspirators.A view supported by nothing more that what s/he describes as being his/her own -albeit subjective and impossible to prove -experience.

  116. sirtooting . says

    @ Ally Fogg .. you call yourself a Feminist in exactly the same way Warren Farrell called himself a Feminist and you often quote him vertually verbatim and you call any women who criticize you radical Feminists .. and you wonder why these women criticize you .. LMAO

  117. sirtooting . says

    Shame there isn’t an edit button ..argh .. I know how to spell virtually, thank you very much .. And the question mark after .. ..”and you wonder why these women criticize you? Is missing ..
    Oh yeah and just because someone disagrees with you and dares to criticize you, doesn’t mean they hate you because you are a man .. Misandry you say? .. no Mr Fogg .. questioning or criticising your motives is not that ..

  118. sirtooting . says

    We need a Men’s Rights Movement as much as we need an Heterosexual Rights Movement. ..

  119. Thil says

    @sirtooting

    1) Ally doesn’t self identify as a Feminist

    2) He didn’t say these people were radical feminists just because they think he wants get laid

    3) He didn’t say questioning his motives equates to Misandry. He said assuming men only act out of sexual motives is Misandry. Frankly I agree

    4) “We need a Men’s Rights Movement as much as we need an Heterosexual Rights Movement” he didn’t say we need a Men’s Rights Movement

    5) “We need a Men’s Rights Movement as much as we need an Heterosexual Rights Movement” the fact that being a women is worse doesn’t mean there’s nothing bad about being a man. Why is that so hard for people to get?

  120. sirtooting . says

    Yeah right ..
    “I don’t expect any of the radical feminists quoted above to be reading this blog, and even if they did I very much doubt they would care. The plain fact is that most of them actually do hold men in contempt and disdain, quite proudly so. They actually believe shit like this, so they are probably beyond hope.

    “I expect better of male readers, particularly those who fancy themselves as men’s activists or campaigners against misandry. Perhaps you believe you only think with your dick yourselves, and are holding the rest of us to your standards? Or more probably, you just don’t have the wit or imagination to come up with rational arguments against the men you target, so fall back on hoary old misandrist cliches? Whatever your excuse, catch yourselves on.”

    Often quoting warren farrell virtually verbatim .. his hero .. he pretends isn’t .. but then he quotes him .. oh dear .. what a dead give away ..
    “so fall back on hoary old misandrist cliches?”
    That is actually be a patriarchal cliche ..

  121. sirtooting . says

    5) “We need a Men’s Rights Movement as much as we need an Heterosexual Rights Movement” the fact that being a women is worse doesn’t mean there’s nothing bad about being a man. Why is that so hard for people to get?

    “We need a Men’s Rights Movement as much as we need an Heterosexual Rights Movement” he didn’t say we need a Men’s Rights Movement” .. strange you said that ?.. because I didn’t say he did .. It is I, who is saying it, get a grip ..

  122. leni says

    Schala:

    An unknown proportion of men and women, which amounts to 99% of the people in total.

    99% of the global population supplies the world with unpaid labor? Are you sure about that?

    You are aware that agriculture economies (including husbandry) have been the dominant, and sometimes only, economy for millenia, right?

    Yes.

    In poor countries that don’t thrive mostly on sweatshops, agriculture still is their dominant economic activity. Imagine that, it’s done by men, too.

    I didn’t say it wasn’t.

    To further my point that it is coincidental. Any species where a leader is mostly of one sex, ants, bees, lions – you know what’s the common point between them?

    Only one leader.

    That’s the only common point? Are you sure about that?

    Being of the same sex as the leader can maybe bring you some mental comfort, but it won’t predict your chances at leadership.

    Or maybe “mental comfort” with being thought of as a leader does predict one’s chances at leadership.

    Class mobility is an illusion…

    I agree, mostly. Yet people do migrate classes in all directions. Some groups more that others and we should endeavor to explain why that might be, no?

    If that was not true we would see a homogeneous underclass in terms of things like race, gender and ability. We don’t see that, so clearly “class” is not the only answer, but rather just beginning of the question.

    …and you’re either born with politician skills or not. It’s nice to hope, but most people won’t be the 1-in-a-100million who invents the next Facebook, or who is the next Gandhi, let alone something more mundane like being a state governor or even just mayor for a 100k+ town. You’re born rich, and then if your parents value politics, you’ll be taught how to be a good politician. And THAT, alone, will give you 1 trillion better chances than the person who has the best ideas in the universe. And this is true regardless of sex.

    So you did a calculation and got 1 trillion to 1? Please post the math. Curious peope are curious and would never dream of stealing it for dissertation material. Ever.

    I’m pretty sure ambitious women who were from the nobility found clever ways to govern from the back row.

    I’m pretty sure ambition slaves did too. Did you see Django Unchained HOLY SHIT!

    It’s being from the nobility that is rare, not being ambitious for either sex (though note that not all men are ambitious, even those who have huge power). A dominant personality, and opportunity, is all you need. And being a noble is huge opportunity.

    Well isn’t that just the tidiest little Just World Fallacy wrap up ever.

  123. leni says

    Grr, also I meant we wouldn’t see homogeneous underclasses if things like race and gender weren’t variables. It would look more random. It doesn’t. Class and panache are insufficient explanations.

    Sorry about that, time for bed!

  124. Lucy says

    Thumper…

    “This ranks among the most utterly stupid things I have ever read. When will people, from either end of the gender debate, stop indulging this gender essentialist bullshit? The possession of ovaries or testicles does not magically endow you with certain abilities or personality traits.”

    One quote taken at random from a sea of quotes and evidence:

    ““Women tend to prefer egalitarian norms in work groups whereas men favour hierarchical structures,” says Jennifer Berdahl, business professor at U of T’s Rotman School of Management and lead author of the study published in the March issue of Group Dynamics: Theory, Research and Practice. This, in turn, influences how men and women work together on teams, she adds.”

  125. Lucy says

    Thumper…

    It’s no coincidence that open offices, round shaped parliament buildings, collaborative project methodologies, facilitation skills, upward feedback, servant leader theory, push for transparent pay and a host of other collaborative practices have all emerged since women entered the office workspace in influential positions. Nor any coincidence that uniforms, tricornered/white pouffy hats, cap badges, mitres, robes, staffs, medals, epaulettes, titles, salutations, corner offices, personalised number plates, job roles, strata, salary grades were a feature of the male working world.

    Men and women have different biology and different behaviour. There is variance within each group of course, but there are also generic patterns. The shame of it is that male biology and male behaviour has dominated all our thought-leaders, cultural practises and institutions? But that is beginning to change thankfully. The world will be different certainly and better probably for it.

  126. Archy says

    @lelapaletute 108

    I only know of radical feminism from the wiki, isn’t it just the belief in patriarchy theory? The term radical though unnerves me as radicals are often thought of as violent. High 5 for being a decent feminist. I think sadly the vocal extremists get way too much airtime, bad news travels fast and controversy increases popularity. It’s sad though, and online there are probably more of the fringe elements where they can fight n fight whilst the decent folk are too busy getting stuff done.

    @112 WhineyM, yeah I’ve been bothered by the ones pushing the pay gap myth at 23% (the reality is 1-7% apparently in the U.S when adjusted for hours worked, type of job etc). They don’t need to lie in order to get stuff taken seriously, cuz 1-7% is still something to work on.

    @119 Carnation,
    I’ve met someone who is basically MGTOW, women he met kept messing him around, leading him on, using him and he got tired of it. Not everyone is lucky like me, I was on the path to going MGTOW due to bad experiences when younger but I found some kick ass female friends who undid that harm by proving good women of my age existed. It’s very hard to believe in good people of a group if you get messed over by them often. I also have met female equivalents too.

    I think a lot of PUA’s are the stereotypical shy guy trying to learn how to talk to women and the PU artistry appears to have decent success. My advice to men would be to take anything good from it, use it, but don’t use misogyny. Learning about body language, playful flirting, avoid generlizations about women, working on your confidence and dress sense would do well. There is a big problem for men who lack confidence and find difficulty in talking to women so they need decent material to help em out.

    Canada I believe has a quite a few MRA’s although the weird thing about people that advocate for men is that there are so many groups. Fathers rights, egalitarians that hate labels, feminists, MRA’s, conservatives, etc. I agree that the outright dismissal of feminism isn’t a good thing, I can see why they are reluctant to trust feminism given some of the appalling stuff like how duluth model happened but I think they need to work with good feminists. There is disagreement though over patriarchy theory, I think people are better off using the word kyriarchy and emphasizing class privilege far more than male privilege as a poor white man will look at you quite strange when comparing him to Donald Trump. The term male privilege is highly loaded and seems to cause a lot of fights, and some will deny any female privileges which also doesn’t help.

    “And for the record, “gender feminism” is a term only used contemporaneously by the more deluded MRAs.”
    I use gynocentric feminism, and I’m not an MRA. I use it to refer to a certain type of feminist that only advocates for women’s issues, which is ok. There are other feminists who I call egalitarian feminists who advocate for both. I’ve had both sets of feminists argue like crazy when I’ve asked “Are male issues accepted in feminism or is feminism just for women’s issues”, what I’ve seen is it seems somewhat 50:50 mix. There’s an issue of female space vs feminist space, some define feminist spaces as allowing male issues, others want it to be purely for women’s issues (which is why there are so many whataboutthemenz derails and fights caused by these 2 sets of feminists sending conflicting messages to men).

    I gave up largely in feminist sites because as a man it pisses some off and the lack of qualifier makes it too damn annoying to figure out which version they are. I’ve had some accuse me of whataboutery on posts that are about male issues ffs. I have no troubles of respecting female-issue only spaces but when you get plenty of them saying men’s issues are welcome, you discuss a male issue n get cut down by vitriol n accusations of being a troll it does get annoying. There are oodles of men that want to discuss their issues but it can be a problem to find where the accepted place is, the GMP is one but it doesn’t always get feminist input by commenters. The major alternative is the MRM, infact I regularly read reddit /mensrights because they’re one of the few sites online discussing male issues. I’ve heard many feminists say they take care of male issues but most of the headline feminist sites are focused on female issues (which is fine) so it is a bit of a mystery of where to go. From what I’ve seen reddit /mensrights seems to have more level-headed people and less sexism n bigotry, etc (although a hell of a lot of anti-feminism which does get annoying)

    Some of the most common stuff I see from MRA’s though is hating the restrictions of the male gender role, and annoyance over females being treated leniently in court vs males. Plenty of legitimate and serious issues but I think many should tone down the dislike of feminism and team up with good feminists if possible. I myself however sit on the fence between the MRM and feminism, my views are simply egalitarian and I get sick of the fighting online. I’ve seen plenty of decent feminists and MRA’s however in comments, the funny thing is often their views are the same but the theories used by each tend to differ, mainly on male privilege n patriarchy.

  127. Archy says

    “The shame of it is that male biology and male behaviour has dominated all our thought-leaders, cultural practises and institutions? But that is beginning to change thankfully. The world will be different certainly and better probably for it.”

    Ever think that maybe the stereotypical male way was far more successful for a reason? Maybe power resting with the few ensured a more focused way to strive ahead, focused energies allowing the goals to be reached easier. I don’t agree with it but patriarchy obviously stuck around for a reason, and so did hierarchies in jobs. Dunno if it’s correlation or causation for success of the human species though but it’s worth investigating. My view is patriarchy and gender roles probably use to be vital until 2 major things, the age of machinery and the availability of alternatives to breastmilk. Before machines male strength was a huge benefit so getting them to do dangerous, external jobs was better whilst women were better suited to jobs around the nest since for one age group they’re the primary source of nutrition via the breastmilk and less physical strength was needed.

    Probably easier to just have women continue being childcarer after breast-milk stage instead of regularly swapping. Machinery has largely done away with heavy physical labour, and in a few years/decades exosketal suits will remove the last bit of advantage probably (they’re already working but being refined at the moment, checkout youtube….I want one!). We also have refrigeration, breast milk pumps, formula, etc so papabear can look after even infants whilst mamabear goes off to earn the bread so it frees us up a lot in choices.

    “And I’ll take this opportunity, again, to remind Adiabt that not a SINGLE study has ever demonstrated gender bias in contested familyr court decisions.”
    Never? Or just lately it has been weeded out? I had heard some states in the U.S had bias whilst others didn’t, also saw comments by lawyers saying bias has been weeded out. I recently saw this on it, http://www.smh.com.au/national/false-abuse-claims-are-the-new-court-weapon-retiring-judge-says-20130705-2phao.html
    Seems some women are using false accusations as a weapon to gain custody, that may be the last potential bias left in the courts?

  128. Ally Fogg says

    sirtooting (129)

    you call yourself a Feminist in exactly the same way Warren Farrell called himself a Feminist and you often quote him vertually verbatim and you call any women who criticize you radical Feminists ..

    Lolwut?

    you call yourself a Feminist

    No I don’t. I explicitly go out of my way to stress I am not a feminist.

    in exactly the same way Warren Farrell called himself a Feminist and you often quote him vertually verbatim

    No I don’t. The only times in my life I have quoted Farrell have been to call him a fucking idiot who needs to be hit over the head with a large volume of Das Kapital. I paraphrase, but not much.

    and you call any women who criticize you radical Feminists ..

    No I don’t, I call women who publicly self-identify as radical feminists radical feminists.

    That’s quite a spectacular degree of wrongness for one short post. Good work.

  129. Adiabat says

    Carnation (122): Hi carnation, feel free to reply to one of my outstanding posts in the previous threads where we discussed the things I mentioned in my ‘rant’.

    Y’now, those threads where I repeatedly kick your arse by providing studies, government reports and contributions from experts such as the former president of the law society and you just reply “n’uh” and then disappear.

    Until you do that I don’t see the point of you popping up in new threads with a fresh “reset” as though those discussions never happened.

    It’s getting a bit pathetic tbh.

  130. carnation says

    Not disappearing, am I? Just confirming that no evidence exists to support the F4J/MRA paranoid ramblings about men being discriminated against because they are men.

    But don’t get disheartened, according to one of your ideological felliw travellers, a forner F4J man, it is beyond the capabilities of MRAs to produce such a study.

    You can obfuscate all you like: your hypothesis has no evidential merit.

  131. sirtooting . says

    @ Mr Fogg
    “Or more probably, you just don’t have the wit or imagination to come up with rational arguments against the men you target, so fall back on hoary old misandrist cliches? Whatever your excuse, catch yourselves on.”

    Misogyny has a long history behind it and is the utter contempt and hatred of the female, and the hatred of women owning any power in a male run totalitarian world .. and women have never understood this contempt of their gender and why men have hated them so much? .. maybe it is because they are not born male? ..

    They are killing millions of female fetuses in India and China & various other countries across the world, because they aren’t going to be born male and they kill millions of them because they were born female ..

    The male declared the female and her labour was not as valuable as the males .. and he determined never to credit her where credit was due ..
    There is no misandy, it has never ever existed .. it is men deflecting attention away from their own hatred of women .. it is deflection .. hatred of a gender .. is a male construct .. is a male idea ..
    Anything to do with anything feminism is despised by men who applaud maleness over femaleness .. because it is not something they want themselves to be associated with .. no they will flee before that happens .. because in patriarchal male run totalitarian cultures .. males promote the male, masculinity and all things male and despise anything outside of that ..
    This word Misandry is a pure male conjecture, males who despise the female and this hate they hold for them, has a very very long history indeed ..
    To accuse women of hating men, is not to recognise the pure hatred men have shown women for their entire history .. who they have despised because they aren’t born male ..

    Oh yeah and Mr Fogg just because a woman disagrees with you and dares to criticize you, doesn’t mean you can claim they despise or hate your gender, .. that would be just pure conjecture on your part .. Misandry you say? What the fuck is that?

  132. Schala says

    99% of the global population supplies the world with unpaid labor? Are you sure about that?

    If agriculture counts as unpaid labor, yes. And it was in the examples.

    That’s the only common point? Are you sure about that?

    Check your vision, or your reading comprehension.

    “Any species where a leader is mostly of one sex, ants, bees, lions – you know what’s the common point between them?

    Only one leader.”

    Where did I say only? Didn’t say it. So thanks for putting words in my mouth.

    Or maybe “mental comfort” with being thought of as a leader does predict one’s chances at leadership.

    Except you’re not thought as leader unless you’re one (need certain personality traits), and rich (yes, its a requirement). Or you’re going to lead a band of 4 guys or something, not a company or the country.

    If 1% of people are rich, and 0.5% of rich people have a penis, and nothing prevents the other 0.5% of rich people from going after leadership positions. Then rich women have a billion times better chance than non-rich men, at becoming real influential leaders elected by their peers (not of a 1000 pop village, but of something big, where campaigns cost millions).

    I agree, mostly. Yet people do migrate classes in all directions. Some groups more that others and we should endeavor to explain why that might be, no?

    Right place at the right time, genius and financial ambition, etc. Same as winning the lottery. I’m sure lots of geniuses don’t capitalize on their ideas in financial ways and remain uninfluential and non-rich.

    I’m pretty sure ambition slaves did too. Did you see Django Unchained HOLY SHIT!

    I posit men are the slaves. They’re treated with the utmost contempt if they try to make their role more interesting, more livable, or the slightest of trying to opt out. Women face no such issue with opting out. The average woman, choosing to remain childless, and not partake in beautification ritual, will mostly be left alone. Might get comments from other women, but their housing and employment will be largely untouched. And their physical integrity should also remain whole.

    Men are conscripted into a role of put-people-before-you-and-don’t-you-dare-complain. Told to work to an early grave. And that this is a privilege, even. And those that fall through the cracks have no safety nets. They’re seen as unworthy of being cared for by society, the moment they fail to take care of themselves. Not so for women.

  133. BrainyOne says

    I do not and will not respect any brand of feminism, or any feminist, who thinks that the movement need take no account of men, men’s issues, or men’s concerns. This certainly does not by any means include all feminists. But yes, I’m unabashedly telling women “how to do feminism”. If you don’t like it, tough shit. Reality is what it is. Your complaint is as valid as a scientist caught using wrong (or unethical) methods claiming others are “telling scientists how to do science”. Cry me a river.

    You simply cannot advocate for women being freed from traditional gender roles without at the same time advocating for men being freed from traditional gender roles, and expect me to take you seriously. First, it’s obviously hypocritical. Second, it’s self-contradictory and therefore self-defeating. For instance, the most OBVIOUS way for women with children to be able to spend more time on their careers is for the MEN to do a larger share of child caring. (No, child caring responsibilities are not the ONLY reason for the wage gap, but child caring responsibilities are a major factor). Guess what? That means society is going to have to adjust to the fact that the man is no longer the major breadwinner but with only peripheral child rearing responsibilities. Society is going to have to realize that now men, as well as women, have work-life balancing issues. If society refuses to adjust because, who cares about men anyway, then it will be made much more difficult for men to assume more child rearing responsibilities even if they want to, and we’re back at square one.

    And no, you don’t get to use gender-essentialist arguments when it suits you (e.g. women are so much more “nurturing” etc.) but raise hell when they don’t and they are used by others (e.g. men are naturally better at math).

  134. redpesto says

    Lucy #139:

    Men and women have different biology and different behaviour.

    Which is exactly the same ‘biology is destiny’ argument used be people who disagree with feminism. All that happens next is that they and you argue over whose version of that statement is ‘better’.

  135. carnation says

    @ Schala

    “I posit men are the slaves. They’re treated with the utmost contempt if they try to make their role more interesting, more livable, or the slightest of trying to opt out. Women face no such issue with opting out. The average woman, choosing to remain childless, and not partake in beautification ritual, will mostly be left alone. Might get comments from other women, but their housing and employment will be largely untouched. And their physical integrity should also remain whole.

    Men are conscripted into a role of put-people-before-you-and-don’t-you-dare-complain. Told to work to an early grave. And that this is a privilege, even. And those that fall through the cracks have no safety nets. They’re seen as unworthy of being cared for by society, the moment they fail to take care of themselves. Not so for women.”

    It’s difficult to know where to begin challenging such inane nonsense.

    “”I posit men are the slaves.”

    This is crass and stupid. Slavery was and is an evil that is in no way comparable with reliance on waged work. The average high school kid can grasp that. And, of course, women are as susceptible, arguably more so, given that they are often having to provide for children alone.

    “They’re treated with the utmost contempt if they try to make their role more interesting, more livable, or the slightest of trying to opt out. Women face no such issue with opting out.”

    Um, what? Are you kidding me? Heard the term “gold-digger”? Whore? They are types of “opting out”, as well as archetypes adored and needed by the MRM. And, obviously, women are as susceptible to societal contempt as men. Arguably more so, given that they are often having to provide for children alone.

    “Men are conscripted into a role of put-people-before-you-and-don’t-you-dare-complain.”

    No, they most certainly are not. Of course any mother putting herself before her children would be subject to a great deal of opprobrium as single mothers were in the 80s and 90s. And more recently, with Mike Buchanan (hi Mike, If you’re reading – hope you’re well). As for men being conscripted into putting others before them. Familiar with Thatcherism? That was popular here in the UK, and there wasn’t much putting others before anyone. This is so ridiculous a proposition that it’s seriously a challenge to know if you’re being serious.

    “Told to work to an early grave.And that this is a privilege, even then”

    Well, actually to pensionable age, but you clearly prefer the macabre. And, of course they aren’t told to work. See next point.

    “And those that fall through the cracks have no safety nets.”

    Well actually, there is a safety net. It’s called the welfare state. And pensions. And healthcare.

    “They’re seen as unworthy of being cared for by society, the moment they fail to take care of themselves. Not so for women”.

    No, men are viewed exactly as women are by beaurocracy- as citizens, often a burden, but ones that the state has a duty of care for.

    “Not so for women”

    Oh right, they have special laws for them? Special care homes, special hospitals, special money, special safety nets? No? Didn’t think so.

    Schala, your world view would embarrass a radical Marxist primary school child. Seriously, the slave comparisons are embarrassing. And the lurid alleged gender bias might even get your downvotes on Mens Rights Reddit.

    This is one of the most embarrassingly awful diatribes I have ever had to demolish. Simply awful, as simplistically stupid as childishly naive.

  136. Schala says

    Carnation said a bunch of stuff. Don’t want to argue with someone who can’t argue in good faith. I’ll argue with someone else maybe.

  137. 123454321 says

    Lucy #139,

    How very convenient for you to reel off a whole bunch of business change related positives that have emerged over the last few decades and causaly link them to the introduction of women in the workplace. What a crock of shit your brain must be set in. Are you seriously that deluded to think that positive business changes wouldn’t have evolved without women? I can tell you now that what you’ve just described is purely down to ‘coincidence’, and it happens every day! Hows about we reel off a whole bunch of business-related negatives that have occurred over the last few decades and link these to women in the workplace. Anyone care to start? Lucy, you’re doing nothing less than actively participating in high-level shaming tactics which are designed to put men down whilst promoting the female supremacy movement agenda.

  138. carnation says

    @ Schala

    You don’t understand good faith. Scroll back up and you’ll notice that I said something, you accused me of saying something entirely differently, and then you switched the genders on a common MRA fantasy and considered that debate in good faith.

    Pathetic. In the actual sense of the word.

    @ 123454321

    You realise that “shaming tactics” only exist on MRA blogs? At least the ones you’re talking about? And that nobody, outside of MRA blogs, believes that “feminism” is a female supremacy movement?

    You’re viewed are deluded.

  139. Schala says

    And that nobody, outside of MRA blogs, believes that “feminism” is a female supremacy movement?

    Must be why 80% of people say the sexes should be equal in all things. 11% say they want them not to.

    Yet only 20% identify as feminists.

    OMG, must be evil patriarchy making bad PR for feminism!

  140. says

    Carnation, 147

    Can you please give a more detailed refutation. It seems to me that in the case of substantive criticism you often descend into giving meaningless one liners or drop off all together.

  141. carnation says

    @ Schala

    “Must be why 80% of people say the sexes should be equal in all things. 11% say they want them not to.

    Yet only 20% identify as feminists”

    That settles it then. Men are slaves, feminists are their evil overseers.

    There is no point debating with someone with your level of capabilities. Whilst I’ll continue to expose your more lunatic proclamations, I won’t be talking direct to you. Life is indeed too short.

    It’s been fun

  142. Schala says

    That settles it then. Men are slaves, feminists are their evil overseers.

    That’s where you got it wrong.

    Men are slaves to the very rich, the oligarchs. Not to feminists.

    Feminists are not slaves to them per se, but pander to them like crazy. Almost all feminist theories rely on approving the “women are weaker and deserve more protections” stance, which is extremely conservative in nature.

    Otherwise why specifically target problems facing women, or violence facing women?

    Women are slaves to the very rich, the oligarchs, but their chains are a bit looser. The main tool of control was reproduction. Universal contraception broke those chains into tiny pieces for most of the 1st world.

    The main tool of control of men is tying their worth to their production-value, and only once proven. Thus the people in power NEVER spend on men for mere potential, only for proven worth. People who simply refuse to prove their value, then get the carrot brandished more strongly, and the stick becomes bigger. You really have to not care about living with the bare minimum to be able to really opt out as a man.

  143. johngreg says

    re. Lucy at comment 139 (http://freethoughtblogs.com/hetpat/2014/01/11/im-only-writing-this-to-get-laid-or-am-i/#comment-31958): I gotta say it Lucy, you’re pretty damned hilarious when you want to be. Especially that comment about open offices and round shaped parliament buidlings being due to women entering the office work force! HAHAHA. What? Breast emulations?

    And “Nor any coincidence that uniforms, tricornered/white pouffy hats, cap badges, mitres, robes, staffs, medals, epaulettes, titles, salutations, corner offices, personalised number plates, job roles, strata, salary grades were a feature of the male working world.” Fuck me, but that’s hilarious, and the utter meaninglessness and empty pointlessness of it, which makes it not even wrong, is a thing of beauty.

    Lucy for teh Comics win!

    carnation, too, for that matter. Highly entertaining delusions on display.

    “Whilst”. That’s nice. I haven’t seen that in a while; did not know carny was a Brit.

    Roll on kids, roll on!

  144. johngreg says

    Schala, while I agree, for the most part, with your views on socio-political chains, et al, I think your absolutism is a bit over the top.

    I mean, such statements as, “Thus the people in power NEVER spend on men for mere potential, only for proven worth”, simply are not true.

    While it would indeed be accurate to say that most people in power RARELY spend on men for mere potential’, to say they NEVER do is, in my opinion, not realistic. Many men, and women, are hired for employment based solely in their potential, and even when that potential is not wholly reflected in actual outcome of performance, they often maintain their position due to presumed possible future potential.

    And, while most major corporations are anti-social, anti-human behemoths — profit at all and any cost — I don’t think they all are.

    And even some of the richest of the rich can do something of an about-face and display some humanitarian impulses — look at Bill Gates. And there are other, though admittedly very few, humanitarian super-rich out there.

  145. JT says

    And even some of the richest of the rich can do something of an about-face and display some humanitarian impulses — look at Bill Gates.(Johngreg)

    The funny part of that is it looks like it was his wife who got him to part ways with some of that cash. ;)

  146. Schala says

    Bill Gates funds circumcision stuff in Africa. Because mutilating boys and men might have profit in it.

  147. 123454321 says

    Carnation 154

    “You realise that “shaming tactics” only exist on MRA blogs?”

    No, that’s simply not true.They’re venomously spewed around all over the fucking place in every crevice of the media that’s available for feminists to spew up in! Everywhere in the media these tactics are exercised by mindless feminists who have no real logical argument at hand so instead indulge in the art of shaming tactics and put-downs that are truly shameful. There are just so many examples it’s untrue. No matter what feminists talk about in the media they continuously try to make men look like the bad guy oppressors – you only have to listen to woman’s hour. Take the issue of women on boards and how men are made to look like they’re part of some fucking conspiring patriarchy that is intent on preventing women from reaching the top. P A T H E T I C. It’s not men’s fault that young women are making alternative choices in life or choosing to opt out of long hours, stressful jobs. Women have just as many choices and opportunities as men in the Western World today and yet they still want to blame men by employing their deplorable tactics to get a leg up on the privilege ladder. This is just ONE example of female supremacy tactics and this guy explains it far better than me:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_REMnrG2J4&feature=youtu.be

    “And that nobody, outside of MRA blogs, believes that “feminism” is a female supremacy movement?”

    Oh but hang on, they’re beginning to get the gist of feminism and just how fucking stupid it is. They’re beginning to realise how feminists operate and how they are prepared to demonise and subjugate men in order to advantage themselves. It’s a supremacy movement which is absolutely prepared to indulge in hatred, lies and fundamental indecency in order to get to where it wants to be. it’s a movement that has contributed towards getting huge amounts of media attention and lots of funding towards women’s issues, such as health, education, domestic violence, etc. whilst leaving the 90% homeless men on the street and barely a breath of sympathy towards male victims of dm. Oh how they execute their agenda in unparallelled style as they successfully convince everyone that all men are good-for-nothing, lazy slobs and potential rapists. It’s making lots of men bitter and angry and it aint good for society!

  148. johngreg says

    Bill Gates funds circumcision stuff in Africa. Because mutilating boys and men might have profit in it.

    Hmm. I did not know that. I have to admit, I am more or less on the fence, at this point in time, about the whole circumcision issue. I have not yet been thoroughly convinced that it is as bad as opponents claim. Nonetheless, if Gates is really doing it because there is some profit in it (are you sure that is his motive on this?), that’s not so good. But, that being said, he is still doing an amazing amount of good with all that enormous cache of cash he has.

  149. johngreg says

    carnation said (http://freethoughtblogs.com/hetpat/2014/01/11/im-only-writing-this-to-get-laid-or-am-i/#comment-32187):

    You realise that “shaming tactics” only exist on MRA blogs…. And that nobody, outside of MRA blogs, believes that “feminism” is a female supremacy movement?

    HAHAHA. More utterly ridiculous nonsense from the condensed milk tin.

    I have witnessed regular, tactical and strategic shaming, of various types, on several feminist, atheist, and skeptic Web sites. And, while I am in no way whatsoever connected or associated with any MRA blog, or movement, or individual, I feel that a very large portion of the feminist movement (by which I mean a large percentage of feminists, both male and female, in particular third-wave and radical feminists) is indeed a female supremacy movement.

    carnation, you’re viewed (sic) are deluded.

  150. sirtooting . says

    Patriarchies are patrilineal (patrilineality), meaning that upon marriage, the wife’s family name is changed to that of her husband, or, the family name of the husband is added to the name of the wife.
    The husband’s name is unchanged. Similarly, children are given the family name of their father. Hereditary was patriarchal. Families sought to produce a male heir to inherit the family name & fortune, they didn’t want females, they wanted males, it was paramount a male heir should exist.
    Patriarchy ~ where the male gender hates the female gender and hates them so much, he claimed the female is not as valuable as the female.

    hahaha.heeheehee.hoohooh ..So the feminist movement is out for female supremacy, this is like a comparison to an organization for the disabled .. nah you wouldn’t believe it .. the disabled only focus on problems that affect them .. they don’t give a flying fuck about the able bodied .. oh, I’m sure they care but it is an organization for the disabled ..no they don’t ..they just concentrate on all their problems and ignore us .. they never even mention us .. yeah.. but that is what the organization is there for you fool .. the disabled .. hahaha.
    Who knew the disabled were out for supremacy?
    Ye gods, they intend to rule the world .. quick everyone run .. they want us all to be disabled .. run for your lives .. pull up your manly trousers .. how they fear feminism .. well they fear it .. because in a male run totalitarian world they promote the male, masculinity and all things male and they are terrified of anything feminine .. you will never see them with a flower as an avatar .. that is how afraid they are of their bro’s opinions .. they fear being associated with anything feminine themselves .. In truth they despise and hate the female with venom, they are anti female.. so anti female they want them dead .. as is the case where they are slaughtering millions of female fetuses across the world because males have declared the female is not as valuable as the male ..kill her, we despise her .. she isn’t entitled to any rights .. she isn’t male .. she isn’t entitled to live .. kill her ..she has no right to a vote .. she isn’t male .. she isn’t good enough .. kill her.
    So the feminist movement is out for female supremacy? Well, it obviously is not fucking working, WHERE HAVE THEY GONE WRONG? .. OH YEAH, of course.. THEY AIN’T MALE..

  151. sirtooting . says

    Can’t edit, it’s a complete mystery as to why not ? It’s obviously to complex for the website owners to work out, or maybe the option doesn’t exist ..
    So errors amended here .. “Patriarchy ~ where the male gender hates the female gender and hates her so much, he claimed the female is not as valuable as the male.”

    “We need a Men’s Rights Movement as much as we need a Heterosexual Rights Movement”
    History ..
    “The Etruscans had accorded women great freedom & respect” Wow,.what this actually means is, whether females get any freedoms or respect is down specifically on a males whim”
    Females lives determined by the whim of the males in their male run totalitarian cultures & if you aren’t born male in all these cultures then the male thinks you a worthless burden, to either be exterminated or you will be forced to accept his opinion on your worth, THE WORD Valuable will not be it.

    Women’s entire roles were to become wives & bear children. Men needed women only to produce heirs for them. In Euripides’ Medea, Jason exclaims “There ought to have been some way for men to beget their children, dispensing with the assistance of women.
    Men decided that they would keep the women in a subordinate status of seclusion so they could control their reproduction. Girls were not welcomed to the world with joy, only with the idea that they were needed in order to continue the male.

    A woman entered the world, lived in it, and died, known only in relation to males who controlled her life.
    A saying in ancient Greece, A man thanked the gods that he was not uncivilized, a slave, or a woman
    An old saying in China, If u ask a Chinese man how many children he had, if he had both boys & girls, he would only count? The boys, but if he had only girls, he would answer, NONE!.
    When a boy was born to a Greek family, it was a cause for celebration; the arrival of a girl, however, was not.
    Or in China, or in India or anywhere else where the male potential was thought most valuable by the male.

    We are supposed to believe the male is oppressed by the female, we aren’t supposed to highlight or mention how men regard women or the males long history of hatred of the female, we mustn’t touch on male sensibilities, or they will be offended, that you had the audacity to dare to mention it.
    They fear and hate the female, they fear anything in their own character being seen as resembling anything anywhere near female .. They fear that which they despise, and they despise it being seen in themselves and they fear that being uncovered by their bro’s.
    So they rage against the female, all bro’s together, denouncing anything that isn’t regarded 100% male.. Always checking with each other, always looking to confirm with each other, always looking for concurrence in others, always verifying with one another .. Yeah the mob is united ..And they are completely compliant and continuing to confirm their allegiance to each other and their beloved patriarchy.

  152. johngreg says

    Attention, attention, you may take it with however many grains of salt you wish; the brown acid that is circulating around is not specifically too good.

    This has been a public information message for sirtooting.

  153. Schala says

    I don’t even read sirtooting, my brain would blow from the stupidity. And I can greatly enjoy The Onion and Cracked.com. Tv tropes is also a fun read. Absurdities such as sirtooting’s on the other hand… not even entertaining.

  154. sirtooting . says

    Attention, attention
    We’re all born ignorant, but it takes a lot of hard work to remain stupid, but johngreg you can claim a gold star for your efforts in holding onto it for so long. Well done..
    The history of philosophy a “chain of fathers.” Women are as absent from it as suffering, and are certainly the closest of kin.

    It has always been men who claimed women are inferior & they are quite adamant it is true, yet it has always been men who say men have to prove they are men otherwise maybe they aren’t anything?
    Well, maybe they aren’t if they have to go out of their way to prove they are men & if men have a need to prove that they are men, then doesn’t that mean they fear there is some element of doubt?
    One could believe this a very deep seated inferiority complex.

  155. leni says

    Schala:

    Men are slaves to the very rich, the oligarchs. Not to feminists.

    Yet no one has a book with messages from God telling men to be submissive to their wives in all things as well as the state. Men who are submissive to women are derided as worse than women. That should tell you somehting.

    They’re seen as unworthy of being cared for by society, the moment they fail to take care of themselves. Not so for women”

    You’ve never been to an abortion clinic, have you? Try it sometime, if you haven’t. Spoiler alert! It’s super fun and everyone high-fives you on the way in!

    I know what you are getting at, but the fact that you just had to add that “Not so for women” on what was an otherwise reasonable point just makes you look like an asshole. FYI.

    If agriculture counts as unpaid labor, yes. And it was in the examples.

    Did you have a source for that claim?

    That’s the only common point? Are you sure about that?

    Check your vision, or your reading comprehension.

    “Any species where a leader is mostly of one sex, ants, bees, lions – you know what’s the common point between them?

    Only one leader.”

    Where did I say only? Didn’t say it. So thanks for putting words in my mouth.

    You said the common point. Not a common point. Even if you had it would have been irrelevant. We aren’t bees or ants or lions and the only reason to bring it up now is to invoke a natural fallacy.

    Then rich women have a billion times better chance than non-rich men, at becoming real influential leaders elected by their peers (not of a 1000 pop village, but of something big, where campaigns cost millions).

    You’ve been doing “math” again! I can tell by the hyperbolic insertion of the word “billion” where it probably doesn’t belong.

    Aside from your fake mathy bullshit, I of course agree that (for example) Hillary Clinton probably has much better chances than you than being elected. But her chances would probably be even less than yours if she were your wife instead of Bill Clinton’s.

  156. Schala says

    Yet no one has a book with messages from God telling men to be submissive to their wives in all things as well as the state. Men who are submissive to women are derided as worse than women. That should tell you somehting.

    Some con artists are popular. What can I do? I refuse to be member of any organized religion. Maybe others should do the same. They’ve ALWAYS been tools of mass population control. But not in the hands of oligarchs, in as much as the clergy is only a small portion of oligarchs. And they lost much of their power since people came out of the dark ages and got higher education.

    You know what religions are? Cults that really “took off”.

    You’ve never been to an abortion clinic, have you? Try it sometime, if you haven’t. Spoiler alert! It’s super fun and everyone high-fives you on the way in!

    I know what you are getting at, but the fact that you just had to add that “Not so for women” on what was an otherwise reasonable point just makes you look like an asshole. FYI.

    You’ve ever been on welfare as a man? Had foodstamps as a man? Been dependent on someone else’s income (outside of childhood) as a man? ALL those will have him seen as a leech, worthy of being kicked to the curb ASAP.

    But go ahead and tell me life ain’t perfect for women, so it all balances out, and who cares about men anyways, right? Not society. Not feminism. Not conservatives. No one. Not even (the vast majority of) men – conditioned to care more about their wives, their families, and women generally before seeing their own problems, or problems pertaining to men. Been told their whole lives they have it easy, they got it all, and being homeless isn’t that bad, right?

    You said the common point. Not a common point. Even if you had it would have been irrelevant. We aren’t bees or ants or lions and the only reason to bring it up now is to invoke a natural fallacy.

    Aww, that’s so cute. You can do mind reading! Wow. Even John Smith can’t do that.

    You’ve been doing “math” again! I can tell by the hyperbolic insertion of the word “billion” where it probably doesn’t belong.

    Aside from your fake mathy bullshit, I of course agree that (for example) Hillary Clinton probably has much better chances than you than being elected. But her chances would probably be even less than yours if she were your wife instead of Bill Clinton’s.

    And you think I’m a man…. sooo sooo cute. *coos*

    If Hilary Clinton was my wife, she would NEVER get elected, because people who marry trans women get bad press.

  157. Lucy says

    123,etc

    “How very convenient for you to reel off a whole bunch of business change related positives that have emerged over the last few decades and causaly link them to the introduction of women in the workplace. What a crock of shit your brain must be set in. Are you seriously that deluded to think that positive business changes wouldn’t have evolved without women? I can tell you now that what you’ve just described is purely down to ‘coincidence’, and it happens every day! Hows about we reel off a whole bunch of business-related negatives that have occurred over the last few decades and link these to women in the workplace. Anyone care to start? Lucy, you’re doing nothing less than actively participating in high-level shaming tactics which are designed to put men down whilst promoting the female supremacy movement agenda.”

    I’m sure you’re right. Women’s entry into the workplace in huge numbers has had no effect.

    I mean look at cooking for another great example of coincidence. Women cook for 250 THOUSAND years and we have cooks. Men cook for 150 years and coincidentally we now have the chef, chef de cuisine, executive chef, chef manager, head chef, and master chef, sous chef, chef de partie, commis chef, kitchen assistant, Michelin star (1, 2 AND 3) and the well loved celebrity chef.

  158. Archy says

    “I mean look at cooking for another great example of coincidence. Women cook for 250 THOUSAND years and we have cooks. Men cook for 150 years and coincidentally we now have the chef, chef de cuisine, executive chef, chef manager, head chef, and master chef, sous chef, chef de partie, commis chef, kitchen assistant, Michelin star (1, 2 AND 3) and the well loved celebrity chef.”

    Part of that is the rise of the middle class and disposable income. Modern life allows for luxury, hell the basic supermarket has food that kings didn’t even get in previous times. Technology largely brought this in.

  159. 123454321 says

    Lucy,

    “I’m sure you’re right. Women’s entry into the workplace in huge numbers has had no effect.”

    I never said they had no effect. Read my words carefully next time.

  160. sirtooting . says

    Recently I was speaking to a misogynist about cooking and he told me, “Women are cooks but men are chefs .. Ooh .. who knew?
    Men tend to elevate their own self importance, their own status because they don’t want to be classed as on the same level as women .. because women’s status in their eyes is lesser than men’s.
    They never regarded women as equal, they regarded themselves a level above that of women .. at least a level above ..
    They don’t want to be seen in the same class as women, because that class holds no status for men, who want to be seen a level above .. the ego, the image, is what it is all about .. male superiority .. and you can only be superior .. if you can claim another is inferior to you ..

    Of course what Mr Fogg, should have wrote as the header for this article, was.. ” I’m only writing this to have yet another dig at women? LMAO .. Ain’t they all about that? or am I only pointing out the bleeding obvious .. hahaha.

    A woman entered the world, lived in it, and died, known only in relation to males who controlled her life.

    An old saying in China, If u ask a Chinese man how many children he had, if he had both boys & girls, he would only count The boys, but if he had only girls, he would answer, NONE!.
    When a boy was born to a Greek family, it was a cause for celebration; the arrival of a girl, however, was not.
    Or in China, or in India or anywhere else where the male potential was thought the most valuable by the male.
    As a collective, as a gang, as a mob, Males despise females, don’t ever be in any doubt about that..

    They fear and hate the female, they fear anything in their own character being seen as resembling anything anywhere near female .. They fear that which they despise, and they despise it being seen in themselves and they fear that being uncovered by their bro’s.

  161. sirtooting . says

    It will be dismissed as totally irrelevant, the mass murder of millions of females at the hands of millions of males because they aren’t born the gender the male prefers .. “The Male” .. Because, well, at least one of them will claim they are married to a woman, and that proves that they don’t despise females too their deaths .. Wow, what buffoonery will be next.. One wonders..?

    The buffoonery of men claiming men created democracies .. Who knew that, not I?

    We ask the question why are millions of males murdering millions of females in the hope of replacing them with millions of more males? Because they value one over the other .. One over the other, .. They regard themselves highly, very highly indeed ..

    What do they claim about democracies .. oh yeah
    Although it lasted only two centuries, Athenian democracy would become one of ancient Greece’s most enduring contributions to the modern world.

    This is what men refer to as one of their first democracies .. well let’s a have a laugh at that .. because for women, it was just another one of those male run domineering totalitarian states.

    Of course men can claim it was some sort of democracy, as long as they don’t envisage having to acknowledge or include the other half of the human race in that equation .. because the second they do acknowledge women exist, it all falls apart and becomes nothing more, than a male run totalitarian state ..

    and they have a nerve to call that one of the first democracies, who are they trying to fool .. ?

  162. 123454321 says

    “Recently I was speaking to a misogynist about cooking and he told me, “Women are cooks but men are chefs .. Ooh .. who knew?”

    man-flu, multitasking + a million other comments spewed around the workplace and social circles by misandrists. what’s your point?

    “Men tend to elevate their own self importance, their own status because they don’t want to be classed as on the same level as women .. because women’s status in their eyes is lesser than men’s.
    They never regarded women as equal, they regarded themselves a level above that of women .. at least a level above ..
    They don’t want to be seen in the same class as women, because that class holds no status for men, who want to be seen a level above .. the ego, the image, is what it is all about .. male superiority .. and you can only be superior .. if you can claim another is inferior to you ..”

    This is EXACTLY how feminists behave whilst taking advantage of men doing all the shitty jobs and fighting your wars in the interest of evolution.

    “Of course what Mr Fogg, should have wrote as the header for this article, was.. ” I’m only writing this to have yet another dig at women? LMAO .. Ain’t they all about that? or am I only pointing out the bleeding obvious .. hahaha.”

    You have the gumption to accuse men of having a dig at women when all you have to do is read today’s media channels to witness the barrage of digs and insults aimed at men by feminist women (and some white-knight/mangina men). It’s everywhere! Are you deaf and blind or have blinkered vision and selective hearing or something?

    “A woman entered the world, lived in it, and died, known only in relation to males who controlled her life.”

    Dunno about anyone else but my Mother had a fair bit of control over me when I was a child and led the way above and beyond my father who was mostly working long hours to earn a living.

    “An old saying in China, If u ask a Chinese man how many children he had, if he had both boys & girls, he would only count The boys, but if he had only girls, he would answer, NONE!.
    When a boy was born to a Greek family, it was a cause for celebration; the arrival of a girl, however, was not.
    Or in China, or in India or anywhere else where the male potential was thought the most valuable by the male.
    As a collective, as a gang, as a mob, Males despise females, don’t ever be in any doubt about that..”

    Why don’t you go preach in China and Greece then about your feminist rantings rather than over here in UK where there is fuck all inequality for women?

    “They fear and hate the female, they fear anything in their own character being seen as resembling anything anywhere near female .. They fear that which they despise, and they despise it being seen in themselves and they fear that being uncovered by their bro’s.”

    I think you’ll find that the vast majority of men actually like and love the vast majority of normal women. I know I do. Normal women (those who don’t participate in the female supremacy agenda) are great and I see them as equals. But, like me, men are beginning to detest the way radical, outspoken, selfish, self-centred, bigoted feminists have manipulated the system to advantage women at the expense of men. You don’t have to look far into your matrix of friends/family/workplace to see and hear evidence of female supremacy in the guise of put-downs like “typical male / men are useless / can you carry this box because you’re a man / ladies first / men stink / men are messy / men are perverts / don’t touch me but I can touch you / stop looking at my chest but I can slap my hands all over yours” cliche shaming tactics.

  163. johngreg says

    Schala said (http://freethoughtblogs.com/hetpat/2014/01/11/im-only-writing-this-to-get-laid-or-am-i/#comment-32445):

    You’ve ever been on welfare as a man? Had foodstamps as a man? Been dependent on someone else’s income (outside of childhood) as a man? ALL those will have him seen as a leech, worthy of being kicked to the curb ASAP.

    But go ahead and tell me life ain’t perfect for women, so it all balances out, and who cares about men anyways, right? Not society. Not feminism. Not conservatives. No one. Not even (the vast majority of) men – conditioned to care more about their wives, their families, and women generally before seeing their own problems, or problems pertaining to men. Been told their whole lives they have it easy, they got it all, and being homeless isn’t that bad, right?

    Quoted for truth and accuracy.

    I’ve been on welfare, and even though I have a university degree and a lot of experience in my profession, I was homeless for a year (november 2005-2006). And what Schala says is absolutely true. And, in addition to that, when I was homeless, I lost almost all my friends (they were ashamed of me, and didn’t want to know), and was insulted and ignored by my family (brother, sister, parents).

    The pressure on men to perform, to succeed (whatever the fuck that means) is enormous.

    Now, I am not saying that women live on easy street, there are indeed many social and political and workday problems faced by most women the world over. However, anyone who says that all men live on easy street is a blind fool. And most of these problems (for both men and women) are not related to sexism, or gender profiling, etc. Most of these problems are specifically and directly related to class/cohort/money issues, and the amazingly toxic society created by major corporations and those who buy into that wealth-equals-value meme.

    And men are, basically, not allowed to complain about it. If they do, they are then told to “man up”, or “stop being a girly-man” or abused as talking about “teh menz” — that’s a favourite on several feminist Web sites.

  164. 123454321 says

    Thanks Johngreg, almost forgot about the “man-up” shaming tactic that feminists, indoctrinated sheep-people, manginas and white-knights like to use in everyday life these days. All part of a good day’s sporting fun for the fighting fit feminist supporters who want to get to the top of Mount Superiority.

  165. sirtooting . says

    It will be dismissed as totally irrelevant, the mass murder of millions of females at the hands of millions of males because they aren’t born the gender the male prefers .. “The Male” .. Because, well, at least one of them will claim they are married to a woman, and that proves that they don’t despise females too their deaths .. Wow, what buffoonery will be next.. One wonders..?

    Poor men, suffering from domestic oppression and tyranny. Discriminated against in job interviews for their ability to get pregnant, paid less than women, juggling their jobs with child care, cleaning & cooking, objectified and characterised in popular culture as fickle creatures who lie about rape….

    Imagine going to work every day & having people, come up to you and say things like, “Die, you dumb cunt” and “you deserve to be raped” .

    An endless tirade, of mobs of men, gleefully typing to women they don’t even know.. you should be raped and killed, suck it up you bitches .. and it goes on unabated year in year out, ..
    Bloggers tell women ignore these haters, grow a thick skin, & eat whatever shit is targeted at you.
    Woman haters, their pupils dilated and their sweaty fists clenched, & faces bright red, all pumped up and raging inside, screaming at their targets.. You got your equal rights, what you got to complain about now? So stfu and get in the kitchen and make a sandwich, you stupid dumb bitch..

    Laws may have changed, but those laws couldn’t change, self absorbed, self important, self satisfied violent smug little men, who collectively feel entilted to endlessly threaten to rape and kill women because they have a need to get It off their chests and it makes them feel all smug & cosy inside .. aah .. that told em .. now they know exactly where they stand ..
    They call it a virtual reality .. yeah right .. it is real and it happens everyday ..
    What’s that coming over the hill, is it a monster, is it a monster? .. No, it’s just another woman hating misogynist feeling all entitled to air his hatred of women and get it off his chest ..

    It will be dismissed as totally irrelevant, the mass murder of millions of females at the hands of millions of males because they aren’t born the gender the male prefers .. “The Male.
    The law of coverture was an attempt to by men to erase women from their male totalitarian history.

  166. Schala says

    Ally, while disagreement can be had and all. I don’t think sirtooting is producing ANY light, it’s all heat.

    Professional troll. I didn’t think I’d get to see the day where I prefer stupid publicities to repeatings ad nauseum of propaganda. He’s not arguing with anyone, just with himself.

  167. sirtooting . says

    Oh, deedums schala .. This is as bad as the people that claim that O. J. Simpson or Aerial Castro are the real victims.
    Well, schala, as it happens millions of female fetuses are being aborted to satisfy the male ego in the hope of replaced one gender with another and that is the gender the male prefers .. The MALE ..
    But if another female is created then that one will be aborted and the next & the next & the next .. and in many cases if a female survives and lives, some will be drowned in milk, some will be drowned in wells or rivers, some are thrown out with the garbage, some will be forced to be sex slaves but all will be under the oppression of men if they survive.
    I am putting forward the idea, that the male despises the female and is the reason why he denied and continues to deny her, her basic human rights all across the world.
    Surely you can get the gist of what I am saying? Obviously you can and you don’t like that, because you can’t answer it, honestly..

    Laws may have changed, but those laws couldn’t change, self absorbed, self important, self satisfied violent smug abusive little men, who collectively feel entilted to endlessly threaten to rape and kill women because they have a need to get It off their chests and it makes them feel all smug & cosy inside .. Aah .. that told em .. Now they know exactly where they stand! One can be absolutely sure, women do.

  168. 123454321 says

    sir tooting, you fuck-wit, the reasons selective abortion takes place in various places across the globe is down to boys providing manual, hard labour and long-term support for his family. He is seen as an asset in terms of family protection as well as an asset in terms of being a wage-earner fulfilling economic advantages to his family (including the females). I think boys are also expected to look after their parents when they are old. The female gets married and provides no financial support to her family. I don’t agree with selective abortion myself but the reasons all stem from the male being expected to slave for his family one way or another i.e. getting the shitty end of the stick once again. Anyway, I don’t know much on the subject but I’ll bet it’s more complex than you think and I’ll bet that a vast proportion of Mothers CHOOSE to abort rather than your notion that it’s the “patriarchy”. I repeat: I don’t favour selective abortion, and I know little about it, but it’s most likely culturally evolved to support women just as much as men, if not more.

    In any case, go compare the figures against the number of men killed in war. I don’t hear you complain about that!

  169. sirtooting . says

    So by your explanation, it’s not the male run totalitarian patriarchal system that is the failure , but rather being born female in a culture that doesn’t recognize the value of the female .. I see ..
    Men think very highly of themselves, don’t they?

  170. sirtooting . says

    Here .. fuckwit – 12345

    The male values himself very highly, very highly indeed, he is self obsessed, self absorbed, and self important

    It is a strange claim for men to make that women don’t work as hard as men, when men have twice the upper body strength of women.
    For a woman to achieve the same goal as a man whilst doing the same labour intensive work, ultimately she has to work twice as hard as a man to achieve her goals, which men have never acknowledged, instead they have chosen to sneer at women’s efforts and gloat and brag about their own.
    Their own advantage they admire and women’s disadvantage they despIse.
    It is in the men’s best interest to promote this idea, this then justifies men’s sense of authority over women which ultimately denies women any chance of any equal opportunities with men in any sphere of activity in a culture and women continue to be regarded less valuable than men because men claim they are.

    Who gave the male the right to deny the female hers?

    It is said if triangles had gods, they would be three sided, but in man’s case, they are just two faced.

    The male determines on a males whim, what rights and freedoms the female can have in his male dominated totalitarian state and he remains just as resistant to change and just as belligerent as he ever was.

    You are not obligated to a culture that denies you, your basic human rights, your only obligation is to yourself and others who are also denied their basic human rights to get free of it.

  171. leni says

    However, anyone who says that all men live on easy street is a blind fool.

    It’s a good thing no one said that, then.

  172. johngreg says

    leni, you dim bulb, it’s called creative language, paraphrasing, and so on. I know, I know, that smells of dictionaries, but, well, so it goes, sweetheart.

    sirtooting, well, what can I say: you do not inhabit the same informational zone as most of the human beings on this planet do. Are you from Zarcon? Venus? How on Earth did you get the free pass to leave the grounds?

    [EDITED BY AF ABLEIST ABUSE]

  173. sirtooting . says

    The male determines on a males whim, what rights and freedoms the female can have in his male dominated totalitarian state

    He plucks a flower I will let her live, I will let her die. I will let her .. DIE!

    “The reasons selective abortion takes place in various places across the globe is down to boys providing manual, hard labour and long-term support for his family. He is seen as an asset in terms of family protection as well as an asset in terms of being a wage-earner fulfilling economic advantages to his family”
    Really?

    The reasons selective abortion takes place in various places across the globe is down to a males whim, and his preference and he prefers the male, because he VALUES the Male far more than he values the Female, ultimately he is valuing himself very highly whilst devaluing that, that isn’t male.

    A system introduced by the male, designed to only promote the potential of the Male, masculinity and all thing male and it such a bizarre rigged distorted grotesque system it failed the female and her potential wholesale.

    The failure lies with a strategy designed to exclude the female of the species, not with being born Female. But the male with a screw loose, reckons his system is faultless.

    Millions of Males murdering millions of Females is what Males call a success, but they swear they are oppressed by the female…

    He plucks a flower I will let her live, I will let her die. I will let her .. DIE!
    He lets her DIE ,, because he lovingly wants a much wanted son, not an unwanted daughter he despises, because she isn’t born male.

    Who gave the male the right to deny the female hers? hmm..

    It is said if triangles had gods, they would be three sided, but in man’s case, they are just two faced.

    12345 – once I caught a fish alive .. Hey thanks for proving my exact point .. Males despise Females because they aren’t born male ..

    The male determines on a males whim, what rights and freedoms the female can have in his male dominated totalitarian state .. and that usually ain’t much.

  174. sirtooting . says

    @ johngreg ..I don’t know what makes you so stupid, but omg .. it really really works ..

  175. leni says

    leni, you dim bulb, it’s called creative language, paraphrasing, and so on.

    Alternatively known as “straw man” and/or “some bullshit I just pulled out of my ass”.

    I know, I know, that smells of dictionaries, but, well, so it goes, sweetheart.

    Actually, it smells more like bullshit than dictionaries. Tacking “sweetheart” on the end of it didn’t male it more credible, but I suppose it’s laudable that you went for the cheap shot.

    So few people are brave enough to do that nowadays.

  176. sirtooting . says

    @ 186 ..” In any case, go compare the figures against the number of men killed in war. I don’t hear you complain about that!”

    Men playing in dramas of their own making, men armed to the teeth defending themselves against other men who are equally as armed defending themselves .. ah .. but the women are never armed, because men say no way hosea, can you be armed .. but the men don’t mind killing women unarmed .. and is probably why they denied women the ability to defend themselves .. men gave themselves the privilege of being armed to the teeth, and they ain’t against dropping bombs on women who are unarmed, but they are against women being able to defend themselves whilst being shot and bombed by those armed to the teeth.

    Tell me, how best should millions of little females, who never harmed anyone, defend themselves whilst totally unarmed, against murderous males who are armed to the teeth, who despise them to death because they aren’t born male? .. TELL ME HOW BEST SHOULD THEY DEFEND THEMSELVES .. . I don’t hear you complain about that! .. No, you just fall over yourself to justify it . ..

    Men knock down houses in China to get at the women, who they quite literally drag to their Gestapo’s hospitals and rip out their beloved much wanted daughters from their wombs ..
    You think women kill their daughters willing .. no shit face, they are coerced by males who want sons not daughters, well many women find the loss of their much wanted, much loved daughters unbearable, the grief for them is overwhelming and it is estimated that at least 500 women per day are currently committing suicide, due to the murder of their daughters.

    IT ALWAYS COMES BACK TO THE MENZ.. YEAH .. WHAT ABOUT THE FUCKING MENZ..?

  177. leni says

    Schala:

    Some con artists are popular. What can I do?

    You could stop feeding into their bullshit, for one.

    You’ve ever been on welfare as a man? Had foodstamps as a man?

    Well, I left my penis at home when I went in to fill out the application, but I was easily like 50% male. Yes it sucked. Now imagine doing that same thing as a female. With children. While black. For your whole fucking adult life.

    Been dependent on someone else’s income (outside of childhood) as a man?

    Pausing here to laugh. It must be so demeaning to you to be compared to a female. How awful!

    But go ahead and tell me life ain’t perfect for women, so it all balances out…

    I said that where?

    and who cares about men anyways, right?

    I said that where?

  178. Schala says

    Pausing here to laugh. It must be so demeaning to you to be compared to a female. How awful!

    Massive, MASSIVE reading comprehension fail.

    Go back and reread what this is a reply to. Yes, go…

  179. Archy says

    Sirtooting, I am having difficulty following what your point is. What’s this flowers stuff?

    BTW, there are female soldiers you know…

    [EDITED BY AF – ABLEIST ABUSE]

  180. leni says

    Schala:

    And you think I’m a man…. sooo sooo cute. *coos*

    Well, you lived as one on food stamps. Good enough for me.

    If Hilary Clinton was my wife, she would NEVER get elected, because people who marry trans women get bad press.

    Oh, so now there is more to all this than class? Nice to see you finally get that…when it’s convenient for you to acknowledge.

  181. sirtooting . says

    Well, schala, as it happens millions of female fetuses are being aborted to satisfy the male ego in the hope of replaced one gender with another and that is the gender the male prefers .. The MALE ..
    But if another female is created then that one will be aborted and the next & the next & the next .. and in many cases if a female survives and lives, some will be drowned in milk, some will be drowned in wells or rivers, some are thrown out with the garbage, some will be forced to be sex slaves but all will be under the oppression of men if they survive.

    But let’s ignore all of that and talk about schala’s favourite subject .. the boys..

    Tell me, how best should millions of little females, who never harmed anyone, defend themselves whilst totally unarmed, against murderous males who are armed to the teeth, who despise them to death because they aren’t born male?

  182. leni says

    Massive, MASSIVE reading comprehension fail.

    Go back and reread what this is a reply to. Yes, go…

    It was in reply to me. Laughing at you for bemoaning life as how many women get to live it..

    My bad. Clearly it’s true that that having economic dependence and the scorn that comes with it foisted upon you is indeed a travesty.

  183. Archy says

    I guess you’re against the plethora of abortions in the U.S as well? Or is it only bad when one gender gets “murdered”?

  184. John Morales says

    [meta]

    I note that the conversation has sailed on and the original topic is now long out of sight, beyond the horizon.

  185. Schala says

    Well, you lived as one on food stamps. Good enough for me.

    No, I haven’t. I just know how men on foodstamps are treated. With MUCH MORE contempt than their female counterpart, with or without child.

    Oh, so now there is more to all this than class? Nice to see you finally get that…when it’s convenient for you to acknowledge.

    Yes, because being trans is such a massive issue for 50% of the population, right? Even if we included people who are close to trans people and don’t cut them off from their life or stay far enough apart (ie don’t bring them to social functions). It’s still a tiny amount of people. Less than 1% actually. And anyone who has a lot to lose in social status is more likely to cut them off to cut their losses, and hence remain mostly unaffected.

    It was in reply to me. Laughing at you for bemoaning life as how many women get to live it..

    Wrong, but keep thinking you actually read my comment right.

    See how a man is treated when depending on someone else’s income is not “OMG, he’s treated like a woman, so horrible”. But more like “He’s kicked to the curb or have people dreaming of doing it – who would NOT do the same to women.”

    A stay at home dad is considered useless, profiteering, taking advantage of her, lazy, incompetent. And definitely not worth being supported. Of course, he has a penis. Penis-bearers are self-supporting, or they can go die in a ditch. At least after they’re no longer under CPS care. Society makes sure of that.

    I said that where?

    So self-centered now. Something society does has to come from you. Or it doesn’t count as evil. Or something. Must be Romulan logic. Never heard of that way of thinking.

    Hey, I’m not the one selectively aborting fetuses, thus “I said that where?!” and voila, problem stops existing. Now stop complaining /s

  186. ildi says

    I note that the conversation has sailed on and the original topic is now long out of sight, beyond the horizon.

    More like Schala and sirtooting on the “Twilight Zone” train going in opposite directions.

  187. leni says

    . No, I haven’t. I just know how men on foodstamps are treated. With MUCH MORE contempt than their female counterpart, with or without child.

    And I hear from Christian supremacists that they “just know how Christians are treated.” WITH MUCH MORE contempt than their non-Christian counterparts. You have provided nothing but complaints so far. Feel free to provide evidence. Anytime now.

    Yes, because being trans is such a massive issue for 50% of the population, right? Even if we included people who are close to trans people and don’t cut them off from their life or stay far enough apart (ie don’t bring them to social functions). It’s still a tiny amount of people. Less than 1% actually. And anyone who has a lot to lose in social status is more likely to cut them off to cut their losses, and hence remain mostly unaffected.

    Again, funny how you recognize that more than class is issue when it’s useful to you.

  188. Schala says

    Being trans will be a much bigger problem to running for office than being whatever sex.

    Yet being a very rich trans person can still get you way ahead than even a Gandhi poor person. Whatever that proto-Gandhi’s sex. Chances are he won’t get elected cause he won’t be seen by enough people, because he can’t pay for PR and TV time, so electors have never even heard of hir.

    Ergo, politics is all about money. Everything else is dressing. Sure white rich people have an easier time than black rich people, or latino rich people, or asian rich people. But not by a landslide like they do over every single poor people, or even just middle-class people.

    We’re comparing 95 with 94 with 93 with 92…while the middle-class is at 25, and the poor at 3. On a 100 scale.

  189. leni says

    Sure white rich people have an easier time than black rich people, or latino rich people, or asian rich people. But not by a landslide like they do over every single poor people, or even just middle-class people.

    That same dynamic is true in pretty much every class, jackass.

  190. johngreg says

    Wowza!

    And I thought my Woodstock quote was sarcastic.

    … whoosh.

    ….

    Where’s *FLOOSH* Nerd when he’s needed?

  191. sirtooting . says

    how they fear feminism .. well they fear it .. because in a male run totalitarian world they promote the male, masculinity and all things male and they are terrified of anything feminine .. you will never see them with a flower as an avatar .. that is how afraid they are of their bro’s opinions .. they fear being associated with anything feminine themselves .. In truth they despise and hate the female with venom, they are anti female.. so anti female they want them dead .. as is the case where they are slaughtering millions of female fetuses across the world because males have declared the female is not as valuable as the male ..kill her, we despise her .. she isn’t entitled to any rights .. she isn’t male .. she isn’t entitled to live .. kill her ..she has no right to a vote .. she isn’t male .. she isn’t good enough .. kill her.
    So the feminist movement is out for female supremacy? Well, it obviously is not fucking working, WHERE HAVE THEY GONE WRONG? .. OH YEAH, of course.. THEY AIN’T MALE..

  192. sirtooting . says

    Tell us schala, how best should millions of unarmed little females, who never harmed anyone, defend themselves, against murderous males who are armed to the teeth, who despise them to death because they aren’t born male?

    Females couldn’t have the vote, because they weren’t male .. Females couldn’t get paid the same rate equally as men, because they weren’t male .. Females weren’t allowed to be armed because they weren’t male .. Females weren’t allowed to go to universities because they weren’t male .. All these decisions were solely the decision of the male – He had the right to deny the female anything .. And he did .. He fell over himself to deny her rights he afforded himself ..
    He claimed his labour was more valuable than the females – he decided that, that was his opinion and he acted on that opinion.
    The Male has twice the upper body strength than that of the female, so women have to work twice as hard as men to achieve the same goals and women usually do achieve them but still this will get no recognition from men, who applaud maleness whilst despising femaleness and how do we know they despise femaleness? because it is not something they would ever applaud in themselves.

  193. sirtooting . says

    @ Archy
    “I guess you’re against the plethora of abortions in the U.S as well?

    Or is it only bad when one gender gets “murdered” ..

    Hmm .. Coerced to kill a healthy female in the hope of replacing her with a male . that is what you call murder ..

    if a man coerced a woman to abort her child because he didn’t want it or didn’t want to financially support it, or didn’t like it’s gender .. that is murder of a child ..
    A woman puts her own life in danger when carrying a child, it is her sole decision whether she decides to take that risk or not and no one should have the right to coerce her to do anything that goes against her own wishes.

    “Or is it only bad when one gender gets “murdered” ..Hmm .. there would be a fucking outcry if they were all male .. but there has never been an outcry from male when they know they are all female .. OF COURSE NOT, BECAUSE IT IS DUE TO MEN’S PREFERENCE, that the female is actually targeted.

    The male proclaimed himself, more valuable than the female and he don’t mind killing her to prove it, to himself.

  194. Schala says

    That same dynamic is true in pretty much every class, jackass.

    That same dynamic barely matters in comparison to class. Yet feminism would have us ignore class, and tell us the Root of ALL Oppression is gender.

    Well no, the root is very obviously class.

  195. Schala says

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/01/140113095143.htm

    Boys have the reverse body image issues of girls. I wonder why. Is it society overemphasizing sex as THE defining characteristic of a person, and punishing outliers (or anyone PERCEIVED to be an outlier) for the crime of not being conformist, in both genes and behavior?

    This afflicts both boys and girls, men and women. At the hands of boys, girls, men and women, too.

  196. 123454321 says

    sirtooting,

    “500 women per day are currently committing suicide, due to the murder of their daughters.”

    From Wiki…

    Around 800,000 to a million people die by suicide every year, making it the 10th leading cause of death worldwide. Rates are higher in men than in women, with males three to four times more likely to kill themselves than females.

  197. 123454321 says

    yep, that’s why I’d like to see a link to the stat.

    I’d also like to see proof that it’s the “patriarchy” and its army of evil males who are making the decision to abort female foetuses. Because I’m not buying it. I reckon it’s every bit the decision of the female species of the family line. Happy to be proven wrong…..sirtooting?

  198. sirtooting . says

    In one country, 500 women a day commit suicide and = 183500
    That is 25% of your 800,000 .. wow that is huge amount ..

    If you doubt my figure you disprove it ..

    WHAT ABOUT THE MENZ ..
    The male determines on a males whim, what rights and freedoms the female can have in his male dominated totalitarian state

    He plucks a flower I will let her live, I will let her die. I will let her .. DIE!
    YOU
    “The reasons selective abortion takes place in various places across the globe is down to boys providing manual, hard labour and long-term support for his family. He is seen as an asset in terms of family protection as well as an asset in terms of being a wage-earner fulfilling economic advantages to his family”

    So by your explanation, it’s not the male run totalitarian patriarchal system that is the failure , but rather the fault lies in being born female in a culture that doesn’t recognize the value of the female .. I see ..
    Men think very highly of themselves, don’t they?

    You – WHAT ABOUT THE MENZ
    .” In any case, go compare the figures against the number of men killed in war. I don’t hear you complain about that!”

    ah .. but the women are never armed, because men say no way hose, can you be armed .. but the men don’t mind killing women who are unarmed .. and is probably why they denied women the ability to defend themselves .. men gave themselves the privilege of being armed to the teeth, and they ain’t against dropping bombs on women or shooting them whilst they are unarmed, but they are against women being armed to defend themselves against those who are armed to the teeth.

    .” In any case, go compare the figures against the number of men killed in war. I don’t hear you complain about that!”

    WHAT ABOUT THE MENZ
    Tell me, how best should millions of little females, defend themselves whilst totally unarmed, against murderous males who are armed to the teeth, who despise them to death because they aren’t born male?

    “The reasons selective abortion takes place in various places across the globe is down to boys, who love themselves .. Yeah .. we know

  199. Schala says

    In one country, 500 women a day commit suicide and = 183500
    That is 25% of your 800,000 .. wow that is huge amount ..

    If you doubt my figure you disprove it ..

    This would mean ALL successful suicides of women are based on their daughters being killed. ALL of them.

  200. sirtooting . says

    So you are asking us all to believe all the other remaining suicides are male .. Really ..

    Are you always this stupid or is today a special occasion?

  201. sirtooting . says

    12345 .. once i caught a fish a live
    YOU
    I’d also like to see proof that it’s the “patriarchy” and its army of evil males who are making the decision to abort female foetuses. Because I’m not buying it.

    AND YOU AGAIN..

    “The reasons selective abortion takes place in various places across the globe is down to boys providing manual, hard labour and long-term support for his family. He is seen as an asset in terms of family protection as well as an asset in terms of being a wage-earner fulfilling economic advantages to his family”

    ME
    You are going to buy it .. And you can choke on it and that is because .. You are the one selling it ..
    And through your own belief, you claim, it is not the male run totalitarian patriarchal system that is the failure , but rather the fault lies in being born female in a culture that doesn’t recognize the value of the female ..
    Men are totally in love with themselves and think very highly of themselves, don’t they?

    And you support the idea and you promote the idea .. The Male is more valuable than the Female .. And you make a piss poor attempt to justify the murder of millions of healthy Females in the hope of replacing them with millions of Males by claiming the Male is more valuable than the Female.
    And that is exactly what Males do in Male run totalitarian cultures, they promote the male, masculinity and all things male and belittle and disparage anything outside of that, and males continually and consistently drum into females, they are less worthy than the male, from the day they are born to the day they die,
    Therefore it is plain to me you are buying your own product and long may you choke on it.

    And in conclusion if you find you cannot accept these arguments, then I can only assume, that in a frantic attempt to escape from your terminal idiocy and whilst you were not looking, your brain crept out of your ears and fled.

  202. sirtooting . says

    at johngreg

    Remember, If you ever decide to tax your brain, don’t charge more than a penny.

  203. Thil says

    @sirtooting

    They way you talk about men reminds me of the way Nazi propagandists would talk about Jews.

  204. sirtooting . says

    Strange you should mention the Nazi’s and Jews? .. And you want to claim, males are the victims of females and you want to liken men to the Jews who were victims of a merciless sadistic regime, who used them as a scapegoat and you don’t want them likened to the Nazi’s, the perpetrators of sadistic vile crimes .. ah, no you want to liken women to that ..
    Lets get this thing into some perspective then a..
    What did the Nazi’s tell the Jews?

    The Nazi’s did not tell the Jews, you will not live here .. but rather .. YOU WILL NOT LIVE ..

    Millions of Female fetuses and baby girls are being aborted and murdered because they aren’t male and they aren’t thought of as valuable as the male and they kill them because they hope to replace them with millions of more Males ..The Gender the Male Prefers .. The MALE. ..

    Men are like that aren’t they, they engineer a culture to benefit them & then pretend all the wrongs in it, are nothing to do with them.
    They trample over each other in the to rush to take all the praise, well in that case they should be just as ready & quick to take all the blame, strange, they aren’t falling all over themselves to take that, and why not,? When they took everything else.

  205. Schala says

    Snorrr…did Sirtooting say anything, or was it static noise? Ah just static? Meh, sleep. I need it.

  206. sirtooting . says

    Listen, Dumbo .. If you want a reply, you will have to wait ,I’m off to the loo & i I can only deal with one shit at a time..

  207. johngreg says

    Static noise for teh win!

    xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

    ….

    etc.

  208. 123454321 says

    sirtooting – you are a very confused and misguided individual if you think that women are valued less than men, historically speaking, or today. The only scenarios in the world where men are valued more than women is when they are bred to support, slave (and die) for their women and children, for hard labour or financial/economic gain. Yes, they are armed, but they are the ones putting their neck on the line in order to fight for their blood-line and give their little part of the world the competitive advantages required to evolve in terms of strengthened gene pools etc. I don’t agree with all this shit but, unfortunately, it’s a way of life. I don’t see many women fighting for these fundamental assets required for successful, competitive survival. Have you ever put your name down for the army with a view to protecting your nation?

    I told you that I don’t agree with killing foetuses based on gender but I’m postulating that there are underlying reasons which are more complicated than you think – reasons which, no doubt, you will close your ears to. Why did all the men die on the Titanic if they are so valued? No doubt you will turn all the facts around to suit your own arguments, just like you try to ignore the fact that 3 or 4 times more men commit suicide than women around the world on the whole. You’d rather focus in on the minority female percentage because it suits you. And you didn’t answer the question regarding how many men have died in wars? probably because answering that question doesn’t suit your agenda.

    It’s a shame I won’t be around much the next couple of days (I’m out and about busily oppressing women!) but can’t wait to get back and read your garbled, repetitive, incoherent, irrational, unintelligible, muddled, illogical, confused, incomprehensible, nonsense, agenda-focussed, male-bashing, demeaning, tunnel-vision, selective hearing replies. Can’t wait….

  209. sirtooting . says

    12345 .. Once I caught a fish alive..

    YOU
    “Why did all the men die on the Titanic if they are so valued? No doubt you will turn all the facts around to suit your own arguments,”

    ME
    Did ALL the MEN die on the Titanic? .. Can this, what you claim be in anyway possibly true? .. because if it isn’t ..you have turned all the facts around to suit your own arguments”

    The Titanic only carried enough lifeboats for 1,178 people, slightly more than half of the number on board, and one-third her total capacity.

    Who stupidly made the decision to launch a ship without sufficient life boats on board that ultimately sent hundreds to their deaths? Oh yeah, now I remember .. Men

    Total Women who survived the Titanic 324
    Total Men who survived the Titanic 323
    Total children who survived the Titanic 56

    Wow, there were as many men in the life boats as women .. Who knew that?. Well, obviously.. NOT YOU.. Most definitely.. NOT YOU

    No doubt you will continue to turn SOMERSAULTS to suit your own arguments.

    Here lies the difference between Historical Fact and Hysterically Fiction

    Misogynists in their vanity, cannot distinguish between true reality and facts and their own ideological fictional self image they have created for themselves, and that image is of self sacrificing martyrs and comic book heroes and not of self obsessed, self indulgent, self absorbed, self important bullies and thugs and due to this fictional self image they have bought into of themselves, they continually attempt to push and promote that one and only idea as a fact.

    It is nothing more than insufferable childish nonsense and no one, with an ounce of integrity, except misogynists are going to accept it as anything anywhere near relating to any reality anymore.

  210. summerblues says

    If you’re trying to get laid, Ally, you’re doing it wrong. :-)

    I’ve reached the point where any time these ?buzzwords? are trotted out I stop paying attention. These words have lost all meaning, as far as I’m concerned. I want more proof now. It’s like I’m supposed to just take somebody’s word for it that something is misandrist, misogynist, feminazi, angry old white men, etc. I just can’t …believe anymore, mindlessly follow like a sheep. Prove it or stop saying it.

    This thread has become interesting, a bit too overly emotional and generalized for discussion, but interesting.

  211. Schala says

    Titanic had 425 women, 23 of them crew members. 316 survived. Most of those who died were in 3rd class.

    Titanic had 1690 men, 885 of them crew members. 338 survived. More than 2/3s of all categories died, but 92% of 3rd class men did (compared to 54% of 3rd class women).

    Women’s chance of survival: 74.3%
    Men’s chance of survival: 20.0%

    so this:

    Wow, there were as many men in the life boats as women .. Who knew that?. Well, obviously.. NOT YOU.. Most definitely.. NOT YOU

    is just an attempt at diversion

    Sure just as many men as women saved, in absolute numbers, but there were 4 times the amount of men.

  212. WhineyM says

    Oh, BTW, just for the record:-

    ‘I don’t think I’ve ever actually said what you allege I have said.’

    Yep, as in here:

    http://freethoughtblogs.com/hetpat/2013/06/18/malestrom-pt-1-the-rights-and-wrongs-of-anger/

    ‘It holds that those who are angry about the injustices and problems facing men should target their anger upon feminism.
    This idea is so mind-shrivelingly stupid I rarely bother to engage with it’.

    and here:

    http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/male-victims-of-rape-sexual-abuse-and-depression-breaking-the-silence-on-international-mens-day-8949547.html

    ‘I can also recognise that there are some self-styled men’s activists who use the occasion of IMD as an excuse to bash feminism, although the truth is those guys would use the occasion of a pigeon crapping on their shoulder as an excuse to bash feminism. I’m not prepared to relinquish the narrative of IMD to them, any more than I will to those who find it hilarious that it falls on the same day as World Toilet Day (another very noble and important cause, incidentally, for those with the nous to check.)’

    So I guess the question which follows, is: why the heck do salaried, middle-class feminists need this additional protection from criticism at any rate? They’ve got the help of many parts of the establishment behind them, both in government and large sections of the media. Since a radically anti-feminist analysis often corresponds to an anti-establishment position, what purpose does it serve to stigmatise such perspectives, even in advance of having a discussion about the issues? If you’re not a feminist, why on earth do they need your help, Ally, and why do you so freely lend it to them?

  213. sirtooting . says

    12345 ..STATED OUTRIGHT.

    “Why did all the men die on the Titanic if they are so valued? No doubt you will turn all the facts around to suit your own arguments,”

    ME
    Did ALL the MEN die on the Titanic?. Can this, what you claim be in anyway possibly true? .. because if it isn’t ..you have turned all the facts around to suit your own arguments”

    SO here below, we prove where he is an outright LIAR or a total ignoramus .. And he is turning somersaults to distort the truth .. What he wants us to believe .. Is men are Self Sacrificing Martyrs .. Heroes who must be admired, who must be worshipped and adored .. Not men who are bullies & thugs who pushed women aside and trampled over their basic human rights to claim a status they never deserved.

    Total Women who survived the Titanic 324
    Total Men who survived the Titanic 323
    Total children who survived the Titanic 56

    Wow, there were as many men in the life boats as women .. Who knew that?. Well, obviously.. NOT HIM. Most definitely.. NOT HIM

    Unless of course, he did know, because then that would mean, he knowingly and willfully decided to omit the truth to claim something that is wholly untrue.

    And why would he do that?.. Because it is not as flattering an image to his egotistical little self, his fantasy fictional image he has created for himself and his bro’s, the comic book hero image of his gender he is wishing to project.
    He thinks that image is not good enough, he is not satisfied with the truth, so he has to invent another one for himself and then keep his fingers crossed, no one will find him out in his outright lie and if he is found out then he hopes all his bro’s will gather around him, to deflect all attention away from the fact he is a liar and they will do all they can to steer all focus away from that fact.

    No doubt you will continue to turn SOMERSAULTS to deflect attention away from this trifling little matter as you regard it, concerning the relevance of truth and facts.

    Here lies the difference between Historical Fact and Hysterical Fiction.

    “But there were 4 times the amount of men on board”. ..
    NO Shit .. So the outcome of more men dying than women was already a fore gone conclusion ..

    Even if no women had been on board that ship and if all the life boats available had been filled to capacity .. Still there would have been over 600 men who would have drowned, because there were more men than there were seats in life boats ..
    So in that scenario.. Who would you then be willing to blame for those men’s unnecessary deaths, who would you choose to be your scapegoats then?
    One feels .. You still wouldn’t be able to bring yourself to blame men, for the sole decisions that they made that turned out to be totally flawed and was by anyone’s imagination a catalogue of male errors that caused the terrible deaths of their bro’s.

    Strategies conjured up by males alone, because that is the way they wanted it, the control freaks wanted to have total power and be be in total control and that meant taking all the decisions for everyone, no matter how much others protested to be included and involved in the making and taking of all those decisions, ..

    No their voices were totally ignored, after all they didn’t fit the criteria for their voices to be heard, that criteria of course was being born male, where being born male was relevant to the chances of you being heard and your opinions being taken seriously rather than being a female who was always going to be outright ignored and her opinions and ideas dismissed as a matter of course and treated by males with the utter most patronizing contempt one can imagine

    These strategies that these males came up with were a total and utter failures and ultimately sadly, they failed hundreds of their fellow men.

  214. carnation says

    @ Schala, 123454321, any other MRAs comfortable in their little mythos

    Kudos to the poster above who slaughtered the sacred MRA cow (the Titanic).

    Regarding workplace deaths, it is true that statistically far more men than women die in the workplace. It is equally true that you are more likely to die in a traffic accident or be murdered than, as a man, die in the workplace.

    It’s also worth noting that MRAs have done precisely nothing about preventing workplace deaths. They are still doing nothing. They most likely will achieve nothing in this sphere.

    Whilst death is a uniquely tragic event, I chanced up an interesting UK study recently. Acts of violence in the workplace are far, far more common and the gender balance is roughly equal.

    TL/DR – you have more chance, as a man, of dying driving to work than at work. Whilst at work, you’re as likely as a woman to be assaulted.

    Oh, and by the way, feminists didn’t cause, celebrate, encourage or arrange any man to die in the workplace.

    Some of you (Schala, 123454321) enjoy the lurid MRA fantasies that women/feminists (you can’t tell the difference, it seems) caused wars (“their wars”) or perpetrate slavery (men forced to work). It’s simply beyond parody. Use objective reasoning and come out of the MRA ghetto.

  215. Schala says

    carnation, did you take the same stuff as sirtooting?

    Sometimes you can say coherent stuff. Too bad today is not the case.

  216. Thil says

    @sirtooting .

    I meant because you talk about men as if they were somehow one single entity with one will. Nazi’s did the same thing when they talked about Jews. It makes it sound justifiable to punish all Jews for the crimes of a few

    Of course they still found it necessary to make up said crimes. As do you I suspect do you (and with less course, like I said women do have it worse then men), a lot of your numbers make no sense.

    “no you want to liken women to that”

    I’ll listen to a women, I just wont listen to you

  217. Thil says

    @sirtooting @236

    1) that sentence could be intended to refer to all the men on the titanic when it sank, not all the men on it before it hit the ICE burg

    2) if there were more men than women on the ship but the same amount of men and women in the survivors, that means survival rate for men was lower. You totally ignored that

    3) if women were excluded from making decisions regarding the titanic’s construction (something I’m not at all sure of) it’s because White Star Line didn’t employ female engineers in 1912 (something else I’m not at all sure of), it wasn’t some conspiracy

    4) There’s no reason to assume the engineers who built the titanic made the mistakes that lead to it’s sinking, because they were men

  218. Paul says

    The ” Women and Children First ” policy on the sinking Titanic really needs to be seen primarily as part of a ”chivalrous code of conduct ” constructed by men at a time when women were second class citizens deprived of many of the rights women in the developed world now take for granted. And some american feminists at the time were actually highly critical of those mainly first class female passengers who disproprtionately benefitted from it .For the only first class female passengers who perished were those who refused to either leave their husbands and/or get into a lifeboat..And most female crew members working in first class were also allowed to leave in the lifeboats.

    Female passengers and their children as well as female crew members in second class had a higher mortality rate than those in first class but the majority were nevertheless saved .However for those women and children in steerage it was a different matter for they were prevented from coming on deck until most of the lifeboats had already left .And whilst a ”Women and Children First” first policy was still applied a far higher proportion of them compared to both those in either first or second class were unable to leave the stricken ship and subsequently perished.

    Class clearly determined the survival rate for women and children on the Titanic and to an extent for men as well. For the ”Women and Children First ”policy was enforced more vigourously on the lifeboats on the starboard side or the ship than those on the port side (may have been the other way round) So male passengers -mainly first and second class- were allowed to leave on the port side lifeboats if there were no women or children around.The only men allowed to leave on the starboard lifeboats were those -mainly crew members- needed to man the boats .

    Certainly a clear majority of those left on the ship after all the lifeboats had been launched were men.And a clear majority of the relatively few people who were pulled into the lifeboats from the sea after the ship had sunk were also men .Vey few women and children who were unable to leave in the lifeboats were saved that way. A notable exception was a steerage passenger called Rosa Abbott who was pulled onto an overturned collapsible lifeboat -the only woman amongst a dozen or so men. Her children however perished.

    Male passengers -especially those from first class- who left the Titanic in the lifeboats and survived were often given a hard time on both sides of the pond given the numbers of women and children who perished.However as i’ve pointed out the majority of the women and children who perished were from steerage class.And steerage male passengers and crew members who were also prevented from going on deck until almost all the lifeboats had left had a higher mortality rate than those in either first or second class who had more opportunities to leave.

  219. Ally Fogg says

    WhineyM

    In 101 you said:

    Like, for instance, on International Men’s Day, you said you would fight tooth and nail not to let the day be used as a platform for anti-feminists to air their views

    I never said that. What I said is that I would not relinquish IMD to anti-feminists. That’s not the same thing at all.

    MRAs are perfectly entitled to their views. They are perfectly entitled to mark IMD in any way they see fit. But they are not entitled to claim it for their own. That is my point, and the quotes you use say so quite clearly.

    Since a radically anti-feminist analysis often corresponds to an anti-establishment position, what purpose does it serve to stigmatise such perspectives, even in advance of having a discussion about the issues? If you’re not a feminist, why on earth do they need your help, Ally, and why do you so freely lend it to them?

    The problem is not the anti-feminism per se. The problem is that the anti-feminism is riddled with misogyny, and paranoid conspiracy theories and is immensely harmful to those of us attempting to actually address the real issues facing men and boys today.

  220. carnation says

    @ Schala

    What a pathetic riposte.

    @ Paul

    Posts such as that are the reasons I hold you in fairly high regard, despite disagreeing with a lot of what you say.

  221. Schala says

    What a pathetic riposte.

    Poor carnation, gives Kudos to a troll for being a troll (applauding sirtooting), and then wonders why my already low esteem for him fell through the bottom limit of reality.

    Why don’t you applaud war criminals because they disagree with me? Wal-Mart owners because they contribute to the poor conditions of Bangladeshi people and I’m very pro-left and pro living wage and anti-capitalist, so you’d have common ground with them against me, just to be contrarian. And so on.

    You call me MRA, despite me saying I don’t identify as one, repeatedly, to you even.

    So your reading skills are zero, broken, unusable. Your comprehension is even worse. Your analytical skills merit only the curiosity of anthropologists curious about how the human race could survive with specimens such as you amongst them.

    It’s not only that our opinions are on opposite sides. But that you resort to the lowest of the low and trollish behavior whenever it suits you. Valuing only arguments when they suit you, having them lose all value when it doesn’t. It’s called bad faith, or trolling.

    You SOMETIMES showed promise of actually not being a troll, but those were mere lapses where you seemed to actually agree men had it hard in some dimension not tied to their gender.

  222. Jacob Schmidt says

    Ally Fogg

    The problem is not the anti-feminism per se. The problem is that the anti-feminism is riddled with misogyny, and paranoid conspiracy theories and is immensely harmful to those of us attempting to actually address the real issues facing men and boys today.

    Another related problem is that so many seem to mistake anti-feminism for pro-men activism.

  223. johngreg says

    Jacob Schmidt said:

    Another related problem is that so many seem to mistake anti-feminism for pro-men activism.

    Yes, that is true.

    There is also the problem of so many who seem to mistake disagreement or lack of support with tactics and/or strategies and/or procedures as a concatenation of anti-feminism, pro-men activism, sexism, misogyny, and just plain outright evil-mean-wicked-nasty.

    Pity, that.

  224. Archy says

    Calling people an MRA when they are not, and using the term as an insult is just pathetic. Is it against the rules? Unless someone self-identifies with a movement, please don’t label them.

  225. Jacob Schmidt says

    Coerced abortion, is murder

    Not unless all abortion is murder.

    I don’t disagree that coercing a woman to have an abortion is despicable. However, I must object to a bit of hyperbole that is often used to deny women their rights to control their bodies.

  226. sirtooting . says

    All abortion cannot be considered a crime, only some .. coerced abortion is murder .. as is coerced suicide .. the state kills murderers .. but the state is not regarded as a murderer .. a woman risks her own life by carrying a pregnancy .. she is not obliged to risk her own life to create another .. that her decision and hers alone .. and no one has the right to coerce her decision, one way or the other .

  227. carnation says

    @ “Poor carnation, gives Kudos to a troll for being a troll (applauding sirtooting), and then wonders why my already low esteem for him fell through the bottom limit of reality… Why don’t you applaud war criminals because they disagree with me?”

    I didn’t wonder why your esteem for me fell “through the bottom” – why would I? You disagreeing with me confirms that I am in the right. SirTooting, much like yourself, uses far too many words in trying to make a point, and lacks clarity and is given to grandiosity, again, very much like your poor style of writing.

    But he/she captured the sheer stupidity of the MRA obsession with a hundred year old maritime disaster very well.

    “You call me MRA, despite me saying I don’t identify as one, repeatedly, to you even.”

    In the past I called you an MRA, and in the present I group you amongst MRAs, for some very simple reasons. Your lurid fantasies about enslaved men are classic MRA theorising, your wilful ignorance and misconprehension of patriarchal theory is classic MRA theorising (I still cringe for you over that), your bloated writing style is in keeping with the delusional grandiosity often seen on MRA blogs and last but not least, your pro men praxis involves writing comments on numerous blogs, identical modes operandi to virtually all MR-Activism. Nothing that you have writing would look out of place on the Spearhead or AVfM.

    “You SOMETIMES showed promise of actually not being a troll, but those were mere lapses where you seemed to actually agree men had it hard in some dimension not tied to their gender.”

    Oh dear, back to the delusions. Men DO indeed have it very hard, of that there is no doubt. I have gone further and said that numerous policy decisions have affected men harder than women, have also commented on why I think men drink, use drugs and experience addiction more often than women. I’ve also commented on how violence is perpetrated against men far too often and with far too little condemnation. I’ve also, on more than one occasion, discussed my actual real life *activism* with males in dealing with the cause and effect of the preceding.

    The difference between you and me, Schala, is not just your total inertia in terms of trying to help individuals, it is your frankly stupid devotion to easily discredited hysteria about the plight of men and the theoretical framework that facilitates it. You can’t be taken seriously because of your out and proud ignorance of patriarchy – you live in the MRA ghetto with their imbecilic interpretation.

    Perhaps it shouldn’t be surprising that you are so wrong so often: you literally don’t know what is being talked about most of the time.

    You’ve descended into ad hom attacks and easily refutable cliche on this thread, so I’ll close by saying that this wasn’t written in the heat of anger (commenting on this blog is a joy, not an anger inducing chore), but with pathos and a genuine desire for you to better yourself intellectually.

  228. Archy says

    Carnation, your comment violates the first hetpat rule.

    @sirtooting, at what point is it coerced? Genuinely curious at how much pressure results in coersion? Would being too poor to afford a baby trigger it?

    It’s a slippery slope to apply murder to some abortion, and not others. You’d have to think of the fetus as a separate, living entity with rights which would completely destroy abortion rights wouldn’t it? Or is it a case of pick n choose when a fetus is a being with rights, or as a standard parasite in which the host has every right to remove. If it’s the latter than wouldn’t coerced abortion actually be similar to forcing surgery on someone and violating their body autonomy?

    I am pro choice btw before anyone thinks I am not. I just find the mental olympics strange surrounding fetal rights.

  229. leni says

    Schala:

    Yet feminism would have us ignore class, and tell us the Root of ALL Oppression is gender.

    Oh for fucks sake, get a grip. No, “it” doesn’t. If you have a problem with specific people saying that, bring it up with them.

    Well no, the root is very obviously class.

    As I said in (I think) my first post, you say this like these things are mutually exclusive… but apparently only when it applies to women. When you are discussing men or trans people you seem perfectly capable of understanding that more is at work than class.

    Funny.

    It’s almost like you demonstrated the problem you say doesn’t exist.

  230. Archy says

    To a variety of posters, please avoid generalizations. It’s annoying as hell. Some feminists/mra’s are good, some are bad. Specify! Don’t paint with the broad brush against them all.

  231. sirtooting . says

    @ 256 .. What did you say? .. “at what point is it coerced? Genuinely curious at how much pressure results in coercion? Would being too poor to afford a baby trigger it?”

    Let’s get this straight .. let me clarify it for you, let me make it plain, you so can be left in no doubt .. ANY COERCION AT ALL .. IS MURDER .. Do you get that, can you understand that? .. can you imagine coercing someone to kill themselves because you tell them omg we are poor ..Here let me help you kill yourself, it will ease my burden and you living is nothing but an inconvenience for me me me..

    Genuinely curious, What fucking miserable planet do you actually come from?

    I have heard it so many times, the well off telling the poor, the poor shouldn’t be able to have children until they can AFFPRD TO support them .. but if there circumstances never change and they are forever poor, how long must they wait .. how long must they wait?
    Money does not exist, it is an illusion, it isn’t real.. money being no object, everything is affordable .. we are constrained by something that doesn’t exist .. only in the mind do we believe this thing is a barrier .. the barrier, is man made and is an illusion .. no one is to poor to have children .. MONEY BEING No OBJECT .. Everything is affordable .. Do you get that, can you get that ?.. No I don’t believe you can

    . What did you say? .. “at what point is it coerced? AT EVERY POINT.
    NEXT.

  232. Schala says

    Well, carnation, I’ll call you a scientologist, because today I decided your ramblings remind me of L Ron Hubbard. They’re really out there.

    If you can call me a MRA, claim that there is MRA theory and that patriarchy theory is necessary to acknowledge to not be accused of being one, then I can say that you’re so ‘out there’ that your claims sound just as valid as L Ron Hubbards, regarding the aliens. His work on engrams and dianetics he stole from Freud, though.

    Oh for fucks sake, get a grip. No, “it” doesn’t. If you have a problem with specific people saying that, bring it up with them.

    @257

    Yeah yeah I know, feminism is whatever you want to call it, everything and nothing at once, so it’s impossible to question its doctrine, ever, because it has none. Right? Certainly not patriarchy theory or male privilege. Nope only SOME feminists talk about those, right?

    As I said in (I think) my first post, you say this like these things are mutually exclusive… but apparently only when it applies to women. When you are discussing men or trans people you seem perfectly capable of understanding that more is at work than class.

    It means focusing on problems of women exclusively and saying “once we destroy patriarchy, men’s problem will go poof and all vanish magically” is stupid. Men’s problems, like women’s problems, are much tied to class. If the root cause is ignored, then the problem can never be fixed.

    Problems with divisions of labor, raising people for certain roles pertaining to being useful to society, as opposed to developing their potential, and capitalism dictating how desirable it is to have people work for them (companies) that would take parental leave whenever. Are issues of class. Even if paternal leave equalled maternal leave.

    You want to erode the importance of men’s roles as breadwinner, thus giving women a better shot at the high positions? Then make work itself optional, not mandatory. Weren’t we promised this as “the society of leisure of the future” in the 1950s? Where robots would do all the work, and people just stay home or go see movies and enjoy themselves? Capitalism would have none of that. It will use people, exploit them to the last penny. Doesn’t need them? Then they can just die, the rich who exploited others will refuse to part with their money for the betterment of society if they can help it, even if politicians beg them on their knees “not to leave”.

    The rich benefit from people HAVING to work (or starve).

    They also benefit from sex wars. It’s a nice diversion from the real issue.

  233. sirtooting . says

    Hey dumbo, work is mandatory .. and when the male decided to take it upon himself to claim he and his toil was more valuable than the females .. that was the point where it all fell apart…
    So when the male decides to gets off his high horse and stop claiming he and his toil more valuable than the female, then we can resolve all the problems .. Work is mandatory .. just to survive .. what is not mandatory is claiming one’s gender and ones toil is more valuable than another ..

    If it is only the taking part that is important .. THEN WHY DO THEY GIVE OUT PRIZES? ..

  234. Schala says

    sirtooting, everyone is ignoring you, you have nothing to add to the conversation, you’ll be treated like the troll you are.

  235. sirtooting . says

    @ Dumbo ..You are having a laugh.. LMAO..
    It is you who has added absolutely nothing to the conversation, and the reason being, is because you quite plainly have nothing to add.
    You have no counter argument, all you have is vacuous empty bile and the only thing you can resort to, to counter my accusations is the usual ..”ad hominem” attacks which involves attacking me personally as a way of undermining my argument and that is it!.
    That is the full sum of your contribution .. It’s a zippidy doo dah .. Big fat nothing ..
    You rely on condescending clap trap, ad hominem attacks, whilst I construct and defend arguments.
    The only people who can be called trolls are people like you, because you really are only entitled to an opinion if you can argue for it and you quite obviously can’t because ad hominem attacks is all you can resort to
    And if you don’t like my opinion of you and other men’s attitudes towards women? Then I suggest you improve yourselves and your attitudes quickly and remember, if you have nothing but ad hominem attacks best keep your big fat mouth shut and have people think you’re an idiot than open it and remove all doubt.
    Good day.

  236. says

    The irony and hypocrisy in sirtooting nicknaming Schala as Dumbo and then proceeding to complain about Schala using ad hominem attacks is hilarious.

  237. Jacob Schmidt says

    The irony and hypocrisy in sirtooting nicknaming Schala as Dumbo and then proceeding to complain about Schala using ad hominem attacks is hilarious.

    I wish people would stop confusing ad hominem fallacies with insults. They aren’t the same thing.

  238. Archy says

    ” Genuinely curious, What fucking miserable planet do you actually come from?”

    Earth?

    “Money does not exist, it is an illusion, it isn’t real.. money being no object, everything is affordable .. we are constrained by something that doesn’t exist .. only in the mind do we believe this thing is a barrier .. the barrier, is man made and is an illusion .. no one is to poor to have children .. MONEY BEING No OBJECT .. Everything is affordable .. Do you get that, can you get that ?.. No I don’t believe you can”

    What are you rambling on about?
    No, everything is not affordable. There is scarcity of resources and land, plus human labour most often requires some degree of compensation.

    Basically every woman, including the U.S who has an abortion because she’s afraid she cannot afford the child is coerced into murdering the fetus?

    Stop generalizing about males, it’s annoying. Go have a beer or something n calm the fuck down. Think about what you’re saying and put it into better words, at the moment it’s kinda hard to understand your points. I’m sure you may have a good point somewhere but at the moment it looks like you’re rambling with anger.

  239. says

    Noted. Insult or ad hominem fallacy – I still find it ironic and hillarious. And I still consider it hypocrisy to first poison the well by using insults and then decry that the other party engage in ad hominem attacks.

  240. WhineyM says

    @245 Conspiracy theories indeed! :-)

    Y’know, I would argue that one of the greatest conspiracy theories is this thing you’ve come up with, Ally, whereby prevailing feminist narratives are somehow challenged by patriarchal forces, in that – and this is the really good bit – they use the devious, underhand trick of not even mentioning gender at all!

    It seems kind of ironic that this discussion is hosted by Freethought Blogs, an atheist network, since the argument appears to mirror so closely the debate between agnostics/atheists and believers. Rationalist atheists/agnostics request that the existence of God be proved by reason and evidence, to which a reply comes that ‘the evidence is all around you, in the existence of the world and the absence of evil in it!’ How dissimilar is that really from saying ‘Patriarchal anti-feminist narratives are everywhere, they’re proved by the existence of current affairs in newspapers, and the absence of gender being mentioned in them!’

  241. summerblues says

    Schala @ 173

    We are not out of the dark ages regarding religion. Do you not live in the US?

    “You’ve ever been on welfare as a man? Had foodstamps as a man? Been dependent on someone else’s income (outside of childhood) as a man? ALL those will have him seen as a leech, worthy of being kicked to the curb ASAP.”

    What the fuck makes you think it’s any different for a woman on welfare? Were you there, with me, using food stamps at the grocery store, getting “the looks”? The disgust, the disdain? I just needed help for a little while, that’s all. Oh, by the way, there were men getting food stamps, welfare, etc. while I was getting mine. You’re generalizing. No. Nobody patted my head and said “oh, you poor little darling woman with her adorable baby” while I was on welfare. Got it?

  242. Ally Fogg says

    WhineyM

    Not for the first time, I have literally no idea what you are talking about.

    Again you are ascribing to me positions that I do not recognise, have never expressed, and do not hold.

    I’m more than happy to discuss what I actually write with you, but please refer to things I’ve actually said, not to some cartoonish straw-man caricature of what you think I secretly believe.

  243. WhineyM says

    This position, here:

    http://freethoughtblogs.com/hetpat/2013/11/08/this-weeks-witterings-at-large/

    From 27 on this thread, I’ll quote:-

    ‘It’s a mistake to think that the only anti-feminist stances or arguments are those which overtly declare themselves as anti-feminist, because 99% of the time (everywhere except on MRA blogs), the topic of debate is NOT feminism. The topic is economic policy, or workplace policy, or domestic arrangements, or lifestyles, or criminal justice policy, or media representations of women, or political representation of women etc etc etc.’

    then

    What you are missing, I suspect, is that social conservatism, economic conservatism, the industry of sexualised portrayal of women etc etc etc, are all anti-feminist positions. They don’t need to bill themselves as such in order to serve that function.

    It’s an idea you’ve put forward quite a few times, as it happens, that anti-feminist narratives are often ones which don’t mention gender or feminism at all. It’s completely daft, of course, since you don’t have to look far to see there are sex-positive feminists, socially conservative feminists, and fiscally conservative feminists all over the shop.

    Hence the only way you can see these things as being anti-feminist is basically through an act of faith, hence the comparison with theists and non-believers.

  244. Ally Fogg says

    It’s an idea you’ve put forward quite a few times, as it happens, that anti-feminist narratives are often ones which don’t mention gender or feminism at all. It’s completely daft, of course, sthce you don’t have to look far to see there are sex-positive feminists, socially conservative feminists, and fiscally conservative feminists all over the shop.

    Hence the only way you can see these things as being anti-feminist is basically through an act of faith, hence the comparison with theists and non-believers.

    Ah, so that’s what you’re on about.

    It’s pretty simple logic really. Here is is expressed in vaguely formal philosophical terms.

    A/ I assert (and yes, it is no more than an assertion) that feminism is a movement for social, political and cultural change. This is why I have said several times that I find the idea of conservative feminism (cf Louise Mensch) to be a contradiction in terms. I fully accept that others disagree with me on that, but when I talk about feminism, that is what I mean.

    With me so far?

    B/ I also assert that the most powerful forces in society, media, culture etc are those which protect the existing order of power, wealth and economic dynamics. In other words, conservative forces. Within this I would include the great majority of mass media, popular culture, etc, all those things that are owned by Murdoch, Disney, Sony Corporation etc etc etc. If those corporations are promoting a socially conservative message, then they must be promoting an anti-feminist message EVEN IF THEY ARE NOT MENTIONING GENDER because what they are promoting is fundamentally incompatible with feminist goals.

    Now you are welcome to disagree with my premises, or you are welcome to dispute my deductions, but I would feel pretty confident in putting up a strong evidential case at every stage.

  245. Gjenganger says

    @Ally 272
    Can I break in?
    On purely logical grounds, I think A needs to be broken down further:
    A1/ Assert that feminism is a movement to produce a social, political and cultural situation that is favourable to women.
    A2/ Assert that the current situation is far from optimal for women.

    It probably does not make much different for your evidential case, but it should make for a clearer debate. Feminists are not into change because they like change, but because they feel the current situation puts them at a disadvantage. Once you make the distinction you can address separate issues separately. What are actually the best interests of women? What is the effect of popular culture, DIsney etc. on those interests? And what, if anything, shnould be done about it?

  246. Schala says

    We are not out of the dark ages regarding religion. Do you not live in the US?

    No, I live in Canada. Where non-practicing or atheism is the norm. Where we don’t have god on our coins. And where welfare doesn’t only apply to single parents.

    What the fuck makes you think it’s any different for a woman on welfare? Were you there, with me, using food stamps at the grocery store, getting “the looks”? The disgust, the disdain? I just needed help for a little while, that’s all. Oh, by the way, there were men getting food stamps, welfare, etc. while I was getting mine. You’re generalizing. No. Nobody patted my head and said “oh, you poor little darling woman with her adorable baby” while I was on welfare. Got it?

    Female privilege #46, being blind to your privilege.

  247. 123454321 says

    sirtooting, it’s getting hard to laugh out loud at your childishly written posts. Can you please refrain from all the repetitive hogwash nonsense and answer these questions directly:

    Why did the women on the Titanic enjoy a much higher probability of survival than the men on the same ship?

    Why was there (and still is) a women and children first policy for disasters like this?

    Try and keep to the point.

  248. WhineyM says

    @272 Well great, Ally, except you could of course define feminism in all sorts of ways, according to your own
    predilections and preferences, none of which necessarily have any bearing on how it is actually carried out in the media and public life. And then the real-world examples which didn’t match your favoured definition somehow wouldn’t count, leaving you to ascribe ‘anti-feminism’ to anything you saw fit? What a very strange argument! :-)

  249. summerblues says

    That’s really not an answer, Schala. And if you live in a country that provides welfare to all comers, why are you complaining about men not getting welfare? That doesn’t make any sense.

    You think qualifying for welfare is a privilege? Really? Living off of taxpayer’s money is a privilege…wow. Well, I guess it is in a way. It’s not a right, it’s a privilege. Interesting coming from someone in a country where all comers are welcome. Single parents have dependants. So why should singles only get welfare? If I hadn’t decided to not abort the zygote I wouldn’t have needed help. I was working and taking care of myself. Soooo, why would singles need welfare?

  250. Schala says

    You think qualifying for welfare is a privilege? Really?

    I think men get shitted on more heavily here, in Canada, for being on welfare, than women, on average.

    Why? Because his being on welfare is a failure of his role as a man. A woman being on welfare is not a failure of her role as a woman.

    Is that more clear?

  251. Schala says

    Single parents have dependants. So why should singles only get welfare? If I hadn’t decided to not abort the zygote I wouldn’t have needed help. I was working and taking care of myself. Soooo, why would singles need welfare?

    Why should non-parents be eligible for welfare?

    Because 1) we shouldn’t blindly reward parenthood (above non-parenthood).
    Because 2) we should support everyone who is in need.

    Sure this means parents will get more money, but they’ll get more expenses, so its not more discretionary income anyway.

    I’m a socialist, I think a guaranteed income to EVERYONE, including prisoners who aren’t there for 1st degree murder etc (rehabilitable people) is a reasonable thing. I think the rich and businesses have way too much coddling regarding their taxes. Especially given how 50 years ago, they were way more heavily taxed and didn’t “go away to greener pastures”.

    Reagan and the economic right thought (or at least convinced other people) that the rich would reinvest in society if they kept more money. Never happened. They invested in their own interests, not society’s. I’m in favor of huge marginal taxes that effectively mean a income ceiling, a livable minimum wage, and a guaranteed income for all. Along with public and state-funded tertiary education and healthcare.

  252. Schala says

    Also, what I speak for in #279?

    Canada is pretty close to having that, despite the right’s best efforts to make that sink.

    We have mostly state-funded tertiary education, state-funded basic healthcare (including all hospital visits, doctor visits.

    So if you (general you, not anyone in particular) are anti-communist/socialist because of some misguided Cold War era propaganda about how its evvviiilll. Be very afraid. Because Canada is small, but a viable economic model, even with higher tax rates than the US, and doctors not paid 500k a year (and insurances not costing 300$ a month).

  253. johngreg says

    Schala said:

    We have mostly state-funded tertiary education…

    What do you mean by “tertiary” education?

    … state-funded basic healthcare (including all hospital visits, doctor visits).

    Well, now, it’s not really quite that cut and dried. Different provinces have different rules, and each province has some monthly base rate they charge for MSP coverage, usually based on income, and each province progressively delists things that are then no longer covered by MSP. Yes, it is clearly and obviously better than what goes on in the US, but it is certainly not socialism.

    Because Canada is small, but a viable economic model, even with higher tax rates than the US, and doctors not paid 500k a year (and insurances not costing 300$ a month).

    That’s also a bit too cut and dried — different provinces; different demographics; different figures. Thanks to Mulroney, initially, and now carried far futher by the fundamentalist theist fanatic, Harper, Canada has for a few decades now become more and more open to pay-per-visit medical services, increased monthly premiums for MSP, reductions in what services are covered by MSP, and we most certainly indeed do have doctors making half a mil and beyond. It just depends on where they work, there working model, there speciality, and so on.

  254. Schala says

    If Quebec secedes from Canada, it will be way more leftist than the rest. It currently is, too.

    Lowest tertiary education cost in North America, something like 2000$ a year in tuition for university.

    And the basic healthcare plans of Quebec province give 61% meds coverage, all doctor coverage, for a mere 500$ a year deducted from your income tax return. You can get private insurances which surpass this, but since they compete with the government, they can’t charge absurd fees like in the US, or lock you in jobs because you’d lose coverage if you quit (and then would have pre-existing conditions in your new job).

    Welfare gives 100% meds coverage here, too.

    In Quebec, the conservative party is extremely unpopular, and the Liberal party only gets votes because of a lack of an alternative. Get the NPD more left and they’ll get 80%+ of Quebec counties consistently, not just with the late Jack Layton.

    Quebec province is also detached from the rest of the country by being the least religious of them all. Due to the 1960s Révolution Tranquille, partially triggered by the Church abusing its political power…and then losing it all at once.

  255. johngreg says

    OK, so Quebec is all those cool things. I’m glad you clarified that, ’cause that’s not what you initially said, and last I looked Quebec was not Canada.

    Not yet, at any rate. :)

    Tertiary education is most absolutely and certainly not paid for by any government, provincial or otherwise, outside of Quebec — are you sure that the Quebec government pays for a third level university degree/education? This is the first I’ve heard of that.

  256. johngreg says

    Oh, and StatsCan says:

    Undergrads in Newfoundland and Labrador and Quebec continued to have the lowest average fees. With this year’s increase, tuition fees in Quebec ($2,774) exceeded those in Newfoundland and Labrador ($2,649).

  257. johngreg says

    And for Grad students, it’s even higher:

    As was the case with undergraduate students, the lowest average fees for graduate students were in Newfoundland and Labrador ($2,456) and Quebec ($2,969).

    So, all in all not something like $2000, but something like $3000. Which is good, but not government paid.

  258. Archy says

    I think with welfare, at least in Aus, it’s seen as bad for anyone to be on it. The male gender role of provider does lead to more shaming of unemployed men though I believe, women more often can be a housewife or stay at home parent and get more respect for that than a househusband or stay at home father.

  259. Gjenganger says

    @Whiney 276
    If I may, it is not quite as bad as that. It is not just Ally’s personal whim. Word definitions ‘belong’ to groups of people who use them, and there is surely a large group of people (well represented here) who think that women’s best interests can only be served by some kind of revolution. Just like they seem to think that the same revolution, more or less, would also serve men’s best interests. Within the group it is seen as obvious that, e.g., you cannot be both conservative and a feminist, and they are then trying to take control of public debate by imposing their definitions on everybiody. Which is a well established tactic. I agree that it is rather underhand, and that there are better ways of handling it (see my post 273). But since the majority of feminists and assorted gender debaters may well agree with Ally on this point, it is not quite as unreasonable as it might otherwise be.

  260. summerblues says

    Schala @ 278:

    “I think men get shitted on more heavily here, in Canada, for being on welfare, than women, on average.

    Why? Because his being on welfare is a failure of his role as a man. A woman being on welfare is not a failure of her role as a woman.

    Is that more clear?”

    Better…but still, no. This is not a contest, no matter how much we each believe that one has it worse than the other. Not sure what feminism you are referring to, but the feminism that I know sees a woman incapable of taking care of herself and the little family that she has created as a failure. Same goes for being a SAHM/W: failure, mooching off of another. I am a disgrace to feminism because of welfare and being SAHM/W.

    All able bodied singles should be working. There’s no excuse not to be. Welfare is for the unplanned and unexpected: pregnancy, severe illness or accident, sudden job loss. It’s temporary assistance to help folks get back on their feet. That’s it, sweetie. The world doesn’t owe us anything. No one is entitled to other people’s hard earned money. Most folks give without a whmper because they’re good people who don’t want to see others starve and because they/we are a selfish lot who know it’s in everyone’s best interest to get these folks back out there working and putting taxes back out into the system.

  261. Schala says

    All able bodied singles should be working. There’s no excuse not to be.

    Being unable to obtain or keep a job, without being physically unable to get there (ie I don’t need a wheelchair, but I’m definitely not an appealing prospect for employers).

    Also, I would rather much live in a world where work is not mandatory, but a notch above. So that companies don’t hold starvation in the balance against you. This is coercion of the highest order. People say prostituted women cannot freely choose to work in sex work, its poverty. Well – welcome to capitalism, you can’t freely choose to work period, its poverty. Criminalizing prostitution definitely won’t help any, even if no one ever willingly chose sex work.

    Not sure what feminism you are referring to, but the feminism that I know sees a woman incapable of taking care of herself and the little family that she has created as a failure.

    Not sure where you got the idea I was thinking about feminism. I was talking about society as a whole. EVERYONE. This includes non-feminists.

    No one is entitled to other people’s hard earned money.

    Tell that to CEOs. They’re the one getting billions of that hard-earned money. Getting subsistance-levels money from a government is nothing in comparison. CEOs work hard, in high-stress environments. But they don’t merit wages hundreds if not thousands of times the wage of minimum wage workers.

    I think a cooperative model of business would solve much of this. Every worker would get a certain share of the profits, relative to how much they contribute. Not relative to how little their employer can afford to give them crumbs. The current cooperative model is nice…if you’re starting off as rich, but monetizing your labor is better. I guess this means many CEOs would have to accept pay cuts of 90%. But if a very high marginal tax is instituted, much of that excess money would be gone in taxes, and its not like 500,000 a year to direct a company is bread crumbs, even if its less than 5 million. They’re not on the edge of living under a bridge, they can still live in a deluxe hotel or a downtown condo.

  262. Schala says

    Just to compare, the prime minister of Quebec province is paid 250,000 Canadian dollar a year or so. Someone with responsibilities akin to that in the private would get over 2 million a year. I think the prime minister wage is the more reasonable one, not the private one.

  263. ildi says

    Also, I would rather much live in a world where work is not mandatory, but a notch above. So that companies don’t hold starvation in the balance against you.

    Ooh, Schala and I (and the Swiss) finally agree on something!

    The Swiss Join the Fight Against Inequality

    The vote on a minimum income for every Swiss citizen may still be some time away, but it has already generated headlines around the world. Philosophically, the idea has a long history, drawing support from the likes of the English-American revolutionary Thomas Paine and the economist Milton Friedman. Every European country except Italy and Greece has welfare programs designed to keep citizens out of poverty, says Gianluca Busilacchi, a professor of the sociology of welfare at the University of Macerata in Italy. The most generous program is Denmark’s, which gives its poorest citizens roughly $1,800 a month, enough to pull the destitute over the poverty threshold.

    Generation Basic Income’s proposal represents a quantum leap. For starters, 2,500 Swiss francs per month is a substantial sum. Also, unlike with welfare programs, beneficiaries wouldn’t be required to document that they are unable to work. That the payments might discourage recipients from looking for a job isn’t a drawback in the eyes of proponents; it’s the whole point. “If unemployment goes up, that’s a great thing,” says Daniel Straub, the coordinator of the referendum effort and author of The Liberation of Switzerland. “Because we should see unemployment as freeing people up to pursue what creates meaning for them.” Adds Enno Schmidt, a painter and documentary film producer who’s campaigned for the idea since 2006: “It’s not societally very efficient if people are forced to do something that they don’t really want to do.”

  264. Archy says

    “All able bodied singles should be working. ”

    I’d add able-minded too. I’ve been on welfare before due to severe mental illness, a crippling social anxiety that messed me up bigtime. I think most people on welfare hate being on welfare.

  265. Archy says

    In the future we’re at major major risk of robots automating away most of our jobs, many people may not be able to get the leftover “intellectual” jobs due to robots being just as good as they are so a basic income guarantee will be necessary.

  266. says

    Archy, this phenomenon seems not to be limited to manual labor. Even narrow A.I.s like Watson have the potential to outcompete a lot of people in intellectual positions. In fact simple linear regression models often triumph over expert judgements. Consistent automation in such areas would leave large parts of the population unemployed. Who needs a horse after the industrial revolution? Who needs humans in an age of machines?

  267. leni says

    Schala:

    Yeah yeah I know, feminism is whatever you want to call it, everything and nothing at once, so it’s impossible to question its doctrine, ever, because it has none. Right?

    Only if you are too stupid or ideologically driven to understand that different people think different things.

    Certainly not patriarchy theory or male privilege. Nope only SOME feminists talk about those, right?

    Oh, look at those goalposts go, it’s the freakiest show!

    First those evil feminists are ignoring class altogether, and then they’re talking about patriarchy and privilege. Bitches.

    I think it’s funny that you haven’t bothered to make a case that these things don’t exist. You’ve merely asserted they didn’t, and that they are somehow offensive, and then changed the subject as it suited you.Well how nice! For you.

    …means focusing on problems of women exclusively and saying “once we destroy patriarchy, men’s problem will go poof and all vanish magically” is stupid.

    I agree, it is stupid. You should totally go complain to the people who say that. Let me know when you find them, I’ll help!

    …like women’s problems, are much tied to class. If the root cause is ignored, then the problem can never be fixed.

    Same is true for anything. Focus on class all you like, that will not make the problems that arise form other issues like race or gender disappear. All it means is that you’ve failed to comprehend the extent of the problem.

    Problems with divisions of labor, raising people for certain roles pertaining to being useful to society, as opposed to developing their potential, and capitalism dictating how desirable it is to have people work for them (companies) that would take parental leave whenever. Are issues of class. Even if paternal leave equalled maternal leave.

    So? None of this makes feminism irrelevant. Or racism. Or anything. This is you throwing up a bullshit smokescreen to avoid talking about something you don’t want to about.

    Which is gender, presumably. Because why else would you be on a god damned site dedicated discussing gender complications? What better place to spend all of your time asserting that gender is inconsequential.

    Nice choice. Totally makes sense.

    You want to erode the importance of men’s roles as breadwinner, thus giving women a better shot at the high positions?

    Lol and there it is, privilege rearing it’s delightfully penis-shaped head. Again.

    Erode? Really? This is the word you choose? It’s not about giving other people opportunity, it’s about the injustice of eroding options for people who already have the most. Nice.

    And you expect me to take your impassioned pleas for class consideration seriously?

    Then make work itself optional, not mandatory. Weren’t we promised this as “the society of leisure of the future” in the 1950s? Where robots would do all the work, and people just stay home or go see movies and enjoy themselves? Capitalism would have none of that. It will use people, exploit them to the last penny. Doesn’t need them? Then they can just die, the rich who exploited others will refuse to part with their money for the betterment of society if they can help it, even if politicians beg them on their knees “not to leave”.

    Again with the addressing people who are actually having a conversation with you.

    Damn, I bet you are fun at parties.

  268. says

    I’m excted to diѕcover thіs ցгеat ѕitе.

    ӏ ѡɑnt tο tο tҺаnk ƴߋս
    fоr ƴօսr timе Ԁuе tօ tҺіs ԝοndеrfսl геаɗ!!
    ӏ dеfіnitеlү lіκed eνeгƴ
    рагt օf іt and I haѵе
    ƴοս bօoк
    mагҝϳeԀ tߋ lօοк at neԝ ѕtսff іn ƴоսгг ѕіtе.

  269. says

    Excellent post. I was checking continuously this
    blog and I’m impressed! Extremely useful info particularly the last part :) I care for such information much.
    I was seeking this certain info for a long time.
    Thank you and best of luck.

    Visit my web site – Amelia T. Burnum

  270. says

    Thanks for another wonderful post. Where else may anyone get that type of information in such
    an ideal manner of writing? I’ve a presentation subsequent week, and I
    am at the look for such info.

  271. says

    Link exchange is nothing else except it is just placing the other person’s web site link on your page at proper place
    and other person will also do similar in support of you.

  272. says

    Howdy! Do you know if they make any plugins to help with SEO?
    I’m trying to get my blog to rank for some targeted keywords
    but I’m not seeing very good gains. If you know of any
    please share. Many thanks!

  273. says

    I just couldn’t leave your site prior to suggesting
    that I actually loved the standard information an individual supply
    on your guests? Is going to be again regularly in order to inspect new posts

  274. says

    I’m extremely pleased to discover this web
    site. I need to to thank you for ones time for this fantastic read!!
    I definitely savored every bit of it and I have you book-marked to see new things in your web site.

  275. says

    fantastic publish, very informative. I’m wondering why the opposite experts of this
    sector don’t realize this. You should proceed your writing.
    I’m sure, you have a great readers’ base already!

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>