11 Signs you Might Be an MRA


Reblogged from here:

1. You have no problem with the gender wage gap. But you hate having to pay for dates.

2. You insist that it’s a scientifically proven fact that men are stronger than women. But you complain about society believing that it’s worse for a man to hit a woman than for a woman to hit a man.

3. You believe that the age of consent is unfair and that there’s nothing wrong with having sex with teenage girls. But when you find out that a teenage girl enjoys sex, you believe she’s the biggest slut in the world.

4. You hate when a woman automatically assumes that a man is a douchebag before getting to know him. But when you like a woman who likes another man, you assume he’s a douchebag just because he’s not you.

5. You believe that if women want equality, they should be drafted into the military. But you also believe that the military is not a place for women.

6. You hate when women assume that men are like wild animals. But you believe that a woman who doesn’t cover up and make herself invisible to men is just like someone wearing a meat suit around wild animals.

7. You hate the fact that men are bullied for not conforming to their male gender roles. But when you find out that a man disagrees with your beliefs about women’s rights, your immediate response is to try to emasculate him by comparing him to a woman as an insult.

8. You hate when women assume that there are no nice guys. But you call yourself a nice guy and act like it’s a rare quality that should cause women to be all over you.

9. You hate when women assume that men just want to get laid. But when you find out that a man is a feminist, you assume that he’s just doing it to get laid.

10. You hate when women make generalizations about all men. But when a woman calls you out for being sexist, you claim that all men think like you.

11. You insist that women should be responsible for protecting themselves from being raped. But when they follow the one piece of advice that actually works, which is being aware of red flags, you complain about them assuming that all men are rapists.

From a t-shirt, that, frankly, would just give people a reason to stand there and stare at your chest for half an hour trying to make all the text out.

Also, if I wore it, people would totally assume that I was just trying to get laid.

Comments

  1. says

    As I said when I saw this t-shirt on Faceb0rk, I like that each of these is a two-fer, not only illustrating a typical douchey MRA trope, but also showing the hypocritical way that they will often ignore it when it suits them, e.g. number three could be rephrased as “you think sex with teenagers shouldn’t be treated as statutory rape, but you think sexually active teenage girls are sluts.”

    So, it’s actually 22 signs that you might be an MRA, not 11… which makes it even less suitable as a t-shirt, and I don’t really want people peering at my boobs for that length of time. Even if they’re speed readers. (I do have a Snorg t-shirt which has π saying ‘Get real’ to √–1 which replies ‘Be rational’ – that’s about the right amount of text that’s both practical to read and not impolite to stare at.)

  2. Anthony K says

    As a σ-male, I agree with this message.

    If my shrieking harpy of a girlfriend who doesn’t validate my natural dominance as a man will let me.

  3. says

    It’s a really good one for getting compliments from mathematicians of all ages, Jason.

    And don’t laugh about the Greek alphabet – on David Futrelle’s boobroll of ‘manosphere’ sites (cf manboobz.com) there’s actually both ‘Omega Virgin Revolt’ and ‘Rise of the Zeta Male’. Cos teh Menz are so Oppressed by the feminazi wimmenz, you know.

  4. says

    Marcus:
    Did he cultivate an interest in chairs over the course of his gun toting adventures?

    Jason:
    I worry about your comic book geek cred. Apocalypse-an Omega male?

    On Topic:
    How about we make a shirt with 11 signs your might be a feminist and ship them to the Pitters??!!
    Or perhaps Reap Paden or Justin Vacula would wear such a shirt with pride. Maybe we could get various FtB bloggers to sign the shirt in their honor….?!

  5. says

    “But when you find out that a man disagrees with your beliefs about women’s rights, your immediate response is to try to emasculate him by comparing him to a woman as an insult.”

    Rather than, say, lumping him in with the MRA’s.

    Just sayin’

  6. glodson says

    Also, if I wore it, people would totally assume that I was just trying to get laid.

    Damn you! I spit coffee everywhere reading this.

    Still, I like how nicely this shows the often contradictory thinking we see in MRA’s. Calling it thinking is a stretch, I know.

  7. Bjarte Foshaug says

    Nice list, here’s mine:

    You may be a misogynist if…

    …you behave towards women in ways you would never behave towards a man.
    …you’re prepared to tolerate women only on the condition that their personal boundaries never get in the way of your desire to seek personal gratification on women’s expense.
    …the only reason you’re okay with some women, is that their boundaries haven’t yet come into conflict with your sociopathic sense of entitlement.
    …the ultimatum you have to offer women is: “Shut up and be grateful for whatever level of ‘respect’ men are willing to grant you, or expect the same treatment as Rebecca Watson”.
    …whenever you have a quarrel with a woman, you reflexively fall back on gender-specific insults (“bitch”, “slut”, “cunt” etc.).
    …you think it’s ever appropriate to bring up a woman’s level of attractiveness or “fuckability” in response to her ideas, her arguments, or her work.
    …you expect every woman on the planet to behave in ways that would, as a matter of fact, increase her own chance of getting raped in order to give you the benefit of the doubt.
    …despite the latter being true, you still blame the victim for behaving that way if she actually ends up getting raped.
    …you attack other men by comparing them to women.
    …you ever use the expressions “reverse sexism” or “misandry”.
    …whenever a woman brings up anything related to sexism, you feel an irresistible urge to change the subject to the suffering of men.
    …in your view sexism is always the wrong problem to be focusing on as long as there’s any other unsolved problem anywhere on the planet.

  8. AM says

    OH, NUMBER 11.

    Be cautious of strangers, and you’re a man-hater. You are personally accusing every single male of being a rapist you misandrist bitch.

    Don’t be cautious enough and you’re just asking for it, aren’t you? Silly naive ladies, this is just Obvious Common Sense, blah blah blah trite analogy about walking through the ghetto with valuables on display

  9. mehmeh says

    There’s a pejorative term called ‘mangina’ or ‘white knight’ that is used to describe people using anti-male shaming language, and putting up ridiculous misandrist arguments.

    I would associate those terms with the author of this article. I know for a fact that freethoughtblogs enables and encourages rabid feminism.

  10. says

    Do you guys take this list seriously? Like, are you unaware that MRAs don’t really believe or do most of these?

    5. You believe that if women want equality, they should be drafted into the military. But you also believe that the military is not a place for women.

    MRAs bring up including women in SS all the time! That means they think women have a place in the military. This makes no sense besides that the writer is associating MRAs with traditionalists.

    1. You have no problem with the gender wage gap. But you hate having to pay for dates.

    It’s not that we don’t have a problem with it, it’s that we’re aware that when you account for factors such as that men work for longer hours, it almost disappears. If women want a higher wage, they should make choices that will bring them a bigger paycheck.

    “Paying for dates” is one member of a list of ways in which women are advantaged by societal norms. And so on.

    I think you guys should try investigating what we believe.

  11. says

    You’re kidding, of course, squirtlekin. MRAs don’t actually support women in combat — not the ones I’ve seen anyway. They a) prefer being able to complain about no women in combat, and b) snark amongst themselves about how ineffectual they’d be without supply lines of pads and port-a-potties.

  12. says

    How about:

    You might be an anti-feminist posing as a Men’s Rights Activist – if you blame feminism (and feminism alone) for everything that has ever gone wrong in your own life, or any unfair thing (real or imagined) associated with being male while simultaneously blaming women for everything that has ever gone wrong in her own life, or any unfair thing (real or imagined) associated with being female.

    So – to recap: Men’s problems are caused by women and Women’s problems are caused by women.

    Got it!

  13. ballgame says

    A wild stereotype-buster appears! (Agnostic, lefty, feminist who is also a feminist critic. Also: American who is a big fan of Canada and especially envies your very sensible approach to health care.)

    (Also, crossposting with a few of the later comments.)

    Let’s see how effective I can be.

    1. You have no problem with the gender wage gap. But you hate having to pay for dates.

    As the CONSAD study clearly indicated, there is no statistical basis for the belief that men make more money than equally-qualified women in the same job overall. (Both men and women experience discrimination in different occupations.)

    Overall, women make at least 93% to 95% of what men make in the same jobs (once you take all factors into account), and it’s possible they actually make more than men do, but the latitudinal and longitudinal data required to make a definitive assessment as to whether equally-qualified men or women are paid more for the same job just doesn’t exist. The oft-implied notion that equally-qualified women only make 75¢ or something for every dollar a man makes in the same job is just blatantly disingenuous.

    Men and women do work different jobs overall, which is partially why there is a so-called gender wage “gap.” Of course, there is also a gender death “gap” — men as a group get killed on the job eight times as often as women do — but gynocentric feminists somehow overlook that.

    Women do interrupt their careers more often to bear and take care of children, which accounts for a very significant difference in earnings. I do think we should have laws that would make it easier for both men and women to care for dependents of all kinds.

    I also do think that many women enjoy a ‘dating passivity privilege’ (at least in America, I’ve heard it’s different in Sweden). I don’t know if such a privilege is amenable to alteration, but it certainly has an adverse affect on significant numbers of men, and they have every right to feel unhappy about it.

    2. You insist that it’s a scientifically proven fact that men are stronger than women. But you complain about society believing that it’s worse for a man to hit a woman than for a woman to hit a man.

    You’re clearly an intelligent guy, Jason. Are you really going to deny that men AS A GROUP are physically stronger than women AS A GROUP? Seriously?

    It’s true that the sexual dimorphism of humans is lower than any other pongid, but it does exist. It’s a statistical thing, though … there are some women who are stronger than the average man, and there are some men who are weaker than the average woman.

    Now, if you’re going to have a rule that differentiates between when a stronger person strikes a weaker person and vice versa, you have to explicitly say that, because it’s obviously just as wrong for a stronger woman to strike a weaker man as it is for a stronger man to strike a weaker woman (or man, for that matter).

    (FTR, I don’t know that I’d agree with such a rule or not, but that goes beyond the scope of this response.)

    3. You believe that the age of consent is unfair and that there’s nothing wrong with having sex with teenage girls. But when you find out that a teenage girl enjoys sex, you believe she’s the biggest slut in the world.

    I’m not an MRA, and in all honesty I don’t read many MRA sites. I don’t recall ever seeing any MRA blogger complain that the age of consent is unfair. If you have, then I’ll defer to your assessment, but my limited experience suggests it’s not a particularly important MRA ‘plank.’

    However, there is a linguistic problem with the notion that there’s ‘something wrong with having sex with teenage girls.’ Women who are 18 and 19 years old are adults, but are also technically “teenagers.” There’s nothing immoral with consenting adults having sex.

    I personally am opposed to gender-based slut-shaming. Though I’m not a ‘sex only in marriage’ kind of guy, I do think there are societal downsides to sexual promiscuity and it should probably be discouraged, though I couldn’t tell you exactly how that should be done.

    4. You hate when a woman automatically assumes that a man is a douchebag before getting to know him. But when you like a woman who likes another man, you assume he’s a douchebag just because he’s not you.

    I would hope that you, Jason, also hate when someone assumes someone else is evil just based on their gender, sexual orientation, or skin color. Seriously, Jason, you don’t think that’s OK, do you? Please tell me you don’t think that’s OK!

    OTOH, the phenomenon of thinking ill of someone who ‘steals’ a potential boyfriend or girlfriend is not confined to “MRAs” and is, in fact, pretty widespread. If you’ve never succumbed to such feelings, Jason, you’ve led either a very charmed life, or a very socially limited one. (Or maybe you’re just a plain superior being, in which case I’ll probably just think of you as a douchebag! ;) )

    5. You believe that if women want equality, they should be drafted into the military. But you also believe that the military is not a place for women.

    You’re a feminist, Jason (as am I), so you are no doubt familiar with the truism that “feminism is not a monolith.” Well, here’s the thing: the men’s rights movement is also not a monolith.

    I know that there are MRAs who think women should be drafted. And I’m willing to believe there are MRAs who believe that women have no place in the military. But I’m not willing to believe that these are the same MRAs! (At least, not outside of the occasional trollish commenter.)

    So for this one: citation needed.

    6. You hate when women assume that men are like wild animals. But you believe that a woman who doesn’t cover up and make herself invisible to men is just like someone wearing a meat suit around wild animals.

    Ahh … the old English language “some” vs. “all” ambiguity!

    I think a woman who assumes all men are like wild animals is a bigot. Don’t you, Jason?

    Sadly, there are some men (and women, for that matter) who are profoundly evil. I don’t know if these evil people are affected by the clothing choices of someone they may look at as a potential victim. Those that do believe this would no doubt argue that wearing provocative clothing would place the wearer at risk from the small number of evil people, even though the overwhelming majority are not evil.

    Now, I have no idea if they’re right. I haven’t seen any actual evidence either way. My point is, I think #6 implies more of a contradiction than actually exists.

    7. You hate the fact that men are bullied for not conforming to their male gender roles. But when you find out that a man disagrees with your beliefs about women’s rights, your immediate response is to try to emasculate him by comparing him to a woman as an insult.

    I totally agree with this one. I would just repeat, though, that the MRM is not a monolith, and there appear to me to be a significant number of MRAs who don’t buy into the ‘mangina-shaming’ bullshit.

    8. You hate when women assume that there are no nice guys. But you call yourself a nice guy and act like it’s a rare quality that should cause women to be all over you.

    Once again, I don’t see a contradiction. IF nice guys are rare and IF nice guys are claimed to be highly valued by women THEN a nice guy should plausibly garner significant female attention. IF women claim there are no (“real”) nice guys AND there are (“real”) nice guys they ignore, THEN one can legitimately wonder if “niceness” is as highly valued as claimed.

    None of which, BTW, is asserting that women should value “nice guys,” of course, and we could have a huge discussion dissecting the various assumptions being made here. The point, though, is the claimed contradiction does not appear to me to exist.

    9. You hate when women assume that men just want to get laid. But when you find out that a man is a feminist, you assume that he’s just doing it to get laid.

    Once again, I kinda agree.

    10. You hate when women make generalizations about all men. But when a woman calls you out for being sexist, you claim that all men think like you.

    Yeah, I think there are some MRAs who are reactionary gender essentialists. Of course, some feminists are also reactionary gender essentialists. One doesn’t justify the other.

    Also? “You’re a misogynist!” is the go-to ad hominem rejoinder beloved by large numbers of mainstream and gynocentric feminists when faced with cogent arguments critiquing gynocentric misandry. There are occasions when it’s true, but there are also frequent occurrences when it’s just rhetorical ‘squid ink.’

    11. You insist that women should be responsible for protecting themselves from being raped. But when they follow the one piece of advice that actually works, which is being aware of red flags, you complain about them assuming that all men are rapists.

    I disagree that this is the “one” piece of advice that “actually works,” and I don’t think most feminists agree with you here. As I understand it, few feminists disagree with the notion that walking alone at night through alleys or high crime areas is risky, for example … they argue that they already know this and that post facto observations to this effect are just blaming the victim (and I agree with them on this point).

    The whole thing about following “red flags” is complicated. It’s one thing to ‘follow your gut’ when a stranger at a party gives you bad vibes and you decide not to be alone with them. It’s another thing altogether to label that person a “creep” and badmouth them to your friends if the ‘bad vibes’ you’ve been getting are ultimately based on mannerisms that could very well be due to social awkwardness instead of any kind of latent evil intent.

    Once again, this is potentially a huge discussion full of important nuance that the T-shirt in question seems designed to obscure in its desire to vilify all members of a group whether they deserve it or not.

  14. justreaddribble says

    This list is nothing but a straw man argument. I read the MRA Reddit all the time and I’ve never seen anyone claiming that sleeping with underage girls should be legal. We want females who sleep with minors to be charged with the same crime and get the same punishment a man would get for the same crime. No one is saying its OK to beat women. We just believe people shouldn’t hit anyone regardless of their fun parts. No one is saying that women deserve to be paid less. We believe that people should be paid based on the hours they work and the position they take. No one is saying women have no place in the military. We believe that females shouldn’t automatically be given cushy and safe jobs while men are thrown on the front line. No one is saying women who dress sexy deserve to be rapped. Why Am I even bothering writing this response. The writer will most likely just delete it. Atheism plus is nothing more than a sexist circle jerk anyways.

  15. says

    “men as a group get killed on the job eight times as often as women do — but gynocentric feminists somehow overlook that.”

    *face palm*

    I was right with you – when you were explaining that the 75 cents on the dollar figure is not apples vs. apples (if you really want to, you can go to the link I gave earlier and read a HUGE conversation I had about it a long time ago, that I’m much too lazy to repeat). It’s a fair point, and it’s a good thing for people to realize what those numbers actually mean and why the pay-gap (which you know darn well actually exists) is what it is, and why it exists. The 75 cents figure absolutely is not an indication of flat-out pay discrimination (which also exists) but a culmination of various factors (some that are problematic and some which are not).

    Then you just sort of shat out the anti-feminist mantra that invariably characterizes every single conversation of this sort.

    A: This issue that effects women is bad.
    B: I’m going to minimize the problem.
    A: Okay, but it’s still problem.
    B: Here is some mildly related problem that men have – that you obviously don’t care about because you brought up that problem that effects women.
    A: Uh – actually, no, I do care about that problem that effects men and it has the same root cause as the problem that is affecting women.
    B: Feminism/brand of feminism/group of feminists suck.
    A: I’m ending this conversation because you’re a jerk.
    B: I declare victory.

    At least you qualified it with some sort of modifier before feminist – that was nice of you. It makes me have some hope that the conversation wouldn’t go EXACTLY like it.

    :)

  16. says

    “No one is saying its OK to beat women.”

    You apparently have never hung out on girlwriteswhat youtube channel.

    justreaddibble: I’ve said this many times on Freethought Blogs – that the anti-MRA stuff should be better qualified. MRA is a blanket-use term and, if agreeing with your stances makes someone an MRA, then I would be an MRA for goodness sakes.

    However, my impression is that FtB has been inundated with a mix-match of MRA types, all of which are attacking them, some of which have some valid issues and are reasonable human beings, and a marked number of them are really f-ed up hateful weirdos that troll and harass them/spread lies about them and all sorts of extreme levels of stupid.

    No, I won’t wear a shirt like that.

    However, those MRA that you say you’ve “never seen”.

    I have seen them. I’ve had very long conversations with them. Some of them seriously scare me and a few, I think, probably have very serious personal problems. Unfortunately for you, and other people who seem at least grounded in some sort of level of sanity and stability, those wack-jobs call themselves MRA and appear to be obsessed with harassing online feminists because it buys into this idea they have in their heads that they are fighting some sort of righteous war against feminism and they blame feminism for all sorts of personal and social ills.

  17. hjhornbeck says

    Ooo, a flock of MRAs!

    ballgame @23:

    The oft-implied notion that equally-qualified women only make 75¢ or something for every dollar a man makes in the same job is just blatantly disingenuous.

    In Canada, in 2010, women have 68.1% of the income of men, on average. Yet if you look at the hourly wages, you get 76%. Why the difference? In our society, women are the ones who look after children. That takes time, effort, and flexibility, and so they aren’t able to work the same hours as men, and require more flexible hours which limits where they can work. This hits them in the pocketbook, and constitutes second-hand discrimination.

    So sure, you can remove a fair chunk of the wage gap… but you have to argue that men are incompetent at child care, and thus make terrible role models.

    men as a group get killed on the job eight times as often as women

    Indeed, women are barred from working in certain industries, and those industries tend to have a higher mortality rate. Feminists are working towards having an equal number of men and women in every industry; thus, as someone opposed to feminism, you must endorse the greater mortality rate that comes with being a man. It’s just the cost of being male!

    Are you really going to deny that men AS A GROUP are physically stronger than women AS A GROUP?

    Ooooo, you completely missed the point! How about commenting on whether or not men should restrain themselves from hitting women, instead of straw-personing Thibeault?

    I’m not an MRA, and in all honesty I don’t read many MRA sites. I don’t recall ever seeing any MRA blogger complain that the age of consent is unfair.

    Here ya go. There’s a lot more to be found behind a quick Google search. Age of consent seems like a pretty core plank to me, as it generates 74,000 hits.

    the phenomenon of thinking ill of someone who ‘steals’ a potential boyfriend or girlfriend

    Swing and a miss! That trope talked about “liking,” not “stealing.” Do try harder next time.

    So for this one: citation needed.

    Citation provided:

    MRAs love to cite the dominance of men in the armed forces as a prime example of what they call “male disposability,” and somehow manage to blame feminists for it all.

    But it’s not feminists who are trying to keep women from becoming soldiers, or serving in combat. While some MRAs support the idea of women serving in the army, and having to register for the draft the same as men do, many others scoff at the very notion of women as soldiers, mocking their alleged female “weakness” and in some cases denigrating the service of women now in the armed forces as being equivalent to attending “day care camp.” (Not exactly.) These MRAs may complain that men bear the brunt of the costs of war. But they don’t actually want women to serve.

    Sadly, there are some men (and women, for that matter) who are profoundly evil. I don’t know if these evil people are affected by the clothing choices of someone they may look at as a potential victim.

    I find this attitude fascinating. Doesn’t that mean we should keep men away from positions of power? Doesn’t that mean we should have a legal system which is biased against men? Or are you arguing that these evil men should walk freely, because they are men?

    Face it, you hate men. In fact, you hate men more than any of the feminists I know, myself included.

    Once again, I don’t see a contradiction.

    1. Women think nice guys are rare. This is a bad thing.
    2. You think nice guys are rare. This is a good thing, as you are one of those nice guys and should thus be rewarded.

    “You’re a misogynist!” is the go-to ad hominem rejoinder beloved by large numbers of mainstream and gynocentric feminists when faced with cogent arguments critiquing gynocentric misandry. There are occasions when it’s true, but there are also frequent occurrences when it’s just rhetorical ‘squid ink.’

    Care to provide an example?

    I disagree that this is the “one” piece of advice that “actually works,” and I don’t think most feminists agree with you here.

    We’re not talking about feminists, though. MRAs are the ones who think that there’s a magic action women can take to prevent being raped, and are happy to blast any woman who doesn’t follow that magic action.

    What that magic action is, however, seems to vary from time and place, and no two MRAs agree on what it is. They only agree that women never seem to do it, and thus deserve whatever comes their way.

  18. hjhornbeck says

    TRIGGER WARNING: INCEST

    justreaddribble @24:

    I read the MRA Reddit all the time and I’ve never seen anyone claiming that sleeping with underage girls should be legal.

    I don’t have anything on Reddit, but will this do?

    [M]illions of people … are now refraining from touching, holding, and genitally caressing their children, when that is really a part of a caring, loving expression, are repressing the sexuality of a lot of children and themselves. Maybe this needs repressing, and maybe it doesn’t. My book should at least begin the exploration. […]

    “Incest is like a magnifying glass,” he summarizes. “In some circumstances it magnifies the beauty of a relationship, and in others it magnifies the trauma.”

    That’s from Warren Farrell, one of the most influential names in the MRM.

  19. hjhornbeck says

    TRIGGER WARNING: VIOLENCE

    justreaddribble @24:

    No one is saying its OK to beat women.

    Sure they are, in fact one of the most famous names in the modern MRM has said as such:

    I used to live under a young couple with a baby. I’d listen as she followed him from room to room upstairs, stomping, slamming things, throwing things, screaming. After about an hour, he’d eventually hit her, and everything would go quiet. An hour after that, they’d be out with the baby in the stroller, looking perfectly content with each other. […]

    Erin Pizzey called it “consensual violence,” and said in the main, that was the type she’d seen at her shelter. It is also the type that results in the most severe injuries in women, surprise surprise, likely because of our “never EVER hit a woman” mentality that has those men waiting until they completely lose control of their emotions before giving their women what they’re demanding. […]

    I also think it would be good for women to take boxing or karate or some other form of training, not only because it helps you be more confident in your ability to defend yourself against muggings and stuff like that, but that would demonstrate to women that getting hit isn’t going to break them into little pieces.

  20. hjhornbeck says

    TRIGGER WARNING: RAPE

    justreaddribble @24:

    No one is saying women who dress sexy deserve to be rapped.

    *sigh*:

    Every woman marching in the Edmonton Slut Walk is publicly declaring herself a slut. This means every woman there desires sex with any and all partners. Any sexual activity you initiate with them comes with implied consent. They cannot say no, and if they do understand all their ‘no’s mean yes. They are all asking for it. They want it bad. Now. From you. Go get ‘em! […]

    [W]hen you impersonate a slut we don’t fine you, and we don’t throw you in jail. There’s really only one punishment for dressing like a streetwalker when you aren’t one: you do have to endure the occasional rape. You should really suffer it in silence. Accept the character flaw within you that caused this, and move on.

  21. BrokenCastle says

    As one who considers myself first and foremost an Egalitarian, I feel this requires me to be both a feminist and a MRA. For this post I feel I need to step my MRA side and address the list:

    1. You have no problem with the gender wage gap. But you hate having to pay for dates.

    Two different issues. For the wage-gap it has been addressed that it may not actually represent what it claims to represent. Perhaps it does. I instead go with this solution to it: If it can be shown that any business or organization is providing unfair pay based on gender, race, or any other such class, said organization/business should be given a strict fine, the victim compensated, and should be shunned/boycotted by society.

    As far as restaurant pay, yes I don’t think anybody should be required or expected to pay more often based just on gender, such an idea is an insult to both genders.

    2. You insist that it’s a scientifically proven fact that men are stronger than women. But you complain about society believing that it’s worse for a man to hit a woman than for a woman to hit a man.

    Do you feel that a strong man hitting a weaker woman is better than a strong woman hitting a weaker man? If not then should not any laws/taboos be based on the strength of people involved, not on their genders?

    3. You believe that the age of consent is unfair and that there’s nothing wrong with having sex with teenage girls. But when you find out that a teenage girl enjoys sex, you believe she’s the biggest slut in the world.

    First my ideas of nothing wrong do not apply to gender at all. I feel an adult man having sex with an underage girl is just as bad as an adult woman having sex with an underage girl. Ditto for same sex engagements.

    Second, I do not see a woman having sex with many partners any worse than a man doing the same.

    Furthermore, as a person who partakes on many forums for both MRA’s and Feminists, I have to say I have yet too find a single one whose consensus does allow for sexual engagements between adults and children (I am sure some exist on both sides, but if I were to ever find one it would not be one I would stick around on)

    4. You hate when a woman automatically assumes that a man is a douchebag before getting to know him. But when you like a woman who likes another man, you assume he’s a douchebag just because he’s not you.

    I dislike it when anyone assumes someone is a douchebag without having just cause. Second I tend only to like women who I feel have good tastes, thus if a woman I fancy likes another man this makes me more likely to assume said man might be a swell guy.

    Not what on earth this has to do with MRA’s (as opposed to the general population) is beyond me?

    5. You believe that if women want equality, they should be drafted into the military. But you also believe that the military is not a place for women.

    The two beliefs are mutually exclusive and both of these beliefs are held by many feminists and MRA’s both.

    6. You hate when women assume that men are like wild animals. But you believe that a woman who doesn’t cover up and make herself invisible to men is just like someone wearing a meat suit around wild animals.

    As I said before, I strongly dislike when anybody assumes something about others without justification (and their gender, sex, race, age, height, etc. are NOT good justifications)

    I’m not even sure what the second bit is supposed to mean though? A good-looking woman wearing revealing clothing is sure to attract the attention of men, just like a good-looking man wearing revealing clothing is sure to attract the attention of women…?

    7. You hate the fact that men are bullied for not conforming to their male gender roles. But when you find out that a man disagrees with your beliefs about women’s rights, your immediate response is to try to emasculate him by comparing him to a woman as an insult.

    Yes, I do hate when people are bullied for not fororming to gender roles.

    If I find out a man disagrees with my beliefs about women’s rights I may indeed insult him (perhaps by calling him a misogynist), I certainly would not compare him to a woman as I do not feel women are worse than men.

    8. You hate when women assume that there are no nice guys. But you call yourself a nice guy and act like it’s a rare quality that should cause women to be all over you.

    The definition of the phrase “nice guy” has changed so much and means such different things to different people I feel it has all but lost meaning. I thus simply avoid discussions on this unless one wants to start by giving a very clear and elaborate definition.

    9. You hate when women assume that men just want to get laid. But when you find out that a man is a feminist, you assume that he’s just doing it to get laid.

    For the third time yes, I strongly dislike when people assume things about others based upon their sex/gender rather than experience.

    No I do not consider that I am a feminist just to get laid.

    10. You hate when women make generalizations about all men. But when a woman calls you out for being sexist, you claim that all men think like you.

    Yes I dislike such generalizations. No I do not assume any large group of people all think like I do.

    11. You insist that women should be responsible for protecting themselves from being raped. But when they follow the one piece of advice that actually works, which is being aware of red flags, you complain about them assuming that all men are rapists.

    I am not familiar with the idea of red flags so I cannot comment on this one.

  22. hjhornbeck says

    BrokenCastle @31:

    Check out my lengthy reply to ballgame, which just came out of moderation; it addresses some of what you wrote.

  23. BrokenCastle says

    @hjhornbeck #27:
    I will only address a few points in your as most were a response to another thus not all points are valid with me – for instance I fully agree that the MRM, much like any other movement, has extremists who argue for male superiority, acceptable pedophilia, discriminatory gender roles, and other positions I wished did not exist.

    If you feel that I did not respond to a point you addressed in your earlier posts, please make a post addressing any of my positions specifically and I will be happy to answer.

    In Canada, in 2010, women have 68.1% of the income of men, on average. Yet if you look at the hourly wages, you get 76%. Why the difference? In our society, women are the ones who look after children. That takes time, effort, and flexibility, and so they aren’t able to work the same hours as men, and require more flexible hours which limits where they can work. This hits them in the pocketbook, and constitutes second-hand discrimination.

    So sure, you can remove a fair chunk of the wage gap… but you have to argue that men are incompetent at child care, and thus make terrible role models.

    Wait are you arguing for or against MRA’s? I don’t know about the validity of this argument but this is the MRA counter argument to the wage gap – exactly as you said that many women choose to work in jobs that do not require a commitment for whichever reason (for instance to have more time with children) which lowers the hourly wages presented. This is in fact not discrimination unless women are put there not by choice but by force – and last time I checked there is no law that forced women to be a stay at home mom or work shorter hours.

    Indeed, women are barred from working in certain industries, and those industries tend to have a higher mortality rate. Feminists are working towards having an equal number of men and women in every industry; thus, as someone opposed to feminism, you must endorse the greater mortality rate that comes with being a man. It’s just the cost of being male!

    Almost all MRA’s, including radicals, support the idea of having an equal number of men and women spread throughout all industries.

    MRA’s who oppose Feminists (Of which I am not one, being a feminist and all) are under the belief that mainline feminism opposes the idea – much like how you for whatever reason falsely believe mainline MRM opposes this idea.

  24. Nepenthe says

    @BrokenCastle

    Could you give an example of a “mainline” MRM author/speaker?

    Y’see, some folks have a bet going on whether any popular MRA can be found who doesn’t make misogynist statements that would have Pat Robertson saying “Golly son, I think you have a bit of a problem with women.”

  25. jackiepaper says

    Being a feminist and a MRA are completely incompatable. That’s like saying you believe in equality but are a white supremesist. Either you do not have the foggiest clue as to what feminism is or you haven’t the foggiest clue what the MRM is. Either way, you can stop patting yourself on the back for being egalitarian. You aren’t

    .

  26. BrokenCastle says

    @ jackiepaper

    There are many definitions of feminism and there are many different views in the MRM. Why should I accept your notion that there is only a single flavor of feminist? And why should I accept that the definition of the MRM is as you see it – namely being anti women or male superiorist – when almost no MRM groups define it as such?

    And finally, how am I not an egalitarian? Can you name a single position I hold that goes against such a belief?

  27. BrokenCastle says

    @ Nepenthe

    I don’t spend my time with ‘celebrities’ of any movements that I adhere to. I care more about the actual arguments and actions than this.

    For instance, I can’t name a single headline feminist to represent the movement, simply because I don’t spend the time reading background history of the people who write articles that I read. Instead I spend my time doing more productive things such as volunteering as an escort for a planned parenthood clinic – or working with my universities student feminist and LGBTA groups showing them how to best access university funds to bring in speakers (Both are actions I did in the past). Would you say this this makes me a ‘lesser’ feminist?

    Likewise I don’t care about the histories of people who write articles I read in regards to the MRM. I hear that Warren Farrel is considered a mainline speaker for the MRM – he also may or may not support incest – I simply don’t care if it is true or not as it does not impact the validity of any articles I may have read of his that don’t touch the subject. Instead I would work to contact rape counsel centers to encourage them to promote more gender neutral wording on their support documentations to not make male rape victims feel as alienated, or write letters to congressmen encouraging on various issues.

  28. says

    As the CONSAD study clearly indicated, there is no statistical basis for the belief that men make more money than equally-qualified women in the same job overall. (Both men and women experience discrimination in different occupations.)

    Overall, women make at least 93% to 95% of what men make in the same jobs (once you take all factors into account)

    You can’t make this shit up….

  29. hjhornbeck says

    BrokenCastle @34:

    This is in fact not discrimination unless women are put there not by choice but by force – and last time I checked there is no law that forced women to be a stay at home mom or work shorter hours.

    You completely neglect culture and economic necessity. If you’re a man, have you tried putting on make-up and lipstick for a day? I doubt the notion has even crossed your mind, as this behaviour so ingrained in our culture you never had reason to question it. Men wear make-up all the time, however, in television, films, and theatre. Is it so hard to believe that culture could force women to do most of the child-care, without any obvious means of coercion?

    I don’t know what the laws are where you are, but in most places maternity leave is exactly that, time that the mother takes off to tend to a newborn. That inadvertently sets up an economic incentive for employers to discriminate against women. We live in an era of breast pumps and baby formula, though; even at that early age, there’s no reason why men couldn’t share the care duties. And yet, the laws make it difficult for them to do so.

    Almost all MRA’s, including radicals, support the idea of having an equal number of men and women spread throughout all industries.

    I’ve spent the last twenty minutes searching for anything on the subject from the MRM, and been met with deafening silence. The closest I can find involves whether women should be involved in the military, where a significant chunk of the MRM seems to be arguing “no.”

    These [quoted comments] aren’t “cherry-picked” from hundreds of comments; these are the bulk of the comments that were left on the article.

    Are any of these commenters MRAs? Maybe, maybe not, but certainly their misogynistic “logic” is virtually identical to that I’ve seen from misogynist MRAs opposed to women serving in combat. One thing they are clearly not is feminist.

    If MRAs, or at least some of them, truly want a world in which men and women share equally in the responsibilities of military service (and both have equal opportunties for military leadership), they need to challenge the misogynists — within their movement and without — who argue that women simply aren’t fit for the battlefield. And they need to support the feminists who are actually trying to make a difference — instead of standing on the sidelines crying foul.

    much like how you for whatever reason falsely believe mainline MRM opposes this idea

    Educate me and Nepenthe, then. Who is the mainstream MRM? Because as far as I can tell, the only difference between the National Coalition For Men and A Voice for Men is how carefully they hide their hatred. As an example, GirlWritesWhat volunteers for both, and yet she was the one arguing that a little bit of violence is both acceptable and encouraged.

    If you do consider Warren Farrell to be “mainstream,” then what does it say about the MRM that it is comfortable associating itself with someone who defends incest?

  30. hjhornbeck says

    ballgame @23:

    As the CONSAD study clearly indicated, there is no statistical basis for the belief that men make more money than equally-qualified women in the same job overall. (Both men and women experience discrimination in different occupations.)

    And yet that’s not what Statistics Canada has found.

    During the past two decades, the gap in average hourly wages between men and women has narrowed steadily. In 1988, women earned 75.7 cents in wages for every $1 earned by men. By, 2008, they were earning 83.3 cents on the dollar.

    Why did the gap narrow? Not because of less discrimination:

    In fact, compositional changes accounted for roughly two-thirds of the narrowing of the wage gap. For example, older men were less likely to hold management jobs in 2008 than their counterparts in 1988. Also, younger women were more likely to hold a university degree in 2008, and they were moving from low-paying clerical and sales jobs into higher-paying occupations in health and education.

    Eurostat goes further, and does not adjust their calculations for hours worked.

    Inequality in pay between men and women remains high in Europe. Moreover, the impact of pay gaps can be far-reaching, as lower pay increases the risk of financial dependence not only during working life, but also implies lower pensions and thus an increased risk of poverty during old age. Hence, the unadjusted gender pay pap (GPG) is an important indicator used within the European Employment Strategy (EES) to monitor imbalances in wages between men and women.

    I can also bring up sources from the UK and US governments. The consensus of government statistics agencies is that there is a substantial gender pay gap. Why should I place more trust in a small think tank than in all these governments combined?

  31. says

    There’s an odd parity to all this.

    When I go to MRA sites or even talk to MRA on FtB – they invariably accuse feminists of believing all sort of bizarre shit and argue against said bizarre shit. When I’m there, trying to explain that no, feminists (generally) don’t think that all men are rapists and women should be protected in combat and low representation of men in female-dominated fields is awesome and women should have more rights in custody hearings, etc. They accuse me of being some sort of exception.

    So, when the MRA come on and say MRA think this way and that way – they are invariably accused of being exceptional and most MRA’s actually believe all sorts of crazy shit.

    Because of this, I’m always tempted to believe that MRA and feminists actually have all this wonderful common ground and if we could only communicate better, we’d all be on the same side.

    HECK – the FIRST video I watched of “girlwriteswhat’ before I had any idea who she was – the one about male disposability – I thought she was a feminists. I was about to be impressed until she bizarrely started to essentially blame feminists for male disposability.

    Yep – that’s right – it’s the fault of feminists and women generally; that men’s lives are not thought of as equal in worth to women’s. That whole “women and children” first thing is a feminist plot. Cause that makes sense. /sarcasm.

    I have yet to not be disappointed.

    I’ve decided that a good test is to ask them what they think of Title IX. (I live in the U.S.)

  32. hjhornbeck says

    Wait wait wait… CONSAD was my US source, and it says:

    Statistical analysis that includes those variables has produced results that collectively account for between 65.1 and 76.4 percent of a raw gender wage gap of 20.4 percent, and thereby leave an adjusted gender wage gap that is between 4.8 and 7.1 percent.

    and yet ballgame said:

    As the CONSAD study clearly indicated, there is no statistical basis for the belief that men make more money than equally-qualified women in the same job overall. (Both men and women experience discrimination in different occupations.)

    How can we both use the same study to support opposite positions? It’s simple, actually, as CONSAD itself hints at:

    A greater percentage of women than men tend to leave the labor force for child birth, child care and elder care. Some of the wage gap is explained by the percentage of women who were not in the labor force during previous years, the age of women, and the number of children in the home.

    Women, especially working mothers, tend to value “family friendly” workplace policies more than men. Some of the wage gap is explained by industry and occupation, particularly, the percentage of women who work in the industry and occupation.

    Both ballgame and the authors of CONSAD assume that men are incompetent at childcare, and that raising children brings no value to society. Under those assumptions, it makes perfect sense to discard the loss in pay due to raising children. Hence ballgame felt confident referencing CONSAD.

    I think all sexes are equal in their ability to raise children, and I do think raising children brings value. Under those assumptions, it makes no sense to adjust the pay statistics in any way. Hence, I was going to quote that part of CONSAD above and add a disclaimer.

    The only real difference is in how much we devalue men and children.

  33. says

    Oh – if the first thing out of their mouth when talking about Title IX is not: “It’s been wildly successful and has been a great boost to girls in women in sport.”

    …and instead, “Boys…football…..blahblah….girls don’t like sports……vomit….”

    You know – what was the topic?

    They might be an anti-feminist MRA.

  34. BrokenCastle says

    You completely neglect culture and economic necessity. If you’re a man, have you tried putting on make-up and lipstick for a day? I doubt the notion has even crossed your mind, as this behaviour so ingrained in our culture you never had reason to question it. Men wear make-up all the time, however, in television, films, and theatre. Is it so hard to believe that culture could force women to do most of the child-care, without any obvious means of coercion?

    First I have to say that I disagree with this position personally, my position (which different from most MRA’s) is that there is indeed a wage-gap that is suffered by women caused by sexist discrimination. I don’t think the gap is as high as the 77cents to the dollar figure listed, but it is there in significance. I also freely admit that this is based upon my personal anecdotal experience and I cannot back this position up.

    That said, what you are arguing is actually the MRM position against feminism without realizing it. The way I understand the argument to be is feminists claim that society still discriminates wages and employment based on sex rather than aptitude. Many MRM’s counter that this is actually the result of women choosing to work less or in less-risk jobs that pay less (regardless of the cause of this choice).

    I don’t know what the laws are where you are, but in most places maternity leave is exactly that, time that the mother takes off to tend to a newborn. That inadvertently sets up an economic incentive for employers to discriminate against women. We live in an era of breast pumps and baby formula, though; even at that early age, there’s no reason why men couldn’t share the care duties. And yet, the laws make it difficult for them to do so.

    Once again you are arguing for a MRM point. One of the common talking points of the MRM is that society through laws should allow paternity leave exactly the same way maternity leave is given, and that men should not be forced to take the role of the working parent rather than the one who stays with the children. It is one, like many others, that is shared with feminism.

    I’ve spent the last twenty minutes searching for anything on the subject from the MRM, and been met with deafening silence. The closest I can find involves whether women should be involved in the military, where a significant chunk of the MRM seems to be arguing “no.”

    The very quote you posted explicitly states that the author does not have any evidence that any of the misogynistic anti-female-combatants posters are members of the MRM, and lacks a single reference to any MRM organization (or even unnamed member) posting anything opposing women in combat.

    Meanwhile one of the top posts of the month for the Reddit MRM board (first place I looked, I don’t personally endorse any website or organization) for the month is one encouraging members to sign a petition ensuring the draft affects men and women equally. The discussion found inside the thread is not if women can serve but rather if we should have them both equally drafted or if we should have the draft removed from both.

    Educate me and Nepenthe, then. Who is the mainstream MRM? Because as far as I can tell, the only difference between the National Coalition For Men and A Voice for Men is how carefully they hide their hatred. As an example, GirlWritesWhat volunteers for both, and yet she was the one arguing that a little bit of violence is both acceptable and encouraged.

    If you do consider Warren Farrell to be “mainstream,” then what does it say about the MRM that it is comfortable associating itself with someone who defends incest?

    Allow me to rephrase my earlier comment: I don’t care who mainstream leaders are, I don’t care if Warren Farrell is a MRM leader, and I don’t care if he does or does not support incest. I likewise just as much don’t care who Feminist leaders are, I don’t care if organizations like Femen do or don’t hate men.

    What I do care about are actual arguments presented which I treat all based on their own merit rather than their authors, and I do care about taking actions to help stop discrimination that happens to anybody, regardless of sex, race, and all those other fun tags.

    What are things that I care about? I care about the fact that some people are trying to make it harder for women seeking abortions to get them, often causing them even more trauma in their hard times. I do care about the fact that while most suicide victims are male while many universities offer more counseling services to women. I care that pushes women away from engineering careers. I care the society jeers at men who are in nursing. Find me a someguy you feel to be a leader who cares about all these things then I will call him my ‘mainstream’ leader.

  35. BrokenCastle says

    @42

    The most annoying bit about being a member of both feminist and MRA forums is that most feminists claim “MRM is a sexist movement which seeks to promote men over women, feminism is by definition the movement that aims for equality” while MRA’s claims that “Feminism is a sexist movement that looks for female superiority, the MRM is now the movement that seeks for true equality”.

    They literally use the exact same arguments against each other, sometimes word for word. . . And here I am stuck in the middle being attacked by both sides over it.

  36. Stevenr2012 says

    I support Women’s Equality so I’m a Feminist, I also support Men’s Equality (Which you might notice: End up being the same damn thing) so I could be an MRA. I’ll listen to both sides equally, despite the fact that some of you are assholes and make up my own mind about the idea each person presents.

    This list was unfair to the MRA as a whole, but the MRA says a lot of crap that’s unfair to Feminists as a whole (Like bunching you all up with Femithiest and the RadFem brigade), I say both sides need to discard their blankets and judge people on what they believe personally; being a Feminist or an MRA doesn’t automatically mean you have it out for the opposite gender, any more than being a Republican means you have it out for non-Whites.

    The MRA and Feminists are engaged in what amounts to an “I’m Holier Than Thou” Dick Measuring Contest. Your Moral High Ground is made up of a mound of bullshit, you’re all individuals and you’re side (or lack of a side) does not make you a good or better person.

  37. says

    “What are things that I care about? I care about the fact that some people are trying to make it harder for women seeking abortions to get them, often causing them even more trauma in their hard times. I do care about the fact that while most suicide victims are male while many universities offer more counseling services to women. I care that pushes women away from engineering careers. I care the society jeers at men who are in nursing. Find me a someguy you feel to be a leader who cares about all these things then I will call him my ‘mainstream’ leader.”

    What?!

    Actually – rejecting camp politics – who is this strange creature?

    HA.

  38. says

    I would attempt to identify in a way that eschews the camp politics – but I have also yet to find a group of people using “egalitarianist” or other such term that aren’t sort of – um – immature.

    I also seems that MRM and MRA – need to sort out their shit a bit before I would start identifying that way.

    I’ll probably never stop identifying as a feminist even if the feminist movement started straying badly – and there are some feminist groups I strongly disagree with. Such as the idigits that worked to get niqab bans in some countries.

    Feminism has a history and even an academic body of work, and I personally owe a lot to that movement (even though it’s history is not always so stellar); so that’s label is going to stay.

    Hats off to you BrokenCastle if you can navigate them both.

  39. Nepenthe says

    Would you say this this makes me a ‘lesser’ feminist?

    No. Uncritically nodding along to the words of a person who explicitly longs for the good old days when no one said date rape wasn’t part of healthy courtship makes you a lesser feminist.

    Protip: if you’re part of an army that has skulls on its belt buckles, you’re not on the good side. If you’re part of a movement where no spokespeople can be found who don’t support rape and abuse and sexism, then you’re not on the good side. Mitchell and Webb put it better.

  40. jackiepaper says

    Broken castle, you’ve just confirmed that you know fuck all about the topi you are attempting to discuss.

    Nepenthe, exactly.

  41. jackiepaper says

    Broken castle, you keep telling us. Why not show us? Link to a source you consider mainstream MRAs. You do know that MRAs are a hate group, right? They are on the same list with the Klan. They are bigots, plain and simple.

    There are no mainstream examples of feminists advocating for rape, removal of basic human rights or kiddie diddling, but there are many examples of the same sick shit within the so called MRM.. Shit, you’d be hard pressed to find a fringe example of the ideas and behaviors nearly as bigoted and toxic as the MRA norm.

    Seriously, do some research.

  42. hjhornbeck says

    Stevenr2012 @48:

    The MRA and Feminists are engaged in what amounts to an “I’m Holier Than Thou” Dick Measuring Contest.

    What you call a dick measuring contest, I call an argument over how society should treat people according to their gender or sex. It reveals just how little you value your fellow human beings, that you’d rather be superior to both sides instead of listening to what either says.

    Also, some of us do not possess dicks. You may want to think of a better analogy next time.

  43. hjhornbeck says

    BrokenCastle @46

    I don’t think the gap is as high as the 77cents to the dollar figure listed, but it is there in significance. I also freely admit that this is based upon my personal anecdotal experience and I cannot back this position up.

    My figures are based on the data of four governments, one international organization, and my own research. The unadjusted gap is that high for most industrial nations.

    The way I understand the argument to be is feminists claim that society still discriminates wages and employment based on sex rather than aptitude. Many MRM’s counter that this is actually the result of women choosing to work less or in less-risk jobs that pay less (regardless of the cause of this choice).

    Have you stopped to consider why women are working less? And how would something which encourages women to work less not be considered a form of discrimination?

    One of the common talking points of the MRM is that society through laws should allow paternity leave exactly the same way maternity leave is given, and that men should not be forced to take the role of the working parent rather than the one who stays with the children. It is one, like many others, that is shared with feminism.

    There’s one key difference between the two. MRAs talk about paternity leave, feminists do something about it.

    Meanwhile one of the top posts of the month for the Reddit MRM board (first place I looked, I don’t personally endorse any website or organization) for the month is one encouraging members to sign a petition ensuring the draft affects men and women equally.

    That’s still the military. You were arguing MRAs want equality in the workforce, however. Where’s your examples from there?

    I don’t care who mainstream leaders are, I don’t care if Warren Farrell is a MRM leader, and I don’t care if he does or does not support incest.

    I think I’d care quite deeply if one of my leaders was an incest supporter. Does this mean you think incest is no big deal?

    Find me a someguy you feel to be a leader who cares about all these things then I will call him my ‘mainstream’ leader.

    Judith Butler.

    Oh, wait, you asked for a man to lead you. Michael Flood, then.

  44. Nepenthe says

    hjhornbeck, there’s no way Butler or Flood could be MRM leaders. For one thing they are a woman and a mangina, respectively. For another, I don’t recall either writing on why not every man can have access to the vagina of a woman of his choosing at any time the most critical issues of the day. And thirdly, Flood seems to be highly critical of the MRM. Look at this paper, where he–for some unknown reason–suggests that granting contact and custody to abusive men is ungood. Why, he probably doesn’t even revere Thomas Ball, martyr for the cause!

  45. says

    Janetty: “Men’s Rights Activist”. However, they mostly busy themselves with attacking feminism as the source of all the problems brought upon them (by patriarchy, which feminism actually fights).

  46. Schala says

    “There are no mainstream examples of feminists advocating for rape, removal of basic human rights or kiddie diddling, but there are many examples of the same sick shit within the so called MRM.. Shit, you’d be hard pressed to find a fringe example of the ideas and behaviors nearly as bigoted and toxic as the MRA norm. ”

    Many and mainstream are not synonymous.

    Or I can get you many examples of feminists advocating misandry and violence visited upon trans women, if not denying them basic rights. The hatred of trans women is based on misandry, because it’s based on an essential definition of womanhood – whoever advocates for it.

    Traditionalists say it’s a god-given right of womanhood through being born with a vulva, XX chromosomes and being raised in a sexist female way (as opposed to a sexist male way).

    Radical feminists, which are often considered mainstream enough to write in the Guardian (Bindel) or have their works taken 1st degree (not a “this is how people can get it wrong” thing) in women’s studies (ie Daly, Raymond, Jeffreys, Greer), say the exact same thing. They’ll add lip-service about bleeding and being ogled by the 12 years old neighbor when you first get breasts as essential universal experiences of womanhood and oppression. They had Kimberly Nixon banned from a volunteering position in a rape crisis shelter on the argument that her past privilege of having been a pilot before transition, means she can’t understand being raped (even though she has been). Because everyone knows men don’t get raped either. The CDC must be lying with it’s 1.1% in the last 12 months stat about “being forced to penetrate” (which is equal to the female victims count of rape for the same period).

    And they hate trans women because, obviously, trans women are simply men trying to invade the beautiful kingdom of womanhood. And since womanhood is oh-so-horrible all the time, they must have hidden motives for doing this, like raping all women (true cite). Or making a pastiche of womanhood and making every woman conform to 1950s gender roles by being too superficial (and those trans women who dare not be a cartoon misrepresentation of feminine stereotypes are clearly “just men”, because real women would “try” (see the double bind?). Someone called it gender-slumming in the 1990s.

    Julie Bindel wants to deny trans surgery to those who request it. Others on the traditionalist and the feminist side both have tried before. John Hopkins’s gender clinic was closed because of the traditionalists (cooking statistics about post-surgery satisfaction), and NARTH find it’s a very good thing. So hand in hand they skip.

    VAWA has denied funds first explicitly, then implicitly, for shelters for male victims, on the grounds that it would remove funds for female victims. That, even though the law is considered gender neutral (there’s no “get your own law” talk, the law is supposed to address ALL DV, not just male on female). VAWA wasn’t just decided by higher ups. Some people who identify as feminsts had something to do with the traditionalist view of it (ie only women are victims, Duluth model). The law and advocacy surrounding DV (mostly done by or with the ascent of feminists) ignores all male victims, and all female victims of female perpetrators.

    I disavow any and all Victorianism (men are beasts, women are angel) talk, advocacy, or anything that could look like it. Traditionalists are guilty of it, feminism is often guilty of it, or taking advantage of it at least. Even separatists are no better, they view men as demons, and women as faultless, they think lesbian DV can’t happen at all, because two angels can’t do any evil.

    It would do well for everyone to view everyone else as humans. Humans can do good, they can also do evil. It’s called free will, agency. Viewing some as unable to do evil makes them non-human.

  47. says

    Janetty: “Men’s Rights Activist”. However, they mostly busy themselves with attacking feminism as the source of all the problems brought upon them (by patriarchy, which feminism actually fights).

    The MRM does not believe that feminism caused all men’s problems. MRAs generally believe that most men’s issues are the result of biological gender roles which were useful for survival in the past but are fairly obsolete today. For example, that men are designated for all violent, dangerous roles is due to us being, on average, stronger and women being more valuable for reproduction.

    The feminist concept of “Patriarchy” views gender roles as oriented towards male domination rather than survival and perhaps as even the designs of men. We decided to send ourselves to war and keep the other gender at home, apparently.

  48. doubtthat says

    @42

    It’s totally awesome that you don’t follow any leader, but if you’re that completely ignorant about the MRA folks who do command a large following, how can you comment intelligently on the general opinions of folks identifying as MRAs?

  49. says

    The MRM does not believe that feminism caused all men’s problems. MRAs generally believe that most men’s issues are the result of biological gender roles which were useful for survival in the past but are fairly obsolete today. For example, that men are designated for all violent, dangerous roles is due to us being, on average, stronger and women being more valuable for reproduction.

    One of the ways feminists fight patriarchy is by fighting rigid gender roles for men and women. Why are MRAs only interested in fighting rigid gender roles for men? Feminists recognize the trope that “men are stronger and therefore better choices as warriors” is shit. They fight that tooth and nail. They fought to fight if they so choose, just as men fight if they so choose. Why shouldn’t the army be equal opportunity and a true meritocracy divorced of gender considerations?

    The feminist concept of “Patriarchy” views gender roles as oriented towards male domination rather than survival and perhaps as even the designs of men. We decided to send ourselves to war and keep the other gender at home, apparently.

    And men scoffing at the idea of women fighting on the front lines never happened, did it? Men never chided women for trying to go to university, or denied them meritocratous access to the cultural spheres of writing or art, or chastised them for not being home barefoot and pregnant? Those tropes never happened?

    Just because we do live in a patriarchal society — this is borne by evidence and is well supported in the scientific field of sociology, and is not some ephemeral beast invented by misandrist feminists, you see — doesn’t mean that we have to stay that way, or that the society was intentionally built by evil guileful men for their own purposes from the top down, ex nihilo, so much as evolved that way iteratively by individual men in power.

  50. Schala says

    “One of the ways feminists fight patriarchy is by fighting rigid gender roles for men and women. Why are MRAs only interested in fighting rigid gender roles for men?”

    Because feminism is not fighting to help men get free of their rigid gender role.

    Example of the rigid gender role of men:

    -Can’t be a victim (of anything), at best you’ll be acknowledged, but likely be told it’s your own fault. No compassion. No services for male victims. And ignoring half of victims contributes to the cycle of violence.

    -Seen as intimidating/scary/worth fearing and also not needing immediate help regardless of truth (ie being beaten up, people won’t interrupt your assaulter).

    -Seen as unsuited to kids, even their own. As such if they have any interest in working close to kids (daycare, elementary school) they’ll be viewed with extra suspicion (and it’s enough to turn many off the very possibility of working there). Also gets child custody less than 10% of the time.

    How is feminism fighting just those 3 points?

    -VAWA selects to care only about female victims of male perpetrators. Outright ignores men’s gender role issue of being invisible victims, and women being invisible perpetrators (it’s also part of the reason which makes traditionalists reluctant to have women in the military – they’re seen as UNABLE to do harm, since they’re never punished fairly for the harm they actually do – it’s an agency thing, you can do evil, you can do good or you can’t do evil, you can’t do good – without agency stuff “happens to you”, but you can’t affect things).

    -Shroedinger’s rapist covers point two, as well as empathy apartheid where the only victims worth saving in the nick of time are women. It’s seen acceptable, even “safe” to profile on the basis of sex and see men only as potential predators. Which contributes to giving a free pass to women who are predators. No one worries about them.

    -Nothing to diminish the sex-selective pedophilia hype. Nothing to show that boys and men can take care or kids without being predators. Heck, most people are reluctant for weird essentialist reasons to hire a male babysitter. Not considered a problem by feminism. And the custody? NOW is against the presumption of shared parenting after a separation or divorce. NOW represents feminism, in as much as if others were against that, their voice’s weight would make them reconsider, I hope. We can say until next year that “patriarchy burdens women with parenthood”, feminism agrees with it apparently.

  51. Schala says

    “And men scoffing at the idea of women fighting on the front lines never happened, did it? Men never chided women for trying to go to university, or denied them meritocratous access to the cultural spheres of writing or art, or chastised them for not being home barefoot and pregnant? Those tropes never happened?”

    That’s some stupid “my role is better than yours” talk, where some people, not content with identifying as their sex, need to convince even others that their sex has the better deal, and they’re the bestest of the best.

    Women are not immune to do this about morality, nurturing, caring, gentleness, kindness, true love, romance. The same women those men you think of probably married.

  52. Gen, Uppity Ingrate. says

    @ Schala, 61

    Many and mainstream are not synonymous.

    That’s true. So let me ask you: can you meet the <a href="http://manboobz.forummotion.com/t130-mras-take-the-manboobz-challengeManboobz challenge? That is:

    This is an open challenge to MRAs (or, really, anyone) to provide a link to a reasonable MRA writer. Is David misrepresenting the MRM? Is he cherry-picking the bad and ignoring the good? Then tell us where the good is!

    Rules and Stipulations
    “Reasonable” means:
    -This person must never advocate, applaud, or excuse violence.
    -This person must not express misogyny, homophobia, racism, transphobia, or other forms of bigotry.
    -This person must not advocate “traditional gender roles” as a solution to the world’s woes.
    -This person must not deny the existence of historical and current discrimination against women.
    -This person must be on balance pro-male rather than anti-female.

    “MRA writer” means:
    -This person must identify as a Men’s Rights Activist.
    -This person must have a reasonable blog, or have written several reasonable articles; one reasonable blog post is not enough.
    -This person must have a following (they don’t have to be a major figure, but they have to have some commenters and links) that identify themselves as Men’s Rights Activists.

    So in this case the MRA have BOTH many AND mainstream advocates of incest, pedophelia (or at least ephebophilia, rape, domestic violence and other abuse and forms of violence and all kinds of other atrocities. So far as I know, no MRA site has passed the manboobz challenge yet.

    None.

    So yes, what you said about some feminists and the horrible things they believe is true.

    There are horribly transphobic (and racist! and ableist! and all other kinds of bigoted!) feminists out there, and some of them even used to be quite popular and mainstream. However, this is increasingly changing within the movement, where those ignoring intersectionality (including the racist and transphobic) are becoming more and more marginalized and obsolete.

    So I completely agree with the fact that all feminists aren’t perfect, but as movements, feminism and the MRA aren’t even in the same universe here.

  53. daniellavine says

    Schala@65:

    Because feminism is not fighting to help men get free of their rigid gender role.

    Bullshit. Feminism and feminists have everything to do with me understanding I have no obligation to adhere to our culture’s version of the male gender role. I’ve been much happier and more confident as a result of applying feminist concepts to my everyday life — the ones so many (self-identified since we’re playing “no true MRA” today) MRAs scream about being totally made up like patriarchy and privilege.

    -Can’t be a victim (of anything), at best you’ll be acknowledged, but likely be told it’s your own fault. No compassion. No services for male victims. And ignoring half of victims contributes to the cycle of violence.

    Are you saying this attitude is common among feminists in particular? Because I’ve seen plenty of instances of men relating victimization stories in feminist safe spaces and getting tons of love and support.

    Or are you saying institutionally there’s no compassion and no services for male victims? Well no fucking shit. That’s exactly what feminists are trying to fight.

    -Seen as intimidating/scary/worth fearing and also not needing immediate help regardless of truth (ie being beaten up, people won’t interrupt your assaulter).

    1. Some men are intimidating/scary/worth fearing. Some men go out of their way to give others reasons to be afraid and they don’t look obviously different from the good ones.
    2. That’s bullshit, I’ve seen plenty of fights between dudes broken up. Not in “guy” cultures like college fraternities but among decent human beings that’s a pretty common reaction to a fight.

    -Seen as unsuited to kids, even their own. As such if they have any interest in working close to kids (daycare, elementary school) they’ll be viewed with extra suspicion (and it’s enough to turn many off the very possibility of working there). Also gets child custody less than 10% of the time.

    Another thing feminists are fighting and will gladly join with the MRAs with if, ya know, the MRAs stop screaming about how feminists are such man-hating hypocrites.

    You seem to be making a completely undeserved blanket accusation about feminists without bothering to actually talk to any on the subjects about which you’re concerned. All of these items are absolutely things feminists care about and fight against.

  54. Schala says

    Glenn Sacks is considered a MRA by many…except for the Manboobz challenge, whereas we ask wether he REALLY identifies as a MRA.

    I’m considered a MRA by many (because I disagree with certain feminist tenets, namely the concept of patriarchy or the unidirectionality of gender privilege), but I don’t identify as one. I used to identify as a feminist, but I pretty much got thrown out over my disagreements (while Mary Daly and Germaine Greer can treat trans women like shit, they won’t be thrown out).

    I don’t identify with any one official group. I’m an egalitarian, and I’d be a feminist if it also was. I support men’s rights initiatives where they’re needed, I don’t endorse what they say about everything and don’t visit their sites regularly. I do the same with women’s rights initiatives and their sites. My stance would make me a pariah to both groups, so I prefer to hang in the limbo of blogosphere where the egalitarians meet, occasionally commenting elsewhere.

    “So I completely agree with the fact that all feminists aren’t perfect, but as movements, feminism and the MRA aren’t even in the same universe here.”

    MRAs are where feminism was in the 2nd wave. They need to be angry to even be heard. 3rd wave feminism doesn’t need to, so it toned it down a couple notches. If MRAs did that, they’d be made irrelevant. It needs to become somewhat accepted until the moderates can take over and not just be the wise voice amongst the crazies.

    Misogyny within the MRM needs to be dealt with, and same with misandry within feminism. It’s counter-productive and can/probably will be taken as provocation if they are endorsed.

    Feminism’s mainstream endorsement of racism provoked the birth of womanism.
    Feminism’s mainstream endorsement of transphobia provoked the birth of trans feminism.
    Feminism’s mainstream endorsement of misandry provoked the birth of the MRM and egalitarians (like me)

    You could say I’m a trans egalitarian, as I also advocate for trans people and non-binary people, and use my personal experience as a point of view to advocate for egalitarian gender roles and the end of their imposition on people. I also advocate for the eradication of the bad traits of feminity and masculinity, and consider that neither side has a monopoly on the badness of traits.

    I’m not considered a writer. I’ve been posting comments online on gender-related blogs since 2005 (starting with Alas, a blog), but only have a personal blog with 2 posts I’m unlikely to touch again. I write walls of text about certain topics, but I’m not fit to write articles.

  55. daniellavine says

    (because I disagree with certain feminist tenets, namely the concept of patriarchy or the unidirectionality of gender privilege),

    Can you name one instance of “female privilege” that isn’t actually based on a stereotype of women? For example, women routinely get custody even in cases where they clearly shouldn’t because of a cultural expectation that a woman should be caring and nurturing.

    What is there to doubt about the concept of patriarchy? Every step of the way from The Iliad to Fifty Shades of Gray our civilization has been a patriarchal one based on male-dominance hierarchies and subjugation of women. Where do you think the “rigid male gender roles” you were just complaining about come from in the first place? Or the assumptions that women are naturally carers and nurturers?

    Feminism’s mainstream endorsement of misandry provoked the birth of the MRM and egalitarians (like me)

    I have not personally experienced any feminist advocating for misandry so I find it rather hard to believe it’s “mainstream” for feminism. Or perhaps we have different views on what constitutes “misandry”.

  56. daniellavine says

    Incidentally, Schala, I’ve seen a hell of a lot of feminists making the same complaints about transphobia within feminism that you’re making. Are you capable of making similar criticisms of MRAs?

  57. Schala says

    “Bullshit. Feminism and feminists have everything to do with me understanding I have no obligation to adhere to our culture’s version of the male gender role. I’ve been much happier and more confident as a result of applying feminist concepts to my everyday life — the ones so many (self-identified since we’re playing “no true MRA” today) MRAs scream about being totally made up like patriarchy and privilege.”

    A central point to fighting gender roles, maybe THE central point, is agency.

    Agency is free will, the ability to do good, to invent, to create, to destroy, to do harm, to do evil. We’re seen as lacking in agency when we’re seen as victims, and in many cases this might be true (nothing we did provoked whatever bad stuff happened).

    To solve gender roles, we need to diminish the recognition of men’s agency (who are considered invincible (never victims) responsible-for-everything people) to allow for stuff they’re not responsible for (like DV, rape, etc, amongst others, but also poverty). We also need to increase the recognition of women’s agency (who are considered too weak, too ineffectual fragile things who are responsible-for-nothing either good or bad) to allow for being punished for crimes they make on a fair basis, but also be considered suitable for responsibility-positions in work and such (if you have no agency, you’re no leader, as then your capacity to change/lead things is zero).

    Feminism is reluctant to recognize women as perpetrators of rape, of DV, violence in general, and influence in the perpetuation of gender roles. As such, it’s reluctant to recognize the agency of women, and shoots itself in the foot if they want women at the top positions. They won’t be qualified in the eyes of the voters who believe in those gender roles.

    “Are you saying this attitude is common among feminists in particular? Because I’ve seen plenty of instances of men relating victimization stories in feminist safe spaces and getting tons of love and support.

    Or are you saying institutionally there’s no compassion and no services for male victims? Well no fucking shit. That’s exactly what feminists are trying to fight.”

    Who invented the Duluth model, who made VAWA female-centric? Enough said. A group fighting for true equality would have made shelters for both men and women (either co-ed or two different) to eradicate the entire problem, not just cover half of it and magically hope the other half goes away.

    “1. Some men are intimidating/scary/worth fearing. Some men go out of their way to give others reasons to be afraid and they don’t look obviously different from the good ones.
    2. That’s bullshit, I’ve seen plenty of fights between dudes broken up. Not in “guy” cultures like college fraternities but among decent human beings that’s a pretty common reaction to a fight.”

    About 1, it also applies to women, and it’s no better to stereotype all men as violent than it is to stereotype all arabs as misogynistic terrorists. Even if profiling on a 1-on-1 basis.

    I’ll be equal opportunity: I see everyone as a threat until proven otherwise. But I’m pragmatic, I don’t show it much (I have social anxiety, but I don’t walk around with a “scared shitless of you” look) as I know its likely to make people more uncomfortable. I don’t think having a vagina makes people non-threatening. I don’t think having a penis makes people more threatening. I find humans threatening, and my childhood proved it to me many dozen times.

    About 2, I’ve been saved by my brother (who likes fighting and brawls, even though he’s 2 years younger) a couple times, the rest of the time right at school? No one did a thing. They looked, or came way too late when it was already over. I didn’t even fight back. So it wasn’t being broken up in a “stop fighting you two”, but more of a “let him be, can’t you see he’s crying and in a fetal position” (yes, I was raised with the ever-fun contempt of male childhood, I enjoy the protection of female adulthood though). I was also blamed for “provoking them”, even though it was trading insults back and forth, not me starting. And we were kids, talking back is being assertive in kiddy school.

    “Another thing feminists are fighting and will gladly join with the MRAs with if, ya know, the MRAs stop screaming about how feminists are such man-hating hypocrites.”

    I don’t know if MRAs do something about it, but neither do feminists, and they say they do care about it. So I call on false advertising. I would have joined feminism on this front…if they even were fighting it. I only left feminism out of differents in ideology, not over not being egalitarian.

    “Can you name one instance of “female privilege” that isn’t actually based on a stereotype of women? For example, women routinely get custody even in cases where they clearly shouldn’t because of a cultural expectation that a woman should be caring and nurturing. ”

    Can you name one instance of male privilege that isn’t actually based on a stereotype of men? Because they ALL ARE. Seriously. EACH AND EVERYONE of privileges, male or female, is the reverse medal of its opposite. So of course, they all have drawbacks, they all come from stereotypes, and they’re used to reinforce the stereotypes.

    The custody thing is recent. More than 100 years ago, men got defacto custody after separation. This whole “women are more nurturing” seems to be a recent invention, or at least the legal implications of it. And NOW (the National Organization of *Women*) is fighting against presumed 50/50 custody starting points, on spurious grounds (assumes that all fathers are abusive). If feminism wanted to fight this “mothers are more nurturing” thing they’d agree with presumed shared custody, not fight it.

    “What is there to doubt about the concept of patriarchy? Every step of the way from The Iliad to Fifty Shades of Gray our civilization has been a patriarchal one based on male-dominance hierarchies and subjugation of women. Where do you think the “rigid male gender roles” you were just complaining about come from in the first place? Or the assumptions that women are naturally carers and nurturers?”

    The Middle East is patriarchal. Japan is mildly patriarchal. I’m sure other places exist that are bad too. The West isn’t patriarchal. It’s an oligarchy. The 1% lead, everyone follows. Men don’t have more power to change the system than women. Bill Gates has power, and he has a penis…so its a patriarchy? No way. Your patriarchy definition says it benefits men and oppressed women on purpose (a conspiracy theory). It can’t benefit just the 1% men, and shit on all other men, offer them LESS protection than non-1% women against violence, poverty, suicide. 150 years ago, the West might have been patriarchal (can’t say, I wasn’t there), not that it wasn’t also shitty to be a man (chances are, a peasant).

    “I have not personally experienced any feminist advocating for misandry so I find it rather hard to believe it’s “mainstream” for feminism. Or perhaps we have different views on what constitutes “misandry”.”

    Any feminism that advocates Shroedinger’s rapist, says with a straight face that DV is 95% male-on-female (with 4% male-on-male and a measly 1% female-on-male), that rapists are 99% men (with a funny definition that only includes those penetrated as raped – because consent doesn’t matter without being penetrated sometimes…with men), that pedophilia doesn’t exist in women, that men are wholly responsible for wars, for all violence (a willful evil act to keep women on their toes, I hear).

    Much of it is Victorianism disguised. The worst offenders are radfems. The irony in having Heart be a radfem, and previously a member of a pretty fundie Christian sect, and having the EXACT SAME VIEWS on men and trans women, can’t be lost on me. The same views (men are horrible, violent, evil, women are not, trans women are invaders, imposters) are from the same man-bad woman-good source of Victorianism.

  58. says

    You do realize that even radical feminists are schisming with the trans-exclusive ones, making a whole new acronym for them: TERFs.

    That alone should tell you that even amongst radical feminists (in the sense of fighting the root of the problem, patriarchy and rigid gender roles), there are differences of opinion, should it not? And I hope you realize there’s a whole fourth wave of feminism being built by people like those of us at this very blog network, who recognize and value intersectionality and deplore trans-misogyny and transphobia every bit as much as misogyny and homophobia.

    Yes, you and I should theoretically be natural allies, if only you’d realize the things you’re complaining about have the exact same root as the things we’re complaining about.

  59. says

    Additionally, you should understand that (with exception being made for the “women and children first” thing which I understand better now and need to one day revisit to amend), I wrote this post outlining some of the many disadvantages of being a man.

    Yes, patriarchy hurts men too. You’d be hard-pressed to point to a feminist who DOESN’T recognize this fact, but if you found one, congratulations. I’d disagree with them every bit as much as you do. I’m getting tired of these “no true MRA”/”no true feminist” games. How about you point out people you disagree with, and why, instead of generalizing to all members of a group (except where all members of a group can only be defined by that trait — e.g., MRAs who advocate for men’s rights despite the disadvantages coming from patriarchy, which they mostly deny exists)?

  60. says

    (And yes, I made that last comment in full awareness that the T-shirt in the OP talks about signals that a person is an MRA — they are not, in fact, an itemized list of things that every MRA believes, but rather excellent examples of the hypocrisy inherent in many of the arguments we get from MRAs all too often. If you’re a hypocrite in these ways, you’re probably an MRA. If you’re an MRA, you’re not necessarily a hypocrite in these ways.)

  61. daniellavine says

    Please use blockquotes if you’re going to leave walls of text.

    Agency is free will, the ability to do good, to invent, to create, to destroy, to do harm, to do evil. We’re seen as lacking in agency when we’re seen as victims, and in many cases this might be true (nothing we did provoked whatever bad stuff happened).

    I don’t see victims as lacking in agency except perhaps in the instance of victimization itself. This would seem to be your personal interpretation of “victimhood”, not a self-evident and necessary interpretation of it.

    To solve gender roles, we need to diminish the recognition of men’s agency (who are considered invincible (never victims) responsible-for-everything people) to allow for stuff they’re not responsible for (like DV, rape, etc, amongst others, but also poverty). We also need to increase the recognition of women’s agency (who are considered too weak, too ineffectual fragile things who are responsible-for-nothing either good or bad) to allow for being punished for crimes they make on a fair basis, but also be considered suitable for responsibility-positions in work and such (if you have no agency, you’re no leader, as then your capacity to change/lead things is zero).

    We need to acknowledge everyone’s agency and right thereto. Diminishing anyone’s agency sounds terrible to me. Of course, arguments I frequently see from self-identified MRAs do diminish men’s agency: the arguments that men are just “like that”, that they can’t help being creeps.

    Feminism is reluctant to recognize women as perpetrators of rape, of DV, violence in general, and influence in the perpetuation of gender roles. As such, it’s reluctant to recognize the agency of women, and shoots itself in the foot if they want women at the top positions. They won’t be qualified in the eyes of the voters who believe in those gender roles.

    This is either a lie or a claim made from complete ignorance. Again, I’ve seen a fair number of men victimized by women sharing their stories in feminist spaces and getting nothing but support as a result. How do you reconcile this with your blanket generalizations about feminism?

    Who invented the Duluth model, who made VAWA female-centric? Enough said. A group fighting for true equality would have made shelters for both men and women (either co-ed or two different) to eradicate the entire problem, not just cover half of it and magically hope the other half goes away.

    http://www.dvrc-or.org/domestic/violence/resources/C61/

    Enough said. Violence against women is a more serious problem — for some obvious fucking reasons, probably having to do with the fact that our society has been patriarchal for the last 3000 years or so.

    I would guess the point behind women’s shelters is that, besides the fact that battered women outnumber battered men by at least an order of magnitude is that it’s far more likely for a woman to be dependent on an abusive significant other for food and a place to live than the reverse.

    If men and women were already treated equally then this blind egalitarianism of yours would make good moral sense. But that’s just not the case.

    About 1, it also applies to women, and it’s no better to stereotype all men as violent than it is to stereotype all arabs as misogynistic terrorists. Even if profiling on a 1-on-1 basis.

    Are you trying to say men and women shouldn’t be careful and try to protect themselves from potentially violent people by looking for warning signs? I do try to avoid people I think may be dangerous and I reserve the right to make that determination for myself. You don’t get to tell me

    I don’t think having a vagina makes people non-threatening. I don’t think having a penis makes people more threatening. I find humans threatening, and my childhood proved it to me many dozen times.

    Try comparing stats on crimes committed by men vs. crimes committed by women. Again, if there was already parity between genders your blind egalitarianism might make some kind of sense. Welcome to the real world, BTW.

    About 2, I’ve been saved by my brother (who likes fighting and brawls, even though he’s 2 years younger) a couple times, the rest of the time right at school? No one did a thing. They looked, or came way too late when it was already over. I didn’t even fight back

    Unless you’re trying to blame this on feminists as well I fail to see the relevance.

    I don’t know if MRAs do something about it, but neither do feminists, and they say they do care about it. So I call on false advertising. I would have joined feminism on this front…if they even were fighting it. I only left feminism out of differents in ideology, not over not being egalitarian.

    To which I can only say “bullshit”. You’re making a lot of statements from sheer ignorance.

    The custody thing is recent. More than 100 years ago, men got defacto custody after separation. This whole “women are more nurturing” seems to be a recent invention, or at least the legal implications of it. And NOW (the National Organization of *Women*) is fighting against presumed 50/50 custody starting points, on spurious grounds (assumes that all fathers are abusive). If feminism wanted to fight this “mothers are more nurturing” thing they’d agree with presumed shared custody, not fight it.

    First, given how full of shit you’ve been so far I’d appreciate a link to some evidence for this. Second of all, NOW isn’t the church of feminism. It doesn’t decide what is or isn’t doctrine the way the Catholic church does.

    The Middle East is patriarchal. Japan is mildly patriarchal. I’m sure other places exist that are bad too. The West isn’t patriarchal. It’s an oligarchy. The 1% lead, everyone follows. Men don’t have more power to change the system than women. Bill Gates has power, and he has a penis…so its a patriarchy? No way. Your patriarchy definition says it benefits men and oppressed women on purpose (a conspiracy theory). It can’t benefit just the 1% men, and shit on all other men, offer them LESS protection than non-1% women against violence, poverty, suicide. 150 years ago, the West might have been patriarchal (can’t say, I wasn’t there), not that it wasn’t also shitty to be a man (chances are, a peasant).

    Goddamn you’re thick.

    When did men get the right to vote? When did women? When did spousal rape start being considered rape at all? What percentage of the 1% is made up of women? How many women senators are there? Women congressmen? How many women presidents have there been? How long has it been possible for women to serve as priests in any church? In what percentage of churches are women allowed to serve as priests?

    We do in fact live in a patriarchal culture. You can only deny that by ignoring 3000 years of western history.

    Any feminism that advocates Shroedinger’s rapist,

    You misunderstand Schroedinger’s rapist. Seriously, if you take any offense at all — if you feel like it’s an accusation that “all men are rapists” — then you’re either trying to take offense or you just don’t get it at all.

    It’s very simple. You can’t tell a rapist from a non-rapist just by looking at someone. That’s all it means. I have a very hard time finding people who think otherwise to be arguing in good faith.

    says with a straight face that DV is 95% male-on-female (with 4% male-on-male and a measly 1% female-on-male),

    I cited some statistics and those weren’t them. Do you have favorite statistics you like to use?

    that rapists are 99% men (with a funny definition that only includes those penetrated as raped – because consent doesn’t matter without being penetrated sometimes…with men),

    I agree that the issue is consent and not penetration.

    that pedophilia doesn’t exist in women,

    Who could possibly claim that?

    that men are wholly responsible for wars,

    Well, if you replace “wholly” with “mostly” that’s actually true. How many women presidents have we had again? But I don’t see anyone arguing that men are wholly responsible for wars.

    for all violence (a willful evil act to keep women on their toes, I hear).

    The statistics do say men are responsible for the vast majority and I don’t see anyone literally arguing that all violence is caused by men.

    Your arguments seem mostly aimed at straw men.

  62. daniellavine says

    The Middle East is patriarchal. Japan is mildly patriarchal. I’m sure other places exist that are bad too. The West isn’t patriarchal. It’s an oligarchy. The 1% lead, everyone follows. Men don’t have more power to change the system than women. Bill Gates has power, and he has a penis…so its a patriarchy? No way. Your patriarchy definition says it benefits men and oppressed women on purpose (a conspiracy theory). It can’t benefit just the 1% men, and shit on all other men, offer them LESS protection than non-1% women against violence, poverty, suicide. 150 years ago, the West might have been patriarchal (can’t say, I wasn’t there), not that it wasn’t also shitty to be a man (chances are, a peasant).

    Incidentally this is a laughably simplistic view of social power.

    By this argument racism doesn’t exist either. It’s just the 1% shitting on white, black, and brown alike, right? There couldn’t possible be any other power structures within our society besides class. I mean, I’m sure there can’t. Because, well, I can’t think of any and I’m super super smart.

    Do you think there’s no such thing as racism?

  63. daniellavine says

    Schala, in the interest of fairness, let me do this. People have already in this thread requested links to whatever you would like to offer as the worthwhile aspect of the MRM. That is, if you know of any particularly good MR bloggers or forums who aren’t simply anti-feminist but actually pro-MR and egalitarian at the same time please share.

    If you can do that for me and I’m impressed by what I see I’ll happily cop to making unfair generalizations about MRAs. But if you can’t I’d appreciate an admission that you’re making unfair generalizations about feminists. I’d also appreciate if you could answer my direct questions to you:
    1. Are you capable of criticizing the MRM the way feminists have demonstrated they will criticize the feminist movement (say, over treatment of trans folk)?
    2. Where do you like to get your statistics on domestic violence, etc.?
    3. Specifically how does NOW oppose fair custody hearings?
    4. Do you really believe racism does not exist?

  64. Schala says

    I don’t know the code for quotes, is it quote, or blockquote? It’s never evident or obvious. I love “quote buttons”, because that way there’s no guessing, the code itself will tell you.

  65. daniellavine says

    It’s “blockquote” in angle brackets, that’s consistent on FTB at least I think.

    I hear what you’re saying about the buttons though I always seem to screw those up and end up with major format fail. But you’re absolutely right that format tags change a lot venue to venue.

  66. rnilsson says

    Broken @31: Maybe your à propos, aplomb and concentration could have been improved somewhat upon by letting go of le baton for just a minute?

    First my ideas of nothing wrong do not apply to gender at all. I feel an adult man having sex with an underage girl is just as bad as an adult woman having sex with an underage girl. Ditto for same sex engagements.

    Or perhaps by simply letting go of robe and alba. Your show is slipping.

  67. Schala says

    I don’t see victims as lacking in agency except perhaps in the instance of victimization itself. This would seem to be your personal interpretation of “victimhood”, not a self-evident and necessary interpretation of it.

    They didn’t have a hand in causing their victimization instance, in short it’s not their fault. Being presumed lacking in agency when being a victim can be appreciated, as the alternative is being blamed for it.

    We need to acknowledge everyone’s agency and right thereto. Diminishing anyone’s agency sounds terrible to me. Of course, arguments I frequently see from self-identified MRAs do diminish men’s agency: the arguments that men are just “like that”, that they can’t help being creeps.

    You might be confusing the right-wing traditionalist men with MRAs. Few MRAs are right-wing. Most are libertarian or left-leaning. Men are currently presumed to be responsible, and causing, of everything that ever happens to them. Losing their job, becoming homeless, being poor, being discriminated against on the basis of sex, etc. Also stuff they have been coerced into, if they don’t defend themselves when victimized (ie men can’t be raped because they’d fight back, those who don’t fight back are defacto “not real men”, and also don’t deserve police help, who will laugh at you being raped by a woman).

    Ideally, they’d only be responsible for stuff they actually cause. This is the reverse of being thought of as having little agency, we think you couldn’t possibly have done this evil thing, look for someone else (probably a man) to blame. When two adults are caught abusing kids sexually, if one is a man, he gets the brunt of the punishment – regardless of actual involvment, because of our gender role presumption and man-bad woman-good system of justice (10% of convicted murderer men are in death row, 2% of convicted murderer women, and there is sentence disparity at all levels (exactly similar crimes punished differently), for all crimes, everywhere in the US and Canada).

    This is either a lie or a claim made from complete ignorance. Again, I’ve seen a fair number of men victimized by women sharing their stories in feminist spaces and getting nothing but support as a result. How do you reconcile this with your blanket generalizations about feminism?

    Why is there no men’s shelters, or recognition that the Duluth model is flawed? Men’s violence against women is not solely a means of controlling women out of a conspiracy allied with all men without them even knowing – it’s about one person (man or woman) feeling they’re losing control, and imposing it on others to feel better – a maladaptive mechanism of defense. Substance abuse makes it worse. The Duluth Model completely ignores all other types of violence.

    http://www.dvrc-or.org/domestic/violence/resources/C61/

    Enough said. Violence against women is a more serious problem — for some obvious fucking reasons, probably having to do with the fact that our society has been patriarchal for the last 3000 years or so.

    I would guess the point behind women’s shelters is that, besides the fact that battered women outnumber battered men by at least an order of magnitude is that it’s far more likely for a woman to be dependent on an abusive significant other for food and a place to live than the reverse.

    If men and women were already treated equally then this blind egalitarianism of yours would make good moral sense. But that’s just not the case.

    I looked up your link, and it says that

    Between 600,000 and 6 million women are victims of domestic violence each year, and between 100,000 and 6 million men, depending on the type of survey used to obtain the data.

    So from 15 to 50% of victims are men, depending on if we count arrest rates (100k vs 600k) or just self-report (6 mil vs 6 mil).

    “is a more serious problem” should not even matter. A problem is a problem is a problem. Let’s fix it all. Not justify us not fixing half of it. Leaving victims hanging because stuff that happened millenia before their birth is simply revenge that makes no sense.

    And it continues the cycle of abuse: Not all victims go on to abuse for sure, but most abusers are previous victims. Feeling society is shitting on you and letting you rot (no help or even recognition that you were abused) is not a recipe to making people compassionate once it’s their turn having power (hence we see how power disparity abuse is repeated on the lower rung at every step of the ladder, by some – and btw power is situational most of the time).

    And wether 15 or 50% of victims, the male victims are not ” an order of magnitude” less than the female victims. Men will have reason to underreport, police training is likely to arrest them even if they’re the victim, or to do nothing at all, and men with children are pretty much stuck – if they leave with the children its kidnapping, and no shelter for them.

    Oh and trans men are women are double-shitted on because the staff won’t know how to treat them. I made some people “uncomfortable” in a homeless-transition co-ed shelter, so I had to have my own room, couldn’t room with men (I don’t want) or cis women (they don’t want). That’s if they are even accepted in the shelter in the first place. I have my doubts for battered shelters and trans women. Trans men might be accepted but required to look more feminine.

    Are you trying to say men and women shouldn’t be careful and try to protect themselves from potentially violent people by looking for warning signs? I do try to avoid people I think may be dangerous and I reserve the right to make that determination for myself. You don’t get to tell me

    This can easily be done without profiling just men. Suspect everyone for warning signs. Being presumed the owner of a penis is not a warning sign. Having a beard is not a warning sign. Wearing a turban is nor a warning sign. See where I’m going?

    Try comparing stats on crimes committed by men vs. crimes committed by women. Again, if there was already parity between genders your blind egalitarianism might make some kind of sense. Welcome to the real world, BTW.

    Being male is the single characteristic making you more likely to be a victims of violent crime (assault, aggravated assault, mugging, murder), except for rape, where the risk is about equal (see CDC last 12 month stats, equal rates of rape). There is a somewhat slight majority of male rapists as opposed to female rapists. It’s nonsense to ignore 30-40% of the risk because you have sympathy for them, but not the other portion of people. You’d be ignoring someone who is probably risky and ignoring red flags out of sheer bias. People who do so provide a female privilege of not being suspected of violence to all women they thus not suspect, wether it’s because they think women are weaker, or because they think women are more moral.

    Btw I much prefer this privilege to the male privilege of being assumed intimidating in all circumstances. I prefer being assumed harmless in all circumstances. See, reverse side of the medal, the privileges complete each other.

    Unless you’re trying to blame this on feminists as well I fail to see the relevance.

    It’s a societal-level lack of compassion for male victims of stranger battery. As such, it should be of relevance to feminism, to fix this, to attain equality. Feminism didn’t cause this, but it does no effort towards removing it, because it focuses on women, to the exclusion of men.

    To which I can only say “bullshit”. You’re making a lot of statements from sheer ignorance.

    Name me an initiative by feminism to stop this kind of male profiling for pedophilia? Women have a LOT of power there, because the ones doing the profiling are well, women themselves. Women who hire babysitters, women who hire and work with daycare workers, women who work alongside male elementary teachers and mothers who suspect men in general when in a child-friendly area (such as a playground). Men might do some profiling themselves, but they’re way less present in those areas.

    Being generally suspicious of people working with kids can be healthy, suspecting only the men in a 90% women industry is bound to let a TON of abuse pass through.

    First, given how full of shit you’ve been so far I’d appreciate a link to some evidence for this. Second of all, NOW isn’t the church of feminism. It doesn’t decide what is or isn’t doctrine the way the Catholic church does.

    If I was Christian (I’m officially Catholic, because I didn’t “renounce” my baptism officially or crap like that, but I’m really agnostic) and letting Christian orgs do stuff I don’t agree with, and not denounce them, I’d be no better than them. Westboro Baptist Church guys would probably be denounced if they were Protestants, by Protestants not wanting to be associated with them. So I’d denounce NOW if I was a feminist and not in agreement with their views on custody. I’d try to excommunicate them if they would not renounce those views. I’d do the same with TERFs. You can’t accept haters as “just another type of feminism” without tainting feminism.

    Goddamn you’re thick.

    When did men get the right to vote? When did women? When did spousal rape start being considered rape at all? What percentage of the 1% is made up of women? How many women senators are there? Women congressmen? How many women presidents have there been? How long has it been possible for women to serve as priests in any church? In what percentage of churches are women allowed to serve as priests?

    We do in fact live in a patriarchal culture. You can only deny that by ignoring 3000 years of western history.

    Men? After WW1. Women shortly after. Owning property wasn’t representing most families, even less most people.

    Spousal rape. Male on female in the 60s or 70s. Female on male never.

    What percent of the 1% are men? Assuming 95% are heterosexual, and not counting kids, I’d say 47.5% are women. Because they marry, and then those women are in the 1%, they live the lifestyle of the 1% too.

    Which church? I’m agnostic, and there are many non-Catholic churches around. Also, most of the world is not religious (see: China, Japan, Canada, most of Europe). The US are weird in that regards (of still being highly religious church-goers). In Quebec province, 80% are Catholic-baptized (as am I), 3% are church-goers (and I’m obviously not in that %). I haven’t seen a priest in decades. Religion will die soon, or reform. Either way it’s going more egalitarian.

    You misunderstand Schroedinger’s rapist. Seriously, if you take any offense at all — if you feel like it’s an accusation that “all men are rapists” — then you’re either trying to take offense or you just don’t get it at all.

    It’s very simple. You can’t tell a rapist from a non-rapist just by looking at someone. That’s all it means. I have a very hard time finding people who think otherwise to be arguing in good faith.

    I don’t take personal offense. After all, I’m not a man, except to TERFs. And if you want to not ire people about it, make it gender-neutral. Look for red flags in everyone, not just men. That’s reasonable risk, the alternative is profiling.

    I cited some statistics and those weren’t them. Do you have favorite statistics you like to use?

    A DV shelter was using those statistics. Run by a feminist. I’ve also seen others use them on some blogs before, a few years back.

    Well, if you replace “wholly” with “mostly” that’s actually true. How many women presidents have we had again? But I don’t see anyone arguing that men are wholly responsible for wars.

    You can’t fault most men for one man’s decision. Bush Jr has been hated worldwide, and I bet it wasn’t 49% men who elected him vs 51% women who voted for another president.

    Who could possibly claim that?

    Mostly radfems, and members of goddess feminism or some such appellations about celebrating “divine womanhood” and how she is morally good, as opposed to men. Claiming pedophilia is 90-99% men is more common amongst mainstream feminism. The rate is more likely to be around half, maybe 60% men. It’s just not reported as often because “no women/mother would do that” is such a pervasive notion. It goes back to the Simpsons episode where the reverend’s daughter is evil, but no one suspects her. Easier to suspect the (male) troublemaker, Bart. Her femaleness is wholly part of her assumed angelic nature in that episode. And it’s also how she says she learned “she can make boys do whatever she wants”.

    The statistics do say men are responsible for the vast majority and I don’t see anyone literally arguing that all violence is caused by men.

    It would be nice to address the root cause of this violence. Might have to do with having no outlet to let out steam, and raising our kids this way (don’t cry, no one cares to help you, pull yourself by your boot straps, be independent at all costs, doctors are for sissies). It starts in the cradle if we want to effect change there. Not once they’re adults, they’ve been traumatized already, damage done.

    Schala, in the interest of fairness, let me do this. People have already in this thread requested links to whatever you would like to offer as the worthwhile aspect of the MRM. That is, if you know of any particularly good MR bloggers or forums who aren’t simply anti-feminist but actually pro-MR and egalitarian at the same time please share.

    I don’t visit MRM sites regularly. Most sites I visit are neither feminist, nor part of the MRM. So I couldn’t have links. Most their issues are valid however.

    1. Are you capable of criticizing the MRM the way feminists have demonstrated they will criticize the feminist movement (say, over treatment of trans folk)?
    2. Where do you like to get your statistics on domestic violence, etc.?
    3. Specifically how does NOW oppose fair custody hearings?
    4. Do you really believe racism does not exist?

    1. I don’t know the MRM enough to criticize the whole. I do think it has an overdose of misogyny. It would be hard to not know feminism. Unless I lived under a rock. Political platforms speak about it, the news, and political celebrities champion it. They always speak of “women and children”, and all that Victorianism at the same time though. I don’t oppose feminism as a whole, I do oppose the traditionalist strains of women-first-because-they’re-angels.

    2. Strauss and Gelles. Many studies. No DoJ report, as DV and rape is clearly underreported.

    3. They claim that allowing 50/50% presumption of shared custody will let too many abusive fathers get a hold of their kids. The MRM argument is start from there and then let abuse move it one side or another, don’t start with “mom gets it” unless mom is a crack addict, regardless of dad’s parenting.

    4. Racism does exist. Sexism is just different: It’s bidirectional in our society.

  68. Schala says

    Incidentally this is a laughably simplistic view of social power.

    By this argument racism doesn’t exist either. It’s just the 1% shitting on white, black, and brown alike, right? There couldn’t possible be any other power structures within our society besides class. I mean, I’m sure there can’t. Because, well, I can’t think of any and I’m super super smart.

    Do you think there’s no such thing as racism?

    Racism is very much driven by rich majority-white interests, and there lies the difference: absent mixed-race individuals, your family is likely to be totally considered ‘one race’ or another, but not two, or three or four. There’s very likely to be both men and women in your family though.

    And privilege flows both ways in gender privilege in the West.

    Male privilege is about being seen as more ambitious, more intimidating, more strong, more capable, more leader-like.

    Female privilege is about being seen as more moral, more kind, more nurturing, more caring, more human and more worth protecting and helping.

    Someone aiming at the top, or who swallowed capitalism notions whole might think male privileges are definitely better, but someone who valued quality of life and a safety net might think otherwise. Hitting the top is a “You get rich, and then you die” thing. Quality of life is being happy during your actual life. I’d rather work 30 hours a week and live with below middle-class comfort than to work 50 hours a week and live with high middle-class comfort.

    This might only be certain studies, but they find that there are a lot of women who would cut down their hours, stay at home, or only work part time (instead of full-time) given the financial possibility to do so. I’m not sure the men were asked the same questions.

    Sexism is enforced by both men and women, from the cradle to pre-school peers and their parents, to media, to school and the peers and teachers, to work peers and work bosses, and adult medias. You can go against the grain, but it carries penalties.

    I personally advocate finding people who like you for you, not for who they’d like you to be based on your demographic membership, but it’s nice to also be accepted by others.

    Sexism, unlike racism, seems to be a justification for theories of complementarism, even when not voiced as such. It’s a “I’m different than you” articulated in a “your group is very different than mine, and if not, I’ll make it so” that makes individuality be absorbed in group-identity because most people in the group have been indoctrinated to obsess about their group membership (so they indoctrinate the newborns into it, all the blue-pink stuff).

  69. Schala says

    Additionally, you should understand that (with exception being made for the “women and children first” thing which I understand better now and need to one day revisit to amend), I wrote this post outlining some of the many disadvantages of being a man.

    Yes, patriarchy hurts men too. You’d be hard-pressed to point to a feminist who DOESN’T recognize this fact, but if you found one, congratulations. I’d disagree with them every bit as much as you do. I’m getting tired of these “no true MRA”/”no true feminist” games. How about you point out people you disagree with, and why, instead of generalizing to all members of a group (except where all members of a group can only be defined by that trait — e.g., MRAs who advocate for men’s rights despite the disadvantages coming from patriarchy, which they mostly deny exists)?

    I only object to the “too”. Patriarchy was never designed to benefit men. Only the very very few men at the top, and their family. The women were treated as fragile baby machines (making more soldiers), and the men as cannon-fodder and tools to be broken (for the very rich to win wars). I don’t see how oppressing women would have been as designed, but oppressing men a bug. Both were features.

  70. Nepenthe says

    Female privilege is about being seen as more moral, more kind, more nurturing, more caring, more human and more worth protecting and helping.

    In a society where disembodied bits of women are used to sell shit, where there’s discussions of “legitimate rape” and where women are frequently referred to as literal things, “female privilege” is being seen as more human?

    You trolling?

    Yet one more reason to dismiss the MRM; they seem to have a micron deep understanding of power relations and sociology, even of their own planet.

  71. Nepenthe says

    Patriarchy was never designed to benefit men. Only the very very few men at the top, and their family.

    Bullshit. That’s like saying that racism doesn’t benefit white people, it just benefits rich white people. No, the poorest, most backward white tenant farmer in the South got a boost from being superior to black people, enough of a boost that he was literally willing to die for his wealthy neighbors’ ability to own them.

    Every man still gets to threaten and feel superior to women, mostly with impunity. (There may be some restriction on which women he gets to directly wield power over based on his status, but I don’t weep for the poor man who can only beat his wife and not the harass his maid as well.) Welcome to the patriarchy.

  72. daniellavine says

    @Schala:

    I’m very sorry I called you “thick”. You make some excellent points. However, things have gotten too verbose. I’m going to dispute a few particular points; they’re not the only points of disagreement but hopefully I can winnow down what we’re actually arguing about.

    I don’t take personal offense. After all, I’m not a man, except to TERFs. And if you want to not ire people about it, make it gender-neutral. Look for red flags in everyone, not just men. That’s reasonable risk, the alternative is profiling.

    “Schroedinger’s rapist” — gender neutral already. You can apply the same concept to any combination of genders. You probably got the impression the concept only applies one way because for the most part it’s used by women to explain to young men that you’re not entitled to someone’s time or good graces simply by virtue of being “nice” or “friendly” to them. Please consider the possibility that there is some actual reason why it was a woman who first designed this concept and not a man — as there’s certainly nothing about the idea itself that would preclude a man from conceiving it first. (If you can’t consider that possibility then I’m done on this topic.)

    3. They claim that allowing 50/50% presumption of shared custody will let too many abusive fathers get a hold of their kids. The MRM argument is start from there and then let abuse move it one side or another, don’t start with “mom gets it” unless mom is a crack addict, regardless of dad’s parenting.

    Yes, based on a press release I found they make the argument that joint custody can be used as a sort of weapon by the abuser against the victim. But I can’t help but notice that their argument is, like Schroedinger’s rapist, entirely gender neutral:

    Of the five percent of custody cases that do involve courtroom battles, at least three quarters of them involve domestic violence. Abusers often use ongoing, costly litigation – seeking joint or sole custody – as a tactic to continue the abuse and to punish the mother for leaving.

    We all know that abusers don’t make good role models or good parents and Sacks and McCormick agree that mandatory joint custody should not apply in these cases. That means they are promoting mandatory arrangements that will hamstring the choices of almost all separating families in order to benefit, at most, only 1.25% of them.

    But even in cases without abuse, judges still need the flexibility to protect the safety and best interests of the children when a parent is alcoholic, a drug abuser, a hardened criminal, or when children are the product of one-night stands, rape or incest. Neither NOW NYS nor StopFamilyViolence.org support legislation that would tie judges’ hands in these or other difficult family situations.

    I don’t see anything singling out either particular gender there at all. I mean, I accept your argument that women are every bit as capable of abusing as they are of being abused — but this only implies that NOW’s argument is bidirectional. After all, this is only an argument against joint custody — it is in no way an argument against giving both parents a fair hearing in who will obtain sole custody. NOW’s position does not seem to be in opposition to judges using their discretion to decide fairly which parent will get sole custody (perhaps with visitation). So why the presumption that this position favors women?

    Well, because we all know judges prefer to give custody to the woman. Right? Is that NOW’s fault? Is it a moral failing on the judge’s part? Or is it perhaps the fact that the judges somehow have this notion that parenting is women’s work? Where might they have gotten this idea?

    Men? After WW1. Women shortly after. Owning property wasn’t representing most families, even less most people.

    Spousal rape. Male on female in the 60s or 70s. Female on male never.

    What percent of the 1% are men? Assuming 95% are heterosexual, and not counting kids, I’d say 47.5% are women. Because they marry, and then those women are in the 1%, they live the lifestyle of the 1% too.

    You’re factually wrong about “after WW1″ — the property requirement was abolished by 1850. The point I’m making is women’s rights have been taken much less seriously than men’s within the past 150 years contrary to your argument. In fact that’s still true. I hope you haven’t closed your mind completely to the possibility because it is very easy to let confirmation bias blind us to what was right under our noses.

    Do you think all the spouses of the 1% share equally in both the money and the social power they wield? “Living the lifestyle” isn’t relevant — you’re trying to argue that social control is mediated through the 1%, not that the 1% have a really wonderful lifestyle. You don’t think there is perhaps a preponderance of male leadership within the 1% reflecting the preponderance of male leadership

    4. Racism does exist. Sexism is just different: It’s bidirectional in our society.

    I think you must have a grievous misunderstanding of the term “patriarchy” as it is being used in this context. It designates societies in which the family unit, not necessarily the state itself, is traditionally headed by a man. There are common features of patriarchal societies — dowries for example. In short, “patriarchy” describes a culture in which women are presumed to be subservient to men.

    You deny such a thing exists while at the same exact time affirming it:

    To solve gender roles, we need to diminish the recognition of men’s agency (who are considered invincible (never victims) responsible-for-everything people) to allow for stuff they’re not responsible for (like DV, rape, etc, amongst others, but also poverty). We also need to increase the recognition of women’s agency (who are considered too weak, too ineffectual fragile things who are responsible-for-nothing either good or bad) to allow for being punished for crimes they make on a fair basis, but also be considered suitable for responsibility-positions in work and such (if you have no agency, you’re no leader, as then your capacity to change/lead things is zero).

    This is exactly what feminists are talking about when they talk about patriarchy. That’s also why patriarchy hurts men too — they aren’t allowed to admit to being victims, they aren’t allowed to seek help and support — because it’s considered womanly.

    You say it’s “bidirectional”, but while there may be a few respects in which the dichotomy is “two sides of the same medal” I think there’s a few common dichotomies that put the lie to this:
    -Men are important, women are frivolous
    -Men are competent, women are not
    -Men are shrewd and logical, women are flighty and emotional
    They’re even more insidious when they’re subtly assumed rather than asserted outright — and they are most often subtly assumed. Because the gender roles we acquire from our patriarchal culture become part of our identity and therefore hard to see objectively.

    In other words, when you say that you want “to solve gender roles” you’re telling me exactly the same thing that my feminist friends tell me. The assertive-man-in-charge/demure-wife-at-home gender roles that predominate in our culture are harmful — to everyone, men and women. Note that this same idea seems to be why judges tend to award custody to men — or at least seems so to me.

    So I think we actually agree on a lot of points (I haven’t gone over many points we agree on but we do), but we do have this language barrier where you’re attaching bad icky feelings to the terms “patriarchy”, “sexism”, and “Schroedinger’s rapist” rather than trying to understand what people actually mean by the terms — because you do seem to understand and accept the concepts of patriarchy and sexism but you’re violently rejecting the labels.

  73. daniellavine says

    Then drop the “too”. “Patriarchy hurts men.” Nothing new. There’s always been slaves.

    Nepenthe’s got a great point, though — we haven’t yet talked about objectification of women. I think it would be hard to argue that women aren’t objectified more than men are in our culture, and I think that has to do with the subtle attitudes I just mentioned — that women are frivolous, incompetent, and generally unimportant.

  74. daniellavine says

    @Nepenthe:

    Schala seems to have mostly disavowed the MRM. She (I think that’s established at this point?) has a somewhat different perspective but I think not quite so wrong-headed as she might first come across.

    Your point about racism positioning poor whites over blacks being analogous to sexism positioning men over women — in terms of social power dynamics if nothing else, can you admit that much Schala? — was also quite good.

  75. Schala says

    In a society where disembodied bits of women are used to sell shit, where there’s discussions of “legitimate rape” and where women are frequently referred to as literal things, “female privilege” is being seen as more human?

    In India where a law is to be passed against rape, women’s groups argue *against* the POSSIBILITY that male victims of rape could even be counted as a crime, because they might accuse women of raping them. Beat that for rape apologism. “We don’t even want the possibility of it being recognized” is hard to beat. I rarely find it so flagrant I’ll admit, even by “He should consider himself lucky!” people.

    Every man still gets to threaten and feel superior to women, mostly with impunity. (There may be some restriction on which women he gets to directly wield power over based on his status, but I don’t weep for the poor man who can only beat his wife and not the harass his maid as well.) Welcome to the patriarchy.

    Everyone can “feel superior” to others, it’s called superiority complex. Men get to think they’re physically stronger and more daring, women get to think they’re more romantic, more loving and more empathic. And most people who profess “my gender is better at this” DO feel superior to the other sex for it. It’s not unique to men.

    You probably got the impression the concept only applies one way because for the most part it’s used by women to explain to young men that you’re not entitled to someone’s time or good graces simply by virtue of being “nice” or “friendly” to them.

    The blog where I read about it made it quite clear it was women’s fear of men, just men. And it went further than just being nice or friendly. It said that you should keep distances from strange women in the street, because otherwise you could scare them and it would be your fault. This goes a bit too far for my taste. Most women I assume are not overly paranoiac. I can be scared at night too, but I don’t expect others to wear gloves around me for it. It’s on me.

    I don’t see anything singling out either particular gender there at all. I mean, I accept your argument that women are every bit as capable of abusing as they are of being abused — but this only implies that NOW’s argument is bidirectional.

    Many points there:

    1) Women get custody by default in most post-divorce court proceedings, men are often counseled to let it go, because they have no chance to win (she’s not a crack addict, so she’ll win anyway) or because of cost (not everyone is rich, and if you’re gonna lose, it’s a waste).

    2) I seriously doubt that 75% of contested custody are with DV. And fabricated DV is common during proceedings just to “win”, because the allegations don’t need to be proven to have weight in court. Even if proven false later, too late to affect custody.

    3) I do expect that most divorcing parents are not with “fathers who don’t care or who are abusers only” as seem to be what NOW expects.

    It might be neutral in law, but not in application, similar to DV. Fun fact about DV arrests is that some people expect the 15/85 rate so much that if more women are arrested, they’ll retrain the staff to keep those rates. Because it’s “the natural occurring rate” or something.

    You’re factually wrong about “after WW1″ — the property requirement was abolished by 1850. The point I’m making is women’s rights have been taken much less seriously than men’s within the past 150 years contrary to your argument. In fact that’s still true. I hope you haven’t closed your mind completely to the possibility because it is very easy to let confirmation bias blind us to what was right under our noses.

    I’ll admit I was wrong with the vote thing. I don’t live in the US, but I thought it was a 1914 or 1918 thing.

    Men’s right to consent is pretty inexistent even nowadays though. The FBI certainly doesn’t count it as rape. Within or without marriage, stereotypes about “always wanting it” make him immune to not wanting it in the eyes of many.

    Do you think all the spouses of the 1% share equally in both the money and the social power they wield? “Living the lifestyle” isn’t relevant — you’re trying to argue that social control is mediated through the 1%, not that the 1% have a really wonderful lifestyle. You don’t think there is perhaps a preponderance of male leadership within the 1% reflecting the preponderance of male leadership

    The 1% use their money, power, and influence to benefit themselves their rich friends and their own family. So yes they share in the money and social power, since they all benefit.

    There is more incentive to male leadership and being rich-while-male. A woman can marry into being rich if she’s lucky. A man is more attractive if he’s rich (to many women), a woman not as much (at least not worth the effort). A man could decide to strike it rich just to become more popular, while he’d personally be content with living decently. And as male privilege, the ambitious ones are rewarded, presumption of competence and of more-leadership, for those so-inclined (not most people, even most men – most people are fine with being sheeps or lone wolves, few want the headmaster’s spot, they want the privileges of the spot).

    I think you must have a grievous misunderstanding of the term “patriarchy” as it is being used in this context. It designates societies in which the family unit, not necessarily the state itself, is traditionally headed by a man. There are common features of patriarchal societies — dowries for example. In short, “patriarchy” describes a culture in which women are presumed to be subservient to men.

    There’s a running gag here, that men are whipped by their wives and girlfriends, and don’t do their own interests but instead bow down to their wives or girlfriends, even going so far as asking to have the permission to laugh at a joke. Happy wife happy life, is a proverb about it. Who is subservient depends on the relationship. Submissives in the sexual domain are the ones who have the power you know. They decide where the limits are, and “have stuff done on them”. It’s only in femdom fantasy that relies on humiliation of men who are not-so-bad-anymore and “getting them down to the level of women” (it’s very misogynist AND misandrist in nature imo) that the submissives have zero power.

    There’s also a saying that women let men *think* they’re leading, while leading for real behind their backs. Sometimes true manipulation, sometimes a good natured joke. For certain, in the West, the whole “men lead their families” has died a good death, long ago. Men are cast away from their families and become ATMs, that’s not patriarchy.

    I don’t intend to ever have children. I’m not fit to raise any. I don’t want any (and I physically can’t have any, thankfully). And what an ugly world to raise a kid in anyways. This might be just a transition state between fixed gender roles and something better, but for now, we’re in limbo with LTRs being shit for a majority of people.

    This is exactly what feminists are talking about when they talk about patriarchy. That’s also why patriarchy hurts men too — they aren’t allowed to admit to being victims, they aren’t allowed to seek help and support — because it’s considered womanly.

    Wrong. They can’t ask help because to ask help is to fail maleness. Femaleness allows for asking for help. Maleness doesn’t. You can go high, but no safety net. Needing a net means you’re not worth the net for a man. It’s considered their own fault for whatever they are victim of. Since they caused it, they can’t get help, so it goes.

    You say it’s “bidirectional”, but while there may be a few respects in which the dichotomy is “two sides of the same medal” I think there’s a few common dichotomies that put the lie to this:
    -Men are important, women are frivolous
    -Men are competent, women are not
    -Men are shrewd and logical, women are flighty and emotional

    -Men can have important jobs (doing), women are inherently important (being).

    -Men are competent in stuff involving machines and money (also called systemic), women are competent in stuff involving people and caring (also called empathic).

    -Men are pragmatic working-class people need to dress for the practical only, women are aristocrats, need to dress to impress, to show off (a new distinction, as it didn’t exist 150 years ago – back then it was all class, but clothing is cheap now, and work less dirty – 150 years ago, both working class sexes would have dressed for the practical, both the aristocrats sexes would have dressed to be flashy, including frilly).

    Nepenthe’s got a great point, though — we haven’t yet talked about objectification of women. I think it would be hard to argue that women aren’t objectified more than men are in our culture, and I think that has to do with the subtle attitudes I just mentioned — that women are frivolous, incompetent, and generally unimportant.

    Women are beauty objects, men are success objects (again: the doing vs being).

    That’s what social status, being rich, being a leader valued in men by women means. They value his success.

  76. Schala says

    Schala seems to have mostly disavowed the MRM. She (I think that’s established at this point?) has a somewhat different perspective but I think not quite so wrong-headed as she might first come across.

    Your point about racism positioning poor whites over blacks being analogous to sexism positioning men over women — in terms of social power dynamics if nothing else, can you admit that much Schala? — was also quite good.

    I did disavow the MRM’s more extremist fringe and it’s not palatable to me as a whole until it becomes more moderate, and she is the right pronoun.

    Men are expected to initiate (and not much alternative) and adopt a more dominant attitude, choosing date venues without asking or being prompted, etc, if that’s what you mean. Those who don’t are punished.

    Women are expected to subtly show interest, but can also initiate. Only passivity depends on the other party doing the initiating. Initiating just needs your input. They’re also expected to show a more submissive attitude (and initiating doesn’t necessarily contradict that nowadays). Those who don’t are punished. Submissive men are expected to initiate usually, including in BDSM.

    It’s possible to do backseat domination, while not appearing to dominate. Just formulate your orders not as orders, but as suggestions, in a charming enough way. Both men are women can be masters of this form of domination, if they have objections to appearing dominant, but not objections to the possible ethics of ordering people. Some people might even do this without noticing at least at first. Eventually they’d figure it out.

    Interesting fact: in BDSM, there are way more submissive men than dominant men (the same for women). It’s not cut in a men are dominant, women are submissive way, even if some assume it. In BDSM its a bit rarer to assume it, because they’re used to being ‘weird’ to mainstream in a variety of ways, weirdness of most kinds is more tolerated, especially fetishes, but also orientations, trans people, etc.

    I’d say that most people have subjects (as in video games, engineering, sewing, etc) where they’re “good enough to lead”, but most people prefer not to, even if they physically can do a decent job. Leading means having extra responsibilities. It’s “your fault” if things go bad, and if you didn’t expect something, well, you should have. Not leading means being “on the passenger seat” and being allowed to complain about stuff not being to your taste.

    It’s a big part of the “men have more agency” deal to see them as better leaders, but there’s probably no biological reason for them to be better leaders. A good leader should be impartial and meritocratic anyway. Many men who are not predisposed, or even wanting, to dominate, feel they have no choice but to try. Resulting in bad stuff for everyone. The issue probably also affects women who feel they have to tone down their leadership, but leadership-prone people are lesser in amount for both sexes anyway.

    We (society, people who want equality) should encourage female leadership, but I don’t think quotas and expectations of parity 50/50 are the way to go. Not until attitudes towards work and gender change, and women have as much incentive to hit the top than men (possibly lowering men’s a bit could help achieve this) will it happen “naturally”.

    In many countries, expectations about women and jobs, and scholarship means there’s a ton of female engineers, and women in high math courses. So it’s probably entirely cultural that women go more in nursing, less in engineering and IT. It’s both stereotype threat “girls are bad at this”, and fear of not fitting in* (going in mostly-male fields, or vice-versa for men, with an added dose of homophobia for them).

    And some dominate in just the wrong ways. Called being bossy. Having impossibly finicky standards…for no good reason. Not having the phone cord twisted in a bad manner, and checking every time you use the phone. Doing the dishes after every meal, every day, without exception (I’d be fine with once a day at a set time). I’ve had to live with one before, and it wasn’t an equal relationship (I was more or less “renting a room” to her being the real renter, my father’s new girlfriend, now wife), and definitely not a satisfying one. Felt like living with a drill sergeant.

    I “live in my mess” (reasonable mess to a young adult of say 18 – no food, glasses, cups, plates lying around, but papers can be lying on my desk, clothing on top of my room’s desk and bed unmade, with all-around cleaning after a mess, or once a month) so I didn’t do well with a neat freak. I consider my mess practical, and have no “think of the neighbors/visitors/family” concerns. They know me.

    *This fear of not fitting in is usually insecurity. Fine in a 5 years old, normal in a 12 years old. But it’s something we should outgrow. Insecure people, make fearful people, make violent people (reacting to fears), make victims.

    I think the media *wants* people to be insecure, or at least sure doesn’t work to make people more secure about themselves. The whole super-pinkification of all things girly, with Disney adding a layer with their princesses are feeding into insecurity about being one’s sex. And about the parents’ insecurity of their kid’s sex.

    Trans people are often the most insecure at the moment *right before* transition, where we expect a rain of stone and hellfire to kill us (not because it’s sin, but because bullies will come out of the woodwork and make an example of us, and no one will help – that’s the fear). But I learned to become way more secure in my femaleness than apparently most people are. I don’t feel I need to prove it to anyone anymore. I stopped wearing make-up, now wearing 1-2% of the time, not routinely like early in transition. I wear pants (about half the time, more % when very cold outside), and will wear my boyfriend’s warmer clothing even if it’s definitely male-looking clothing, if I need the warmth (I tend to not pick very warm clothing besides a winter coat). I wear sneakers with skirts, or just most of the time when out. I never owned ballerina shoes or other flats, and if I need to walk, I’ll wear sneakers. I’ll wear my 2 inch heels if its more formal, and I won’t walk (and they’re not stilettos, devil’s inventions – I can run with those heels, on ice). I also don’t care if I have frizzes (though I never did), out of my 3 feet long mane. I didn’t get long hair to transition, I got it long before, because I just really liked it (and was prevented having it long in childhood by my parents, so I had to wait to almost-18 to grow them mid-back, I’m 30 now).

    Those are small examples. I could go to a store, look ambiguous enough to be seen as possibly-male, and just laugh it off as their mistake, later, without taking it personally. My body just is very androgynous, so it can pass as either male or female with very little adjustment. I clearly identify as female, but feel no need to prove it anymore. Knowing it 100% for sure myself and having my close family know, is enough.

    I feel all adults should be as secure in their sex, so as to feel no need to prove “I’m really _____ because I can do X stereotype better than you (who is the other sex)”. It would kill a lot of sexism in the egg. Only the truly evil “women back in the kitchen, make me a sandwich” (said seriously, of course, not 4chan) people would remain, and be easy to target.

  77. Nepenthe says

    @Schala

    And once again with the “the most important thing in society is men getting laid easily”. MRAs you are so transparent. Sexual assault, objectification, pay gap, the stories told in the media, why are you silly feminists talking about stupid shit like that when I am expected to ask women out.

    Also, wtf is a success object. Are you familiar at all with what objectification is, or did you just pick that phrase because feminists have done so well with sex object? Words do mean things.

  78. garybannister says

    Oh, that’s simple. Me, being valued for my possessions, is just like a woman being valued as a possession. I’m sure y’all are reassured to know that the ladies at least have inherent worth, in the way that a diamond or a nice sports car does.

  79. Schala says

    Nepenthe, are you arguing with something made of straw?

    1) I’m not a MRA

    2) I’m not man, though yes, not being expected to initiate post-transition was a relief, as I’m socially inept. It should be unisex, like in Sweden.

    3) Objectification is viewing someone as only useful to you for one thing, wether it’s viewing the pizza delivery person as “only useful to deliver pizza to me”, viewing women as only decorative to you, and viewing men as only wallets to pay you stuff. It doesn’t refer exclusively to beauty, and “just looking” doesn’t qualify. It’s usually a mental state, by the way. If you “do something about it”, the objectionable stuff becomes whatever action you did hereafter that is reprehensible (cat-calling, manipulating, or being condescending, for example).

    Dehumanization is a very common trope for oppression, but it requires action to have meaning.

    People who want to force me in the male bathroom (in a legal way) because they fear my penis/my being trans are dehumanizing me, seeing me on another level than “human like them”, and acting accordingly. Them just thinking it is not objectionable however (and there’s no way I’d know). Them blogging about it is already an action, I can judge their speech.

    I can also truly see the pizza delivery person as there for only my enjoyment of pizza, but if I treat him humanely and decently (without condescension) , there is no harm done.

    A success object, on a societal scale, is seen as only *useful*. He does stuff. He fixes stuff. His social status is useful to you (and presumably he did stuff to acquire that social status). He buys stuff. If he become unable to do that stuff, he loses huge value.

    A beauty object, on a societal scale, is seen as only *decorative*. She takes care of her appearance, takes time and effort on it. If she has social status, it’s likely to come from looks, or a Miss contest, being a cheerleader etc. If she “lets herself go” or ages, she loses huge value.

    (Pronouns only used for the most likely case)

    Personally I opted out of either. I never really was in the success race, and I’m not in the beauty race. I have my own sense of aesthetics, which doesn’t care what most others think of it. My close family and boyfriend could potentially influence it, but that’s power I let them have over me willingly. 99.999% of society doesn’t have that power, and I won’t give it to them.

    I figured I didn’t have much to lose (harder to be more pariah than trans, though always possible), and I can’t be non-genuine for long. That’s not a path most people would even think of taking however. Most people “want to be normal”, and pariah =/ normal.

  80. JutGory says

    In response to Nepenthe @ 92,

    Schala: Women are beauty objects, men are success objects (again: the doing vs being).

    Let me re-phrase this: Women are beautiful; men are ugly; women are desirable sexually, men are loathsome.

    However, if you don’t know what a “success object” is, one might say you know little about the MRM. I won’t say that because what does it matter.

    WARNING, BLANKET GENERALIZATIONS AHEAD!:

    The idea is that men are defined by what they do. Women value powerful men. Women value men who make more money than they do (or to re-phrase: women de-value men who make less than they do). A Stay at Home Mom is admired; a Stay at Home Dad is some loser who can’t support himself. Men are judged by their job, money, and career in ways that women are not. It is the whole notion of “hypergamy.” (Not a word I made up, by the way.)

    -Jut

  81. Schala says

    Oh, that’s simple. Me, being valued for my possessions, is just like a woman being valued as a possession. I’m sure y’all are reassured to know that the ladies at least have inherent worth, in the way that a diamond or a nice sports car does.

    You’re valued as a *way* to get more possessions. Unless you’re filthy rich.

    A miner is valued as a way to get more diamonds. He’s objectified, by his employer, as a means to an end (I pay him, make profit), and dehumanization of workers is encouraged by capitalism’s profit-before-all, only limited by enforcement of employee rights laws and decent work conditions.

  82. Nepenthe says

    @gary

    Yeah, it’s really too bad that I’m devalued just for existing as an ugly women, whereas in order to be devalued you would actually have to fail at things. Shouldn’t we just worship you for being a Man? Why should you have to have a job or do anything? Why, I here nowadays women like me sometimes reject men who have failed to do anything with their lives! As if we were people! This is a human rights issue on par with systemic racism and gay bashing, I tell ya. :-p

    @Schala

    Yeah, so, that’s not what objectification is. Objectification is when a human being is cast as an object, a thing. In this case, object is the opposite of subject. An object is, a subject does. Women are valued for what they are (walking uteruses, mommies, warm holes for penises, decoration, whatever); men are valued for what they do.

    So when you say “Women are beauty objects, men are success objects (again: the doing vs being).”, you are literally saying men are not objects. As I said, words have meaning. You are not objectifying the pizza guy.

    And yes, you’ve made your point, you’re a woman. Good job? Thus I’m extra confused as to why you seem to think that men’s ability to get laid easily or not be judged by their actions is a human rights issue. I’m also not sure why you seem to think anyone cares about your sartorial habits, your relationships and your housekeeping and why you think those are relevant to feminism.

    @JutGlory

    I’m aware of what a success object is in MRM terms. I’m also aware of the generalization hamster. I’m aware of hypergamy. Doesn’t make them real things.

  83. JutGory says

    Nepenthe: “I’m aware of what a success object is in MRM terms. I’m also aware of the generalization hamster. I’m aware of hypergamy. Doesn’t make them real things.”

    I know what you mean. I feel the same way about the concepts of “patriarchy,” “privilege,” and any number of different ideas promulgated by Dogmatic Feminism.

    -Jut

  84. Gen, Uppity Ingrate. says

    I know what you mean. I feel the same way about the concepts of “patriarchy,” “privilege,” and any number of different ideas promulgated by Dogmatic Feminism.

    So can we add “science denier” to the generalized MRA Manifesto, then?

  85. Schala says

    Yeah, so, that’s not what objectification is. Objectification is when a human being is cast as an object, a thing. In this case, object is the opposite of subject. An object is, a subject does. Women are valued for what they are (walking uteruses, mommies, warm holes for penises, decoration, whatever); men are valued for what they do.

    You’re using it in the grammatical sense, that’s not how objectification theory works though.

    “This term is also used to describe the treatment of a human being as a thing, disregarding his/her personality or sentience. Philosopher Martha Nussbaum[1] has argued that something is objectified if any of the following factors are present:

    Instrumentality – if the thing is treated as a tool for one’s own purposes;
    Denial of autonomy, Inertness – if the thing is treated as if lacking in agency or self-determination;
    Ownership – if the thing is treated as if owned by another;
    Fungibility – if the thing is treated as if interchangeable;
    Violability – if the thing is treated as if permissible to damage or destroy;
    denial of subjectivity – if the thing is treated as if there is no need to show concern for the ‘object’s’ feelings and experiences.”

    Wiki to the rescue. It makes my point exactly, but might convince you better.

    Instrumentality is exactly what success object means (men only useful as tools). To an employer, most people are fungible. To people wanting anonym no strings attached sex, I guess it works too.

    Cannon-fodder is treated as if permissible to damage or destroy (conscription and to an extent stop-loss). And men in general are denied their subjectivity by society whenever they’re victims of crimes like DV or rape, that’s why men’s shelters don’t exist, showing no concern is seen as okay.

    Thus I’m extra confused as to why you seem to think that men’s ability to get laid easily or not be judged by their actions is a human rights issue. I’m also not sure why you seem to think anyone cares about your sartorial habits, your relationships and your housekeeping and why you think those are relevant to feminism.

    The ability to get laid thing, where do you even get that? I didn’t mention sex (as in the act) even once.

    I’m using myself as an example of how we could do better (not being insecure about one’s sex leads to less sexism). My personal examples give concreteness to what is otherwise a fleeting concept. They’re relevant to the concept I was answering, which is relevant to feminism. That’s how.

    I took pains to make paragraphs to make my thing readable, how can it be misinterpreted that badly?

    You also sound thousands more times more cynical than me, by the way, and I’m very misanthropic in a way (I don’t expect much of humanity, even if I hope because I’m also idealist).

  86. Schala says

    So can we add “science denier” to the generalized MRA Manifesto, then?

    You’d have to prove patriarchy, male privilege, rape culture, objectively exists, in a measurable way, with instruments and everything. I doubt it’s even possible to do, because they’re fuzzy concepts to start with.

    And the concept of privilege (male but not female existing) is tautologically justified (ie anything good that happens to men is intended, thus a privilege – anything good that happens to women is unintended side-effects, thus “benevolent sexism” – which is how Finally Feminism 101 justified the double-standard). Despite the fact that ALL privileges have drawbacks if there is a possibility besides horrible pain/death to not having the privilege. Gender privileges usually imply a sort of specialization (at home vs at-work privileged), so you lose on the non-specialized bit. And the value of each is subjective to everyone.

  87. hjhornbeck says

    Schala @96:

    A miner is valued as a way to get more diamonds. He’s objectified, by his employer, as a means to an end (I pay him, make profit), and dehumanization of workers is encouraged by capitalism’s profit-before-all, only limited by enforcement of employee rights laws and decent work conditions.

    If he was truly objectified, why does he receive sick time? Why does he get a pension? Both cost the employer something, and yet few employers don’t offer it. Any objectification is a false front, when push comes to shove they really do care.

    There’s another problem as well. A miner can stop being a miner, and thus also stop being an object. Can a woman stop being a woman?

  88. hjhornbeck says

    Schala @102:

    You’d have to prove patriarchy, male privilege, rape culture, objectively exists, in a measurable way, with instruments and everything.

    Easy! In Canada, in 2010, women earn 68 cents income for ever dollar a man earns. You can only defend that by arguing men are incompetent at raising children; would you like to take that route?

    That takes care of patriarchy and male privilege. As for rape culture, 6% of sexual assaults are reported according to StatCan. When one study asked why, 50% said the police could do nothing, 44% thought the police and courts would do nothing, and 64% were ashamed of their assault.

    Piece of cake, and all it took was a minute of searching on Google. This stuff is easy to spot, once you know what to look for!

  89. hjhornbeck says

    Schala @91:

    We (society, people who want equality) should encourage female leadership, but I don’t think quotas and expectations of parity 50/50 are the way to go. Not until attitudes towards work and gender change, and women have as much incentive to hit the top than men (possibly lowering men’s a bit could help achieve this) will it happen “naturally”.

    Gender quotas are being used in India, and they seem to be working quite well. If women are equally qualified as men, then there is no harm in artificially imposing a quota, in fact we’d expect a gain as unqualified men are kicked out in favor of better qualified (but under-appreciated) women. There would also be a much faster shift in opinion via personal experience, as the predicted disaster fails to materialize.

  90. Nepenthe says

    Schala, you keep saying that men are only useful as tools, but then you bring up examples that apply to men and women. I was unaware that women suddenly did not work or were treated as unique by their employers. I was unaware that female DV and rape victims were treated well (I sure as fuck haven’t been). I was unaware that men are being conscripted as cannon fodder in the West.

    And I’m confused as to why MRAs have not actually built men’s shelters. Well, I’m sure they’ll get around to it after a few more years of publishing threatening websites about feminists and writing essays on why women are destroying the universe by not having sex with every man who asks and by being slutty.

    So, I repeat, what is a “success object” and how are men harmed by being “success objects”? Do little boys experience drops in self-esteem immediately after reading biographies of successful men, like little girls do when looking at objectifying pictures of women? Is there an epidemic of men and boys going to self destructive lengths to be the perfect success object? Do men tend to view themselves primarily in terms of how they are useful to others?

    The ability to get laid thing, where do you even get that?

    You 250 word treatise on the subject was a slight hint. It was subtle; I’m surprised I picked up on it at all.

    Men are expected to initiate (and not much alternative) and adopt a more dominant attitude, choosing date venues without asking or being prompted, etc, if that’s what you mean. Those who don’t are punished.

    Women are expected to subtly show interest, but can also initiate. Only passivity depends on the other party doing the initiating. Initiating just needs your input. They’re also expected to show a more submissive attitude (and initiating doesn’t necessarily contradict that nowadays). Those who don’t are punished. Submissive men are expected to initiate usually, including in BDSM.

    It’s possible to do backseat domination, while not appearing to dominate. Just formulate your orders not as orders, but as suggestions, in a charming enough way. Both men are women can be masters of this form of domination, if they have objections to appearing dominant, but not objections to the possible ethics of ordering people. Some people might even do this without noticing at least at first. Eventually they’d figure it out.

    Interesting fact: in BDSM, there are way more submissive men than dominant men (the same for women). It’s not cut in a men are dominant, women are submissive way, even if some assume it. In BDSM its a bit rarer to assume it, because they’re used to being ‘weird’ to mainstream in a variety of ways, weirdness of most kinds is more tolerated, especially fetishes, but also orientations, trans people, etc.

    Out of curiosity, how are men who fail to seek out women punished? Wait, wait, don’t tell me. Supermodels don’t jump on their dicks. I truly weep for people experiencing such deep oppression.

  91. JutGory says

    hjhornbeck: “Easy! In Canada, in 2010, women earn 68 cents income for ever dollar a man earns. You can only defend that by arguing men are incompetent at raising children; would you like to take that route?

    That takes care of patriarchy and male privilege. ”

    No, women make less than men because they make different choices about childcare than men do (and that largely affects the disparity in income). You just think that women are oppressed in making those decisions by the Patriarchy (thus, robbing them of their agency, a conclusion you simply ignore).

    Nepenthe: “And I’m confused as to why MRAs have not actually built men’s shelters. ”

    Because that is what feminists, who CLAIM to represent both men and women are supposed to do. This is goalpost shifting, nothing less.

    -Jut

  92. says

    Easy! In Canada, in 2010, women earn 68 cents income for ever dollar a man earns. You can only defend that by arguing men are incompetent at raising children; would you like to take that route?

    That’s… rather a non-sequitur. I’m pretty sure I posted about how I explain the wage gap.

    <

    If he was truly objectified, why does he receive sick time? Why does he get a pension? Both cost the employer something, and yet few employers don’t offer it. Any objectification is a false front, when push comes to shove they really do care.

    If a woman is truly a sex object, why does she receive so much financial support? Why does her husband make sacrifices on her behalf?

    There’s another problem as well. A miner can stop being a miner, and thus also stop being an object. Can a woman stop being a woman?

    Yeah, if he wants to starve. Or, he can work at some other job with the same dynamic at play.

    And I’m confused as to why MRAs have not actually built men’s shelters. Well, I’m sure they’ll get around to it after a few more years of publishing threatening websites about feminists and writing essays on why women are destroying the universe by not having sex with every man who asks and by being slutty.

    I don’t have a job. How can I build a shelter?

    And as for those essays, links?

    So, I repeat, what is a “success object” and how are men harmed by being “success objects”? Do little boys experience drops in self-esteem immediately after reading biographies of successful men, like little girls do when looking at objectifying pictures of women? Is there an epidemic of men and boys going to self destructive lengths to be the perfect success object? Do men tend to view themselves primarily in terms of how they are useful to others?

    The answer to all of those questions is yes!

  93. Schala says

    If he was truly objectified, why does he receive sick time? Why does he get a pension? Both cost the employer something, and yet few employers don’t offer it. Any objectification is a false front, when push comes to shove they really do care.

    Because competing employment opportunities offer better conditions, and you need miners.

    Although this only applies to first world miners. In third world countries, I’m sure miners are no hot commodity and are treated with bad work conditions, because competing employment is crap too.

    Pro-capitalists (libertarians) and right wingers claim workers are ALL protected, because the market and healthy competition will see that they are properly rewarded and properly paid, and that we should get rid of minimum wage. That’s only true when your skills are in high demand and low supply though. If you’re fungible, it doesn’t apply.

    The employers don’t really care. They make tons more money than they pay you, you get a infinitesimal % of their income. While they bear risk, they get disproportional returns on their effort. Capitalism is just consensual exploitation of workers, for the most. Most people have no choice but to find employment, and that often means bad, dirty, and lowpaid work.

    Employers also use women in this way by the way, it’s not unique to men, except in as much as they’re seen as better “beasts of burden” and trafficking for non-sexual slave work has mostly men.

    The unique way it affects men is that it gives incentive on men to work harder, get more money and monetize their efforts, because it makes them more attractive to women (in a way women are not more attractive to men). As such, their surplus wealth or capacity to obtain such, are valued like an object of money-purveying by a large enough proportion of women to cause societal-wide effect on men. The government caught on and treats divorced fathers exactly as ATMs too. On the other side, unemployed men face more contempt for them being unemployed, they are more considered losers (by society overall), and considered much less attractive than a similarly situated (also unemployed) woman.

  94. Schala says

    Easy! In Canada, in 2010, women earn 68 cents income for ever dollar a man earns. You can only defend that by arguing men are incompetent at raising children; would you like to take that route?

    Who in a long term relationship decides to take time off for the children? Is there a problem with selecting for someone who will be compatible with your ideals in this way right off the bat? You want a career and a stay-at-home father? Well discuss that before things become serious. If you don’t, it’s obviously unimportant enough to you.

    And I said measuring.

    You need to have a clear definition, tools to measure it (not just stats), and ways to gauge each quality of life variable and which is worth more than the other (good luck there).

    Typically, quality of life measurements include general health, life expectancy, suicide rate, imprisonment rate and way more things than just rough income.

    Black people are considered victims of racism, and proof of that is that they succeed less in school, more imprisonment, less life expectancy and less health, more suicide…but when it’s men as a whole, it doesn’t apply as a measure of oppression? Suddenly, suicide 4x more is male privilege? The only country with equivalent suicide rate for women is China, more female suicide than male. All other countries have higher male rates, and most of them don’t have “right to bear arms” stupid stuff that makes guns a dime a dozen in the streets.

    That takes care of patriarchy and male privilege. As for rape culture, 6% of sexual assaults are reported according to StatCan. When one study asked why, 50% said the police could do nothing, 44% thought the police and courts would do nothing, and 64% were ashamed of their assault.

    According to the CDC, 1.1% of men have been “made to penetrate” in 2011 (with 80% of perpetrators being female), 1.1% of women have been raped. Guess how much of those rapes with male victims for reported? Approaching 0% I bet. And the police will probably laugh at them, and tell them how lucky they are, call the rapist a nymphomaniac and the rape “an affair”. He’ll probably also be gay-shamed, because how dare he not be happy with sex from a woman. He’s a man after all, and it’s a well-known fact that men want sex all the time, with any available hole. /sarcasm

    The male privilege in this is that *no one cares*. They won’t give you sympathy, services to cope, or anything like that, nada. You’ll have a heavy dose of “man up”, if you even tell a soul about it.

  95. Nepenthe says

    The unique way it affects men is that it gives incentive on men to work harder, get more money and monetize their efforts, because it makes them more attractive to women (in a way women are not more attractive to men).

    Again, I weep for the men who are expected to have jobs and can, through action, make themselves more attractive. I weep for the unemployed men who are not getting laid. It is just so sad.

    You do realize that getting laid is not a civil right, yes?

    The government caught on and treats divorced fathers exactly as ATMs too.

    Men, expected to support the children they created? Oh. The. Humanity. So, how much exactly are these oppressed men paying to support their progeny vs the monetary value of the labor they are not doing? How many of them actually pay?

    societal-wide effect on men

    Put up or shut up. Let’s see some studies, some examples of media. Anything besides vague whining.

  96. Schala says

    And I’m confused as to why MRAs have not actually built men’s shelters. Well, I’m sure they’ll get around to it after a few more years of publishing threatening websites about feminists and writing essays on why women are destroying the universe by not having sex with every man who asks and by being slutty.

    Most funding for women’s shelters is public. The big job is to secure the grant funding.

    As long as feminism says “we got DV covered” while only having women’s shelters, the problem won’t be solved.

  97. JutGory says

    Nepenthe: “Men, expected to support the children they created? Oh. The. Humanity.” No, men risk creating blobs of cells (“parasites,” in the feminist parlance); women decide to birth children. Their body; their choice; their responsibility.

    Oh, wait, you don’t believe women have agency, so you want to delete those last two parts. You want to hold men responsible for the choices of women.

    -Jut

  98. hjhornbeck says

    Oh ho, three people pounced on me for bringing up the income gap. My bait worked, yay!

    squirtlekin @108:

    I’m pretty sure I posted about how I explain the wage gap.

    I had a look, and didn’t spot it. Did you post it under “squirtlekin?”

    JutGory @107:

    No, women make less than men because they make different choices about childcare than men do (and that largely affects the disparity in income).

    And we’re back to the argument I made before: you think men are incompetent at taking care of children. Or do you think men don’t like children? Otherwise, why would they let women take care of it, instead of agitating for shared parental care, or taking part-time jobs which allow more flexibility?

    You just think that women are oppressed in making those decisions by the Patriarchy (thus, robbing them of their agency, a conclusion you simply ignore).

    Oh no, women are free to be demoted for becoming pregnant. They still have agency, it’s just that no sane person would willingly vote for a kick in the teeth.

    When [Daniel] Lublin represents the parents in pregnancy- and parental-leave-discrimination cases, he generally fights to increase the damages they are awarded. The stingy payouts are another sign of how undervalued working parents are in Canada. In those cases where Ontario and B.C. Human Rights Tribunals ruled in favour of the mother, no award was over $20,000. Considering that many mothers on parental leave use up their EI allowance, that amount is barely enough for a few months of job-hunting.

    Even those mothers who manage 
to hang on to their jobs face what Reva Seth calls “unintentional 
discrimination.” Seth is founder of The MomShift, an online campaign 
celebrating women who achieved career success after having children. She found that about 80 percent of the 300 women she interviewed for an upcoming book were frustrated by the belief that new moms want to take it easy. They complained that as soon as they announced their pregnancies, their managers assumed they’d prefer to downshift.

    Post mat leave, moms are no longer invited to after-work power drinks, or are overlooked for demanding projects. “Usually people think they’re helping,” says Seth. 
In interviews with senior managers, Seth has advised them to avoid 
such assumptions. Often, she says, the 
reverse is true: Motherhood helps women sharply focus their 
career goals.

    Schala @110:

    And I said measuring. You need to have a clear definition,

    I’m using the net pre-tax income of Canadians in 2010 dollars, segregated by sex, to determine if men and women are paid differently. Done!

    tools to measure it

    A country-wide census should do the trick.

    (not just stats)

    …. wait wait wait, ALL of science relies on statistics! Max Plank used a statistical model to propose energy is quantized, all our equations which describe electricity were initially determined via statistics and large samples, and even Newton was helped along by statistics which showed that the distance traveled due to gravity is proportional to the square of the time in freefall.

    Get rid of statistics, and you also toss out 400 years of science. Are you really going to go down that route?

    and ways to gauge each quality of life variable and which is worth more than the other (good luck there).

    Why would I care about quality of life if I want to demonstrate women are paid less than men? And if this is so impossible, how come you rely on statistics without running the same gauntlet?

    According to the CDC, 1.1% of men have been “made to penetrate” in 2011 (with 80% of perpetrators being female), 1.1% of women have been raped. […] 10% of convicted murderer men are in death row, 2% of convicted murderer women […] So from 15 to 50% of victims are men, depending on if we count arrest rates (100k vs 600k) or just self-report (6 mil vs 6 mil).

  99. hjhornbeck says

    squirtlekin @108:

    If a woman is truly a sex object, why does she receive so much financial support?

    Women don’t receive much financial report. According to the 2006 Canadian census, 62% of all married and common-law women work, and their employment rate is 95%. The comparable figures for men are 72% and 96%.

    In the US, the average alimony payment is $260 per child per month. Problem: it costs $840 a month to raise a child, in a similar situation. So anyone who divorces and gets the kids will only get 61% of a true fifty-fifty split. Since women get custody in most cases, this means women bear a disproportionate burden.

  100. JutGory says

    hjhornbeck: “And we’re back to the argument I made before: you think men are incompetent at taking care of children. Or do you think men don’t like children? Otherwise, why would they let women take care of it, instead of agitating for shared parental care, or taking part-time jobs which allow more flexibility?”

    No, I do not think men are incompetent at raising children or that they don’t like children. I think that, on average, more women desire to do it than men do. And, their desire is likely more intense. That is why they “let” women take care of it.

    -Jut

  101. smhll says

    I actually read almost every page of Ms. magazine throughout the Seventies. I remember many articles about loosening gender role in our culture, none of which suggested that it was a good idea to keep strict gender roles for men.

    This morning I remembered that there used to be “Stories for free children” published in the center of each of the early issues of Ms. magazine. These were illustrated stories about kids that tried to advance a progressive agenda. If I remember correctly, tolerance was a big theme. (Like Sesame Street, but with more watercolor illustrations.)

    This is a good article describing the kids stories that ran in the magazine and were later published as a book. http://revolutionthroughchildhood.blogspot.com/2010/11/stories-for-free-children-ms-magazine.html

    I remember, in particular, reading the story about Z, who wasn’t pigeonholed in a gender box.

    Excerpt from the linked article:

    One of the most amazing things to discover as I poured through the pages was how many of my favorite radical children’s stories actually came from the pages of this book. One of which, “X” by Lois Gould, I had been searching for for many years since I first read it in a Women’s Studies textbook of a friend almost ten years ago.

    “X” is the story of a child whose parents decide not to tell people just what is in between their child’s legs, or assign it a gendered pronoun. I remember the first time I read this story thinking, “Yeah! I am gonna do THAT when I have a kid.”

    Though I did not follow through on that exact idea, I have since become part of a much larger community of folx challenging the gender binary. I have friends who were labeled as one gender at birth, and now live as another. I have friends who prefer to use genderless pronouns such as “they” and “ze.” In general, I feel lucky to be surrounded by people who are trying to look at the box we put around the idea of “boy” and “girl” and how we can break it to bits and allow everyone to live in whatever part of the spectrum they feel happy.

  102. Schala says

    The ability to get laid thing, where do you even get that?

    You 250 word treatise on the subject was a slight hint. It was subtle; I’m surprised I picked up on it at all.

    One has to wonder where your mind is, probably in the gutter if talking about gender role expectations is “men getting laid”. You jump to conclusions, think the worst possible of statements, apparently think men’s rights shouldn’t exist because “feminism got it covered already” and are overly hostile at a level just a notch below TERFs (at least those I’ve read personally: Heart and dirtywhiteboi) trying to make a trans person angry.

    Out of curiosity, how are men who fail to seek out women punished? Wait, wait, don’t tell me. Supermodels don’t jump on their dicks. I truly weep for people experiencing such deep oppression.

    Go reread, it says that not following your gender role expectations gets you punished. You live in Snarkytown, don’t you? And have zero reading comprehension.

    Again, I weep for the men who are expected to have jobs and can, through action, make themselves more attractive. I weep for the unemployed men who are not getting laid. It is just so sad.

    You do realize that getting laid is not a civil right, yes?

    Incentive to fulfill gender role expectations are something that most people are unable to ignore, if people had such self control that they could ignore anything not-100% in their self-interest, corruption wouldn’t exist, or would be minor (only truly unethical people would participate – no one would be convinced by a “everyone does it” approach). Corruption robs society (and thus its people) of hard-earned money, often in favor of Mafia or corrupt politicians, as such it’s not in the self-interest of even the people so bribed, at 100%.

    Women’s beauty is rewarded with certain incentives, and those incentive are often the only reason those women even bother to follow fashion or use make-up (some genuinely like the whole thing, but I bet they’re a minor proportion). It’s the same for men. Come back from the gutter with your “men getting laid” mantra. It won’t become true because you repeat it ad nauseum.

    If I told you that doing action A would make you more attractive in people you’re attracted to, you (general you) would probably consider it, decide wether it’s a big or a small trade-off for you, and decide to do it, or not, based on your assessment. If “everyone does it” is invoked, you might think even less about it and agree outright, just to fit in. Regardless of what A is.

    Tons of people have been convinced that the “in” thing is to get ritual unhygienic genital mutilation “to be part of the gang”, or as a rite of passage. Don’t tell me it’s in their best self-interest. But they’ll do it anyways (parents do it on their teenage kid – if they found it so bad (it’s been done on them before), they would stop it – teenage kids themselves rarely have a say in it though). Not that it’s objectively good because the parents think it is. It’s pretty bad, but they’re blinded by the “stuff that happened to me can’t be that bad” thing, which is how you’ll also get conservator people advocating that bullying forges character – it happened to them as a kid, and they think they’re all the better for it.

    I’m talking about countries where both male and female genital mutilation are done, outside hospital settings, and entirely for tribal-membership reasons. Jewish brit’milah is very very close to qualify, it’s done for the same reasons, but at 8 days old (so not a rite of passage, but still a tribe membership thing).

    If people can be convinced to mutilate their genitals, elongate their neck, pierce their tongue, etc, just for tribal membership, how do you bet gender stereotypes about “what is attractive” affect the average man and woman? Even if it won’t get them laid, imagine that. People want to feel loved, wanted and accepted too. People pleasers aren’t just that way to get laid (I would certainly know, as I’m a people pleaser and didn’t care about getting laid, I was voluntary celibate until 25, and my interest in sex even today is almost zero).

  103. Schala says

    Schala @110:

    And I said measuring. You need to have a clear definition,

    I’m using the net pre-tax income of Canadians in 2010 dollars, segregated by sex, to determine if men and women are paid differently. Done!

    tools to measure it

    A country-wide census should do the trick.

    (not just stats)

    …. wait wait wait, ALL of science relies on statistics! Max Plank used a statistical model to propose energy is quantized, all our equations which describe electricity were initially determined via statistics and large samples, and even Newton was helped along by statistics which showed that the distance traveled due to gravity is proportional to the square of the time in freefall.

    The stats you said, they don’t measure what you think they measure.

    They don’t measure patriarchy, they don’t measure male privilege. They measure ONE aspect that matters in the gender privileges. You can’t say it’s the be-all end-all of male privilege and patriarchy.

    Here is a male privilege followed by it’s opposite female privilege:

    A) Male Privilege: Have the privilege to not be considered primary carer, so is less affected by employer decisions regarding scheduling.
    B) Female Privilege: Have the privilege to be considered primary carer, so can pass more time with children without much problem.

    Now, wether you prefer A or B depends on wether you value work or family life more. And don’t tell me objectively everyone would favor A, because they wouldn’t. People would like A while being allowed to do B, but that’s a bit harder to make employers swallow that pill.

    You have to do this for every privilege, assign values to them which you consider objective. How many points will “Perceived as a better leader” will get vs “Can get recognition when one is a victim” or “Higher life expectancy”? That’s why I said it can’t be done.

    In the US, the average alimony payment is $260 per child per month. Problem: it costs $840 a month to raise a child, in a similar situation. So anyone who divorces and gets the kids will only get 61% of a true fifty-fifty split. Since women get custody in most cases, this means women bear a disproportionate burden.

    Yet the attitude espoused by feminist activists (the only ones that matter since they’re the one doing something about it) is that father custody is bad. Because most of the fathers who want custody are abusers, apparently. Most of the mothers who want custody are angels, of course. I suspect it’s more of a minority of both sexes, and abuse rates are only a smokescreen used by NOW to avoid the issue.

  104. Schala says

    I actually read almost every page of Ms. magazine throughout the Seventies. I remember many articles about loosening gender role in our culture, none of which suggested that it was a good idea to keep strict gender roles for men.

    It’s nice to do stuff about gender roles and acceptance of non-binary people and all, though that’s more what trans activism is about.

    But to loosen men’s gender roles, more than “just be whatever you want to be” needs to be told. The expectations need to be changed too, so that there actually is a choice somewhere. If a boy wants to go into nursing/daycare/babysitting, things should be done about it, like it was done for women and the sciences.

    Being a trailblazer or an outcast because your choices are very different than stereotypes, is very taxing. Few people can support it (and many who have no choice about being an outcast end up suiciding because of it). Outlier choices (of profession, of expression, of clothing) need to be normalized, if we’re going to see real changes. Attitudes of men, pedophilia and children need to change to become more gender neutral, and men who want to work in those fields not seen as invaders or weird for it – wanting to care for children is natural to certain people (of both sexes), it’s not a perverted urge when men want to.

  105. garybannister says

    Attitudes of men, pedophilia and children need to change to become more gender neutral…

    Ah. Now there’s a good example of an MRM trope that’s especially popular among “moderate” MRA’s: “Something must be done” to address gender disparities, as long as they are ones that (supposedly) are disadvantageous to men. No logical justification is ever offered for this; they seem to think that repetition of the magic phrase “We believe in equality!” is sufficient. (It isn’t, BTW.)

    And of course, when it comes to gender disparities such as those in the top levels of business, government and academia, all of a sudden it’s “Nothing must be done! Quotas, and arbitrary regulations, and other scary stuff!” That’s when their double standard becomes painfully obvious.

  106. hjhornbeck says

    JutGory @116:

    No, I do not think men are incompetent at raising children or that they don’t like children. I think that, on average, more women desire to do it than men do. And, their desire is likely more intense. That is why they “let” women take care of it.

    There’s two sides to every coin. If women desire children more than men, then men must desire children less. By your argument, men must not like children in comparison to women.

    You also have a bit of a problem, as the MRM’s own stance on children conflicts with this. They argue quite strongly for increased custody of children for men. Why would you advocate to have more of something you don’t want?

  107. hjhornbeck says

    Schala @118:

    They don’t measure patriarchy, they don’t measure male privilege. They measure ONE aspect that matters in the gender privileges.

    That’s even worse! Planck only considered photons, not all particles, therefore we should have ignored his quantization proposal, therefore Quantum Mechanics would never have been developed. You’re now arguing against Reductionism, which is a core assumption of science.

    Not only would your criteria have to toss out all of science, you’d also have to discard all of philosophy (as no philosopher would claim to be considering every possible component of a problem simultaneously) as well as most theology (as very few would claim to know all aspects of their gods)!

    You can’t say it’s the be-all end-all of male privilege and patriarchy.

    You’re strawpersoning me. I’m pointing to one example of male privilege and patriarchy, not the only example of it. Care to refute my example?

    Yet the attitude espoused by feminist activists (the only ones that matter since they’re the one doing something about it) is that father custody is bad.

    Another strawperson. A core plank of feminism is gender equality, that in the vast majority of cases women are equally capable as men. As a consequence, the majority of feminists think men are equally capable of raising children as women. Thus they either would or should oppose a system which disproportionately hands custody to mothers.

    You might be confusing two separate issues, though:

    Further, custody litigation is used as an instrument of the batterers and child abusers to maintain or extend control and authority over their victims after separation. Phyliss Chesler interviewed 60 mothers involved in custody dispute and found that fathers who contest custody are more likely to win than their wives. In 82% of the disputed custody cases, fathers achieved sole custody, despite the fact that only 13% had been involved in child care activities prior to divorce. Moreover, 59% of fathers who won custody litigation, and half of the fathers who gained custody by private negotiation, had abused their wives.

    Here, feminists would oppose greater custody, not because the person asking is male, but because they are abusive. Most MRMs don’t notice the distinction, and assume that because feminists oppose greater access in one type of child custody case, they oppose greater access in all cases. Be careful not to make the same mistake.

  108. hjhornbeck says

    Schala @120:

    But to loosen men’s gender roles, more than “just be whatever you want to be” needs to be told. The expectations need to be changed too, so that there actually is a choice somewhere. If a boy wants to go into nursing/daycare/babysitting, things should be done about it, like it was done for women and the sciences.

    That’s been part of the feminist movement since the late 70’s, when third-wave was born, and dominates current thinking. You should read “bell hooks” (no capitals), specifically Feminist Theory, from Margin to Center. If you’ll forgive the copy-paste from Wikipedia:

    She used the work as a platform to offer a new more inclusive feminist theory. Her theory encouraged the long-standing idea of sisterhood but advocated for women to acknowledge their differences while still accepting each other. bell hooks challenged feminists to consider gender’s relation to race, class, and sex, a concept coined as intersectionality. hooks covers the importance of male involvement in the equality movement, that in order to make change men must do their part. hooks also calls for a restructuring of the cultural framework of power, one that does not find oppression of others necessary.

    Part of this restructuring involves allowing men into the feminist movement, so that there is not a separationist ideology, so much as an incorporating camaraderie. Additionally, she shows great appreciation for the movement away from feminist thought as led by bourgeois white women, and towards a multidimensional gathering of both genders to fight for the raising up of women. This shifts the original focus of feminism away from victimization, and towards harboring understanding, appreciation, and tolerance for all genders and sexes so that all are in control of their own destinies, uncontrolled by patriarchal, capitalist tyrants.

  109. JutGory says

    hjhornbeck: “If women desire children more than men, then men must desire children less. By your argument, men must not like children in comparison to women.”

    Okay, now you are just being dishonest (or sloppy).

    My statement was women “desire to do it.” What was the “it”? Stay home and raise children. You twisted that into “desire children.” Then, you twist your own words around to equate “desire” with “like.”

    My point was: women are, on average, more likely to say “I would just as soon quit my job and stay at home full-time and raise the child.” Men are, on average, less likely to do that. Why? Because, as has been stated quite a bit above, men tend to be defined and to define themselves by what they “do.”

    And, what’s more, men are more likely to sacrifice time with their children and work more in order to give women what they want (i.e. the ability not to work so she can stay home).

    -Jut

  110. Schala says

    Ah. Now there’s a good example of an MRM trope that’s especially popular among “moderate” MRA’s: “Something must be done” to address gender disparities, as long as they are ones that (supposedly) are disadvantageous to men. No logical justification is ever offered for this; they seem to think that repetition of the magic phrase “We believe in equality!” is sufficient. (It isn’t, BTW.)

    Yes, something must be done. And besides doing it “because it’s the right thing to do”, do it because not doing it prevents fixing women’s opposite role. Male and female aren’t opposite sexes, but their gender roles very often are. Not fixing one means you can’t fix the other.

    You can’t complain that motherhood and caretaking is pushed on women, if men’s role limitations severely punishes them for it (pedophilia scare is just one of many). Men’s limitations removed, then something can be done, and everyone’s happy.

    In China, men take care of the parents in old age, they do the caretaking. It’s not seen as womanly or emasculating. It’s seen as his duty to his parents. It’s also part of why Chinese people tend to prefer male babies, especially if they can only have one.

    And of course, when it comes to gender disparities such as those in the top levels of business, government and academia, all of a sudden it’s “Nothing must be done! Quotas, and arbitrary regulations, and other scary stuff!” That’s when their double standard becomes painfully obvious.

    I don’t think quotas are more than a band-aid. You need to fix it at the base: equality of opportunity. Remove all barriers towards it, promote it as something good. The same with men in childcare or SAHP. You might end up with 60/40 ratios in the end, maybe that’s the natural ratio of people who would go in nursing.

    Presenting nursing as “medicine-light” (paid less, and less status), as emasculating (Meet the Parents is a flagrant example), patients preferring the female nurses, and male nurses presented with all the heavy lifting work (regardless of actual strength), certainly doesn’t contribute to having more male nurses. All those are barriers. The wage itself is not the problem, presenting it as “you could do better” wage is the problem. Having male nurses do the heavy lifting “because he is a guy” is about as demeaning than having female secretaries make coffee “because she is a girl” (as is common in Japan).

    Presenting politics and executives stuff as hostile Old Boy’s Club, also probably doesn’t help getting more women interested in it. CEOs of fortune 500 companies are either the founder, or in the family of the founder, much of the time. There ain’t much that can be done besides starting your own company and making it to the top 500. Or buying the company. Those companies were (for the most) already there before gender role shifts, as such few female CEOs just goes to show few women started very very successful companies many decades ago. It doesn’t show outright hostility to the concept of female-headed companies.

    Politics is similar, most people in politics who can make it to high positions, have been there since they were 30-40, and are in their 60-70s now (when they get real success, like becoming a prime minister, Pauline Marois has been in politics since early 1980s, and been made Prime Minister only in 2012), so it’s lagging by at least an entire generation, too.

  111. Schala says

    That’s even worse! Planck only considered photons, not all particles, therefore we should have ignored his quantization proposal, therefore Quantum Mechanics would never have been developed. You’re now arguing against Reductionism, which is a core assumption of science.

    Let Planck out of it, let him rest.

    You’re strawmanning, since your only one argument doesn’t prove patriarchy or male privilege unidirectionality. You need to prove that the government is slanted to benefit men, because they are men, that they get more protection, more help when they need it, and a leg over women in just about every domain, just for showing up.

    It’s easy to prove that it’s not that one-sided, at least in the West. DV is presented as something men do to women (Duluth model), and as such male victims and female victims of female perpetrators are completely ignored. Not given real services, like shelter, legal counseling, therapy, with government funding. Rape is presented similarly, this regardless of the fact that male consent to sex is de-facto always assumed, in a way female consent is only assumed by assholes who ignore boundaries. As such, victims go ignored.

    Victims who are without recourse (and calling a hotline is minimal) can potentially perpetuate the cycle of abuse (most victims won’t abuse, but most abusers are previous victims). Thus, without servicing all types of victims, the problem will never go away. Helping men also helps women, notwithstanding those men who are in families with women, it prevents future abuse, and makes it clear that ALL abuse is wrong, not just male-privileged wanting-to-control-women abuse.

    Victims going on to abuse people they have power over in the future, is also why the LG community is often anti-bisexual, and anti-trans. Why transsexual people can sometimes be anti-transgender and anti non-binary, why cis lesbians can sometimes be anti trans lesbians. Shitting on the lower rung, as if we never learned to not do that which was done onto us.

  112. hjhornbeck says

    JutGory @125:

    My statement was women “desire to do it.” What was the “it”? Stay home and raise children. You twisted that into “desire children.” Then, you twist your own words around to equate “desire” with “like.”

    This is what it’s come to? You’re turning this into a high-level philosophical debate, where the precise definition of a word is central to the discussion?

    *shurg* If you wish.

    The common meaning of “desire” includes “like,” for instance if I say I desire ice cream then you can be assured I like ice cream as well. We have words for a “desire” without “like,” such as “addiction” or ” “compulsion,” but in philosophy circles you sometimes hear “desire” used in those terms. So were you using “desire” as in “would like,” or as in “addicted to?” And since we’re being so pedantic, could you define “like” for me?

    My point was: women are, on average, more likely to say “I would just as soon quit my job and stay at home full-time and raise the child.” Men are, on average, less likely to do that. Why? Because, as has been stated quite a bit above, men tend to be defined and to define themselves by what they “do.”

    I’ve pointed out that the stance of the MRM contradicts that, they want greater access to their children. I’ve also pointed out in comment 114 that some women don’t want to downgrade their jobs to raise their kids, this is thrust upon them by managers. Are you going to refute any of this?

    Also, you admit that “on average” women would like to be stay-at-home moms. This implies that some women would not. Do you think these women should be allowed to work? Do you think these women should suffer no consequences from that decision?

  113. Nepenthe says

    @hjhornbeck

    Presumably men desire children in the sense of “to have, in the abstract, genetic offspring”, not “to care for juvenile humans”. It’s much more fun when you can just have a picture on your desk and weekend trips to the park without dirty diapers, finicky eating, laundry, the flu, etc.

    This would also explain why so few men who sue for custody have taken part in actual childrearing work and why so few men ask for custody to begin with.

  114. JutGory says

    hjhornbeck: “This is what it’s come to? You’re turning this into a high-level philosophical debate, where the precise definition of a word is central to the discussion?”

    No, I am trying to be precise about what I am saying so that, when you create a strawman, it is clear what you are doing.

    And your ice cream example does not capture the problem. There is a HUGE difference between desiring to stay at home to raise kids and whether one LIKES kids. To sort of re-phrase your ice cream example, it would be like saying, if men DESIRE to cook more than women do, that means women don’t like eating. Your example with ice cream has the same object for desire and like. But, when it comes to child care, they were different objects.

    And, yes, the MRM does advocate for more access to kids. That usually takes place in the divorce setting, which is a different setting than one in which the two parents are trying to divide up responsibilities between work and care. And, it often occurs in a setting where access is greatly restricted, if not eliminated, in the first place.

    As for women’s desires in balancing work load and family life, this is not “thrust” upon them by their managers. It is a result of the choices they make.

    -Jut

  115. says

    My point was: women are, on average, more likely to say “I would just as soon quit my job and stay at home full-time and raise the child.” Men are, on average, less likely to do that. Why? Because, as has been stated quite a bit above, men tend to be defined and to define themselves by what they “do.”

    And somehow cultural expectations do not ever enter into this dichotomy.

    Is “I want/do not want to stay home and raise my kids” a strictly biological imperative? In which case, why would anyone *ever* want to go *against his/her basic biology* and desire/not-desire to do that? If you admit that actual men can and do and should sometimes want to stay home and raise the kids or that actual women can and do and should sometimes go out and be the income-earner in the family, doesn’t that instantly negate your argument that it’s somehow hardwired biology?

    And yet you insist there is a gender based desire/non-desire to stay home and raise the kids. It must come from somewhere. If the desire or non-desire to stay home and raise the kids is a *cultural* expectation, then why does “the men are currently defined by what they do” standard *not* include the “doing” of child-rearing? That’s hardly a passive role.

    Could it be, gasp, that a mythical patriarchy – the one MRAs do not believe in – has actually made an expectation of a dichotomous cultural expression for gender roles that may not suit everyone? One that says, like it or not, “women stay home and raise kids” and “men go out and do other things” and that you are just too enmeshed in it to see past it?

    (And, yes, in times past, men were awarded custody when divorce was even a possibility. After all, the was the patriarch and undisputed head of the family and all of his children *belonged* to him. They were his possessions as his wife was also a possession he was discarding.)

  116. JutGory says

    Gwynnyd: “And somehow cultural expectations do not ever enter into this dichotomy.”

    I did not say that.

    Gwynnyd “Is “I want/do not want to stay home and raise my kids” a strictly biological imperative?”

    I do not think so.

    I think biology has a role. Leaving aside adoptive parents for purposes of this statement, mothers bond with children differently than do fathers. There is a hormonal aspect in carrying, delivering, and nursing a child that promotes a mother’s bond to the child that is absent in the father-child relationship. There are hormonal changes in the father, as well, but, AFAIK, they are not the same.

    Personality also has a role. People are different, even if their biology is essentially the same. They have different desires and preferences based upon their personality, personal circumstances and their history. If a person was raised by a stay-at-home parent, that person may be more likely to want to provide that to a child than someone who had two working parents. If people are working a low-wage jobs that they don’t enjoy, they may be more likely to sacrifice that to raise children, whereas people who make decent money at jobs they enjoy may have a more difficult time making that sacrifice.

    Cultural expectations (which I take to mean “outside influences,” whether real or perceived, and do not equate with “Patriarchy”) also have a role.

    -Jut

  117. hjhornbeck says

    Schala @126:

    I don’t think quotas are more than a band-aid. You need to fix it at the base: equality of opportunity. Remove all barriers towards it, promote it as something good.

    Equality of opportunity is a difficult concept to measure. Numbers don’t lie, however, and there’s a bandwagon effect: more representation means reforms are easier to implement, and culture changes faster than it would otherwise. It’s no wonder half of all countries have gender quotas for elected representatives.

  118. hjhornbeck says

    Schala @127:

    You’re strawmanning, since your only one argument doesn’t prove patriarchy or male privilege unidirectionality. You need to prove that the government is slanted to benefit men, because they are men, that they get more protection, more help when they need it, and a leg over women in just about every domain, just for showing up.

    I’m used to be amazed at the sheer number of creationists who have no idea what evolution is, but are convinced it’s impossible. And then I ran into people who have no idea what patriarchy is, but are convinced it doesn’t exist.

    I did a quick experiment. I hit up Google with “patriarchy definition,” and timed how long it would take me to reach a definition that most feminists would accept.

    45 seconds. And I wasn’t even trying hard; I wasted half that scanning through an online dictionary’s definition.

    I want you to add up the hours you have spent composing posts in this thread. I want to you to add on the hours that all the rest of us have spent composing replies. All of that is wasted time, because you couldn’t be arsed to spend a single minute of your time researching “patriarchy” on Google.

  119. hjhornbeck says

    Rape is presented similarly, this regardless of the fact that male consent to sex is de-facto always assumed, in a way female consent is only assumed by assholes who ignore boundaries. As such, victims go ignored.

    That would make sense if feminists didn’t discuss male rape. They do. And have done so for a while. You’re arguing against a form of feminism that’s been out of style for thirty years, which I suppose puts you one notch above a creationist.

  120. Schala says

    You mean this:

    Most forms of feminism characterize patriarchy as an unjust social system that is oppressive to women.

    A social system that is oppressive to both men and women called patriarchy, seems a misnomer, to say the least.

    In feminist theory the concept of patriarchy often includes all the social mechanisms that reproduce and exert male dominance over women

    Which 1) blames only men 2) makes it out to be a conscious thing.

    The System is perpetuated by everyone, men and women, and is motivated by sex-differentiation of identity, and insecurity over it by people. I said so above. Men are defined as being not-women, and women are defined as being not-men. So lots of people have a vested interest in making that difference bigger. If one is considered stronger, the other dainty and fragile, and so on.

    Before the advent of contraception, gender roles made more sense, before labor saving devices and medicine being as good as it is, it made more sense. We needed highly specialized people, and we were truly in danger of dying from stuff we today consider benign, while being busy 18-20 hours a day most days except for the very rich. Motherhood was almost unavoidable for women in a way today it’s pretty much entirely a choice. So men were defined opposite motherhood, as women were defined around it.

    It prevented much of free will in the name of efficiency and survival, something we don’t need in the 21st century (we’re in no danger of going extinct from lack of reproducing, and can afford to have lots of leisure time as compared to our ancestors, so we can be way more flexible in roles allowed people, with sexuality being pleasurable period).

    It wasn’t the best, it was just a deal-with-the-cards-handed-you deal, forced on most people by necessity.

    Now, we’re in the transition period, where we don’t need those roles and are in the process of redefining what it means to be male or female. It doesn’t need to be about or centered around reproduction. It should be defined individually even. Everyone has a different goal or point of view.

    They oppressed everyone. The guy working 20 hours a day on his farm didn’t have time to oppress his family. And he probably (most people are good-aligned) didn’t want to oppress them either (they were his family after all). The whole protocol, etiquette and everything (about being a lady and such) was a first world aristocrat problem – and probably made up out of boredom, like high-fashion. Most people didn’t historically work for fulfillment but for survival. That guy was considered responsible for all his family’s wrongdoing with regards to law (and would go to prison for something his wife did), and could vote, representing his entire family, if he owned property – although true democracy is recent (royalty had autocratic powers until very recently history-wise).

    From the same article:

    The problem with the feminists’ approach to patriarchy is to blame men; make men the enemy and women the victim. [33] Patriarchy may be a form of domination over others (men and women) but it is likely that women who ascend to positions of power will exercise power the same way as men do; because it is a deep social structure within western society.

    I wholeheartedly agree.

    I do think women judges and such will be harder on female perpetrators of crimes though, no way to use “feminine wiles” against a woman.

    While I don’t think women in politics will govern differently at all. People in politics are similarly motivated, regardless of sex, and tend to favor the rich (fearing some kind of exile if they tax them more), the companies (same fear) and the very popular stuff (stuff to get votes). They don’t vote for their in-group (sex, ethnicity, religion) unless their in-group is the 1% or one of the “very popular stuff” (women’s issues are).

  121. Schala says

    That would make sense if feminists didn’t discuss male rape. They do. And have done so for a while. You’re arguing against a form of feminism that’s been out of style for thirty years, which I suppose puts you one notch above a creationist.

    Where can I find my local rape crisis center for adult male victims of rape? It seems the best people can find is services for childhood male victims who are now adults. But not adult services for adult crimes.

    On another blog, someone justified not having DV shelters and rape crisis centers for men with this:

    When the VAST majority of those injured, and an even MORE VAST majority of those seriously injured by domestic violence are women, shelters are sustained to serve the greatest need.

    The reason that feminist are opposed to MRAs opening men’s shelters is because there is next to no funding as it is, and when women are experiencing the brunt of the violence, feminist are doing their best to stem the tide of victims who need support.

    and that’s zero-sum game talk, a “we’ll fix women’s problems, and when it’s done, we’ll call you” thing, on a problem that can’t be fixed forever (violence won’t end, but we can help victims so they can cope).

  122. Schala says

    Oh yeah, it’s also very obvious oppression olympics, of the “you don’t matter as much” kind. Men know they don’t matter as much, Victorianism (man bad, woman good) told them long before.

  123. Nepenthe says

    The guy working 20 hours a day on his farm didn’t have time to oppress his family. And he probably (most people are good-aligned) didn’t want to oppress them either (they were his family after all).

    You know that the temperance movement in the United States was propelled by women who were sick of their hard working husbands getting drunk and beating the shit out of them and their children, right? Is that oppression-y enough for you?

    And it doesn’t take that much time to rape someone who sleeps next to you.

    On the other hand, men were expected to court and work… so I guess the oppressions evened out.

  124. Schala says

    You know that the temperance movement in the United States was propelled by women who were sick of their hard working husbands getting drunk and beating the shit out of them and their children, right? Is that oppression-y enough for you?

    You are aware that going drunk as much as they did is self-medication for untreated psychological issues, right?

    And not everyone of them was violent or lashing out. They were opposed to the alcohol, not to the violence.

  125. hjhornbeck says

    Schala @127:

    It’s easy to prove that it’s not that one-sided, at least in the West. DV is presented as something men do to women (Duluth model), and as such male victims and female victims of female perpetrators are completely ignored.

    In the USA, perhaps, but that’s understandable. Until 2012, the FBI defined rape as “The carnal knowledge of a female, forcibly and against her will;” note that this specifically excludes men, making it much easier to dismiss or ignore male victims of sexual assault. That year, however, they finally opened up the definition to include men and women.

    Guess who was responsible for that change?

    This call was very important to me. Eight months ago, I wrote an article for Ms., magazine that exposed the FBI’s faulty definition of rape to a broad audience and described the real-life impacts it has on victims, law enforcement practices and society at large. Feminists had been working to get the definition changed since 2001, but criticism of the FBI’s terms had been largely absent from news reports.

    In Ms., I wrote about all the sexual assault survivors who were excluded from the FBI’s official count — including all men and boys, those raped with fingers or objects, and women with physical and mental disabilities, among others.

    In Canada, we’re in better shape; “rape” was removed from the Criminal Code in 1992 in favour of the gender-neutral term “sexual assault.” Guess who was responsible? That’s right, feminists.

    Feminists have talked about violence against men for over twenty years. Feminists have been pushing for laws that help male victims of violence for over twenty years. Your claims to the contrary demonstrate just how ignorant of feminism you are.

  126. hjhornbeck says

    Oops, one correction: Canadian feminists haven’t been pushing for a gender neutral definition of “rape”/”sexual assault” for 20 years. I was tripped up by an ambiguous phrase on the first page. In reality, they’ve been pushing for this legislative change for….

    30 years.

    The Canadian federal government’s interest in rape law reform in the early 1980s was tied to concerns that gender-specific sexual offences could offend the equality rights guarantee of the newly entrenched Charter of Rights (Los 1994: 27). In 1983, and in response to a vocal feminist lobby led by the National Association of Women and the Law, Parliament replaced the rape provision with the current three-tier structure of sexual assault offences (distinguished by degrees of violence), criminalizing all forms of non-consensual sexual touching (Los 1994).

  127. Schala says

    That year, however, they finally opened up the definition to include men and women.

    Guess who was responsible for that change?

    It doesn’t include rape by envelopment, by far the most common type of rape with male victims.

    Feminists have talked about violence against men for over twenty years. Feminists have been pushing for laws that help male victims of violence for over twenty years. Your claims to the contrary demonstrate just how ignorant of feminism you are.

    Where are the rape crisis shelters for men? Where? That’s the only way they can actually do outreach.

  128. hjhornbeck says

    JutGory @130:

    To sort of re-phrase your ice cream example, it would be like saying, if men DESIRE to cook more than women do, that means women don’t like eating.

    Disanalogy. My phrasing was in the form “I desire X implies that I like X,” which you interpreted as “men desire X implies women desires Y.”

    And, yes, the MRM does advocate for more access to kids. That usually takes place in the divorce setting, which is a different setting than one in which the two parents are trying to divide up responsibilities between work and care.

    Oh, so you’re saying that men are only interested in children when they might not have 24/7 access to them? Or that there’s no division of childcare responsibilities after a divorce?

  129. hjhornbeck says

    JutGory @130:

    As for women’s desires in balancing work load and family life, this is not “thrust” upon them by their managers. It is a result of the choices they make.

    I presented evidence that this isn’t the case. Are you going to refute that evidence, or just repeat your opinion until it becomes the truth?

  130. hjhornbeck says

    JutGory @116:

    No, I do not think men are incompetent at raising children or that they don’t like children.

    So you don’t think men are inferior at child care?

    JutGory @132:

    I think biology has a role. Leaving aside adoptive parents for purposes of this statement, mothers bond with children differently than do fathers. There is a hormonal aspect in carrying, delivering, and nursing a child that promotes a mother’s bond to the child that is absent in the father-child relationship. There are hormonal changes in the father, as well, but, AFAIK, they are not the same.

    So you do think men are inferior at child care?

  131. Schala says

    So you do think men are inferior at child care?

    Having a smaller biological predisposition for wanting something in the first place doesn’t make you inferior.

    Does “really wanting to” play baseball, make you a star player? No, it doesn’t. It just makes you very eager to try it.

    Cultural influences then turn it into something bigger and does consider men inferior at it, because “it’s women’s domain of competence” (regardless of actual competence of men or women in general, or that one in particular) in stereotype. It’s similar to women having to prove themselves in historically-male domains like lumberjack, trucker, etc. They’re assumed less competent because so few of their group do it. It’s stereotype-threat all over again, but external.

  132. hjhornbeck says

    Schala @136:

    The System is perpetuated by everyone, men and women, and is motivated by sex-differentiation of identity, and insecurity over it by people. I said so above. Men are defined as being not-women, and women are defined as being not-men. So lots of people have a vested interest in making that difference bigger. If one is considered stronger, the other dainty and fragile, and so on.

    Nope, sorry:

    A man would never set out to write a book on the peculiar situation of the human male. But if I wish to define myself, I must first of all say: ‘I am a woman’; on this truth must be based all further discussion. A man never begins by presenting himself as an individual of a certain sex; it goes without saying that he is a man. The terms masculine and feminine are used symmetrically only as a matter of form, as on legal papers. In actuality the relation of the two sexes is not quite like that of two electrical poles, for man represents both the positive and the neutral, as is indicated by the common use of man to designate human beings in general; whereas woman represents only the negative, defined by limiting criteria, without reciprocity.

    Simone de Beauvoir had a better understanding of patriarchy than you do, and she wrote that passage in 1949.

    You’ll find modern feminist scholarship has moved on somewhat, like in the works of bell hooks and R.W. Connell. I think the latter will strike your fancy; not only has she been a huge influence on modern feminism, as the founder and most-cited author of masculinity studies, she also writes with some authority on transgender issues.

  133. Schala says

    Oh, so you’re saying that men are only interested in children when they might not have 24/7 access to them? Or that there’s no division of childcare responsibilities after a divorce?

    If it was an ideal arrangement for both parties to have one party stay home while the other worked outside, but is no longer an ideal arrangement post-divorce (for obvious reasons, like not living together anymore), how is it weird for men to want actual access to children they actually could see pre-divorce when not at work?

  134. Schala says

    A man would never set out to write a book on the peculiar situation of the human male.

    I believe some have.

    A man never begins by presenting himself as an individual of a certain sex; it goes without saying that he is a man.

    Men are generic, women are special.

    Consider wether generic or special is the best. Think a long time on it. Especially if the specialness is presented as something good, more moral, and more beautiful than the generic, which is…well “meh”, fungible, “nothing special”, the generic is only better when it evolves above it (when this person is also wealthy, with influence, power etc), but not as is.

    3400 persons dead, amongst them 50 women and children <- who is made invisible in that statement?

    for man represents both the positive and the neutral

    Which must be why maleness is presented as a negative for humanity, a beast of impulsiveness, violence, stupidity and who wields unmerited power in bad ways. Where is the positive? In the few examples held as models?

    On the one hand, maleness is presented as a curse (maleness itself is bad), where only excellence redeems it, and femaleness as a blessing (femaleness itself is good), where only evil taints it.

  135. hjhornbeck says

    Schala @136:

    Before the advent of contraception, gender roles made more sense, before labor saving devices and medicine being as good as it is, it made more sense.

    Half-true. The Aka tribe do have gender roles, they just don’t permanently assign them to men or women:

    What’s fascinating about the Aka is that male and female roles are virtually interchangeable. While the women hunt, the men mind the children; while the men cook, the women decide where to set up the next camp. And vice versa: and it’s in this vice versa, says Hewlett, that the really important message lies. “There is a sexual division of labour in the Aka community – women, for example, are the primary caregivers,” he says. “But, and this is crucial, there’s a level of flexibility that’s virtually unknown in our society. Aka fathers will slip into roles usually occupied by mothers without a second thought and without, more importantly, any loss of status – there’s no stigma involved in the different jobs.”

    The core strength of human beings is flexibility, by making tools and using our big brains to compensate for our deficiencies. A hunter-gatherer tribe that forced all women to do child-care, and forbid all men from helping, is artificially giving up that flexibility, and is going to have problems if there are too few women or men to fulfill their roles. Anthropologists have been slow to realize this, preferring to view the cultures they study through their own cultural biases, but if you look carefully you can find evidence for this flexibility.

  136. Schala says

    “But, and this is crucial, there’s a level of flexibility that’s virtually unknown in our society. Aka fathers will slip into roles usually occupied by mothers without a second thought and without, more importantly, any loss of status – there’s no stigma involved in the different jobs.”

    That’s great.

    By the way, when I say “it made sense” I’m not advocating them, or approving them. I think oligarchy makes sense and is almost inevitable, and yet I abhor such societies and would prefer a socialist order with extremely high taxes so that the chasm between poor and rich is never that big, while having liveable minimum wages for all, including those who cannot work. Such a society would probably need to control most or all variables of cost of living (food, shelter, transportation availability and cost at the very least).

    Similarly, I want even more flexible roles than the tribe you cite. I want individual talents to have primacy over whatever people deem as “should” or “ought” based on birth characteristics. I want toys to all be gender-neutral, and even clothing. If you want to illustrate yourself you can do so as an individual, without needing to do so as an entire sex. You only need enough security in believing who you are without external proof, such that you never feel the need to confirm or conform to stereotypes.

  137. hjhornbeck says

    Scalia @136:

    Now, we’re in the transition period, where we don’t need those roles and are in the process of redefining what it means to be male or female. It doesn’t need to be about or centered around reproduction. It should be defined individually even. Everyone has a different goal or point of view.

    I agree. No, really; gendered roles are less useful now than they’ve ever been in the past. Sometimes, you sound quite feminist in your outlook.

    And sometimes…

    The problem with the feminists’ approach to patriarchy is to blame men; make men the enemy and women the victim.

    Nooo, sorry. That’s what many opponents of feminism think patriarchy means. The majority of feminists view patriarchy as a social system which devalues people based on their gender. Men and women contribute to it, and while women tend to bear the brunt of it, patriarchy also constrains men to a gender role and is especially harsh on transgender people and those who fall outside the binary.

    Some feminists prefer the term “kyriarchy,” which removes the gender-specific component and is more in line with modern Third-wave thinking. I think it has merit, but it tends to confuse non-feminists (and I’m a bit of a traditionalist). ;)

    This was all laid out in the Wikipedia entry, by the way; did you miss the part where patriarchy was labeled “as an unjust social system that is oppressive to women?” To be fair, you may have been led astray by someone’s defacement of that page, as what you quote is not from bell hooks and nothing like what she argues.

  138. Schala says

    “I blame the patriarchy” (the blog and the attitude) and Marxist points of view about oppressor class and oppressed class are the things I find the most unjust about this view.

    Sometimes, you sound quite feminist in your outlook.

    I’m not for 1950s gender roles, Leave it to Beaver or anything like that. For sure, I might even be more leftist and/or extremist than many feminists who want to keep distinctions of gender differences (ie goddess feminism, Dianism and such). I only disagree about how the current roles came to be, for what reason, and who’s oppressed. I think everyone is oppressed by the system, it’s so-designed.

    It’s very rare that feminism will acknowledge that men can be oppressed as men (without being gay, poor, black, disabled, trans, also, just as men too). This probably stems from Marxism positioning one class against another, and so they question “who” could be oppressing men? The “men oppress women” notion is one I find overly simplistic:

    The system rewards both men and women, for oppressing other men and women, treating each sex separately, differently, using double standards. It’s not analog to straight and gay, cis and trans, majority-white vs minority-black (being white in Japan is no advantage). If being gay or being trans had no more legal, social or societal-level repercussions than being straight or cis has, then maybe it would be the same.

    Being trans DOES have advantages, but they’re nothing compared to being overly unemployed, murdered, raped, homeless and forced into sex work. Absent those, trans advantages could have weight. The perspective is one. Few people get to see how both sexes are treated during one lifetime from a firsthand perspective. And you get to question stereotypes without having 20 years+ of “you have to do this” inside your head, way easier for me to reject make-up as useless rather than essential (I’d never think my naked face means “I’m naked” like that Cover Girl).

    Being male vs being female has different double standards that have different subjective values to most people. Not everyone wants to be a bigwig. Many, maybe most, want the cash, the status of the bigwig, but maybe not the sacrifices needed to get there (hours, effort, family time, etc), and the “step on other people’s toes” lack of ethics that’s also needed to reach it (some people have too much empathy to fire or ruin other people’s lives on purpose). Not everyone wants to be a full-time parent either. It also involves many sacrifices (hours, effort, career development, etc) and it needs a high level of patience and dedication.

    Between a manager-level career in a mid-size company and full-time parent with a decent/liveable family income (from the other parent), neither is definitely the better position. Not from an objective point of view anyway.

    Between being assumed competent (except with the public), capable (except childcare and housekeeping/cleaning), independent, and “not needing help”, vs being assumed to be more competent with the public (but not with highly-technical stuff), more nurturing and able with children (but less physically strong/less stamina), being considered as needing/desiring someone to help (ie, being supported by someone’s wage) and being considered someone worthy of helping, because more fragile (victim services). Which is better? Depends who you ask.

    Basically, it comes down to invulnerable super powerful, with no safety net – regardless of the truth of your individual circumstances, vs fragile and assumed weaker, but more sympathic, with more safety net – regardless of the truth of your individual circumstances.

    And that, until gender roles completely go away.

    I was given physical warehouse-type jobs pre-transition, despite my size then (5’6″ 105 lbs) being a bit on the low side to do the demanded work (40 lbs and higher boxes often). I was presumed strong, due to the power of the penis. Not to my advantage. I’m sure other people have anecdotes where gender roles disadvantaged them by presuming the opposite of their own inclination. They should go away because they are prescriptive.

    I wasn’t oppressed by women, or by men, I was oppressed by the system itself.

    Stoicism and an attitude that “men can take care of themselves” (but not women) is responsible for most of the disparity regarding suicide rate, murder rate, assault rate, death at work rate and life expectancy. Also the rate of consulting a doctor (men wait way longer, if they even go).

    Because fewer people are tempted to help suicidally depressed men (more “man up” than actual help), men are acceptable victims of murder (at least more than women) for most criminals, and most soldiers, the notion “don’t hit girls” makes assault against women look worse and assault against men look benign or merited. Employers think newspaper articles about men dying on their worksite will soon be forgotten, no need to take special measures, unless forced by the government to do so. As for life expectancy, it would be pretty weird to say that 7 years less is all due to biology, given how socialization affects so many things already.

    That’s the downside to being considered independent, able to take care of yourself, and not needing help – without a safety net life. It makes the perspective of being treated as someone “fragile and weak” seem less like condescension, and more like actual caring, when the alternative is throwing you to the wolves.

  139. Schala says

    Oh and some more backwards countries do “throw women to the wolves”, or have them with no or little safety net. I’m thinking some Middle-East countries, possibly India (don’t know enough about laws and applications thereof), and possibly China. (There might be others, I just don’t know the entire world).

    My comment in 154 applies to the US, Canada, UK, France, Germany and other first-world countries in the West that I can actually know about.

  140. JutGory says

    Nepenthe @ 139: “You know that the temperance movement in the United States was propelled by women who were sick of their hard working husbands getting drunk and beating the shit out of them and their children, right?”

    Yes, and it was the first and greatest failure of the progressive movement. Why would I want to follow these people?

    hjhornbeck@ 144: “Disanalogy. My phrasing was in the form “I desire X implies that I like X,” which you interpreted as “men desire X implies women desires Y.”

    Yes, for the ice cream example, not the original example. The original example was women desire to stay home and take care of the kids more than men do, so men don’t like kids. The disanalogy was yours.

    And, no, I don’t think men, as a rule, are inferior to women when it comes to child care. What gave you that idea?

    -Jut

  141. JutGory says

    hjhornbeck @ 145: “I presented evidence that this isn’t the case. Are you going to refute that evidence, or just repeat your opinion until it becomes the truth?”

    Yes, you presented evidence that some managers presume that women will want to take it easy after having a child. You have also presented evidence that some women don’t want to.

    So what? I don’t believe anything I said constitutes a blanket statement that leaves no room for exceptions.

    But, I will go a step further, even if managers presume that a new mother will want to take it easy, I would hardly characterize that as “thrusting” such a thing on her. If the women is still ambitious, dedicated, etc., she should attempt to correct any such misunderstandings, unless she simply wants to play the victim card.

    And, just to anticipate your next argument, the fact that I believe some new mothers are as ambitious and dedicated to their jobs as they were before pregnancy does not mean: 1) they hate their children; or 2) they are inferior caregivers, as compared to the respective fathers.

    -Jut

  142. JutGory says

    hjhornbeck @146: “So you do think men are inferior at child care?”

    No, I simply said that there are biological ways in which mothers bond with their children that are different from the way fathers do.

    “Bonding” does not equal “child care.”

    And, no, by this argument, I am not stating that: 1)women are inferior at child care; or 2) the father-child bond is superior to the mother-child bond; or 3) that desiring ice cream makes you a star baseball player.

    -Jut

  143. garybannister says

    …unless she simply wants to play the victim card.

    There you have it! If you’re not fortunate enough to be a member of one of the approved groups, standing up for your rights = playing the victim card.

  144. JutGory says

    garybannister: “standing up for your rights = playing the victim card.”

    No, that is the opposite of what I said. I said “If the wom[a]n is still ambitious, dedicated, etc., she should attempt to correct any such misunderstandings, unless she simply wants to play the victim card.”

    In short, you don’t let people “thrust” their expectations on you. If their presumptions about you are incorrect (for whatever reason), you speak up. If you do not stand up for yourself, but would rather complain about how people have certain erroneous assumptions about you that you are not willing to correct, then you are playing the victim card.

    -Jut

  145. says

    No, I simply said that there are biological ways in which mothers bond with their children that are different from the way fathers do.

    You have copious links pointing to peer-reviewed research on psychological bonding and how female vs. male biology affects that, of course.

  146. JutGory says

    SallyStrange: “You have copious links pointing to peer-reviewed research on psychological bonding and how female vs. male biology affects that, of course.”

    You got me. No. Do I need to? Allow me to lay bare the baselessness of my claim, which contains many, many unstated assumptions:

    1. Sexual intercourse can lead to pregnancy. (I think I saw that on a Simpsons episode.)

    2. The vast majority of pregnancies are a result of sexual intercourse. (This was based purely on anectdotal evidence.)

    3. Only women get pregnant. (Okay, this was in Genesis, so God is my authority on that, but it was also confirmed in the movie Junior, with Arnold Schwarzenegeer and Danny DeVito; I think it was Emma Thompson’s character who explained that.)

    4. People have this thing called a “pituitary gland.” (There is this homeless guy outside my building who goes on and on about his “pituitary gland.”)

    5. The “pituitary gland” releases this chemical that sciency-type people call “oxytocin.” (According to this computer “SCIENCE” I met at Starbucks one day.)

    6. “Oxytocin” helps people facilitate a sense of attachment to other people. (I read that on a feminist blog, which was reporting on a CNN story.)

    7. “Oxytocin” helps the labor process by: a) helping the cervix dialate; b) contracting the uterus; and c) preventing blood loss after the placenta detaches. (I think I saw a film strip on this.)

    8. “Oxytocin” helps a mother breastfeed because it is through contractions in the breast that help push the milk through the milk ducts. (Filmstrip, again.)

    9. Men don’t breastfeed babies. (Sugarbear from Here Comes Honey Boo-Boo.)

    So, from all of this, I made the wildly unsubstatiated conclusion that there are biological ways (“oxytocin”) in which a mother bonds with a child that is different than the way a father does.

    So, I guess, without a peer-reviewed study on all of these points, I can’t have any opinion at all about maternal bonding. But, now that you mention it, I am not sure that homeless guy is a good authority on whether people have this so-called “pituitary gland.” Maybe I will start with that….

    -Jut

  147. Schala says

    Men can breastfeed (and I don’t mean trans people, cis men can breastfeed), and both men and women can (but won’t necessarily) have oxytocin release following sex acts. Oxytocin will also bond a father to a child he’s always cared for, possibly more if he thinks/knows it’s his own (possibly less to an adopted child he knows is adopted). He doesn’t have to be 24/7 hands-on for this to happen.

    Heck, I bonded to a stray cat that’s not even mine (she lives upstairs at my boyfriend’s, but comes here every morning).

    So oxytocin works in mysterious ways. Sex is just straightforward.

  148. Schala says

    So, jutgory, would you say that women who can’t or don’t breastfeed don’t bond with their babies?

    Are you nitpicking out of boredom, or out of a genuine concern? Because it seems to be the former. Or it’s just trollish.

    It’s obvious that breastfeeding is not necessary to bond. It can help because it’s obviously some intimate activity. Young animals raised together, regardless of breastfeeding occurring or not, have bonded together, even if they’re normally natural enemies (think bird+cat, cat+dog, lion+hyena).

  149. says

    It’s neither nitpicking nor trollish to lay bare the blatant falsehood that is the “common sense idea” that women are biologically better attuned than men to bonding.

  150. ballgame says

    Jason, I see where JutGory used the term “different” in regards to how biology affects the way women bond (as opposed to the way it affects the way men bond). I don’t see where JG says it’s “better.” That appears to be your term, and your conclusion that JutGory is being misandrist also seems to flow from your choice of word, not JG’s.

  151. hjhornbeck says

    Dangit, yet again I get busy and miss out on all the fun! Old business first:

    Schala @137:

    Where can I find my local rape crisis center for adult male victims of rape?

    Well, feminist.org links me to the Daybreak Crisis Recover Centre, where thanks to their 1-800 line any “woman, man or child who is victimized by a sexual predator shall be believed, supported, counseled, and advocated for by the staff and volunteers of this center.” While many of the organizations listed there have “women” in the title, most do not.

    That’s in line with modern feminist thought, which I’ve already linked to, which does concern itself with the plight of male victims of sexual assault.

  152. hjhornbeck says

    Schala @143:

    It doesn’t include rape by envelopment, by far the most common type of rape with male victims.

    Two issues:

    1. With male victims of sexual assault, 94% of the perps were men. Statistics have shown, time and time again, that men commit far more sexual assaults than women. So you’re factually wrong.

    2. At least four feminists disagree with the exclusion of envelopment, including me. I’d link to more, but it seems there are far more MRAs saying feminists don’t care about envelopment, than feminists who’ve discussed it.

  153. hjhornbeck says

    Schala @147:

    Having a smaller biological predisposition for wanting something in the first place doesn’t make you inferior. Does “really wanting to” play baseball, make you a star player? No, it doesn’t.

    True, but can you become a star player without “really wanting to” play baseball? I doubt it. The two roles aren’t analogous, either. Star baseball players earn money by playing baseball. What do people earn by becoming parents? And why is there a gender difference?

  154. hjhornbeck says

    Schala @150:

    3400 persons dead, amongst them 50 women and children <- who is made invisible in that statement?

    Women. Think about it: plane crashes make the news, because they are rare. Car crashes do not, because they are common. We highlight the exceptions and ignore the default or normal.

    Who’s being highlighted there? Women and children, because they are outside the norm, they are unexpected. Men are the default, so there’s no need to explicitly mention them; everyone will assume you’re talking about men, unless you state otherwise.

    As well, you completely missed a hidden assumption: by lumping women and children together, you are saying they are equivalent. Are you arguing they deserve special protection, just like children? Are you arguing women have less autonomy than men, just like children? That latter statement is a form of erasure, as it denies women are as human as men.

  155. says

    To hjhornbeck’s point at 173, I posted lauding the DoJ standards of rape, after they redefined it to include forms of rape other than aggressor-penis-in-victim-vagina. Meanwhile, MRAs ignored it (until enough feminists sneered at them for ignoring the point, then some MRAs started covering it).

    Feminists are on top of this shit, and are fighting for the very positive changes MRAs complain most about. MRAs aren’t. It’s almost, sometimes, as though they’d prefer to keep using the facts of those injustices as clubs against feminists.

  156. hjhornbeck says

    Schala @150:

    Which must be why maleness is presented as a negative for humanity, a beast of impulsiveness, violence, stupidity and who wields unmerited power in bad ways. Where is the positive? In the few examples held as models?

    On the one hand, maleness is presented as a curse (maleness itself is bad), where only excellence redeems it, and femaleness as a blessing (femaleness itself is good), where only evil taints it.

    I’ve mentioned you can be remarkably feminist at times. This is one of those; most feminists nowadays are third-wave, and argue against restrictive gender roles. Most feminists would therefore agree with you.

  157. hjhornbeck says

    Schala @154:

    It’s very rare that feminism will acknowledge that men can be oppressed as men (without being gay, poor, black, disabled, trans, also, just as men too).

    I just recently attended a screening of a documentary on that state of feminism in Canada, and the third question asked was “why didn’t the film mention transgender?” and the fith-ish was “why didn’t this film include men?” This crowd was almost entirely female, by the way.

    I’ve been pointing you to the works of bell hooks and R.W Connell, but you could also have just Googled the subject to find out men are quite central to feminism. Heck, there’s even an encyclopedia on the subject.

  158. hjhornbeck says

    Schala @154:

    Absent those, trans advantages could have weight. The perspective is one. Few people get to see how both sexes are treated during one lifetime from a firsthand perspective.

    I picked that one up from Natalie Reed back in 2011:

    I can make a very clear distinction between my old life and my current one. And the differences are impossible to ignore, and fit incredibly well with what is already understood about misogyny and the social treatment of gender. The advantages in life that I no longer have sync up almost perfectly with most contemporary feminist understanding of male privilege and what it entails.

    So please, take it from someone who has a basis of comparison, who had it but sacrificed it, male privilege is real. Women don’t have it easier. And while we’re pretty much all being hurt by the gender binary, and no one is really benefiting all that much, women are getting the worst of it.

    But that loss of privilege? Completely, totally worth it for the ability to finally feel at home in my own skin.

    If you’d have ditched that one section I noted above and posted the rest of your comment at a feminist website, I don’t think a single person would have thought you were opposed to feminism. That’s how close your views are to contemporary feminism.

  159. hjhornbeck says

    JutGory @156:

    The original example was women desire to stay home and take care of the kids more than men do, so men don’t like kids. The disanalogy was yours.

    Where’s the disanalogy? Or are we back to haggling over the exact definitions of “desire” and “like?”

  160. hjhornbeck says

    JutGory @157:

    But, I will go a step further, even if managers presume that a new mother will want to take it easy, I would hardly characterize that as “thrusting” such a thing on her. If the women is still ambitious, dedicated, etc., she should attempt to correct any such misunderstandings, unless she simply wants to play the victim card.

    Oh, I see. If women encounter discrimination in the workplace, they should be the ones to work past it, the people doing the discrimination shouldn’t have to change their attitudes for them. If they fail, it’s the victim’s fault. Is that what you’re getting at?

  161. hjhornbeck says

    JutGory @158:

    No, I simply said that there are biological ways in which mothers bond with their children that are different from the way fathers do.

    What ways are those? We’ve already pointed out men can both “breastfeed” and, with the help of a little technology, breastfeed. If you are arguing that men lack the proper biology to bond, what biology is that? If you are instead arguing that we bond differently due to biology, are you arguing that penises and vaginas are important for bonding with children?

  162. ballgame says

    hjhornbeck @ 173:

    Schala @143:

    It doesn’t include rape by envelopment, by far the most common type of rape with male victims.

    Two issues:

    1. With male victims of sexual assault, 94% of the perps were men. Statistics have shown, time and time again, that men commit far more sexual assaults than women. So you’re factually wrong.

    hjhornbeck, Schala is right and you are wrong.

    Here is the FBI’s new definition of rape:

    The new definition of rape is: “The penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.”

    The definition excludes envelopment, which is the most common way women rape men according to the the 2010 National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey [NISVS] Report (pdf). (Note that this NISVS also excludes ‘rape by envelopment’ as “rape,” but since it does at least report it as a specific form of sexual assault, we can compensate for their linguistic error and assess how common such assaults are.)

    As for the notion that most male victims of sexual assault were assaulted by men, you cite a secondary source (the Association of Alberta Sexual Assault Services) which itself appears to be relying on a 1997 American study (Paul J. Isley & David Gehrenbeck Shim, Sexual Assault of Men in the Community, 25 J. COMMUNITY PSYCHOL. 159 1997) which does not appear to be available online. It is therefore impossible to determine whether that study includes rape by envelopment as rape, or assess exactly how they tallied women sexually assaulting men. Given that official statistics even today don’t recognize the reality of rape by envelopment, I’m extremely skeptical that this source did. If you can provide an online primary source to support your argument, everyone could then assess its reliability.

    Your second statistic referring to …

    men commit far more sexual assaults than women

    … goes to a Toronto police site which lists a number of different sex crime statistics. I can only assume you’re referring to its mentioning that “In reported sexual assaults, 97% of sex offenders are men (Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics, 2003).” I do not believe a decade-old statistic which relies on reported-to-authorities figures will accurately convey the frequency with which men were sexually assaulted by women. I would wager that the average person even today is unlikely to see a woman enveloping the penis of a man as a serious sex crime that merits prosecution, and that was no doubt even more true a decade ago.

    To get a reliable sense of this sort of victimization of men, you need a survey of victims, not a tally of how many reported the attacks to the police. The best, most recent study appears to be the 2010 NISVS Report which indicates that in the most recent year they studied, there were a roughly equal number of female rape victims and male victims who were forced to penetrate someone else. They also indicate that 80% of those ‘forced to penetrate’ were assaulted by females.

    So no, hjhornbeck, you are factually wrong, and Schala is correct, as she has been throughout much of the discussion here.

    2. At least four feminists disagree with the exclusion of envelopment, including me. I’d link to more, but it seems there are far more MRAs saying feminists don’t care about envelopment, than feminists who’ve discussed it.

    I’m glad you’re arguing against the exclusion of envelopment from the definition of rape, but if you really want to be helpful in this arena you should be more attentive to the accuracy of what you’re stating.

    Oh, and I know there are at least five feminists arguing against the exclusion of envelopment in the definition of rape — (I’ve been making that argument since 2009) — but that still falls well short of making it the prevalent feminist stance. But I do think you’re right (and unwittingly undermine your own position) when you state that there are “far more MRAs saying feminists don’t care about envelopment, than feminists who’ve discussed it.”

  163. says

    (Note that this NISVS also excludes ‘rape by envelopment’ as “rape,” but since it does at least report it as a specific form of sexual assault, we can compensate for their linguistic error and assess how common such assaults are.)

    Elision. See tables 2.1 and 2.2 in the PDF you linked. We can compensate for it but it still amounts to 1 in 2 women experiencing some form of sexual violence, vs 1 in 5 men. And again, they didn’t break out rape-by-envelopment of a vagina vs an anus or mouth, the latter two would comprise most of the rape-by-envelopment by men. Given that we still know most rape is done by men, even if we consider all rape deplorable and fight rape-by-women as a problem (and dammit, feminists do NOT deny this as a problem as a plank toward being a feminist, so stop assuming it’s one), we must recognize the fact that rape-by-men is a far more prevalent problem.

  164. says

    And if I might correct hjhornbeck — there are far more MRAs saying feminists don’t care about envelopment than there are feminists who don’t care about envelopment. If you want to know if a feminist cares about rape by envelopment, ask them. Though when making this request, pick an appropriate time to make the “what about the men” argument, rather than being, say, during some outrage over the latest news story of a woman being raped. (Perspective. And stage. And framing. Keep those in mind.)

  165. says

    (and I say this last, knowing there are far more feminists than MRAs. So far more MRAs making arguments that are untrue about feminists, despite feminists vastly outnumbering MRAs.)

  166. ballgame says

    Jason:

    To hjhornbeck’s point at 173, I posted lauding the DoJ standards of rape, after they redefined it to include forms of rape other than aggressor-penis-in-victim-vagina. Meanwhile, MRAs ignored it (until enough feminists sneered at them for ignoring the point, then some MRAs started covering it).

    There appears to be an awful lot of ‘bureaucratese’ in the document your cited post refers to. In a casual scan, I’m unable to find their definition of rape to determine if they now include ‘rape by envelopment.’ If they do, that would be a truly progressive step forward, but I strongly suspect they do not (given that no other federal authorities that I’m aware of recognize the reality of envelopment as rape). If you can quote the relevant section where they do, in fact, make this change, that would be enlightening (and IMHO extremely surprising).

    However, I did stumble across this little gem in the revised standards:

    In a change from the proposed standards, the final standards include a phased-in ban on cross-gender pat-down searches of female inmates in adult prisons, jails, and community confinement facilities absent exigent circumstances—which is currently the policy in most State prison systems.

    In other words, male staff will no longer be able to pat down female inmates … but apparently female staff will be able to continue to pat down male inmates. This ban appears to me to be sexist. Who’s to say that the same-gender staffperson in question isn’t gay or bisexual (and therefore just as theoretically capable of deriving sexual pleasure from inappropriately touching an inmate)? If opposite-gender pat-downs are such an inherent problem, why are female staffers still permitted to pat down male inmates? This is especially odd since around 2/3 of the more than 50,000 male inmate victims of staff sexual misconduct reported being victimized solely by female staff (see Table 18 of the “Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2008-09” with h/t to Tamen)

    I’m not claiming that you’re wrong in saying the new standards represent significant progress for what is clearly a catastrophically violent and inhumane system of incarceration. But — for whatever it’s worth — it appears to me that these new standards still have a ways to go to get to true gender egalitarianism.

  167. ballgame says

    Elision. See tables 2.1 and 2.2 in the PDF you linked. We can compensate for it but it still amounts to 1 in 2 women experiencing some form of sexual violence, vs 1 in 5 men. And again, they didn’t break out rape-by-envelopment of a vagina vs an anus or mouth, the latter two would comprise most of the rape-by-envelopment by men. Given that we still know most rape is done by men, even if we consider all rape deplorable and fight rape-by-women as a problem (and dammit, feminists do NOT deny this as a problem as a plank toward being a feminist, so stop assuming it’s one), we must recognize the fact that rape-by-men is a far more prevalent problem.

    Jason, I agree that rape-by-men is a more prevalent problem than rape-by-women; I disagree that it is a far more prevalent problem. Your assertion appears to be contradicted by the 12-month data in the NISVS report, which indicate that there were roughly equal numbers of female and male rape victims (when you include ‘being forced to penetrate someone else’ as rape). Strictly speaking, the report does not give us the gender of the assailant for the 12-month male rape victims who were ‘made to penetrate,’ but does note that in about 80% of the ‘made to penetrate’ lifetime encounters, the male victims report solely female assailants, as I mentioned above, and I see no reason to assume that the 12-month perpetrator gender breakdown would be significantly different in the absence of evidence to the contrary. I would, of course, be very interested in any citation you have for your assertion that most of the ‘rape by envelopment’ is — contrary to the report stat I just cited — committed by men, and not women.

    Since the overwhelming majority of male rape victims fall into the ‘made to penetrate’ category (by a margin of more than 3-1), this means that the clear majority of rapes of men were perpetrated by women, not men, given the above interpretation. Men may, indeed, commit more rape overall than women, but if the NISVS 12-month figures are an accurate reflection of today’s reality, the ratio of rapes-by-men vs. rapes-by-women is in something like the 3-2 range, not the 10-1 or 100-1 range that is implied by a great deal of mainstream feminist rhetoric (i.e. signs that say “only men can stop rape” etc.).

  168. says

    Since the overwhelming majority of male rape victims fall into the ‘made to penetrate’ category (by a margin of more than 3-1), this means that the clear majority of rapes of men were perpetrated by women, not men, given the above interpretation.

    I don’t see how this follows. You appear to be assuming that the person being penetrated is the same as the person forcing the man to penetrate. You also appear to be assuming that only women rape via forcing someone else to penetrate them, and men never do. Do you have evidence to justify making those assumptions? Is the study’s data that fine-grained?

  169. hjhornbeck says

    Forgive me for jumping out of order, but STATISTICS.

    ballgame @183:

    As for the notion that most male victims of sexual assault were assaulted by men, you cite a secondary source (the Association of Alberta Sexual Assault Services) which itself appears to be relying on a 1997 American study (Paul J. Isley & David Gehrenbeck Shim, Sexual Assault of Men in the Community, 25 J. COMMUNITY PSYCHOL. 159 1997) which does not appear to be available online.

    To the general public, true. But with university access, you can download it from CRKN Wiley Online Library or Academic Search Complete.

    Which I just did.

    It is therefore impossible to determine whether that study includes rape by envelopment as rape, or assess exactly how they tallied women sexually assaulting men. Given that official statistics even today don’t recognize the reality of rape by envelopment, I’m extremely skeptical that this source did.

    Drum roll, please:

    Thirteen hundred agencies across the United States, servicing sexual assault victims (Webster, 1989), were mailed a brief survey assessing the extent and nature of their contact with adult male sexual assault victims. The survey defined adult male sexual assault as any nonconsensual sexual acts perpetrated against a man, 16 years old or older, by a male or female. A followup questionnaire sought information on the characteristics of the assault(s) and any post-rape symptomatology reported by the male survivors.

    Of course, the above passage only demonstrates that the study considered envelopment, it says nothing about how common envelopment was. THIS passage, on the other hand…

    Most of the victims, who reported the nature of their assaults, were either sodomized, forced to commit fellatio, or both. […] Although the gender of the rapists were typically male (93.7%), women constituted 6.3% of the cases.

    Incidentally, I see StatCan offers public-use microdata for their 1999 General Social Survey Victimization survey. These surveys involve telephone and personal interviews, instead of police statistics, so they’ll probably be closer to the true numbers. I’ve gotten in touch to request a copy, you might want to snag your own too.

  170. ballgame says

    You appear to be assuming that the person being penetrated is the same as the person forcing the man to penetrate. You also appear to be assuming that only women rape via forcing someone else to penetrate them, and men never do. Do you have evidence to justify making those assumptions?

    SallyStrange, thanks for seeking my clarification here. I’m not making either assumption that you’re worried about; here is the passage from the study:

    For three of the other forms of sexual violence, a majority of male victims reported only female perpetrators: being made to penetrate (79.2%), sexual coercion (83.6%), and unwanted sexual contact (53.1%).

    (Emphasis mine.) The use of the phrase “female perpetrator” is pretty unambiguous.

    hjhornbeck: I’m glad you’re digging further into the nature of the evidence you’re citing. Your quote appears to affirm that the Association of Alberta Sexual Assault Services is relying on data which has the same defect as the Toronto Police data: namely, it’s tallying the numbers being passed along by agencies that male victims were going to more than two decades ago to report having been sexually victimized. The survey and followup questionnaire referred to in your quote are clearly going to the agencies, not the actual male victims. I doubt if many males today who were compelled to penetrate a woman are going to report that violation to an authority, and it’s almost certainly true that even fewer were doing that two decades ago.

    The Canadian Public Use Microdata file you link to looks like it could merit investigation.

  171. Schala says

    Well, feminist.org links me to the Daybreak Crisis Recover Centre, where thanks to their 1-800 line any “woman, man or child who is victimized by a sexual predator shall be believed, supported, counseled, and advocated for by the staff and volunteers of this center.” While many of the organizations listed there have “women” in the title, most do not.

    Is it possible to have floor space inside too? When I talk about rape shelters or rape crisis centers, I’m mostly talking about the face-to-face help. Phone and hotel vouchers can only help so much.

  172. Schala says

    True, but can you become a star player without “really wanting to” play baseball? I doubt it. The two roles aren’t analogous, either. Star baseball players earn money by playing baseball. What do people earn by becoming parents? And why is there a gender difference?

    Consider that my analogy refers to being very eager to play baseball, before EVER playing it. The way many women are (imo) conditioned to want babies, before having any experience with it. It’s simply overhyped. It starts with baby dolls, and it continues with Barbie dolls, babysitting being considered a “female occupation” and later on with talks about “biological clock” and birthing being “the purpose of a woman’s life*” (according to many women themselves on both the left and right)

    *There really is no “The purpose” of life, but people like to think there is something bigger than themselves, and having kids is low-hanging fruit. If you bear the kid and everyone tells you motherhood is so good (and sooo female), it might help making it more female than male hype.

    Even if you’re very eager to do something, you can be downright awful doing it (this includes parenting).

    I’m clumsy (despite lots and lots of hand-eye coordination training from decades of videogames), I could be very enthusiastic about playing some sport. And mess it up badly. I’m just naturally clumsy (thanks, asperger). I would never be a star player, I could still want to play at first (or even after) way more than people who are actually very good at it.

  173. Schala says

    Women. Think about it: plane crashes make the news, because they are rare. Car crashes do not, because they are common. We highlight the exceptions and ignore the default or normal.

    Or it could be:

    We highlight the outrageous and don’t care one bit about the default.

    Men dying is nothing special, and nothing to care about.

    Women dying is horrible, they are fragile and worth protecting.
    Children dying is horrible, they are fragile, innocent, defenseless and worth protecting.

    This is the view of society on deaths, and part of the reason for hesitating putting women in combat roles in the army, and much of the reason for not conscripting women in most countries either.

    As well, you completely missed a hidden assumption: by lumping women and children together, you are saying they are equivalent. Are you arguing they deserve special protection, just like children? Are you arguing women have less autonomy than men, just like children? That latter statement is a form of erasure, as it denies women are as human as men.

    Tell society that. Society is the one making a big deal out of protecting women (and only women, not men). VAWA is part of that erasure of women as humans. So is the existence of only (publicly funded) women’s battered shelters.

  174. Schala says

    I just recently attended a screening of a documentary on that state of feminism in Canada, and the third question asked was “why didn’t the film mention transgender?” and the fith-ish was “why didn’t this film include men?” This crowd was almost entirely female, by the way.

    I’ve been pointing you to the works of bell hooks and R.W Connell, but you could also have just Googled the subject to find out men are quite central to feminism.

    If its men like Hugo Schwyzer and Julian Real, it doesn’t really talk about men’s problems.

    Both are self-flagellating “excuse me for being born with a penis” male feminists who think women can do no bad and no evil, and men need to change (in every domain). They’re white knights who cross Victorianism (men bad women good) with feminism, possibly because they’ve personally done bad in their life (we know about Hugo), and blame it on maleness instead of themselves. It’s just a way of avoiding responsibility for their own personal acts by blaming it on something bigger (like patriarchy).

    I’ve been told by Julian Real that I should defer to cis women, and consider their feelings as more important than mine (as a trans woman) regarding my presence in women’s space. Conservative people argue the exact same. So I call it Victorianism. TERFs are conservatives in disguise too.

    My being assertive about my presence in women’s space is all the proof TERFs need about my male privilege’s existence. But if I was passive and quiet, I would again show my male privilege by projecting the image of a submissive woman as the ideal. You just can’t win.

    It doesn’t surprise me that trans people are more of a hot topic than men in general, within feminism.

    Finally Feminism 101 argues that men can be oppressed by intersectionality. That is, by being gay while male, trans while male, disabled while male, etc. But not male itself. Only femaleness can be oppressed in and of itself. Because they say so.

  175. Schala says

    I picked that one up from Natalie Reed back in 2011:

    I can make a very clear distinction between my old life and my current one. And the differences are impossible to ignore, and fit incredibly well with what is already understood about misogyny and the social treatment of gender. The advantages in life that I no longer have sync up almost perfectly with most contemporary feminist understanding of male privilege and what it entails.

    So please, take it from someone who has a basis of comparison, who had it but sacrificed it, male privilege is real. Women don’t have it easier. And while we’re pretty much all being hurt by the gender binary, and no one is really benefiting all that much, women are getting the worst of it.

    But that loss of privilege? Completely, totally worth it for the ability to finally feel at home in my own skin.

    My experience doesn’t agree with Natalie Reed’s.

    The difference between my old life and my new one…

    I feel less misandry now than I did then (and when you consider transphobia against trans women is often based on misandry, ouch). I feel way way more freedom of expression than I ever did in my life. I feel more safe in the streets, at work and mostly everywhere (my previous life was constant expectations of being beaten up, with no one to prevent it, and no “don’t hit boys” to mitigate it).

    I feel equally valued for my contribution in work if I work (my last workplace was videogame testing, and they don’t care if you’re a blue unicorn, as long as you perform right. I did get some transphobia, and was outed by the workplace due to legal name at the time, but very mild compared to expectations).

    I also feel equally valued as a gamer by other gamers I care about (a very small number of people). I’ve “proven myself” and my demographics are nothing to them. I even “taught” my brothers to play, so they respect my game wisdom. I don’t care what trolls think about me.

    I do feel part of my being accepted as female and as a gamer unconditionally, comes from my being much of a tomboy in interest (videogames, anime, manga, action movies, thrillers, horror – but no “chick flicks” like Twilight) and outlook (ie not half as vain as magazines would tell me to be). So I’m “one of the boys”, no need to take white gloves with me, to check your language (as in swearing), or put me on a pedestal. Like I said; Debrah Morgan is very similar, though more extroverted.

    As I said in the other article, I think much of the vanity and “I’m fragile, treat me with kid gloves” is socialized. And that I think there are a lot of women with inclinations like mine who fear not fitting in enough to ignore their inclinations.

    I haven’t encountered much misogyny so far. The worst I see in media is the notion that I’m extremely superficial (because I’m anti-superficial) and more of a neat freak (I’m not). Though being considered a slob is not that much better (men are dirty vs women obsess over cleaning).

    I’m happy to note that my cleanliness standards have not changed since my transition, they’re still generally low. It’s entirely socialized. And mostly about receiving visitors (there are people who can’t fathom dirt or a unclean house to any degree, that’s neat freak, possibly OCD).

    Misandry I fought with before include the notion that I’m hypersexual, basically an erection on legs, despite being asexual (transition changed it to slight-libido pansexual). The notion that I’m naturally violent, or easy to make violent because of testosterone, or prone to violence due to socialization (I dislike all 3 notions equally – the first notion is conservative, the third is radical feminist, the second I can’t say). The notion that I’m naturally dominant or ought to be, or I’m a loser (and femdom fantasy drives the point home with gusto – that male submission is extremely loser). That kindness in a male is a weakness, and worth taking advantage of instead of nurturing. And lastly, the notion of “don’t hit the weaker/smaller/shorter” don’t apply to weaker/smaller/shorter boys and men, only to the disabled and girls and women regardless of their size.

    My sense of justice is very big, so the last notion I found patently unfair more than others. And I voiced it a lot.

  176. Schala says

    What ways are those? We’ve already pointed out men can both “breastfeed” and, with the help of a little technology, breastfeed. If you are arguing that men lack the proper biology to bond, what biology is that? If you are instead arguing that we bond differently due to biology, are you arguing that penises and vaginas are important for bonding with children?

    Not about penis vs vagina. Only applies to women who bear the kid and birth the kid. Men can bond, but those women who bear the kid might bond more initially. Adopted kids should be bonded equally, since neither births the kid. It’s a slight difference and shouldn’t direct any policy.

  177. Schala says

    Btw, when there are “female versions” of toys/objects which originally did not (Lego, Kinder Surprise toys), it’s an effort on marketers to go into “an untapped market”, even if the original toy was not gendered.

    IMO it’s also about making the parents buy different (and thus more) toys for their kids if they’re not the same sex.

    Instead of playing with the same Lego sets, siblings would play with Lego and Lego”for girls” separately. That’s 2 sets.

    And making “for girl” versions is both misandrist and misogynist, when the original is not gendred, wether it’s Lego, Kinder or videogames.

    It assumes that girls are uninterested because it’s not girl-coded with enough pink, glitters and Barbie-esque things like having a Hair Salon building.

    And secondly, it ignores boy’s preferences and makes something off-limits to them, on top of everything already off-limits to boys.

    Hockey probably has mostly boys, even at low ages (like 6-7), but a girl can easily play without being beaten up for it. She’ll just be an outlier. If a boy does ballet, he won’t just be an outlier, people will assume something is wrong with him, and that it needs to be beaten out of him.

    Doing “hockey for girls” is no better (I’m looking at you, ringuette), they could have just removed contact and fights instead of making a ghetto, insuring hockey remains mostly-boys forever.

  178. hjhornbeck says

    Just a quick one:

    ballgame @187

    In other words, male staff will no longer be able to pat down female inmates … but apparently female staff will be able to continue to pat down male inmates. This ban appears to me to be sexist. […] But — for whatever it’s worth — it appears to me that these new standards still have a ways to go to get to true gender egalitarianism.

    Agreed. The authors were perhaps arguing for a power gradient, that as men are considered to be either stronger or more “powerful” than women, being patted down by a man is more threatening than being patted down by a woman. I don’t buy it; thanks to knives, shivs and the like, size and strength aren’t proportional to damage dished out. As a feminist, I’m on your side here.

  179. Schala says

    …. Are you sure you’re not a feminist? You’re spooking me out here.

    Those Kinder Surprise “for girls” ads, where we see a little girl playing dress up in her mother’s small walk-in, then mom shows up and the narrator goes “we now have them, for girls”.

    The candy and it’s toys are banned in the US for some obscure 1938 FDA reason about embedding small pieces into food (even though it’s in a capsule that won’t accidentally open, inside the hollow chocolate egg) meant for 3+ years old kids. But it’s not banned in Canada, so we got them here.

    The ad makes me cringe, because I’ve tried the (rather cheap) small toys, and there’s nothing masculine overall about them. And chocolate isn’t a masculine food either. You have small 5 cents worth cars that can’t run (wheels don’t work, and are entirely in plastic), a swing set, small figurines.

    Here’s a “set” someone collected.

    http://www.jukate.ru/eng/catalog/kinder-steckfiguren-ausland.htm

    But having “for girls” stuff creates a stigma, while ironically, when a company specifically goes out of its way to create a “for boys” out of a gender-neutral product, they might kill the quality!

    Look at hair dyes, for men dyes are half the quantity for the same price, and you get to choose between 8 colors…instead of the 400 colors for unisex (but with women on the package). It also assumes all men have short hair. I needed 2 unisex packages to dye my hair completely, when I was 21 and wanted it in blue-black – I’d have probably needed 5 of the “for men only” packages (I have rather thick hair and it’s pretty long).

    When a “for men” product is created, it’s usually to kill stigma about a certain product being “for girls only”, usually due to female-only aggressive advertising (given how many all-female ads of make-up I’ve seen, vs zero with any male, I wouldn’t be biased to conclude that they never intended it for men, even as a secondary market – same for hair dyes that aren’t to cover grey hair (just to have good-looking hair, a new color, highlights, or for kicks)).

    So they create the distinction for some unknown reason, knowingly cutting off half their market, then create a secondary cheaper brand to “get back” that market.

    I don’t understand the logic in alienating half your customer base to pander to stereotypes.

    Aren’t Lego sets showing both boys and girls playing, and as a game understood as a unisex game?

    It seems the for girls thing is trying to fix what isn’t broken, and the for boys thing is a follow-up from willingly and intentionally breaking it.

    It seems the only products that seem unaffected by aggressive female-only advertising is foods not considered girly (yogurt is, but pizza isn’t, even if a woman buys your Delissio) and cleaning products (everyone needs to clean once in a while, it’s not “gay” to do so).

    And where aggressive male-only advertising seems to alienate women is muscle cars and pick-up trucks, stuff already considered pretty masculine.

    Tell me if I missed some.

    I do wonder why advertisers are so invested in the idea of making their consumer base insecure about their sex identity to a point where they buy a product or associate strongly with a heavily-gendered product/item/action so others recognize their sex correctly.

    Doing so increases sexism and sex polarization in culture, for no good reason (not any beneficial to said society anyways).

  180. Johnnyboy says

    What a wonderful list of lies. It amuses me. in a sad way, that the MRM is now undergoing a similar “demonization” that feminism has been subject to for years. Here’s what many *actual* MRAs would say in response. (These are not all my opinions, but I am both an MRA and a feminist, and I do not believe these two ideas are mutually exclusive.)

    1. The standard gender wage gap is a flawed measure, due to differences in hours worked and differing priorities between (a majority of) men and women, such as the vast difference between the number of women taking maternity leave versus men taking paternity leave (if offered). Referring to the standard aggregate data and saying “women make 80 cents for every dollar men make,” while true, is still disingenuous. However, this observation on its own does not discredit the idea of gender discrimination in the workplace. A more telling statistic would be the hourly wage (or salary) for men and women performing the same jobs. As a society we should do everything we can to make sure various fields (such as STEM) with major gender imbalances are not actively discriminatory, and that at no stage in development should children be pushed to study certain things (but not others) solely based on their genders.

    2. Violence is not justified unless in self-defense. It is possible for this to be a man defending from an attack from a woman, but this is far less common than the reverse. Police and other emergency responders for domestic disputes should not automatically assume a man is at fault.

    3. (This is the biggest strawman I’ve ever seen. Who even says something like this? Statutory rapists, that’s who, not MRAs. Stop deliberately trying to confuse the two.)

    4. (Replace “Statutory rapists” with “Insecure assholes in their early 20s.”)

    5. Women should be eligible for the draft. The draft is typically cited by MRAs as an example of discrimination against men, namely due to the idea that young men are disposable.

    6. Women, and men, deserve to be treated with respect and not to be objectified. The stereotype that men are unable to control their sexual urges, and that women should be responsible for this, is an antiquated idea and a very dangerous one at that.

    7. (Sorry, but this item was an outright lie. MRAs simply do not do that.)

    8. Being a “nice guy” is well, nice, but no one needs to have sex with you because of it. Anyone who plays this card deserves pity, not a medal.

    9. (See #7.)

    10. Generalizing by gender is what caused this whole mess in the first place. We should stop doing it.

    11. No one should rape. No one should willingly place themselves in danger of being raped (or having any crime committed against them for that matter). Just because a rape victim was out at night in a shady area, that doesn’t magically absolve the rapist of guilt.

    There you have it. I know this will probably be ignored (almost certainly by the author), but I hope *someone* reads this and realizes that the ideas of the MRM and of feminism are completely compatible. Everyone’s championing for equality, no? Then let’s stop pretending that feminists are man-hating vagina monsters and that MRAs are a hate-group made up of rapists.

  181. Bob says

    The problem with slandering the enemy is that when its discovered that you lied, people hate you for it.

  182. Bob says

    Johhnyboy said:

    “11. No one should rape. No one should willingly place themselves in danger of being raped (or having any crime committed against them for that matter). Just because a rape victim was out at night in a shady area, that doesn’t magically absolve the rapist of guilt. ”

    This isn’t the main kind of rape that feminists say takes place. Only about 4% of women will experience forced rape in their life, which isn’t an insignificant number. That number is only about 30% of the 1 in 6 women are raped that feminists give.

    It means that the vast majority of “rapes” are accomplished with zero force, zero coercion, zero restraint, zero violence – I.E. they’re not rape – as the “victim” is free to leave at any time.

    That is the greatest lie I’ve ever been told by feminists and I will never forgive them for telling it.

  183. Els says

    Bob: Are you actually that stupid?

    The victim is not “free to leave any time.” FORCED means just that. If someone’s scared of violence occurring if she says no, or is coerced, then consent does NOT occur. By definition, ALL rape is forced. Stop pulling statistics out of your ass, you moron.

    Another shining example of how ignorant and misogynist MRAs are.

Trackbacks

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>