The fairly friendly Friday open thread


The past couple of weeks have seen a couple of the busiest and perhaps most passionately argued blogs I’ve ever had here at HetPat, and I don’t know about you but I’m feeling a bit drunk. And if you like the sound of that, as Douglas Adams  famously noted, you wouldn’t if you were a glass of water.

If you’re new around here, every couple of weeks I start a new open thread, which has no on- or -off topic, everything is of interest, and occasionally I send people here when they’ve got too much to say on a topic thread.

Anyone following the golf? It’s not my favourite sport, but I usually get into the Ryder Cup. Might try to keep up over the weekend. I like to imagine it is all like Caddyshack and always keep an eye out for gophers.

This week I have mostly been twisting my melon with Aphex Twin’s new album. Proper old school electronica with added bubblapeepboSKWONK. Some of it is so good it makes me literally laugh with astonishment.

Oh, and there’s news and wars and bombs and diseases and OH MY GOD X FACTOR IS ON!

What are your bread and circuses, folks?

 

 

Comments

  1. says

    I agreed with pretty much everything you said in the recent quarrelsome threads, but then I nearly always do.

    My bread and circuses: I’ve just got home from hearing The Sixteen perform pieces by Sheppard, Mundy and Davy at Southwell Minster. They were very good, but then they nearly always are.

    Not heard the new Aphex Twin yet. Guess I’ll get round to it sometime.

  2. mildlymagnificent says

    Fairly friendly?

    Ok. I’m going to do the right thing and drag something that was fairly OT in the previous thread over here.

    Herbert Purdy@86

    The last 45 years has seen the almost complete destruction of fatherhood and the natural authority in the family that the father has. The mother makes the rules and the father enforces them. That is a natural order that extreme political groups, working behind the scenes have succeeded in overturning. The radical feminists of the 1970s (indeed their predecessors a hundred years earlier) set out to destroy the family as the unit of society that guaranteed stability, to replace it with – well what? A form of anarchy?

    I just quoted most of that extract to my husband. He laughed.

    Anarchy in a “destroyed” family? I think I would count as one of those radical street-marching feminist harpies of the 1970s, as would many of my friends. As it happens, I did actively work to destroy the last legal remnants of my first five years of very unhappy marriage to an occasionally violent drunkard.

    Since then I’ve been married for over 35 years to a wonderful man. Our marriage has been stable, loving and happy. We’ve also raised 2 responsible adult children who, to our embarrassment, frequently brag about how we were/are A) The Best Parents they know of and, even more cringingly B) soulmates. Part of that is because we never hit them but we were relentless in enforcing family rules as well as things like keeping your seatbelt done up. They acquired a deep distaste for “standing in the corner”, but they’re absolutely amazed at how many of their friends were smacked, or worse.

    I might add that they’re also overlooking the fact that, when they were in school, we were regarded by them and their friends as horribly strict and old-fashioned. We absolutely refused to allow them to watch the various tv shows that their friends all watched. I don’t think the lack of Neighbours or Home and Away or adult-rated films and series did them any harm. We also did not allow television news until the youngest was 10 years old – though they were much more informed than most of their friends were about world affairs and politics generally because we discussed radio and newspaper reports with them – at a level appropriate to their age. We also enforced proper table manners as well as having their father teach them to cook – right from the time they needed to stand on kindy chairs to reach the kitchen benches.

    Anarchy? We were authoritative parents, not authoritarian. We are a cooperative couple, not a pair of parallel, separate role-fillers. The disciplinarian father is not a desirable, let alone necessary, role for men. It’s a clumsy, ham-handed relic of not-very-nice notions about marriage and family. It should be allowed to die an early, peaceful death and its ghost should never be allowed to bother anyone.

    Men should enjoy their kids. Picnics, museums, art galleries, kids’ parties as well as all the boring routines of shopping, learn-to-swim, doctor appointments, music lessons and sport practice as well as supervising homework and bathtimes. My husband really enjoyed (most of) his times helping supervise weekend rowing camps and escorting 50+ year 7 kids on their week-long exciting trip to Canberra as well as watching our own kids performing in choirs and the like. He’d have hated being relegated to an enforcer role – though he does have a devastating teacher-in-the-playground roar when required.

    And most of my friends, feminist and otherwise, have done much the same. I feel sorry for people who feel that they’ve lost their role or purpose in life. But there are other, better ways to live than sticking to unrealistic, rigid gender roles that really weren’t all that wonderful when they were the most common.

  3. says

    Circuses? last couple of comment threads.

    As this is the Friday friendly thread I just like to say thank you to Mildlymagnificent from someone who mostly lurks here.

    You said in an earlier post that you were getting fed up with banging your head against the MRA wall here and wanted to pull out. I’d like to take this opportunity to say that even if you are not getting through to the entrenched MRA commentators, you (and a few other thoughtful commentators, not only but mostly on the feminist side) are certainly “getting through” to me.

    I was someone who thought a few years ago that feminism had basically won its battle, but I had my world rocked by the whole internet batshittery after elevatorgate, so since then I’ve been trying to learn and commentators like yourself are really helping.

    sincerely, thank you.

    And to Ally, thank you for taking the time to post here. You’ve been taking a whole lotta shit lately but the actual quality of debate on your comment threads and the fact that you allow it to happen (within reason), makes this one of the few blogs here that its worth reading below the fold.

  4. Oneforthetreble says

    Hi Ally, another lurker here and may I say more power to your elbow! I do enjoy reading this blog.
    What do you think about the all women shortlists for Labour? Considering the quite considerable lack of working class labour politicians, is it a smart move to rule out working class male candidates?

  5. David S says

    Hi Ally,

    I know that you are a keen student of the Crime Survey for England and Wales, and take an interest in domestic violence. It appears to me that the CSEW questionnaire being used this year is significantly different to that used in previous years, and I’m not sure what to make of it.

    The questionnaires are available here:

    http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/guide-method/method-quality/specific/crime-statistics-methodology/questionnaires/index.html

    The 2012-13 questionnaire lists 15 different kinds of abuse, including being denied a decent share of family income, being pushed, choked, or threatened with a weapon. Respondents can tick more than one of these and, when the data are collated abuse is divided into severe, and less severe, depending on which boxes where ticked. See page 206 of the questionnaire for details.

    The 2013-14 questionnaire seems to do it differently. The question on abuse (page 223) lumps together pushing, choking, and use of weapons into one category. Respondents can only answer yes or no to the question, and are not able to specify whether they got pushed, or whether someone held a gun to their head. The next question asks whether the respondent was injured as a result of the abuse, so I presume that the CSEW will use the answer to that question to distinguish between severe and less severe violence.

    This seems to be quite a significant shift because it measures severity in terms of what an assailant succeeds in doing, rather than in terms of what he or she was trying to do.

    As you are aware DV figures are a highly contested area because people disagree on how gendered such violence is, and will play all sorts of statistical games to make the numbers appear more favourable to their own position.

    I imagine that the change in the way the statistics are collated will have some bearing on that, but it’s not entirely clear whose side it will end up being of benefit to.

    Of course I could have completely got the wrong end of the stick about this, and I haven’t read through all 300 odd pages of the questionnaire, but I’d be interested to see what you think of it.

  6. 123454321 says

    MM, Good post and I tend to agree with your sentiment throughout. you sound like good parents.

    Please can you answer this: Why do news reports in the media often refer to catastrophic incidents or fatal circumstances with the tag “X died including Y women” or “X of whom were women” or “including women and children”?

    Do you find that derogatory to men, to women, or perhaps both? Is it sexist and outdated, or are you cool with the way they address these matters? Do you think there are potential underlying, subliminal messages hidden within? Do you think people (media or otherwise) are oblivious to what they are doing or is it done with intent?

  7. says

    Oneforthetreble as Ally hasn’t answered I am going to give my thoughts on what is a IMO a divisive red herring.

    The fact that Labour has completely abandoned any pretense of being a party for the working class it doesn’t really matter to this working class voter whether the Oxbridge educated identi-kit candidate is male or female.

    All things being equal, ie: the male and female candidate are equally personally ambitious and venal, I would probably favour a woman as it will at least be a novelty to be shafted by someone with a different middle class up bringing to the men who have been shafting me up until now.

  8. H. E. Pennypacker says

    @ MildlyMagnificent and Herbert Purdy regarding HP’s original comment

    The last 45 years has seen the almost complete destruction of fatherhood and the natural authority in the family that the father has. The mother makes the rules and the father enforces them. That is a natural order that extreme political groups, working behind the scenes have succeeded in overturning. The radical feminists of the 1970s (indeed their predecessors a hundred years earlier) set out to destroy the family as the unit of society that guaranteed stability, to replace it with – well what? A form of anarchy?

    To disagree with MM but support her defence of feminism:

    The type of feminism I like best does indeed try to do this (the part in bold), although it seems the feminist variant of anarchism (or the anarchist variant of feminism) is far more popular now than it was in the 1970s – particularly as anarchists have adopted practices that were (in the Western political left) first developed by feminists such as consensus decision making. If the old patriarchal model of the nuclear family was destroyed and replaced with something inspired by anarchism* (this change is something which certainly hasn’t happened although you (HP) seem to think it has) I would be a very happy man.

    *There obviously isn’t such a thing as an anarchist way of parenting but it’s possible to imagine a broad spectrum of methods that could be considered anarchist.

  9. Ally Fogg says

    Danny Butts (3)

    Really glad you posted that. At the risk of causing embarrassment, I consider MildlyMagnificent to be a shining diamond in the treasure chest of commentors I have here. She is always intelligent, thoughtful, compassionate and insightful, even on the rare occasions when we disagree.

    And thank you for your comments about the standard of debate here. It is a fine balancing act trying to keep genuine debate going here as there is always a proportion of commenters who do not actually want to do that, they just want to shout abuse at either me or their ideological opponents. But if you can see past that I agree with you, there is a lot of genuinely interesting and constructive discussion goes on here, and when it works I am fairly proud of that.

  10. Ally Fogg says

    Oneforthetreble (4)

    I’m not a huge fan of all women shortlists, for many reasons including the one you give.

    As a first step I’d make it a legal requirement that someone has to have lived in the constituency they are standing for at least five years. That would help a lot with both those problems, I believe.

    But in general terms I tend to think that Westminster democracy and party politics are pretty much broken beyond repair now, so I’m almost past caring much about which particular methods they use to shuffle around the deckchairs on the Titanic.

  11. David S says

    @Oneforthetreble and Ally

    Here’s my proposal: Every constituency should elect two members, one of whom has to be female, and the other male. Everybody, irrespective of gender, gets to vote for their preferred female candidate and their preferred male candidate. This means that the successful woman candidate is not a women’s candidate, because she has to get male support. Similarly the successful man is not a men’s candidate.

    This would ensure that parliament contained equal numbers of women and men, and it would avoid the situation where there was some candidate whose local support made them ideal for a particular constituency but who could not be elected because they were of the wrong gender. Of course it would still create problems if there were two candidates who were both ideal but for their gender, but that is less likely.

  12. scoobertron says

    @David S

    I can understand the idea of all-women shortlists as a way of correcting past gender discrimination (though I am not necessarily in favour). What I don’t understand is the idea that our electoral system should be reconfigured in such a way as to evermore ensure an even split between male and female MPs. I am also not sure how this (or the corresponding interventions for e.g. race – which would involve limiting non-white participation to under 20%) could be argued for without invoking some kind of gender (or racial) essentialism.

    I don’t, for example, see why it would be a bad thing for our current system in some more enlightened future with no gender discrimination, to elect a house with 75% female MPs. And I would be surprised to hear a good argument to support the idea that this would be undesirable.

  13. says

    Ally @10: I’m just going to nitpick your 5 years residency requirement. The expenses scandal showed us how much respect the average Westminster politician has for the rules.

    “Of course I have lived in my constituency bungalow for 5 years, the £2 million Islington house is just a weekend pied de terre”..

    however, as I agree with your general point that is just nitpicking.

    Christ! I sound like a UKIP voter 🙁 but you can see why people are prepared to ignore the odious politics.

    On a brighter note my local election ballot paper last May had a bunch calling themselves The Trades Union and Socialist Coalition . I had never heard of them before but seeing as they had lots of words that I approve of in their title, I felt that I was actually voting for something rather than the least worst option.

  14. mildlymagnificent says

    123454321@6

    Do you find that derogatory to men, to women, or perhaps both? Is it sexist and outdated, or are you cool with the way they address these matters? Do you think there are potential underlying, subliminal messages hidden within? Do you think people (media or otherwise) are oblivious to what they are doing or is it done with intent?

    One of the fundamental tenets I live by:
    Conspiracy is rarely a better explanation than stupidity.

    Given that, I wouldn’t say out-dated because, leaving aside pure stupidity, I think prejudice, bigotry and stereotyping never go out of style. Remember also that here in Australia the media is dominated by Murdoch to an extraordinary degree, much more than other countries (at least those that don’t have government ownership or censorship of news), so we’re never far from deliberate agendas being pushed by all means, fair and foul. That also leads to oblivious recitations of what are really mindless mantras of unadulterated, puerile nonsense. (And occasionally vile. Never forget the coverage of asylum seekers here. It’s pure essence of nastiness.)

    As for reporting disasters and crimes, I think people have a genuine interest in children as victims. Often after hurricanes and other storms have done their worst, people are heartened and reassured by stories of women delivering babies during or immediately after the event. And then there are the pet dogs and cats that survive tornadoes and earthquakes, always a winner. I’m not overly concerned about those conventions about how many men, women, children are involved, though. I feel that they’re a shorthand in the industry for trying to get some “human interest” or some tugging of heartstrings into stories that are basically horrible. Shorthand because the agency would otherwise have to invest more into the reporting to find out the individual stories of the victims. That costs money, time and effort – and maybe some danger – far easier and cheaper to run the standard non-analysis of who was affected.

  15. mildlymagnificent says

    H E Pennypacker@8

    If the old patriarchal model of the nuclear family was destroyed and replaced with something inspired by anarchism* (this change is something which certainly hasn’t happened although you (HP) seem to think it has) I would be a very happy man.

    Hah! I wouldn’t be married at all if I hadn’t succumbed to my own logic. Once we’d decided we wanted to have kids, mrmagnificent wanted to get married. I said it wasn’t necessary. It didn’t matter one way or the other if we were or weren’t married. … His rejoinder then was that, if it didn’t matter, then marrying was equal to not marrying. Wasn’t it? So we married.

    But my view has modified a bit since then. There has to be some way of defining who is and who isn’t within a “family” for all kinds of purposes. If someone is unconscious – and this is very relevant to me of late because mr was in a coma for more than a week after I (and assorted ambos and ER teams) had administered CPR and a whole lot more – who has the right and/or power to say what should happen to a sick or dying relative? Who is a relative? Who can and can’t visit? Who is and who isn’t entitled to information about the person’s diagnosis and treatment?

    Same thing goes for determining who does and doesn’t have obligations or duty of care or is not permitted to do certain things for children in various circumstances – like being picked up from daycare or administering medication.

    Once you get to the point of saying there should be some form of legal process/ document/ ID card or whatever that is fairly easy for people to obtain and present, why shouldn’t marriage – in some form or other, with or without that particular name – be that process?

    I’m quite happy to do away with marriage as many people see it. I’m not so sure that we wouldn’t have to institute something very like it to be able to manage quite routine life circumstances.

  16. H. E. Pennypacker says

    @ MM 15

    Sorry to hear about the coma. I hope things are getting better.

    I’m quite happy to do away with marriage as many people see it. I’m not so sure that we wouldn’t have to institute something very like it to be able to manage quite routine life circumstances.

    I guess the difference is that I would like to see the dissolution of the traditional family set up as part of a broader reorganisation of society. The bureaucratic structures the are easier to navigate when you are in a (at least fairly) traditional marriage would largely be dissolved in my ideal world. Actually, the “traditional” patriarchal model was enforced (in many places any way) so that states could extend their power – patronymics were made mandatory so that it was easier to keep track of people, the legal identity of children and wife were subsumed within that of the husband/father so that enforcing the laws of the state became far easier. Back then people had a lot of kids but even if we go for a conservative estimate of 2 then the state now only has to enforce the law on 1/4 of its population and hold that 1/4 responsible for controlling the other 3/4.

  17. H. E. Pennypacker says

    Forgot concluding thought:

    So as your examples indicate state power and family organisation are quite intimately linked and a certain method for administrating the population will encourage a certain type of family structure. I think some gender issues are practically impossible to solve under a strong capitalist state.

  18. mildlymagnificent says

    Sorry to hear about the coma. I hope things are getting better.

    Well, it took a while. The “incident” was 18 months ago. 3 months in hospital & rehab (after they implanted a defibrillator), then another 3 months physio and other therapy at home. He’s not quite back to his previous physical standards – used to walk 25+ kms a week, not any more, though he goes to the gym several times a week. Even if he could walk like that, I’m not keen because his peripheral vision and his concentration leave a lot to be desired.

    I suppose the biggest difference is that he no longer looks 10 years younger than his real age. Mainly due to the change in posture, I reckon. He slouches a bit and his speech is often not as fluent as it could be – even when he’s not tired. When he’s tired he slurmumbles a bit and has a bit of trouble finding the right word.

    By and large, he’s reasonably OK.

  19. mildlymagnificent says

    Forgot the most important thing.

    Everybody should learn CPR. Everybody.

    I “knew” it, but hadn’t actually done the course. When your family is full of teachers and nurses it’s easy to forget that you don’t really know it that well. It was quite hard to get on top of the rhythm required just from the emergency operator coaching me through it until the army of ambos arrived. There’s also an issue about the force needed – a bit hard for me anyway because I can’t kneel, a long-term problem – so I was doing it bending from the hip. (Adrenaline is a wonderful thing.)

    The rhythm? Sing along to a recording of Stayin’ Alive and you’ll get it. It’s a bit faster than you might expect.
    The force? A lot more than you think.
    (It’s actually desirable for the professionals to break a rib or several. It makes the chest “softer”. Not recommended for untrained people to do it deliberately, but don’t hold back unless it’s a child or frail person.)

    As I said earlier. Everybody should learn CPR. Everybody.

  20. says

    David S @5:

    Thanks for making me aware that the CSEW questionnaire for 2013-2014 has been made available to the public. At first glance it appears as CSEW have ended their split sample experiment for evaluating changes to the questionnaire. Secondly I note that SOA §4.4 c and d still isn’t included. That was expected since the questionaiire for 2013-2014 was done in April and I contacted and got a response from the ONS in April about this flaw with the questionnaire. The told me that they were going to chang it. I hope this change will make it into the questionnaire for next years survey (2015-2016). Again, thanks for reminding me to do a follow-up with the ONS.

  21. redpesto says

    scoobertron @12:

    I can understand the idea of all-women shortlists as a way of correcting past gender discrimination (though I am not necessarily in favour). What I don’t understand is the idea that our electoral system should be reconfigured in such a way as to evermore ensure an even split between male and female MPs.

    The tendency in some debates about gender and discrimination is to argue for ‘gender parity’ regarding the under-representation of women, as if this ‘ought’ to be the outcome in most/all forms of social/economic groupings because (a) that’s what ‘nature’ does when it comes to producing boys and girls and (b) it’s easy to measure [see a] . By comparision, it would not be clear what the ‘right’ percentage of LGBT, ethnic minority or disabled people would be to constitute ‘diversity.’

    The fact that ‘nature’ doesn’t need any intervention to produce a 50/50 split between the sexes in the population is a risky – if not potentially an esentialist – basis to argue for equality, if only beacuse of the need for human agency/decision-making…in other words politics. Or rather, it ends up being a pursuit of equality of outcome rather than one of opportunity.

    In the case of an electoral system , it assumes that it’s ‘representative’ on the basis of gender rather than representative of the political (i.e. ideological) choices of the electorate. That’s why asking women and men in a Mumsnet survey whether the country would be better run if there were more women in a UK Parliament or Cabinet is a flawed question: ‘being female ‘ is not an inherent quality that can make things better, esecially if that woman is from a party a female (let alone male) voter doesn’t like.

    Variations on this line of thinking keep cropping up in ‘Where are the women?’ articles in the media, and I keep suspecting the authors haven’t thought it through. . Plus, there’s also one other problem with the ‘gender pairty’ argument: how do you get the men to make up the balance in areas where women are in the majority? Does everything need to have a 50/50 gender balance as proof of gender equality?

  22. mildlymagnificent says

    The fact that ‘nature’ doesn’t need any intervention to produce a 50/50 split between the sexes in the population is a risky – if not potentially an esentialist – basis to argue for equality,

    It’s essentialist all right. I dislike the idea intensely. (Though I’m willing to listen to people in various countries, regions, industries, activities arguing for it as a limited time introductory process. There’s quite a good argument on that – if you’re prepared to work through her chapters on Equality and Justice – in Janet Radcliffe Richards’s The Sceptical Feminist.)

    I’m really not interested in the 100 years ago notion of women being “better” or more moral and responsible than men are. And I’m even less interested in the mid-20th century, and onward, ideas of women being “better” because of innate caring and nurturing inclinations. (Even if they weren’t based on Freudian rather than Victorian essentialism, they’re still daft.)

    The preferable option is that – some time or another – women will be seen as being as competent and suitable as men now are for roles as community representatives and legislators. Once that view is common rather than merely being given lip service, electors can be confident that both women and men can participate in government effectively. The most important feature of a political candidate, after all, is their policy attitude. I wouldn’t vote for anyone like Margaret Thatcher, for instance, if my life depended on it. The fact that her opponent is a man is secondary to the fact that he proposes policies that are more appealing to me.

    The issue of “proportionate” numbers should be looked at over time anyway. The fact that a parliament is made up of a majority of is not a problem, The problem is that it’s decade after decade with little variation. If the ratio of men to women varied from one election to another and, occasionally, the larger portion was women rather than men, the fact that it’s never exactly 50% is not a problem.

  23. 123454321 says

    “As for reporting disasters and crimes, I think people have a genuine interest in children as victims. Often after hurricanes and other storms have done their worst, people are heartened and reassured by stories of women delivering babies during or immediately after the event. And then there are the pet dogs and cats that survive tornadoes and earthquakes, always a winner. ”

    So you’re drawing to a similar confusion to me: that the act of specifying women as victims is equivalent to mentioning how many children or pets are victims. This raises two points:

    1. This is derogatory to women – being placed in the same category as helpless children and animals.
    2. Society is more interested and sympathetic towards children, animals and women – but not men.

    Either way, nobody wins. Which is why I think the media is backward with its vision of equality.

  24. redpesto says

    @mildlymaginificent #24:

    Thanks for the reply. My suspicion (FWIW) is that proposals such as quotas and all-women shortlists wouldn’t be ‘a limited time introductory process’ because its advocates would end up campaigning to keep them by claiming that things would ‘go backwards’ if they were scrapped or simply because it cements representation of groups they approve of. The trouble is any fall in the representation of women (even from a figure where they were in the majority) is likely to be greeted by panic headlines and demands that Something Must Be Done (i.e. quotas, all-women shortlists, or whatever).

    Morevover, a lot of the media ‘debate’ doesn’t bother with looking ‘over time’ (too much like hard work?). For example, getting more girls to study science so the numbers even out is not a quick fix, as Dr Sheldon Cooper explains. And the same goes for getting boys to take up midwifery, though apparently there’s not the same political/media concern on that issue.

    PS: I wouldn’t have voted for Thatcher either, but variations on ‘Team Woman’ articles like this one on Michelle Bachmann just keep on coming.

  25. says

    Red pesto: “My suspicion (FWIW) is that proposals such as quotas and all-women shortlists wouldn’t be ‘a limited time introductory process’ because its advocates would end up campaigning to keep them by claiming that things would ‘go backwards’ if they were scrapped or simply because it cements representation of groups they approve of. ”

    Never mind, they’d have to end up continuing for approximately six thousand years before they endangered the status quo.

  26. Marduk says

    New Bindel sighting in The Spectator praising Solanas and the SCUM manifesto.

    Its highly amusing to me on many levels, I note in particular that there is a generic style of writing that hitherto I thought was specific to Mein Kampf discussion but apparently generalises. Bindel is careful to say Solanos was “mad” (teh menz fault) but as per the shy blushing crypto-fascist will permit “she was on to something” and “went too far…but radicals are needed”.

    We’re talking here about someone who committed attempted murder and called for genocide explained away as “pissing people off” and “pointing out the obvious”.

    Classic Julie, I was worried she was going soft there for a minute.

  27. Carnation says

    Oh, Julie…

    Why did you go and write that?

    Presumably clickbait reasons…

    Ah well, it’ll give the online wingnuts something to get wound up about for quite some time.

    I’m going to have to re-assess my admittedly luke-warm admiration for Ms Bindel… The “gendercide” stuff is obviously satire (and the “Galt” style “libertarian” dweebs in the MRM must surely admire her views on money), but treating the shooting of Andy Warhol, and the man-blaming, is going too far.

    0/10, Ms Bindel.

  28. Carnation says

    @ 12345…

    Animal charities raise far more from donations than women’s charities do. Does this mean that society places more value on animals than women?

    This argument has been made to me by a feminist before.

  29. says

    Julie Bindel like Jeremy Clarkson say controversial stuff…for money.

    Going by the comment thread, which is Lewis’s law in action, shes making more click bait cash from MRAs than feminists.

  30. Carnation says

    @ Danny Butts

    Flip the ideology, and the commenters, and the reverse is true.

    Online activism is an oxymoron. The MRM, and Tumbler feminists, achieve nothing, except to justify themselves to each other.

    Bindel is a true activist, of many years standing, with a keen sense of social justice. That’s why her articles such as this are bitterly disappointing.

    Bindel is to MRAs, what MRAs are to feminists: a reason to exist. For this reason, the MRM does their own stated cause far, far more harm than good, and will continue to do so. But still, the egos of their leaders get massaged (and a few bucks in “expenses”), so why would they stop?

  31. says

    Carnation:

    Going by the comment thread, which is Lewis’s law in action, shes making more click bait cash from MRAs than feminists.

    Is it really Lewis’ law (“The comments on any article about feminism justify feminism”) in action we see here?

    First of all – do feminists agree that what Bindel writes in this article is feminism? And secondly; is the view of all men put forth by Solanas and seconded by Bindel justifiable at all?

  32. says

    Carnation @ 34

    “Bindel is a true activist, of many years standing, with a keen sense of social justice. That’s why her articles such as this are bitterly disappointing.”

    I suppose I am only really aware of Julie Bindel from the explosive moments that got a mention on Woman’s Hour. Having done a bit more reading I can see that see does actually get out and campaign. I don’t necessarily agree with her but if you are suggesting that actual campaigning is far more worthy than shouting at people on the interwebs, a la the MRM, I absolutely agree with you.

  33. redpesto says

    Carnation:

    Bindel is a true activist, of many years standing, with a keen sense of social justice. That’s why her articles such as this are bitterly disappointing.

    Bindel has form for ‘articles such as this’, especially when it comes to transgender issues. In other words, not so much ‘bitterly disappointing’ as ‘all too typical’.

  34. says

    Tamen 35:

    “Is it really Lewis’ law (“The comments on any article about feminism justify feminism”) in action we see here? ”

    In a comment thread on a book review the very first comment

    “A complete nutter, as most radical feminists, especially those of the kind describing men as ”walking abortions” seem to be. You’d be hard pressed to come up with any of that ilk who weren’t self admitted manic depressives or had some other serious mental disorder. In addition, with the possible exception of Gloria Steinam, most of them looked like a fat bulldog licking p1ss off a nettle. No wonder they were angry at their lives and looking for someone to blame.”

    that’s the first but not the nastiest comment…on a book review.

    “First of all – do feminists agree that what Bindel writes in this article is feminism?”

    Well for a start its a book review not a policy statement, and although in my limited experience feminists often have difficulty agreeing on a number of things, the concept that women can become so damaged by their treatment by men that they can go so far over the top as to actually write things down and try to publish them, yeah I suppose there might be a consensus.

    “And secondly; is the view of all men put forth by Solanas and seconded by Bindel justifiable at all?

    Ive never read scum* but I think I can go out on a limb and agree with JB who “found her work and some of her politics hard to swallow”

    *But fun fact I was in a play in Salford in the early ’90 that was inspired by it.

  35. Carnation says

    Bindel campaigned for gay and women’s rights and was effective in doing so. For that, she is to be applauded.

    For articles and views, such as the infamous trans one, and her rather “lite” take on Solanas, she is open to justifiable criticism.

    But to paint her as a “man-hater” is simplistic MRA dogma. A child-like need for a bete noir.

    Have a read of this:

    http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2007/jul/16/ukcrime.gender

  36. says

    That was pretty grim.

    I understand how the patriarchy can explain the behavior of Kevin Ashdown, from being beaten by his father to the expression of his own toxic masculinity.

    The bit I don’t understand however, is the accusation JB make that it was Ashdown’s misogyny specifically that led to the murder.

    what am I missing?

  37. says

    that’s the first but not the nastiest comment…on a book review.

    A nasty comment indeed, which came in response to a book review of an biography where the book reviewer is thinking that the subject (Solanas) of the biography is onto something and is relevant today when she (Solanas) describes men as “walking abortions” and describes them as being so preoccupied by sex that they would do anything to get some.

    I have observed the Lewis’s law happened several times and I am not defending those comments, but in this case I can’t really get too upset. There is a saying: “As you shout into the forest, so it echoes back” and I think it certainly applies here.

  38. says

    Ok, sorry scrub that.

    JB : “But Ashdown’s actions were driven as much by misogyny as the effects of his childhood abuse.”

    After a more careful reading I spotted the “as much by”.

    So as a man you get screwed up by the patriarchy but it takes a misogynist to take that out on women.

  39. 123454321 says

    “Animal charities raise far more from donations than women’s charities do.”

    That’s because most people know that women are taken care of anyway – by the state and often by their partners as well as themselves, obviously. People know that women are often the ‘intelligent’ takers and own far more wealth and can make their own decisions compared with animals….

    “Does this mean that society places more value on animals than women?”

    They might donate a bit of cash to a cats home but, no, because the bottom line is where there is a catastrophic incident and lives are lost, people draw attention to how many women lost their lives. I don’t see them point out animals or men, do you? Pointing out the number of children is, of course, to be expected and absolutely correct in my mind.

    Thankfully it’s becoming and old-fashioned view going rapidly out of date!

  40. Jacob Schmidt says

    They might donate a bit of cash to a cats home but, no, because the bottom line is where there is a catastrophic incident and lives are lost, people draw attention to how many women lost their lives.

    I’m thoroughly unconvinced that notability equates to value.

  41. 123454321 says

    Perception of disposability or expendability then, which is another way of describing how something is valued. Either way, women are dealt with in the same way as little children, and men aren’t given the sympathy they deserve when they are killed – compared with women or children. So wrong.

  42. H. E. Pennypacker says

    @ 123454321

    Perception of disposability or expendability then, which is another way of describing how something is valued. Either way, women are dealt with in the same way as little children, and men aren’t given the sympathy they deserve when they are killed – compared with women or children.

    Sorry but I have to say, you seem to have a slightly strange definition of value. The concept of value is pretty complicated and usually under theorised. However, suffice to say, in pretty much every society men’s actions are valued more highly than women whilst women are more protected. In fact, I would personally, if I was trying to distil patriarchy down to its purest form (I’m not sure how many feminists would agree with me) would define it as a system where men’s actions are valued and women are protected (with the negative side for both genders being that men are forced into action and women are controlled).

  43. mildlymagnificent says

    if I was trying to distil patriarchy down to its purest form (I’m not sure how many feminists would agree with me) would define it as a system where men’s actions are valued and women are protected

    Margaret Mead would largely agree with you. Her view of the various societies she’d investigated or read about was that men’s activities were always valued more highly than women’s. In some societies that was making weapons and fighting, in others it might be basket weaving. Regardless, it was valued more highly than ‘women’s work’ regardless of what that might be in that group. Not so sure about the protection.

  44. Jacob Schmidt says

    Her view of the various societies she’d investigated or read about was that men’s activities were always valued more highly than women’s.

    An interesting example I’ve heard of is that doctors in Russia are underpaid, or at least paid significantly less than doctors over here. They have the same education, and provide the same function as western doctors. The main difference? That most doctors are women, and medical work is seen as women’s work.

  45. H says

    @ MM

    That’s interesting because one of the things she’s famous for is Sex and Temperament in Three Primitive Societies (1935) which was (I believe, although I haven’t actually read it) about how equal things are amongst the sexes amongst certain groups in Papau New Guinea. Do you remember where she said it? It’s a subject I’m very interested in.

    To be honest, Mead wasn’t really a great anthropologist, her work had a far bigger impact in the wider culture than it did academically but she certainly had some good ideas. She now seems to have become a real figure head for people seeking to push the idea that genetics explain pretty much everything (and especially as a stick to beat anthropologists with) and I always find it amusing to see Steven Pinker and the like (although to be fair he’s probably the most reasonable of the bunch) knocking down arguments made almost 100 years ago that haven’t been cited by any anthropologist in the last 30 years unless they’re writing a history of the discipline.

    Back to the original point, in addition to these factors (women being protected/controlled, men’s actions being valued/them being expected to dangerous things) being universal, the degree to which they are manifested seems to move roughly in unison. Groups that are caught up in endemic warfare with other groups – ie. those in which men are expected to risk their lives fairly routinely – generally give far more power to male heads of households and consider men’s actions far more valuable in comparison to women’s than societies that are relatively peaceful. Of course, there are plenty of aberrations but it definitely seems to me like this is a general pattern.

  46. proudmra says

    The point is well made. Men are valued for what they DO, while women are valued simply for what they ARE. This is why men are subjected to so many ‘manhood must be earned” messages.

  47. Lucy says

    “where there is a catastrophic incident and lives are lost, people draw attention to how many women lost their lives.”

    Only man made catastrophic incidents. The operative word being man.

  48. says

    Proudmra

    Women like men are valued for how they conform to their gender roles. Unless you think that cooking, cleaning, and satisfying the male gaze aren’t actions then your theory falls at the first hurdle.

    Christ even MRAs value women for MAKING sammiches.

  49. proudmra says

    Yep, so it’s a good thing that feminists are focusing on how to liberate people from societal expectations and gender-role demands… as long as those people are women.

    Meanwhile, shouldn’t the same be an option for men? Who’s working on that one?

  50. John Stuart Mill says

    @Ally,

    I was looking at the article you wrote in the Guardian’s Comment is Free on January 14, 2009 titled “Statistical significance: Research statistics are too important to be disrespected and abused, even if it is in a noble cause”.

    In this article you wrote:

    Perhaps the most notorious and common example concerns the estimates, contained in the World Bank’s 1993 world development report (pdf), of the global health burden of gender-based violence, using a complex and controversial economic construct called the disability adjusted life year. These estimates were simplified into a neat little table by the researcher Lori Heise in 1994, which placed domestic violence and rape as the sixth most damaging “condition” to women aged 15-44 worldwide. However an important footnote explained that this had been added “for illustrative purposes only”. Violence and rape are causes of morbidity (such as post-traumatic mental health problems, physical injury and STDs), not conditions in themselves. Therefore they should really be compared to other causative factors of morbidity, not to illnesses such as cancer and heart disease. Heise, as she admitted herself, was simply not comparing like with like. Nonetheless, her factoid has been endlessly repeated and wildly distorted ever since. I’ve seen Heise’s interpretation of the World Bank’s estimates quoted as saying that gender-based violence is one of the leading causes of mortality (not morbidity) worldwide; seen the same figures attributed to domestic violence alone, instead of to all gender-based offences; and recently read that “It is the main cause of death and disability globally for women aged 15 to 44 – rape and gross bodily violence cause more death and permanent disability than cancer, motor vehicle accidents, war and malaria combined.” (My emphasis)

    The thing is that the estimates didn’t come from the World Bank, the estimates actually came from Lori Heise and the group of feminist activists and researchers she was working with.

    The following is from a speech at the 1994 Women’s Global Leadership Institute that Lori Heise made while she was a visiting associate at the Center for Women’s Global Leadership, an organisation founded and led by American academic feminist Charlotte Bunch. Heise’s speech was published in the report from the leadership institute titled “The Indivisibility of Women’s Human Rights: A Continuing Dialogue“.

    Finally, I want to bring your attention to a strategy that might be useful in the process of gathering or amassing numbers and statistics. We want to have our analyses appear in documents that will have an influence on policy makers. In the health movement we have done the following: we took our numbers to the statistics offices of the United Nations, the World Bank, and the World Health Organization. We convinced them of the legitimacy of the research and got them to publish it. One of the projects we worked on with the World Bank, which is an organization I would not normally work with, was a large report on women’s health. They wanted to estimate what they called the “global burden of disease,” and tried to come up with project priorities relating to the conditions and situations that were creating the biggest problems. It is important to recognize that when organizations like the World Bank make these calculations, they have a significant influence on decisions over how resources will be invested. If the World Bank says that a particular issue is the number one issue, then that is where the resources are going to go.

    As feminists in the health movement, we decided that we did not like the World Bank’s plan and that we did not agree with their methods. However, we had to decide whether we wanted to try to affect their work by giving our input, or whether we wanted to simply stand outside the whole process. We decided to try to influence their work to incorporate some of our agenda into theirs. We did, however, retain the option of dropping out entirely if we felt we were being too compromised by working in that environment. We were able to use the World Bank’s method of analysis to figure out the burden of each of the conditions they were examining for our own issues. We did it for domestic violence and for rape, and we were able to convince them that our research was both valid and important. The World Bank is now publishing a couple of documents with statements that say, for example, “In industrial countries, one out of five healthy days of life lost to women are due to domestic violence or rape.” That is a really powerful statement, and it came from the World Bank. The World Bank is not going to do anything about it. but we can cite that statement and demand to know exactly why they are not doing anything. That is the only positive thing about these big international institutions: We borrow their legitimacy and then use it against them. [pages 38-39]

    The whole thing is a strategy of co-opting the legitimacy and influence of large influential organisations and using that to drive a feminist activist agenda. Lori Heise knows that the World Bank estimates are hers (and admits that they are), while at the same time citing them as the work of someone else to give them legitimacy and influence public policy. I hardly consider this to be ethical behaviour.

    This is also contained in the same speech (emphasis mine).

    Next, I want to make a case for data. As feminists, we tend not to get involved in documentation, data, and statistics. I think we do ourselves a disservice by this, because I have found that, like it or not, documentation matters. I have been incredibly impressed by the fact that you can say something many, many times, and have 15 different people saying it, and the information does not have any impact. Yet, when one person publishes the information, it suddenly becomes true. We have to capitalize on the power of publishing. [page 38]

    If you actually look at the assertions and claims made in the work of Lori Heise and the group of feminist researchers and activists she works with you will find that a vast number of them are entirely unsubstantiated, unsupported, or outright misleading. This is evident by actually looking at the primary sources they cite, something which the majority of people are reluctant or refuse to do. All this tends to lead to is vast amounts of confirmation bias, something that is quite prevalent in these areas of research. It is hard to simply right this off as laziness or confirmation bias when this group of researchers are often the primary source of these claims in the first place. Remember, “if you publish it, it suddenly becomes true“.

    If anyone is actually serious about addressing the issues of gender policy at the United Nations, World Bank, and World Health Organisation, all you have to do is look at the amount of this group of feminist academics and researchers work that are cited by these organisations and who the members of the gender expert working groups of these organisations are. If you have a serious look, you will find that they are primarily made up of this same group of people.

    This is one rabbit hole that is very, very, very deep (and the deeper you go, the more you find). The lack of honesty, integrity, and compassion from this group of researchers and activists in particular should be seen as of great concern by anyone that actually cares about gender equality.

  51. mildlymagnificent says

    Yep, so it’s a good thing that feminists are focusing on how to liberate people from societal expectations and gender-role demands… as long as those people are women.
    Meanwhile, shouldn’t the same be an option for men? Who’s working on that one?

    Who’s working on that one? Most boots on the ground feminists in organisations like trade unions and other community level activism, I’d say.

    I remember being involved in union efforts to introduce part-time work in Australia’s public service way back in the dim distant past. Oddly enough, men in the union hierarchy tended to dismiss this as “just a women’s issue”, whereas the men I worked with/ represented hadn’t even thought of how such provisions might affect women. They simply wanted the option of working part-time and studying full-time (or near it) for themselves to get their professional and/or additional qualifications over and done with in fewer years of lost weekends and sleepless nights getting assignments finished. A couple of them had also had the sad experience of managing a parent or other relative’s serious/ terminal illness and thought they would have been better off if they could have arranged for reduced working hours for a couple of years to do that.

    I’ve not been able to pick up any easy references for the history of gaining equal parental leave rights, but most of these kinds of provisions have, initially at least, arisen from women/feminists pushing for equality in those arrangements – backed up by more than a few men who’ve wanted or needed such conditions for themselves and found them lacking.

  52. lelapaletute says

    Hey Ally, thought you might be interested in this blog about #gamergate by a friend of mine: http://jonstonechannel2.tumblr.com/post/99246356388/why-bother-with-gamergate

    It’s a long read, but I think it makes some astute points not just about #gamergate but about the use and misuse of language on the internet (and indeed in discourse generally). This paragraph in particular had me nodding furiously:

    On the level of daily interactions, every word or phrase that ever had a modicum of power is employed as bludgeoning instrument. The authors of the aforementioned diatribes drench themselves in the language of scrupulous philosophical investigation as if that in itself imbues them with moral authority, while displaying nothing close to real consistency, rigour or intellectual honesty. To anyone other than those predisposed to ardently agree, these essays and videos are appallingly unpersuasive – but then, they aren’t intended to persuade. The effort is one of blunt force – to wield any tool available in order to club the enemy, and in particular to stoke the confidence and fury of the mob so that it attacks with greater ferocity.

    And later this:

    What it speaks to is a failure of reason to penetrate through means of language alone. The language of reason is instead perceived solely as an aggressive force, and crudely wielded as such. The moral highground is a territory cynically – not sincerely – sought.

    I thought this applied very well to the rhetoric of what might be considered the ‘classic’ MRA style, but also to the hard-of-thinking in every stripe of political or ideological allegiance, including feminism (the misuse of ‘privilege checking’ and then the furore about whether white feminists could even use the term ‘privilege checking’ being a strong example).

    As a seasoned keyboard warrior (among, I am aware, many other hats you wear), do you perceive this as a problem in internet debate? If so, is it a problem specific to our medium/cultural moment, or more general? And if the former, is there anything that can be done about it?

  53. StillGjenganger says

    @Lela 61
    Good post and excellent question.
    As a by-product your link showed me at closer hand how impressively vile some of the Gamergate people are – I had not read them because frankly I could not be bothered. (God save me from my friends – my enemies I can handle.)
    My favourite example of the opposition using words as a bludgeoning instrument (you see it more easily among the opposition – but this should be a collaborative effort, not a ‘your lot is worse than my lot competition’ – you can call it among the MRAs) is the way ‘misogynist’, ‘racist’, ‘homophobe’ etc. are used far outside their original definition to brand opponents as mad, bad, and not worth listening to.

    Yours, openly ‘misogynist’, Gjenganger

  54. Adiabat says

    Lelapaletute (61): That’s quite poor really. Your friend hasn’t even tried to understand anything from the point of view of those he’s attacking, so his post is filled with easily explained and answered assertions (while being so long that I doubt anyone will even bother trying). (Alternatively if he’s aware of the explanations but has chosen not to give them his article is simply reduced to a one-sided polemic). Most of his claims are poorly researched and understood, others rely on priming the reader on how bad gamergaters are followed by a screenshot of a tweet which doesn’t support the priming.

    And his failure to look at his own side, and himself, shows his own lack of consistency, rigour or intellectual honesty. It’s also why he completely fails to understand related parts of what he wrote about.

    It’s what we’ve come to expect though: Despite what is claimed in the bit you quoted there’s no real attempt to reason.

    I thought this applied very well to the rhetoric of what might be considered the ‘classic’ MRA style, but also to the hard-of-thinking in every stripe of political or ideological allegiance, including feminism

    Personally I think it’s a lack of effort to understand the ‘other side’. We all fall into the trap of thinking that our reasoning is so sound that the only way the other side doesn’t agree is through wilful ignorance and various ill-intent.

    Quite often this lack of understanding is very basic, such as feminists using parts of feminist theory in their ‘reasoned argument’ (from their point of view) to people who don’t accept feminist theory as valid. So you end up with feminists angry at all the “misogynists” who “just don’t get it” (and both sides likely disagree on acceptable usages of the term “misogynists” as well).

    And of course this isn’t limited to feminists (I’m just using them as an example we’re all likely familiar with) but to many groups who fail to appreciate vastly different world-views.

  55. Adiabat says

    StillGjenganger (62):

    As a by-product your link showed me at closer hand how impressively vile some of the Gamergate people are

    A few are, just like with any group. If we wanted a tit-for-tat war I could link to anti-gamergater SJWs doxxing/outing a transgendered 12 year old because they edited a Wikipedia page. Or maybe supposed-professionals at major games news sites comparing gamergate supporters to ISIS, right after they beheaded innocent people.

    The thing is, the same could be done for any group. I could bring up examples of environmentalist wingnuts, or Labour party extremists or Feminist bigots and so on.

    In light of this how do we assess a group?

    We could go with proportions of reasonable/unreasonable, but then the vile people are nearly always in a minority for any group (as anyone who follows the #gamergate hashtag can see). Personally I like to go for prominence/influence within a group. For example, I know that there thousands of decent people at the grassroots level who call themselves feminist, but when you look at those heading major feminist organisations you get much more Toxic views and actions that actually cause harm. See Ally’s post on Women’s Aid a few months ago for an example, NOW’s treatment of Male DV victims for another.

    Weight should also be given to views that are directly associated with the group you are judging: for example, Mozilla executives views on gay marriage shouldn’t Impact your assessment of Mozilla, as they aren’t related. Otherwise you just end up with McCarthyist witch-hunts.

    In the link, the only one with any clout is probably Milo, yet in his Breitbart articles are full of gamergate supporters both praising his work on gamergate while pointing out that they probably disagree with him on every other political issue. I don’t really know what more is expected, excluding/attacking people due to their unrelated political beliefs is part of what they are fighting against.

  56. StillGjenganger says

    A few are, just like with any group. If we wanted a tit-for-tat war I could link to
    […]
    In light of this how do we assess a group?

    You are quite right (which is why I did say ‘some’). The thing is, could we avoid assessing any groups, here? We have had that discussion at great lengths already.

    Lelapaletute wanted to discuss the general problem of people in internet debates simply trying to bludgeon their opponents with whatever came handy, with a complete disregard for truth, honesty or exchanging views (read her post for a proper description). That is a good question, the place and time are right for it, and she was open enough to put is as a general problem across all groups rather than just as another bad thing about MRAs. I hope we get that discussion, and I really hope Ally answers it.

    Meanwhile, could we keep the Gamergate discussion on the ‘Extraordinary delusions’ thread, where it belongs? I’ll meet you there if you like, just let us keep this thread free of it.

  57. says

    Adiabat @64

    The thing is, the same could be done for any group. I could bring up examples of environmentalist wingnuts, or Labour party extremists or Feminist bigots and so on.

    Go on then.

    Gamergate has been going on for what? about a month? please give examples of environmentalists, Labour party supporters or feminists acting as badly in support of their stated goals as the manboys of the “gamer community” in the same time frame.

    this bit is important so I’l say it again “in support of their stated goals”

  58. StillGjenganger says

    @Danny 68
    OK, I will not ask again, but would you mind taking that one to the ‘Extraordinary delusions’ thread – which is supposed to be about Gamergate? That keeps this one free for other things.

  59. says

    I hadn’t noticed you asking the first time mate, but yes if there is a more appropriate thread no problem.

    I wont actually “ask” the question there tho’ as discussing what angry hormonal adolescent boys get up to while they are alone in their bedrooms is kind of redundant for me, having been an angry hormonal adolescent boy. However, i didn’t have the internet to do it all over.

  60. proudmra says

    “I assume that the problem you have with it is that its not your mummy anymore.”

    Ahh, so you have nothing rational to contribute, then. Got it.

  61. says

    ProudMRA@70

    Meanwhile, shouldn’t the same be an option for men? Who’s working on that one?

    you are begging the question, why don’t you tell us who you think is working on that one?

    The fact is it is your mother, and her friends. They have been trying to make a more equal society that works better for everyone, whilst also picking up after, wiping the snotty noses of and saying “there there” to a whole generation of men who don’t appreciate any of it.

    Don’t you think its time for men to start doing this shit for themselves? And instead of jumping up and down all over the internets having a temper tantrum, men tried supporting women in what they are trying to do.

  62. StillGjenganger says

    @Danny 74
    How about men figuring out what they think is a good society and starting to work for that? Instead of letting someone else make all the decisions based on their own separate agenda and their own separate interests, and just uncritically ‘supporting’ them?

    OK, so it is very loud and squabbly right now (I am not impressed myself). Hopefully that will improve with time.

  63. says

    StillGjenganger @74

    How about men figuring out what they think is a good society and starting to work for that

    Yes that would be great but what I’m seeing is men either fighting for the status quo that has served us so well or blaming women for…

    their own separate agenda and their own separate interests

    It seems ridiculous to me that when men have been actively working to deny women an equal place, now that certain aspects of society are starting to swing against men in a teeny tiny way, a certain group of men have started to cry like babies and demand that women pick up their political shit for them.

    Go get me an equality sammich!

    And BTW one can be supportive as well as critical. My own bone of contention with main stream feminism is that it ignores the needs of working class women. Its gotten women out of their kitchen and into someone else’s. I’d like to see personality/celebrity feminists (i cant think of a better term and I don’t want to include groups like Southall Black Sisters in this criticism) make more of working class issues. You know why? because when the women I spend time with have a better time of it, so do I.

    Women’s equality will cost me nothing worth keeping ,Its enlightened self interest.

    OK, so it is very loud and squabbly right now (I am not impressed myself)

    No one is! I’m a man and I think MRAs are mostly whiney manboys. I have massive empathy for the women who have been dealing with men’s shit all their lives, who then try to change things just for men to whinge at them.

  64. Baphomet of Sig says

    @DannyButts

    “No one is! I’m a man and I think MRAs are mostly whiney manboys. I have massive empathy for the women who have been dealing with men’s shit all their lives, who then try to change things just for men to whinge at them.”

    This is just standard sexism, patriarchy and gender role policing.

    No empathy for men. Men give shit. Women are pure and not capable of giving shit. Empathy for women. Men that experience abuse at the hands of women or need help should be mocked.

  65. says

    Baphomet of Sig @ 77

    This is just standard sexism, patriarchy and gender role policing.

    No its not, its my opinion of what I see men doing on the interwebs, and in real life come to that, pretty much everyday.

    No empathy for men. Men give shit. Women are pure and not capable of giving shit. Empathy for women. Men that experience abuse at the hands of women or need help should be mocked.

    Serious question: Is that google translate?

  66. proudmra says

    A handy way to check for sexism: reverse the genders in the slogan or statement and see who would complain about it.

    “Notice to Women: Men Don’t Owe You Shit.” How’s that sound, hmm? Sounds like equality to me.

  67. proudmra says

    “what I’m seeing is men either fighting for the status quo that has served us so well or blaming women…”

    Yes, I’m sure that IS what you’re seeing, Danny. It is not, however, what’s actually there.

  68. says

    proudmra @79

    Notice to Women: Men Don’t Owe You Shit.

    Ok, so Ive taken your advice and reversed your statement, and I’m wondering whether you can tell me what women “owe” men?

    If you can answer that question without looking like a whiney manboy, i’ll actually give your post at 80 some credence.

  69. Jacob Schmidt says

    “Notice to Women: Men Don’t Owe You Shit.”

    I’ll take issue with that, only because I do hold that we owe each other basic decency, or whatever you want to call it. But then, many treat basic decency as the background i.e. technically there, but ignored since its assumed to be already understood and accepted. So, with that noted:

    “Notice to women: you owe men basic decency”

    “Notice to men: you owe women basic decency”

    I see no problems.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *